View source for Engineering:Littoral combat ship

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Littoral combat ship}}
{{Short description|Ship designed for operations near shore}}
[[File:USS Independence LCS-2 at pierce (cropped).jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.25|The U.S. trimaran {{USS|Independence|LCS-2|6}}]]
[[File:USS-Freedom-130222-N-DR144-174-crop.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.25|{{USS|Freedom|LCS-1|6}} on sea trials in February 2013 before her first deployment]]

A '''littoral combat ship''' ('''LCS''') is either of two classes of relatively small surface vessels designed for operations near shore by the United States Navy. It was "envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and [[Physics:Asymmetric warfare|asymmetric threats]] in the [[Earth:Littoral zone|littorals]]",<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navsea.navy.mil/supship/Bath/Products.aspx |title=Product Lines at Supship Bath |publisher=Navsea.navy.mil |access-date=8 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120301113457/http://www.navsea.navy.mil/supship/Bath/Products.aspx |archive-date=1 March 2012}}</ref> although their ability to perform these missions in practice has been called into question.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-02-04 |title=The Pentagon Saw a Warship Boondoggle. Congress Saw Jobs. |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/us/politics/littoral-combat-ships-lobbying.html |access-date=2023-03-21}}</ref>

Littoral combat ships are comparable to [[Engineering:Corvette|corvette]]s found in other navies.<ref>{{cite web |author=Ben Brimelow |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-navy-new-corvette-small-missile-laden-ships-2017-11 |title=Russia's new missile laden-ships shouldn't worry NATO commanders |website=Business Insider |date=2017-12-01 |access-date=2019-02-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181117022307/https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-navy-new-corvette-small-missile-laden-ships-2017-11 |archive-date=17 November 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/here-why-the-us-navys-littoral-combat-ships-punch-below-23042 |title=Here is Why the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ships Punch below Their Weight &#124; the National Interest |access-date=16 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181117022423/https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/here-why-the-us-navys-littoral-combat-ships-punch-below-23042 |archive-date=17 November 2018 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|4}} and the {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|4}} are the two LCS variants. Each is slightly smaller than the U.S. Navy's earlier {{sclass|Oliver Hazard Perry|frigate|3}} but larger than [[Engineering:Cyclone-class patrol ship|''Cyclone''-class patrol ships]]. Each has the capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with [[Engineering:Armoured fighting vehicle|fighting vehicle]]s to a roll-on/roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57&nbsp;mm guns and [[Engineering:RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile|RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile]]s. They are also equipped with autonomous [[Engineering:Unmanned aerial vehicle|air]], [[Earth:Unmanned surface vehicle|surface]], and [[Engineering:Autonomous underwater vehicle|underwater]] vehicles. Possessing lower air defense and surface warfare capabilities than [[Engineering:Destroyer|destroyer]]s, the LCS emphasizes speed, flexible mission modules, and a shallow [[Engineering:Draft (hull)|draft]].

The first LCS, {{USS|Freedom|LCS-1}}, was commissioned on 8 November 2008 in Veteran's Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.<ref>{{cite web |last= Milwaukee Journal Sentinel |date= 5 November 2008 |url= http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/33947284.html |title= Navy's Vessel of Versatility |format= Newspaper article |work= Milwaukee Journal Sentinel |access-date= 19 July 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090108095409/http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/33947284.html |archive-date= 8 January 2009 |url-status= live}}</ref> The second ship, the [[Engineering:Trimaran|trimaran]] {{USS|Independence|LCS-2}}, was commissioned on 16 January 2010, in Mobile, Alabama.<ref name="USS Independence Commissioned"/> In 2012, ADM Jonathan W. Greenert stated that the LCS would be deployed to Africa in place of destroyers and cruisers.<ref name="breakingdefense12april12">{{cite web|url=http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/12/cno-lcs-couldnt-survive-war-with-china-but-it-can-prevent-one/|title=LCS Couldn't Survive War With China, But It Could Help Prevent It: CNO|publisher=defense.aol.com|date=12 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120414114430/http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/12/cno-lcs-couldnt-survive-war-with-china-but-it-can-prevent-one/|archive-date=14 April 2012|access-date=26 July 2022}}</ref> In 2013 and 2014, the Navy's requirement for LCSs was progressively cut from 55 to 32 vessels in favor of a newly proposed frigate more capable of high-intensity combat.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140119/NEWS04/301190019/US-Navy-OSD-Battle-Over-LCS-Future |title=Navy, Pentagon battle over LCS future |last1=Cavas |first1=Christopher P. |date=19 January 2014 |website=www.navytimes.com |publisher=Gannett Government Media |access-date=19 January 2014}}</ref> In late 2014, the Navy proceeded with a procurement plan for enhanced versions of the LCS and upgraded older ships to meet the program's 52-ship requirement;<ref name="military11dec14">{{cite web|url=http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/11/hagel-approves-navys-proposal-to-build-more-lethal-lcs-variant.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1|title=Hagel Approves Navy's Proposal to Build More Lethal LCS Variant|publisher=military.com|date=11 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019075859/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/11/hagel-approves-navys-proposal-to-build-more-lethal-lcs-variant.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1|archive-date=19 October 2015|access-date=26 July 2022}}</ref> the modified LCS will be redesignated as FF, or frigate.<ref name="usni15jan15">[http://news.usni.org/2015/01/15/sna-modified-littoral-combat-ship-class-changed-fast-frigate SNA: Modified Littoral Combat Ships to be Designated Frigates] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170806141654/https://news.usni.org/2015/01/15/sna-modified-littoral-combat-ship-class-changed-fast-frigate |date=6 August 2017}} – News.USNI.org, 15 January 2015</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/01/15/navy-secretary-mabus-littoral-combat-ship-fast-frigate/21805513/|title=SECNAV unveils new name for LCS: the 'fast frigate'|first=Meghann|last=Myers|date=7 August 2017|access-date=14 November 2018}}</ref> In December 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the Navy to reduce planned LCS and FF procurement from 52 to 40 and downselect to one variant by FY 2019.<ref name="militarytimes17dec15"/>

