Why This Is The US Navy’s Most Controversial Warship

The US Navy is falling behind on what they say is an important goal, building up a force of 355 ships. But at the same time, the Navy wants to get rid of some relatively new warships. When the Navy goes to Congress and says we want to retire ships, all Congress wants to think about is we already are short on ships. Why are you getting rid of more ships? One key to growing the fleet is the Littoral Combat Ship or LCS. The LCS is designed for littoral areas, which is water closer to shore. Larger ships have trouble operating in these areas because of how shallow the water is. I'm Brad Howard with CNBC and today I'll be going aboard the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship. It's one of the Navy's newest and most controversial vessels. So the LCS program, much like every other major defense program, has had its own series of setbacks. Engine issues, mission module problems, and the evolving state of the world have put the ship in choppy waters. The question of the LCS's ability to defend itself has become sharper and sharper. It's a zero-sum game. Every dollar you spend to keep those LCSs going is a dollar you can't spend on these other, I think, higher priorities. The next ship the Navy hopes to procure that will take on some of the missions of the LCS is the Constellation Class Frigate. This frigate is based on a design already in use by several navies, which means it should have fewer teething issues than the LCS. But ultimately, at the end of the day, the Navy has more than 30 of these ships. They have to do something with them. They've spent tons and tons of money on this and they are at the moment now where they have to figure it out because this is going to be a significant part of the fleet going forward. But with a significant investment already in the LCS, can the Navy find a way to make them viable in the post-911 era of great power competition? The LCS program began in 2002. After the 9-11 terror attacks, the Navy's priorities shifted to fighting terrorism and policing waters closer to shore. The Navy ended up producing two variants of the LCS, the Freedom Class and Independence Class. The Freedom Class is a more traditional steel and aluminum ship and the Independence Class is an all-aluminum trimaran-style design. Both ships are built for speed and can hit around 40 knots, which is about 46 miles per hour. The USS Milwaukee of Freedom Class LCS is training off the coast of Florida, which means getting there requires a one-hour helicopter ride. The LCS is capable of handling a variety of helicopters on its flight deck, including uncrewed helicopters. The MQ-8C Fire Scout is an uncrewed helicopter that is as big as a normal helicopter. It can help the crew by providing surveillance over the horizon, among other uses. The LCS isn't a giant warship. It seems like every inch is dedicated to a purpose. The galley where the crew eats is utilitarian, but it provides an area for the crew to unwind during the weeks or even months at sea. And the rear of the ship has a hold capable of being loaded with connex boxes, among other types of equipment, which can be particularly useful during humanitarian operations. The last LCS was ordered in fiscal year 2019 and the average cost of the last five LCSs ordered was about $983 million. 23 ships have been commissioned and nine ships are currently under construction or in pre-construction. The Freedom class is built by Marionette Marine in Wisconsin and the Independence class is built by Austal USA in Alabama. But the LCS hasn't panned out exactly as planned, which could be the reason the Navy has started to decommission four vessels. My sense on the LCS is that it probably makes sense, both because the ships are expensive to maintain, so you got high sustainment costs if you want to try to get down. They're not meeting the breadth of capabilities that we're looking for, and that's not to say that there aren't some missions that the LCS can capably perform. I'm sure there are, but when you look at the cost of maintaining a ship, that the sustainment costs aren't working out as well as you would like. You don't have the same mission set that you need versus beginning to invest in future systems that are going to give you greater capability. You have to look at those ships. They were test designs. There was a lot of changes that went from those ships into the Block 5. So, you know, the program office took a hard look and I stand by the decision the Navy made. Both ships have had their share of problems and criticisms. Some observers are concerned that the Independence class is not up for surface-to-surface warfare due to its aluminum hull and light armament. The Freedom class has also had engine problems since its inception. Late last year, when it was discovered that the Freedom class, the one designed by Lockheed Martin, has an issue with the combining gear, which is basically a part of its propulsion, and this has created a conflict between the Navy and Lockheed Martin. Everyone's in agreement that this is an issue, and it's potentially an issue for all