Guns and Gear

We Need These Guns In The Air And On The Sea

Harold Hutchison Freelance Writer
Font Size:

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jack Reed (D-RI) are now circling the littoral combat ship. The F-35 is taking even more heat – even as it makes its first trans-Atlantic flight. These are two weapons systems meant to be part of the American military – and a very big part – for a fair chunk of this century. Yet, if some had their way, both systems would be on the chopping block. This would be bad news for the troops.

Let’s be honest, the F-35 and Littoral Combat Ship have been given almost impossible tasks – and they have not been helped by the fact that our military budget has been slashed in pursuit of a “peace dividend” when peace has proved to be much more elusive than originally hoped for. And the procurement process for both systems has been long and full of delays in getting them to the front. Yeah, it’s pretty damn frustrating, but giving in to that frustration will lead to a situation similar to getting only three Zumwalt-class destroyers to replace 31 Spruance-class destroyers.

Take the situation the Littoral Combat Ship is facing: Many valuable ships, like the Spruance-class destroyers, were retired too soon. Other ships, like the Knox-class frigates, were retired without replacement. The Navy has declined to less than half the size it was at the end of the Reagan Administration. Just between the Spruance and Knox classes, 77 ships were lost without real replacements.

The Littoral Combat Ship was being asked to replace the long-hulled Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, the Avenger-class mine countermeasure ships, and the Cyclone-class patrol craft. The decision was made to try to replicate Denmark’s success with the Stanflex approach. Denmark’s Absalon-class support ships are potent warships that spawned a class of frigates later on.

The Danes, though, were primarily focused on the Baltic Sea (with some commitments around Greenland). The United States, though, faces much more than those commitments. The Littoral Combat Ship has speed, some firepower, and flexibility, but it has shorter range. USS Freedom (LCS 1) did well in a SOUTHCOM deployment, and would be a superb buy for the Coast Guard (see here for more details).

The F-35, similarly, has faced a lot of heat, whether it’s over the ability of pilots to safely eject from the plane. Much of its problem is that it will be asked to do jobs that the F-22 would do if more than 187 airframes had been purchased. The F-35 was originally designed to specialize for in ground-attack missions (with a secondary-air-to-air capability), and the Air Force had plans to purchase far more (in the 1990s, Air Force plans had been for as many as 339).

The thing is, despite the problems the F-35 and LCS are facing, they are not the first weapons systems to come under heavy criticism. Platforms that are today considered bulwarks of our national defense, like the F/A-18 Hornet, the B-1B Lancer, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Aegis combat system used by Ticonderoga-class cruisers and  Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and the C-17 Globemaster III transport have all been controversial – until they got the chance to prove what they could do.

In some cases, these systems have contributed in ways the original designs have not imagined they could. The B-1B never carried out the mission of being a low-level penetration bomber delivering nuclear weapons, but it has become a plane that can deliver 84 500-pound bombs in support of ground troops, and the F/A-18, rather than being a supplement to specialized air-superiority and strike planes, is now the centerpiece of the carrier air wings.

So when you read of the politicians circling programs, eager to cut them, keep in mind that they may be taking a short-sighted view of what a platform can contribute.