In July 2017, the Navy released a request for information for a new multi-mission guided-missile frigate that can perform the same roles as the LCS while having better offensive and defensive capabilities. Almost any existing design that can be adapted to FFG(X) requirements can be considered, extending beyond versions of the two LCS hulls.<ref>[http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-releases-specs-for-a-proposed-guided-missile-frigate-a-break-from-the-littoral-combat-ship Frigate competition wide open: Navy specs reveal major design shift] {{dead link|date=August 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} – Defensenews.com, 10 July 2017</ref><ref>[https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/navy-releases-details-of-new-ffgx-guided-missile-frigate-program-in-request-to-industry Navy Releases Details of New FFG(X) Guided-Missile Frigate Program in Request to Industry] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711040606/https://news.usni.org/2017/07/10/navy-releases-details-of-new-ffgx-guided-missile-frigate-program-in-request-to-industry |date=11 July 2017}} – News.USNI.org, 10 July 2017</ref> In April 2020, it was announced that Fincantieri Marinette Marine had won the contract with its [[Engineering:FREMM multipurpose frigate|FREMM multi-purpose frigate]]-based design, which would be eventually adopted as the Constellation-class frigate.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-08-31 |title=Report to Congress on Constellation-class Frigate Program (FFG-62) |url=https://news.usni.org/2021/08/31/report-to-congress-on-constellation-class-frigate-program-ffg-62-6 |access-date=2021-09-05 |website=USNI News |language=en-US}}</ref>

==Design features==
The concept behind the littoral combat ship, as described by former Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England, is to "create a small, fast, maneuverable and relatively inexpensive member of the DD(X) family of ships". The ship is easy to reconfigure for different roles, including anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-surface warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, homeland defense, maritime intercept, special operations, and logistics. Due to its modular design, the LCS will be able to replace slower, more specialized ships such as minesweepers and larger amphibious-type assault ships.<ref>{{cite web |last=Costello |first=John |url=http://warisboring.com/?p=1601 |title=Littoral Combat Ship= Mini Gator |publisher=Warisboring.com |date=26 January 2009 |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-date=18 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211118103307/https://warisboring.com/hands-off-our-t-34-tanks/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

Most of the mission modules' functions are performed by carried vehicles such as helicopters or unmanned vehicles such as the Spartan Scout, AN/WLD-1 RMS Remote Minehunting System and MQ-8B Fire Scout as part of the Navy's goal to "unman the front lines". Performing functions such as sonar sweeps for mines or [[Engineering:Submarine|submarine]]s as well as launching [[Engineering:Torpedo|torpedo]]es against hostile submarines at a distance from the ship is less risky.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/09/navy_lcs_092808w/ |title=Hybrid sailors drive LCS anti-sub module |work=Navy Times |access-date=8 May 2012}}</ref> Placing sensors on remote vehicles allows the LCS to exploit concepts such as bistatic sonar.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/April/Pages/Navyto2304.aspx |title=Navy to Deploy Robotic Sub Hunters |publisher=Nationaldefensemagazine.org |date=17 March 2011 |access-date=8 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120220141003/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/April/Pages/Navyto2304.aspx |archive-date=20 February 2012}}</ref> DARPA's Tactically Exploited Reconnaissance Node (TERN) program aims to build a medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (MALE UAV) that can operate from LCS-2 and can carry a payload of {{convert|600|lb|kg}} out to an operational radius of {{convert|600|-|900|nmi|km}}.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/03/01.aspx |title=DARPA's New TERN Program Aims for Eyes in the Sky from the Sea |date=1 March 2013 |publisher=DARPA |access-date=11 April 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515143650/http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/03/01.aspx |archive-date=15 May 2013}}</ref>

[[File:USS-Freedom-rear-130222-N-DR144-367.jpg|thumb|Aerial view of {{USS|Freedom|LCS-1|6}}]]
A 2010 report by the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E) found that neither design was expected to "be survivable in a hostile combat environment" and that neither ship could withstand the Navy's full ship shock trials.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUKN2017353120100121 |title=EXCLUSIVE-UPDATE 2-Early tests show Lockheed LCS problems-report |work=Reuters |access-date=8 May 2012 |date=21 January 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100303093958/http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKN2017353120100121 |archive-date=3 March 2010 |url-status=live}}</ref> The Navy responded that the LCS is built to a Level 1+ survivability standard and that the ships will rely on warnings from networks and speed to avoid being hit, or if hit be able to limp to safety.<ref>Freeman, Ben. [http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/05/a-response-to-the-navys-vigorous-defense-of-the-littoral-combat-ship.html "A Response to the Navy's 'Vigorous Defense' of the Littoral Combat Ship"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120505202931/http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/05/a-response-to-the-navys-vigorous-defense-of-the-littoral-combat-ship.html |date=5 May 2012}}. ''POGO'', 1 May 2012.</ref><ref>O'Rourke, Ronald. [https://opencrs.com/document/RL33741/2012-04-06/?26712 "CRS-RL33741 Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress"]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121106043603/https://opencrs.com/document/RL33741/2012-04-06/?26712 |date=6 November 2012}}. ''[[Social:Congressional Research Service|Congressional Research Service]]'', 6 April 2012.</ref> ADM Jonathan Greenert said that the crew would "conduct an orderly abandon ship" if their ship was struck by enemy fire, an action that might not be necessary on other vessels in the same circumstances. The ships were designed to minimize vulnerability with modern automated damage control systems to perform its mission, then withdraw from the area under its own power.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-09/littoral-combat-ship-s-survival-in-an-attack-questioned.html |title=Littoral Combat Ship's Survival in an Attack Questioned |last1=Capaccio |first1=Tony |date=9 July 2014 |website=www.bloomberg.com |publisher=Bloomberg L.P. |access-date=10 July 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714145658/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-09/littoral-combat-ship-s-survival-in-an-attack-questioned.html |archive-date=14 July 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[File:US Navy 100329-N-1481K-293 USS Independence (LCS 2) arrives at Mole Pier at Naval Air Station Key West.jpg|thumb|left|Port-aft view of an ''Independence''-class LCS]]
The combat abilities of the LCS were said to be "very modest" even before the cancellation of the XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System.<ref>{{cite web |last=Vego |first=Milan |url=http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=2028 |title=No Need for High Speed |publisher=Usni.org |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100301193144/http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=2028 |archive-date=1 March 2010 |url-status=live}}</ref> The ''Independence'' variant reportedly has better helicopter facilities and more internal space while the ''Freedom'' variant is said to be better able to launch and recover boats in high seas. Admiral Gary Roughead said that a mix of both types would be "operationally advantageous".<ref>Cavas, Christopher P. [http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/12/ap-lcs-plan-attacked-but-gains-support-121510/ "LCS plan attacked, but gains support"]. ''Navy Times'', 15 December 2010.</ref>

