Titre : | Technology in Modern Naval Warfare: Is the US Littoral Combat Ship the Solution? |
Auteurs : | Joseph Pezzato |
Type de document : | Thesis |
Editeur : | Brussels [Belgique] : Royal Military Academy, 2014 |
Article en page(s) : | 33 |
Langues: | Anglais |
Tags : | Working paper ; CSEM/HStO 128 ; Naval tactics ; United States |
Résumé : |
As a Surface Warfare Officer and leader in the United States (US) Navy, I selected a topic to shed light on one of the US Navy's most controversial decisions of the last 20 years. Besides being a subject of great interest to me, this study hoped to provide an opportunity to research a subject of importance for the future of the US Navy which could also be useful for allied navies who are considering innovating in similar ways. The decision to pursue construction of the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class of vessel was met with significant resistance. Nonetheless, the program is now in full motion and more than a decade after its announcement, the LCS program has some data available to support initial conclusions as to the effectiveness of the platform in achieving the design objectives. Seizing an opportunity after what is often referred to as a revolution in military affairs, the US Navy is trying to capitalize on the availability of new technological developments. With the world embracing the power of advanced computers and more capable microprocessors, the US Navy has focused its innovative sites on some new concepts in shipbuilding, operations and maintenance with one of the ultimate goals being huge cost savings. One area in which significant savings was hoped for was in the area of human resources. The LCS platform endeavors to use new technology and automation as well as non-organic maintenance capabilities to allow for a core crew of only 40 Sailors. Additionally, the use of the concepts of open systems architecture and modularity for 'mission packages' promises to reduce shipbuilding and modernization expenses by providing a means to effectively upgrade mission packages with the rapidly developing information technology, thus further streamlining human resource requirements and ensuring that the LCS remains on the cutting edge of warfighting technology. Announced in November of 2001, the LCS program is in its 13th year and the first 5 ships have been delivered with 4 already commissioned. Unforeseen at the time of inception, there are 2 different hull types by different shipbuilders. Also unforeseen, and in both cases, the design, shipbuilding and trials took significantly longer than anticipated and cost overruns were substantial. Nonetheless, USS FREEDOM (LCS 1) embarked on her first deployment in March of 2013. Some reviews have already been made along with oversight by the US Congress, and there have already been significant consequences to the LCS Program. This paper will try to explain why the LCS Program was/is needed, determine if the new technologies are fulfilling their intended purposes, if the reduction in crew manning is being realized and to what advantage or disadvantage, and if the European navies should be interested in these developments. The paper will end with some conclusions and recommendations for the future. It would be dishonest to not admit that when I started this project, looking into the costeffectiveness of the LCS program, I was almost certain that it would turn up evidence that the LCS Program was a huge waste of money and resources. I was especially skeptical of this expenditure because the amount of money the United States was spending on this program seemed unimaginable and became even more so during the ensuing global financial crisis. So my perspective was that this new class of ship was nothing more than a misguided attempt by the US Navy to ensure the flow of an almost irresponsible amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations which make up the military industrial complex of the US. My original intention was to look into the details of the LCS Program's idea of optimal manning and the use of modularity and in fact show that the cost savings with regard to both are imaginary (if even realized at all) and that the result was an expensive piece of innovation just for the sake of innovation, resulting in a ship that has no actual purpose, isn't ready for combat, and will never be used in combat, costing the taxpayers so much that it might usher in the century where the US Navy would lose its primacy as the world's preeminent Naval super power. Although my research paper does reveal that some of my suspicions about the LCS program are correct, throughout the process, my attitude toward this program has evolved from one of total skepticism, to one of cautious optimism and ultimately ending up more or less in support of this risky program of technological innovation, DOTMLPF experimentation and post-modern industrialized development. In fact, my research paper thus answers the central question posed by this paper, whether or not LCS is the solution to the timeless question regarding technology and modern naval warfare, and shows that the answer is at the same time: yes, no, and possibly more than we can imagine. Research Methodology Throughout this project, I focused my research on evidence that the LCS Program was saving money, reducing costs, and keeping the promised level of combat power. The basis for this research project is an examination of current and developing US Naval capabilities in the context of anticipated threats of the future. All of the sources that I used were unclassified. In formulating my argument, I read and analyzed several types of literature, including: - Books, articles, and websites - Doctrine and previous papers - Government analyses of the LCS Program - Responses to interviews with military service members who are participating in the LCS Program The service members who participated in the interviews conducted are US Naval Officers who participated under the condition of annonymity. Five officers were interviewed, each serving on one of the LCS crews or working at the LCS Squadron in San Diego, CA. Each has requested that their identities not be shared in exchange for candid answers during the interviews. In lieu of presenting interview notes, I have analysed their comments, taken excerpts to include in the paper, and combined some of their remarks to present conclusions in a more concise manner |
En ligne : | http://units.mil.intra/sites/UBDef-BUDef/_layouts/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=UBDEF-32-9432 |
Exemplaires (1)
Code-barres | Cote | Support | Localisation | Section | Disponibilité |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
118574R | RMA Mast CSEM/HStO 128 DIV/17 | Thesis | Royal Military Academy | BIBL ERM Cave | Exclu du prêt |