The LCS has to prove its worth:
Defense News is reporting that the Navy and Pentagon have come to an uneasy compromise of sorts re: LCS. The program would be put on probation, but ship buys would continue to a total of 26-28, which would be until FY 2017 or so. Before any more ships could be bought, the ship would need to pass evaluation by the Pentagon’s independent DOT&E testing office, which has been critical of the ship.
I'm not so much against the LCS. As long as the LCS has varied and affordable mission modules turning them into real warships, it could be capable enough. And while not cheap, it isn't as expensive as the Aegis destroyers that are the backbone of the surface fleet. It's a new class. Give it time to work through teething problems. That's normal.
By biggest gripe is the idea that this is a ship that can fight in the littorals where it is exposed to shore-based assets. This ship isn't cheap enough or resistant to damage enough to fight a war of attrition against missiles, artillery, rockets, aircraft, mines, and small boats fighting in coastal waters.
And I have a gripe about making the "class" in two radically different forms.
The Navy has time to make the case for the LCS. Can they make the LCS good enough for the mission envisioned in the littorals or will the Navy scale back their littoral ambitions to make the ship's missions consistent with its capabilities (and price)?