of Lockheed Martin's ships. In a statement to CNBC, Lockheed Martin noted, our solution will soon be rigorously tested at sea to validate the improved design modification. Following successful sea trials and Navy approval, we will deliver the first modified ship and implement the design modifications for other Freedom class ships. In a nutshell, we are right on track to get to put that problem behind us and move on with the future of the Freedom class. So, I'm here on the bridge of the USS Milwaukee. What's notable about it is the combination of training and new technology allows for the crew on this bridge to be much smaller than previous frigate designs. The autopilot and advanced helm controls, which are used to steer the ship and control the speed, are a huge part of what makes the ship so advanced. We come to these ships prepared to, you know, face anything that is thrown at us with the three people that we have on the bridge, vice other ships that could have anywhere 12, 14, 15 people. The LCS was designed to operate with a small crew size. An Arleigh Burke class destroyer, which displaces about three times as many tons as an LCS fully loaded, needs a crew of around 300 sailors. By comparison, an LCS has a crew of around 90, depending on mission needs. And additionally, each LCS has two crews that rotate to enable a higher operational tempo. My entire engineering department on LCS is about 12 people. That is designed, that is about the size of one engineering division on conventional ships. New technologies and sailors working multiple jobs help keep the crew numbers so low compared to larger ships. We by far have the premier surface Navy ship training in the LCS program. And it goes back to the blue and gold crew. It goes back to the employment concept. One downside is that there are fewer sailors in the event of an incident that requires damage control. Another is that if a crew member is taken out of action, it could be difficult to replace their expertise on the fly. What the Navy originally envisioned for the LCS ships was that they would be equipped with a series of different mission modules. And what I mean by that was that they would have sort of a plug and play aspect to them. The Navy is now pivoting towards dedicated roles for the LCS's in service. We are still tied to the modular system. The change that we made in 2016 was instead of the envision where we might swap those modules out over a two or three day period, we found it was more effective to kind of tie that module to that ship. The LCS is equipped with a rigid hull inflatable boat or RIB. These boats are also useful for search and rescue, counter piracy, and also for certain sorts of maritime inspection. The crew of the Milwaukee took me on an exercise where the RIB would be launched from the LCS in order to send sailors to board another vessel, but a critical hose malfunction which prevented the doors from opening. The crew quickly and safely fixed the hose, communicating loudly through each step of the process. After the RIB was launched, the sailors performed a boarding exercise supported by a helicopter from the LCS. One of the main advantages a ship like the LCS brings to the fleet is capabilities such as this sort of interdiction. The small boat and aerial support the LCS can bring to bear is also useful in humanitarian situations, such as when Haiti experienced an earthquake in August of this year. USS Billings is one of the first ones on scene, so you have an LCS on scene with their helicopter providing humanitarian relief. Culturally, I think the service has never really liked the ship because it's not a blue water ship like lobbing missiles thousands of miles away and getting into these really big epic fights in the middle of the ocean. And, you know, the U.S. Navy's never really been enamored since the end of the World War II with small ships. It's never been something they've been particularly into. The Navy is hoping to retire some littoral combat ships to free up money for the next generation frigate that is slated to take on a number of important missions. This frigate will displace about twice as many tons as the LCS. In the Navy's mind, they're saving money. They call it divest and invest. They're saving money to put money back into something that they do want. A frigate is a type of ship that is generally known to be made for speed and capable of handling many different missions. The Constellation class will be based on a Fincantieri marionette marine design known as the European multipurpose frigate, which is already in service with several other countries, including Italy and France. So the Constellation class frigates were born from intense congressional pressure in order to find another follow on class for the LCS. And so a lot of that was the late John McCain beating the Navy on the head and shoulders saying that you need to get something else. The Navy is hoping to buy 20 ships and they're aiming at a cost of around a billion dollars per ship. It is hoped that by picking a proven design, this will keep costs down. But the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the