In April 2012, Chief of Naval Operations Greenert said, "You won't send it into an anti-access area"; rather, groups of two or three ships are intended to be sent into areas where access is jeopardized to perform missions like minesweeping while under the cover of a destroyer. The LCS's main purpose is to take up operations such as patrolling, port visits, anti-piracy, and partnership-building exercises to free up high-end surface combatants for increased combat availability.<ref name="breakingdefense12april12"/> Navy Secretary Ray Mabus clarified that the ship could operate in combat areas while under the protection of other warships.<ref>Freedberg, Sydney J. Jr. [http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/17/lcs-is-too-a-real-warship-insists-secnav/ "LCS Is Too A Real Warship, Insists SecNav"]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120420154320/http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/17/lcs-is-too-a-real-warship-insists-secnav |date=20 April 2012}}. 17 April 2012.</ref> The LCS's utility against high-tech enemies would be when working with and being covered by destroyers, like they do with aircraft carriers. With destroyers providing extended air and missile defense, the cheaper (one-fourth the cost of a destroyer) and more numerous LCS can sweep for mines and deploy more sophisticated submarine-detecting sonar. Following the decision to arm the LCS with [[Engineering:Anti-ship missile|anti-ship missile]]s, Navy wargames showed the adversary's risk calculus was radically changed, devoting more reconnaissance assets to trying to locate the smaller ships and sustaining heavier losses.<ref>[http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/lcs-can-too-fight-russia-china-navy-leaders/ LCS Can Too Fight Russia, China: Navy Leaders] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160122095538/http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/lcs-can-too-fight-russia-china-navy-leaders/ |date=22 January 2016}} – Breakingdefense.com, 20 January 2016</ref>

The ships are planned to have a 3:2:1 manning concept. That is three ship crews, and two hulls for each ship that is on station at any time. The other ship and other two crews who are not on deployment will either be preparing for deployment or in rotation in or out of theater. The result is a 50% reduction in ships and a 25% reduction in crews (and smaller crew sizes) than traditional deployment practices.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/04/29/operate-forward-lcs-brings-it/ |title=Operate Forward: LCS Brings It |last1=Rowden |first1=Thomas |date=29 April 2014 |website=navylive.dodlive.mil |publisher=U.S. Navy |access-date=1 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140502032728/http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/04/29/operate-forward-lcs-brings-it/ |archive-date=2 May 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> The ships were predicted to fall short in manning.<ref>Williams-Robinson, MJ. [http://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a467716.pdf "A Littoral Combat Ship Manpower Analysis Using the Fleet Response Training Plan"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170430180720/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a467716.pdf |date=30 April 2017}}. ''Naval Postgraduate School'', 2007.</ref> The Navy has deployed ships with berthing modules in the mission bays in order to carry the crew required for operations.<ref>Ewing, Philip. [http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/16/sas12-lcs-modules-may-never-be-final/ "SAS12: LCS modules may never be 'final'"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120529000012/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/16/sas12-lcs-modules-may-never-be-final/ |date=29 May 2012}}. ''DoD Buzz'', 16 April 2012.</ref><ref>O'Rourke, Ronald. [http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=707479 "Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129042833/http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=707479 |date=29 November 2014}}. ''CRS'', 20 March 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/05/navy-house-defense-appropriations-subcommittee-raises-doubts-manning-lcs-051512/ "House panel raises doubts over manning LCSs"]. ''Navy Times'', 15 May 2012.</ref> However, the ships are designed with sufficient headroom to change from 2-high bunking to 3-high bunking, which would allow crew sizes of 100 if needed.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.c-span.org/Events/Navy-Undersecretary-Discusses-Future-of-the-Surface-Combat-Fleet/10737430842-1/|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120728162227/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Navy-Undersecretary-Discusses-Future-of-the-Surface-Combat-Fleet/10737430842-1/ |url-status=dead|title=Navy Undersecretary Discusses Future of the Surface Combat Fleet – C-…|date=28 July 2012|archive-date=28 July 2012|access-date=14 November 2018}}</ref>

The LCS is the first USN surface combatant class in a generation to not use the Aegis Combat System, though Aegis-equipped variants have been offered to foreign customers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/24/a-heavy-duty-lcs-for-foreign-navies-maybe/|title=A heavy duty LCS for foreign navies. Maybe.|date=24 May 2011|access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923220304/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/24/a-heavy-duty-lcs-for-foreign-navies-maybe/|archive-date=23 September 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> They have suffered from problems in their communications and radars and will require refits in these areas.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A6a8f8a25-7f4c-4dda-ba2a-aad39ed9d8db |title=Redeeming Freedom – Changes for the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship. |access-date=4 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130607105951/http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A6a8f8a25-7f4c-4dda-ba2a-aad39ed9d8db |archive-date=7 June 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Neither LCS class is able to defend itself effectively against anti-ship cruise missiles, which are commonly employed in the littorals,<ref name="quickswapdead">Cavas, Christopher P. [https://archive.today/20130121145421/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120714/DEFREG02/307140001/LCS-Quick-Swap-Concept-Dead "LCS: Quick Swap Concept Dead"]. ''Defense News'', 14 July 2012.</ref> although they can disperse in shallow waters better than larger warships.<ref name="dodbuzz2april14">[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/02/lcs-wargame-reveals-new-tactics-amid-controversy/ LCS Wargame Reveals New Tactics Amid Controversy] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140405153801/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/02/lcs-wargame-reveals-new-tactics-amid-controversy/ |date=5 April 2014}} – DoDBuzz.com, 2 April 2014</ref>

