4 LCS will be funded.
Meanwhile the Navy will dramatically cut the Joint High Speed Vessel; ordering only 1 in this budget.
At $189M each, the JHSV makes more sense for the Pacific strategy backed by Washington. This vessel would be a huge benefit in low-intensity scenarios throughout the South-Pacific, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia.
Killing the LCS and F-35C requirement gives the U.S. Navy money to spend on platforms that can actually contribute to U.S. power projection.
2 comments:
Well noted, Eric.
The Austal JHSV is arguably the biggest threat to USN's procurement protocol and acquisition process. No wonder they're cutting back to only 1.
As said, it's cheaper and more suitable given it's far more flexible capacity for wider mission configurations and potential adaptability. The hull itself could be ideally compatible for a number of modifications.
Northrop and LM should be building these instead @ 1-2 per year ea under license-production -- with Austal delivering an equal share -- to keep prices competitive (whichever builder is blowing out the costs, take a ship away from them and give it to the better builder, etc).
The 70% solution. I wonder if Lt. Col. Dan Ward is trying to say something that the higher ups should be listening to. True in life, true in business, true in war.
News article "Building Weapons: Where 70% Trumps 100%"
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/02/13/building-weapons-where-70-trumps-100/
Post a Comment