Navy's cost estimate is 40% lower than what it could actually cost. Congress would like to see more value for its investment. I'm not going to stand here and say, oh, great job on the frigate. We got to keep busting their balls to make sure that they are, you know, hitting the goals and meeting them. But I think we have a better path forward now to building systems that will work and will help us and doing so in a more cost effective way. We got to keep pushing it though. These frigates also have what is known as a vertical launch system. This allows a ship to carry more missiles in an efficient way laid out in what are known as cells. It's able to fire anti-air and anti-ship missiles. It has a beefier radar than the LCS does. One major criticism of the LCS is that it would be outgunned in any modern fight with other surface ships or against aircraft. The LCS's deficiency in the face of defense against air and missile threats, especially with China and Iran moving closer together with military cooperation, is a problem. At the end of the day, the LCS is a Navy warship and it's designed to engage with the enemy. The LCS has a 57 millimeter main gun. The primary purpose is the anti-surface warfare can be used against anti-air warfare as well. You don't expect a gun this big to shoot that fast, but when it starts pummeling out rounds, it's definitely impressive to watch. You know, the 30 millimeter guns that that ship has, every single crew that comes back from deployment has gotten used out of that system. There is also a missile element of that SSMM or surface ship missile module, which is a longbow hellfire missile that we have and it's coming in in more numbers to put on the ship. The Freedom class also has smaller machine In the case of the Milwaukee, a rolling airframe missile launcher is installed on the ship to help take down enemy air threats. The Freedom class ships in operation are also awaiting an upgrade that will place the naval strike missile on board, which will be a huge upgrade in the ship's ability to fight other warships, something that the Pentagon wants in an era of strategic competition. With that missile, there's many other lethality upgrades that the LCS are getting, which I cannot talk about right now. But again, you're taking a lethal, stealthy ship who's able to go fast in the little twirls and making it much more deadlier. And LCSs have also launched harpoon missiles and modified hellfire missiles. But it's to be seen if these solutions will be enough to compete with heavily armed Chinese and Russian ships. The fight between Congress and the Navy over divesting away from existing LCSs isn't going away. This has lawmakers disturbed by the fact that the Navy is trying to reach 355 vessels in the next 10 years, but they are also looking to retire at least four of these LCS ships. The LCS has become a congressional punching bag because there's an issue after issue, and it's become an item that if lawmakers don't know that much else about the Navy, if they want to make an argument the Navy is going down the wrong path, they will reference the LCS. Meanwhile, the Navy is trying to salvage the LCS's reputation and make it a lethal part of the Navy's small surface combatant fleet. I mean, the Chinese are particularly interested in LCS now that they have the naval strike missile aboard, because you have a ship that has actually a lot more lethality to it, and can be a threat to some of their larger warships out there at a relatively inexpensive cost. When we went back, and now that we've kind of gotten past that initial point, the ships have been built, we've been deploying them, Independence has been very successful deploying overseas to Singapore and, you know, in China's backyard. Starting in late 2019, the Freedom Class followed in the South Town AOR. I think that funds should come from the Army, and to a certain extent the Air Force. And this is not a, it may be seen as a radical idea, but it is not something that, you know, it's something that's been done before. The Eisenhower administration, for example, prioritized the Air Force in the 50s, at the expense of the other services. So it's not like, oh my god, we're doing something completely new here. Some of those future systems aren't future. I mean, a destroyer, the new, you know, Aegis class destroyer, very capable ship, meets a clear need. We know how to build it in a cost effective way. So every dollar that you can save over there, you can do that same for submarines. You know, when we got them cooking up there with the whole two, and now even in some cases, three submarines a year, to the extent where we're cranking out a very capable platform that we know has a clear mission, that hits our cost goal, and the more money that can go into that, the more capable systems that we can build. As I left the USS Milwaukee, it seemed to me that after a rocky 20-year development, the Navy may not have the ship it set out to build back in 2002, but it does have a very capable small warship, and the lessons learned from it will likely be part of future Navy ship designs for years to come.