===Mission modules===
[[File:Independence (LCS 2) in drydock.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Engineering:Trimaran|Trimaran]] hull of an ''Independence''-class LCS]]

The LCS is reconfigured for various roles by changing mission packages, each of which includes mission module equipment (weapon systems, sensors, etc.), carried craft and mission crews.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=406&ct=2 |title=Littoral Combat Ships – Mission Modules |website= navy.mil |publisher=United States Navy |access-date=21 January 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140110130812/http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=406&ct=2 |archive-date=10 January 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> Modules include anti-submarine warfare (ASW), mine countermeasures (MCM), surface warfare (SUW), and special warfare missions.<ref name="CRS">[http://opencrs.com/document/RL33741/2011-03-18/?26200 "Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress"]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312053631/http://opencrs.com/document/RL33741/2011-03-18/?26200 |date=12 March 2012}}. ''Congressional Research Service'', 18 March 2011.</ref> The MCM and SUW modules are planned to reach initial operating capability in [[Physics:Fiscal year|Fiscal Year]] (FY) 2014, and the ASW module in FY 2016.<ref>Jean, Grace. [http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065973040 "US Navy gears up for more at-sea tests of LCS mission modules"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211118103417/https://www.janes.com/error/500?aspxerrorpath=/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx |date=18 November 2021}}. ''Janes'', 5 November 2012.</ref> Module changes were envisioned to allow a single LCS to change roles in a matter of hours at any commercial port, allowing it to rapidly optimize effectiveness against a threat. A report from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) on a January 2012 sustainment wargame reportedly stated that, possibly for logistics reasons, the mission module changes may take as long as weeks, and that in the future, the Navy plans to use LCSs with a single module, with module changes being a rare occurrence.<ref name="quickswapdead" /> In 2014, ''Independence'' switched from mine to surface warfare modes in 96 hours on short notice.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140830/DEFREG02/308300022 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140830151328/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140830/DEFREG02/308300022 |url-status=dead |archive-date=30 August 2014 |title=RIMPAC Exercise Puts LCS Through Paces |last1=CAVAS |first1=CHRISTOPHER P. |date=30 August 2014 |website= defensenews.com |publisher=Gannett |access-date=30 August 2014}}</ref>

In an announcement on 8 September 2016, the Navy revealed a radical change in operations and organization plans for the LCS. Of the 28 Flight 0 ships built or on order, the first four, two of each class, will be turned into training ships, and the remaining 24 will be divided into six divisions of four ships each: three divisions of the ''Freedom'' class based at Naval Station Mayport, Florida, and three divisions of the ''Independence'' class based at Naval Station San Diego, California. The new organization does away with the LCS's signature interchangeable mission module concept, with each division being tasked to fulfill one of the three mission sets. Crewing is also changed into a more simplified two-crew "blue/gold" model, like that used on submarines and minesweepers, where ships cycle to forward deployed locations with the two crews swapping roles every 4–5 months; aviation detachments will also deploy with the same LCS crew, creating an arrangement of a core 70-sailor crew to conduct the warfare mission and a 23-person air detachment.<ref>[https://news.usni.org/2016/09/08/results-new-lcs-review-departure-original-vision Results of New LCS Review is Departure from Original Vision] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160910140255/https://news.usni.org/2016/09/08/results-new-lcs-review-departure-original-vision |date=10 September 2016}} – News.USNI.org, 8 September 2016</ref><ref>[http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/09/navy-takes-four-littoral-combat-ships-out-deployment-rotation.html Navy Takes 1st Four Littoral Combat Ships Out of Deployment Rotation] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160914035738/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/09/navy-takes-four-littoral-combat-ships-out-deployment-rotation.html |date=14 September 2016}} – Military.com, 9 September 2016</ref>

====Surface warfare====
In addition to the ships' organic weapons systems, the surface warfare package includes two 30&nbsp;mm gun systems, a counter-boat missile system, two 11-meter rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs), and weapons deployed from MH-60 helicopters and MQ-8 Fire Scout UAVs.<ref name="defensetech6nov14">[http://defensetech.org/2014/11/06/navy-plans-to-arm-lcs-with-long-range-surface-missile/ Navy Plans to Arm LCS With Long-Range Surface Missile] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141109185141/http://defensetech.org/2014/11/06/navy-plans-to-arm-lcs-with-long-range-surface-missile/ |date=9 November 2014}} – Defensetech.org, 6 November 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/littoral-combat-ship-readies-for-pacific-deployment-the-navy-s-longest-in-decades-1.313954 Littoral combat ship readies for Pacific deployment, the Navy's longest in decades] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141216062341/http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/littoral-combat-ship-readies-for-pacific-deployment-the-navy-s-longest-in-decades-1.313954 |date=16 December 2014}} – Stripes.com, 13 November 2014</ref> The surface warfare mission module is intended to deal with small boats and is called the "best swarm killer in the surface fleet".<ref>Rear Admiral John Kirby, USN. [http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/ "Return Fire on the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121013185034/http://nation.time.com/2012/10/12/return-fire-on-the-navys-littoral-combat-ship/ |date=13 October 2012}}. ''Time Magazine'', 12 October 2012.</ref> It includes two 30&nbsp;mm gun mission modules manufactured by Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.<ref>[http://www.mfrtech.com/articles/13938.html "Teledyne Wins $9 Million Littoral Combat Ship Mission Modules Manufacturing Contract"]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111105161202/http://www.mfrtech.com/articles/13938.html |date=5 November 2011}}. ''Teledyne Technologies'', 10 May 2011.</ref> The Navy's proposed budget for FY 2015 includes funding for the Surface-to-Surface Missile Module (SSMM) for the first time.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140304/DEFREG02/303040039/US-Navy-Budget-Takes-Bite-Out-Aircraft-Weapons |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20140305043251/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140304/DEFREG02/303040039/US%2DNavy%2DBudget%2DTakes%2DBite%2DOut%2DAircraft%2DWeapons |url-status=dead |archive-date=5 March 2014 |title=US Navy Budget Takes Bite Out of Aircraft, Weapons |last1=CAVAS |first1=CHRISTOPHER P. |date=4 March 2014 |website= defensenews.com |publisher=Gannett Government Media |access-date=26 March 2014}}</ref>

