I generally tend to avoid the storm und drang around LCS for a couple of basic reasons. First, I am far less qualified to talk about its strengths and weaknesses than many others who do so and second, I occasionally reserve the right to believe that the Navy is capable of figuring out hard problems and fixing them. So while I believe LCS does in fact, have some limitations, I have a suspicion that it will someday be a lot like the F-16 was in the Air Force–disregarded at first, but then eventually embraced after bugs were worked out and operational effectiveness was demonstrated.
Which brings me to the latest kerfuffle surrounding LCS, the Tony Cappacio story for Bloomberg that lays out some of the DOT&E findings about the swarm test they ran on LCS 4.
Perhaps I should establish my bona fides. I commanded a Flight IIA destroyer, and that destroyer was equipped with a number of systems that would have utility in the situation under test, including a five inch gun, .50 cal mounts, 25mm Chain guns, and a CIWS 1B mount that had anti-surface capability. Additionally, I had over 100,000 shaft horsepower and the ability to go thirty plus knots.
And let me be frank with you–against a multi-azimuthal attack of numerous fast boats I have a feeling one may have been able to make it through my “ring of steel” to get a shot off at me with some kind of shoulder fired weapon. Put another way, this is a TOUGH threat that we have been talking about for a long time, and we are only now beginning to make headway on it.
Secondly, NAVSEA released video of the test which is worth watching
As I watched the video, two questions came to my mind:
1. Which platform would I rather have been on in this exchange–the LCS or the attacking RHIBs? I get it. That’s not what the test was there to prove. As a spectator and interested navalist, it occurred to me.
2. What were the maneuvering restrictions placed on the LCS in order to facilitate the test? Was it able to use its speed and maneuverability as part of a total ship system test? Or was this essentially a test in which the ship had one arm tied behind its back? I haven’t had the time to get through the report linked to above to see if such restrictions were placed on the ship–but I suspect they were.
Don’t get me wrong–I understand completely the value of operational testing that ties hands behind backs in order to ascertain performance data. And if such testing provides insights into how the ship can be improved, I’m all for it. While they are at it, I’d like to see all those toys on the DDG above networked together into a coherent system that makes use of radar and EO/IR data for targeting.
But in the meantime–I urge readers to try and keep things in perspective. All ships have vulnerabilities. The threats they face are increasing. In war, we will lose ships–small and large.
Bryan McGrath
