The Littoral Combat Ship Nightmare for the Navy Has Just Started

The U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program was developed in the early 2000s to tackle threats in coastal or littoral environments. To that end, the U.S. Navy ultimately fielded two distinct classes of ships: the Freedom-class, designed by Lockheed Martin, and the Independence-class, designed by Austral USA.

These two platforms are intended to offer good agility, high speed, and the ability to operate in shallower littoral areas where larger surface vessels would not be able to. Ultimately, however, the class saw huge cost overruns, a number of operational challenges, a drastically reduced number of procured ships, and a number of early retirements across both classes.

Littoal Combat Ship: Role Within a Blue Water Fleet

The Littoral Combat Ships were intended to be highly flexible warships that could thrive in coastal environments. One of their defining characteristics is their very high top speed — around 40 knots — which would have given it a distinct advantage over many other vessels in coastal environments. The Littoral Combat Ships’s mission set would be near-shore missions, with a particular emphasis on anti-submarine warfare, countering naval mines, as well as surface warfare against other vessels of a roughly similar size.

In contrast, the U.S. Navy’s larger ships, like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers, are power projection assets capable of high-end naval combat against other large surface ships. They boast a variety of weaponry that allows them to engage submarines, enemy aircraft, and other ships at stand-off ranges.

A Modular Design for Many Mission Capabilities

One of the defining features of the Littoral Combat Ships was their highly modular design, which was intended to give them a mission customization ability for a variety of mission sets.

Littoral Combat Ships could — in theory — be outfitted for more specialized mine countermeasures, more effective surface warfare, or stronger anti-submarine warfare abilities with the intention of improving capabilities while also reducing costs in the long term.

However, the Littoral Combat Ships’ modularity faced a number of difficulties. Some modules did not meet expectations, and the development of the modules was protracted. Ultimately, some Littoral Combat Ships were deployed without fully realizing their capabilities.

Operational Issues, as well as Cost Overruns

Both the Freedom and Independence classes experienced significant jumps in costs. Initially, the ships were to cost around $220 million per hull, but ultimately, the costs grew to about $500 million per ship. A further ding to the ship’s already tarnished reputation was its higher-than-expected operational and maintenance costs, which ultimately curtailed the ship’s procurement numbers.

However, in addition to purely financial concerns, both of the Littoral Combat Ships’ two classes experienced mechanical issues that further dented their reputations.

The Freedom-class, the more conventional of the two designs, experienced propulsion system failures with its combining gear, a crucial component for changing between gas turbine and diesel power.

Likewise, the Independence-class aluminum trimaran hull was found to have structural weaknesses and corrosion problems, affecting the ship’s readiness for operations and exercises.

Procurement: Reduced, Retirement: Early

The U.S. Navy had originally planned to procure about 55 Littoral Combat Ships.

But as the challenges, cost overruns, and design defects inherent in the ship’s design became more and more apparent, the Littoral Combat Ship program was curtained dramatically, and the U.S. Navy only procured a paltry 35 Littoral Combat Ships.

A number of the early ship builds have been retired early in order to save costs and better sustain other programs.

About the Author: Caleb Larson

Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.