In January 2011, the U.S. Navy recommended the selection of [[Company:Raytheon|Raytheon]]'s Griffin missile to replace the NLOS-LS missile, lowering the LCS's missile range from {{convert|25|mi}} to {{convert|3.5|mi}}.<ref name="CRS"/><ref>{{cite web |last=Reed |first=John |url=http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/11/navy-close-to-choosing-griffin-missile-for-lcs/ |title=Navy Close to Choosing Griffin Missile for LCS |publisher=DoD Buzz |date=11 January 2011 |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312062437/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/11/navy-close-to-choosing-griffin-missile-for-lcs/ |archive-date=12 March 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> The packages were to be deployed in sets of three, with 15 per set for a total of 45 missiles. Initial deployment of the Griffin was set for 2015, with a longer-ranged version to enter service around 2017; however, procurement was canceled after the missiles were judged as "too lightweight".<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130531/NEWS04/305310001/LCS-matures-new-missile-coming "LCS matures, new missile coming"].</ref><ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-lcs-changes-012410w/ "Navy considering big changes for LCS"] By Sam Fellman, Navy Times. 24 January 2011</ref> An enhanced Griffin and the Sea Spear were considered likely competitors for the increment 2 missile.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130623/SHOWSCOUT02/306230010/Raytheon-Working-Extending-Range-Griffin-Missile-LCS |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130624225048/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130623/SHOWSCOUT02/306230010/Raytheon-Working-Extending-Range-Griffin-Missile-LCS |url-status=dead |archive-date=24 June 2013 |title=Raytheon Working on Extending Range of Griffin Missile for LCS |last1=FRYER-BIGGS |first1=ZACHARY |date=23 June 2013 |website= defensenews.com |publisher=Gannett Government Media Corporation |access-date=23 June 2013}}</ref> The Navy chose to integrate the [[Physics:Millimeter wave|millimeter wave]] radar-guided AGM-114L Hellfire missile to increase the LCS's standoff firepower and defense against swarming fast attack craft.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://defense-update.com/20150731_longbow.html |title=Longbow Missile Scores 7:1 Against Fast Attack Boat Swarm |last1=Eshel |first1=Tamir |date=31 July 2015 |website=defense-update.com |publisher=Defense-Update.com |access-date=31 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150803205351/http://defense-update.com/20150731_longbow.html |archive-date=3 August 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> Navy use of the Hellfire gives access to the U.S. Army's existing stockpile of 10,000 missiles. The Hellfire is an interim decision; the Navy is interested in developing a longer-range version.<ref>[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/navy-adds-hellfire-missiles-to-lcs/ Navy Adds Hellfire Missiles to LCS] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413112900/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/09/navy-adds-hellfire-missiles-to-lcs/ |date=13 April 2014}} – DoDBuzz.com, 9 April 2014</ref><ref>[http://defensetech.org/2014/04/09/navy-ships-to-be-more-lethal/ CNO: Railguns and Hellfires Make Ships More Lethal] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140412004741/http://defensetech.org/2014/04/09/navy-ships-to-be-more-lethal/ |date=12 April 2014}} – Defensetech.org, 9 April 2014</ref> An LCS can carry 24 Hellfire missiles in its SSMM, using M299 vertical launchers mounted within a gas containment system; the SSMM design does not facilitate at-sea reloading.<ref>[http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1900 Q & A with the U.S. Navy on Lockheed Martin Hellfire missiles for Littoral Combat Ships] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140727232007/http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1900 |date=27 July 2014}} – Navyrecognition.com, 17 July 2014</ref> The Hellfire was slated to be operational aboard the LCS by 2017.<ref name="defensetech6nov14"/> A longer-range missile with an over-the-horizon (OTH) engagement capability was planned to defend against fast attack craft, ships, and patrol boats by 2020 as part of the surface warfare package Increment 4.<ref name="defensetech6nov14"/>

Norwegian company Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace proposed equipping LCSs with their radar-evading [[Engineering:Naval Strike Missile|Naval Strike Missile]], presenting scale models of the ''Freedom'' class with 12 NSMs and the ''Independence'' class with 18 NSMs.<ref>[http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1733 Kongsberg introduces some "armed to the teeth" LCS concepts at Sea-Air-Space 2014] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413045503/http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1733 |date=13 April 2014}} – Navyrecognition.com, 8 April 2014</ref> In July 2014, the Navy confirmed that it would test-launch the NSM from {{USS|Coronado|LCS-4|2}} to evaluate feasibility, the first time an LCS fired a surface-to-surface missile. The NSM has a range of {{convert|100|nmi|mi km|abbr=on}}, greater than the [[Engineering:Harpoon (missile)|Harpoon]] anti-ship missile, but LCSs lack long-range fire control systems to detect targets at this distance.<ref>[http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140724/NEWS04/307240087/LCS-conduct-test-Norwegian-missile LCS to conduct test of Norwegian missile] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150821050930/http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140724/NEWS04/307240087/LCS-conduct-test-Norwegian-missile |date=21 August 2015}} – Militarytimes.com, 24 July 2014</ref> On 24 September 2014, the NSM was successfully fired at a mobile target. The LCS's modular design makes it possible to add weapons and sensors as part of the warfare suite. This could mitigate lethality criticism of the LCS, which is oriented toward asymmetric swarm boat threats rather than comparable surface combatants.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2014/09/24/navy-norwegian-missile-test-littoral-combat-ship-successful Norwegian Missile Test On Littoral Combat Ship Successful] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140925220016/http://news.usni.org/2014/09/24/navy-norwegian-missile-test-littoral-combat-ship-successful |date=25 September 2014}} – News.USNI.org, 24 September 2014</ref>

