Research: Publications

The Littoral Combat Ship: The Warship That Can’t Go to War

August 26, 2014 | Policy Brief

By Jacob Marx

Download PDF | HTML Version


When it was first conceived in the early 2000s, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) was envisioned as the “low end backbone of the future U.S. surface combat fleet.” As other programs in the future fleet were scaled back, the expectations for the LCS changed dramatically. By 2009, it was being sold as an adaptable, cost-effective option for maintaining surface strength in the open sea. The LCS is the Navy’s response to perceived changes in naval warfare and falling budgets. In theory, the LCS is a multifaceted and cost-effective answer to these requirements. In reality, the LCS is an overpriced, underperforming vessel that does not meet current needs and is a bad deal for taxpayers.

The LCS is a far less capable ship than the Navy needs and for what it does, far more expensive than American taxpayers can afford. Ongoing design defects and associated cost overruns have added hundreds of millions of dollars to the projected cost for a single LCS.  At a projected construction cost of $220 million each and a projected mission-ready cost of $400 million, the LCS would have allowed the Navy to reverse the declining size of its surface force and prepare for future conflicts. In reality, the total cost of a mission-ready ship has nearly doubled to $780 million, and the Navy has been forced to cut payload options by 1/3. Because the LCS has been designed to perform a number of tasks adequately, it does few things well. Cancellation of new complementary warships (namely guided missile destroyers and air defense cruisers) exacerbates inherent shortcomings of the LCS by increasing expectations far beyond what it was nominally designed to do. The LCS is fundamentally under-armed, under-armored and under-crewed, giving it limited utility in littoral  (near shore) waters and making it a non-asset in terms of surface combat strength. 

After a decade of waste and negligence, in February 2014 Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel cut the planned purchase of LCS from 52 to 32 and authorized the Department of the Navy to identify more “capable and lethal small surface combatant” alternatives.4 This is a positive step, but not the promise to cancel the LCS that the U.S. Navy needs and American taxpayers deserve.

Download PDF | HTML Version

CIP in the Press
  • Laura Carlsen on Counter Punch Radio: Episode 84

    Laura Carlsen

    Counter Punch Radio, 04-26-17

    In a special bonus episode this week, Eric chats with Laura Carlsen, director of the Americas Program at the Center for International Policy, as she travels with the Caravan against Fear through the Southwest. The conversation touches on everything from Trump's racist policies and the fantasies upon which their based, to US strategic objectives in Latin America; from economic contradictions in the US-Mexico relationship, to the motives behind the drug war and Jeff Sessions' idiotic war on weed...Read More »

  • CNN panelist nails Trump’s ‘P.T. Barnum foreign policy’ as the ‘mother of all distractions’

    William D. Hartung interviewed

    Raw Story, 04-17-17

    “Is there a new Trump doctrine in the making, or has the president simply found a formula for distracting the public and the media from his troubles at home?” wrote William Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, on CNN...Read More »

  • Does Trump Stand to Profit Personally Off the Wars

    William D. Hartung interviewed

    Democracy Now!, 04-11-17

    Does President Trump stand to personally profit off the wars he is escalating in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia and beyond? That’s the question many are asking, after it emerged that Trump has personally invested in Raytheon, the military contractor who makes the Tomahawk missiles used in the U.S. strike on a Syrian airbase last week. Raytheon’s stocks briefly surged after the attack...Read More »