In September 2015, the Navy issued a directive to install an OTH missile on ''Freedom'' and ''Coronado'' for their next deployments in early and mid-2016. The exact missile was not specified, but sources say it will be both the Harpoon and NSM, each ship equipped with only one model of missile. The directive calls for up to eight missiles, likely in two quad packs, to be installed on box launchers as a standalone system without requiring full integration into the LCS combat system.<ref>[http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/10/25/lcs-littoral-combat-ship-fanta-mission-module-surface-warfare-missile-harpoon-naval-strike-missile-kongsberg-norwegian-fort-worth-freedom-coronado-independence-navy/74477482/ LCS To Get Missiles for Next Deployment] – Defensenews.com, 25 October 2015</ref> On 19 July 2016, ''Coronado'' conducted a live-fire missile test of a Block 1C Harpoon missile; although the missile missed the target, the test validated the ability to launch Harpoon missiles from the forward deck of an LCS.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.businessinsider.com/us-naval-strategy-just-came-to-fruition-2016-7 |title=A major element of US Naval strategy came to fruition in this 15-second clip |website=Business Insider |last=Lockie |first=Alex |date=21 July 2016 |access-date=23 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160722121710/http://www.businessinsider.com/us-naval-strategy-just-came-to-fruition-2016-7 |archive-date=22 July 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> In May 2018, the Navy selected the NSM as the LCS's OTH missile.<ref name="usni31may18">[https://news.usni.org/2018/05/31/raytheon-awarded-lcs-horizon-anti-surface-weapon-contract-deal-worth-848m Raytheon Awarded LCS Over-the-Horizon Anti-Surface Weapon Contract; Deal Could be Worth $848M] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180531224707/https://news.usni.org/2018/05/31/raytheon-awarded-lcs-horizon-anti-surface-weapon-contract-deal-worth-848m |date=31 May 2018}}. ''USNI News'', 31 May 2018.</ref>

In January 2020, the Navy reported that a Lockheed Martin 150 kW High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) would be put on {{USS|Little Rock|LCS-9}} for her upcoming deployment. The laser is part of a risk reduction effort to contribute to a layered laser defense effort and the LCS's lethality to counter fast-attack craft and UAS.<ref>[https://news.usni.org/2020/01/13/littoral-combat-ship-will-field-laser-weapon-as-part-of-lockheed-martin-navy-test Littoral Combat Ship Will Field Laser Weapon as Part of Lockheed Martin, Navy Test] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200116094202/https://news.usni.org/2020/01/13/littoral-combat-ship-will-field-laser-weapon-as-part-of-lockheed-martin-navy-test |date=16 January 2020}}. ''USNI News'', 13 January 2020.</ref>

====Anti-submarine module====
The anti-submarine module had its focus changed from stationary to en-stride systems (while the ship is moving) that are useful in the open ocean as well as in coastal areas.<ref name="CRS"/> One of the items to be added is a torpedo detection capability.<ref>Fabey, Michael. [http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_09_2012_p0-456228.xml "What Price Freedom? LCS-1 Leaves Dry Dock Amid Questions About Worthiness"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140425003952/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2Fawx_05_09_2012_p0-456228.xml |date=25 April 2014}}. ''Aviation Week'', 9 May 2012.</ref> Thales has sold one CAPTAS-4 low-frequency active sonar to the U.S. Navy to be towed behind the LCS, with a potential order of 25 units.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/thales-va-tester-un-sonar-remorque-pour-le-lcs-americain |title=Thales va tester un sonar remorqué pour le LCS américain |last=Groizeleau |first=Vincent |date=4 October 2010 |website=MerEtMarine.com |language=fr |access-date=8 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140615030855/http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/thales-va-tester-un-sonar-remorque-pour-le-lcs-americain |archive-date=15 June 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> The USN tested combination of this unit, derived from the Sonar 2087 on British Type 23 frigates, with the TB-37 Multi-Function Towed Array (MFTA) found on U.S. warships.<ref>{{citation |title=RL33741 Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress |first=Ronald |last=O'Rourke |date=13 June 2012 |url=http://cdn08.usni.org/sites/default/files/RL33741.pdf |access-date=11 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130923091430/http://cdn08.usni.org/sites/default/files/RL33741.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref> {{Asof |September 2013}}, deployment of the ASW module was planned for 2016, with the 2013 sequestration cuts potentially pushing it back to 2017.<ref name=Greenert20130918 >{{cite web |url=http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf |first=Admiral Jonathan |last=Greenert |title=Statement Before The House Armed Services Committee On Planning For Sequestration In FY 2014 And Perspectives Of The Military Services On The Strategic Choices And Management Review |date=18 September 2013 |publisher=US House of Representatives |access-date=21 September 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130923100518/http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20130918/101291/HHRG-113-AS00-Wstate-GreenertUSNJ-20130918.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Submarine detection will be achieved on the LCS using a variable depth sonar (VDS) and the TB-37 MFTA. Both can passively listen or actively emit to analyze the returns.<ref name="dodbuzz6nov14">[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/11/06/navys-lcs-tests-counter-mine-anti-submarine-technology/ Navy's LCS Tests Counter-Mine, Anti-Submarine Technology] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107190242/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/11/06/navys-lcs-tests-counter-mine-anti-submarine-technology/|date=7 November 2014}} – DoDBuzz.com, 7 November 2014</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Scott |first=Richard |date=2023-01-14 |title=Thales Started Production of CAPTAS-4 Sonar for US Navy |url=https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sna-2023/2023/01/thales-started-production-of-captas-4-sonar-for-us-navy/ |access-date=2023-06-17 |website=Naval News |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Contracts for May 22, 2015 |url=https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/606855/ |access-date=2023-06-17 |website=U.S. Department of Defense |language=en-US}}</ref> The VDS was originally planned to be the Raytheon AN/SQS-62, but the Navy canceled it in 2022 due to high risk, instead choosing the Thales CAPTAS-4 in 2023.<ref name=":2" /> The VDS will allow the LCS to detect diesel-electric submarines while on the move. Submarines can hide behind water layers based on how sound is refracted through the temperature, salinity, and pressure profile; a VDS can pierce layers better than hull-mounted sonars found on destroyers and cruisers. LCSs will also be fitted with a torpedo decoy system under development.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) |url=https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2011/navy/2011lcs.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-112033-567 |access-date=2023-06-17 |website=The Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation}}</ref> To destroy submarines, an MH-60S helicopter will deploy the Mark 54 Lightweight Torpedo.<ref name="usni21aug13">[http://news.usni.org/2013/08/21/lcs-mission-packages-the-basics LCS Mission Packages: The Basics] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140709080611/http://news.usni.org/2013/08/21/lcs-mission-packages-the-basics |date=9 July 2014}} – News.USNI.org, 21 August 2013</ref>

A wargame held by the [[Organization:Naval War College|Naval War College]] demonstrated the possibility of using the LCS in open water operations to assist carrier strike groups and guided-missile destroyers. The LCS was found to be more useful in open water operations than previously considered. The wargame found that an LCS operating the ASW package could perform the mission, which freed up a destroyer that would normally perform the mission to contribute to the lethality of the strike group. Submarine hunting ability is increased by the combination of a destroyer's towed array and hull-mounted sonar and an LCS's VDS.<ref name="dodbuzz2april14"/>

In July 2015, the Navy awarded three contracts to reduce the weight of the package elements down to or below 105 metric tons total to meet mission package weight requirements. Since both elements are mature and fielded (the VDS on Royal Navy Type 23 frigates and MFTA on {{sclass|Arleigh Burke|destroyer|5}} and {{sclass|Zumwalt|destroyer|1}}s), the systems cannot be overhauled, and other weight reduction ideas need to be implemented, such as lightening sensors and using composites in the handling system.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.usni.org/2015/07/30/lcs-anti-sub-warfare-package-too-heavy-3-contracts-issued-for-weight-reduction-study |title=LCS Anti-Sub Warfare Package Too Heavy; 3 Contracts Issued For Weight Reduction Study |last1=Eckstein |first1=Megan |date=30 July 2015 |website=news.usni.org |publisher=USNI |access-date=31 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150731093039/http://news.usni.org/2015/07/30/lcs-anti-sub-warfare-package-too-heavy-3-contracts-issued-for-weight-reduction-study |archive-date=31 July 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> Plans for the package shifted dramatically in 2011 when it was decided not to use the RMMV, used in the MCM package, in favor of an "in stride" capability. The ASW elements were chosen as cost-effective COTS sensors, so weight reduction needs by between 15 and 25 percent have been planned for since their selection for integration onto the LCS.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2015/08/04/navsea-cutting-weight-on-littoral-combat-ship-asw-mission-package-not-a-new-problem NAVSEA: Cutting Weight on Littoral Combat Ship ASW Mission Package Not a New Problem] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160127181935/http://news.usni.org/2015/08/04/navsea-cutting-weight-on-littoral-combat-ship-asw-mission-package-not-a-new-problem |date=27 January 2016}} – News.USNI.org, 4 August 2015</ref>

====Mine countermeasure module====
[[File:US Navy 110720-N-ZZ999-007 A common unmanned surface vehicle patrols for intruders during Trident Warrior 2011.jpg|thumb|A Fleet-class unmanned surface vessel during testing. The USV will be used for both MCM and ASW.]]

The Mine Countermeasure Module (MCM) is designed to provide minesweeping; remotely detecting and bypassing mines; and minehunting, detecting, and disabling. It was envisioned to perform "influence" minehunting via acoustic and magnetic signatures rather than contact or mechanical minehunting. The MCM includes the Airborne Laser Mine Detection system, the Airborne mine neutralization system, the AN/AQS-20A underwater towed sonar, the remote minehunting system, the Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis system, and the [[Engineering:Knifefish (robot)|Knifefish]], a Surface mine countermeasure unmanned undersea vehicle. Canceled module features include the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep System, and the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656107.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=29 July 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130829084136/http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656107.pdf |archive-date=29 August 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The final increment IV MCM will not have an EOD team or an in-stride capability to neutralize discovered mines; neutralization is preceded by post-detection mission analysis.<ref name=Greenert20130918 />

The first increment of the MCM included three systems: the helicopter-deployed airborne laser mine detection system (ALMDS); the airborne mine neutralization system (AMNS); and the remote minehunting system (RMS) composed of the remote multi-mission vehicle (RMMV) paired with the AQS-20A sonar. The ALMDS detects mines near the top of the water, and the RMS will detect them below the waterline. To destroy mines, the AMNS is lowered by the helicopter and guided by an operator on board to neutralize it. Increment two will be the coastal battlefield reconnaissance and analysis system (COBRA) mounted on the MQ-8B to search beaches and surf zones.<ref name="usni21aug13"/>

Increment three will involve adding the Fleet-class [[Earth:Unmanned surface vehicle|unmanned surface vessel]] (USV) with the unmanned surface sweep system (USSS), a cable towed behind the boat. Each LCS will carry two, and they will be used for both MCM and ASW. It will mimic the acoustic and magnetic signature of a ship to fool magnetic and influence mines into detonating; introduction is expected in 2017. The final increment will be the Knifefish unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) to find and detect buried mines in 2019.<ref name="usni21aug13"/>

In February 2016, the Navy announced they were halting procurement of the RMMV due to reliability issues, with the existing ten RMMVs to be upgraded to increase reliability.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2016/02/26/navy-will-not-buy-more-rmmvs-will-pursue-system-of-systems-approach-to-mine-countermeasures Navy Will Not Buy More RMMVs, Will Pursue 'System Of Systems' Approach To Mine Countermeasures] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160227125012/http://news.usni.org/2016/02/26/navy-will-not-buy-more-rmmvs-will-pursue-system-of-systems-approach-to-mine-countermeasures |date=27 February 2016}} – News.USNI.org, 26 February 2016</ref> The upgraded RMMVs will be fielded in 2018, and testing will be conducted to see if the Fleet class common unmanned surface vessel (CUSV) can tow the AQS-20A, and if successful will be used for minehunting by 2020. If the Knifefish UUV can have its endurance increased, the vessel will take over the mission from both systems.<ref>[https://news.usni.org/2016/04/07/stackley-rmmv-cusv-knifefish-will-all-play-a-role-in-lcs-minehunting-not-a-competition Stackley: RMMV, CUSV, Knifefish Will All Play a Role in LCS Minehunting; Not a Competition] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160407204014/https://news.usni.org/2016/04/07/stackley-rmmv-cusv-knifefish-will-all-play-a-role-in-lcs-minehunting-not-a-competition |date=7 April 2016}} – News.USNI.org, 7 April 2016</ref>

====Irregular warfare and amphibious modules====
The Navy included an irregular warfare package in its 2012 budget request to Congress.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/12/lcs-dives-into-irregular-warfare-with-new-mission-package/ |title=LCS Dives Into Irregular Warfare With New Mission Package. |publisher=Defense.aol.com |date=22 December 2011 |access-date=8 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120711112927/http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/12/lcs-dives-into-irregular-warfare-with-new-mission-package/ |archive-date=11 July 2012}}</ref>

Californian congressman Duncan D. Hunter wrote that the purchase of 55 LCS units was made at the cost of 10 fewer amphibious vessels.<ref>Scully, Megan. [http://www.rollcall.com/news/does_fleet_size_matter_a_navy_point_of_contention-219353-1.html "Does Fleet Size Matter? A Navy Point of Contention"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130401153723/http://www.rollcall.com/news/does_fleet_size_matter_a_navy_point_of_contention-219353-1.html |date=1 April 2013}}. ''Roll Call'', 25 November 2012.</ref> Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Joseph Dunford said in 2011 that the LCS is one of the platforms under consideration to help close the gap in amphibious shipping.<ref>Munoz, Carlo. [http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/07/marines-clamor-to-close-gaps-in-amphib-fleet/ "Marines Clamor To Close Gaps In Amphib Fleet"]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121027093445/http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/07/marines-clamor-to-close-gaps-in-amphib-fleet/ |date=27 October 2012}}. ''AOL Defense'', 7 December 2011.</ref> In August 2014, USS ''Coronado'' demonstrated the ability to rapidly stage and deploy Marine Corps ground units, including operations by two Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadrons (HMLA) that conducted day and night deck-landing qualifications. The ''Independence''-class LCS's features of high speed, a large flight deck to support UH-1Y Venom and AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters, and reconfigurable mission bay can support air and small-boat employment and delivery of ground and air forces; a small Marine ground unit can be carried within an embarked mission module.<ref>[http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955 Littoral Combat Ship USS Coronado (LCS 4) Conducts Integration Exercise with U.S. Marines] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826113724/http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955 |date=26 August 2014}} – Navyrecognition.com, 21 August 2014</ref> In 2014, Marine Corps General John M. Paxton, Jr. claimed several deficiencies in using an LCS for amphibious operations as a substitute platform for an amphibious assault ship, including the ability to operate in difficult sea states, survivability in contested waters, limited flight deck and berthing space, and command and control limitations.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2014/10/02/usmcs-paxton-potential-marine-deployments-lcs-jhsv-carry-risks USMC's Paxton: Potential Marine Deployments On LCS And JHSV Carry Risks] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141005163000/http://news.usni.org/2014/10/02/usmcs-paxton-potential-marine-deployments-lcs-jhsv-carry-risks |date=5 October 2014}} – News.USNI.org, 2 October 2014</ref>

In 2014, the U.S. Coast Guard began advocating the LCS as a tailor-made platform for drug interdiction missions. Under pressure from Navy vessels retiring, the Coast Guard will suffer a surface vessel shortage for intercepting smuggling ships in the Caribbean area, forcing the Navy to examine other platforms for drug interdiction. The Coast Guard noted that the LCS has previously performed this task, and pointed towards its high speed and embarked helicopters to run down fast smuggling boats; the Navy plans to base 10 ''Freedom''-class ships at Naval Station Mayport, Florida which could be tasked to conduct interdiction missions.<ref>[http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20141204-lcs-drug.html Coast Guard Admiral: LCS 'an Incredible Ship' for Drug Interdiction] – Seapowermagazine.org, 4 December 2014</ref>

==Developmental history==

===Background===
During the late 1990s, the U.S. Navy realized its [[History:Cold War|Cold War]]-era cruisers and destroyers had been designed for open-ocean warfare and would be vulnerable in shallow coastal waters, where they would face dangers from high-speed boats, missile-firing fast-attack craft, small submarines, sea mines, and land and air-launched anti-ship missiles. The Navy's official solution was the DD-21, a large coastal warship that could absorb hits. Two Navy strategists, retired Captain Wayne Hughes and Vice Admiral Art Cebrowski, refined an opposing ''Streetfighter'' concept for a 1,000-ton small, specialized, and heavily armed vessel costing just $90&nbsp;million (2001 dollars). Being small, light and numerous, the ''Streetfighter'' was envisioned as a "single-serving" ship to be abandoned once it suffered battle damage deemed "fatal" to the ship, made possible by its low cost. The concept of a manned expendable warship was contentious and the idea was not picked up. When Donald Rumsfeld was made Secretary of Defense in early 2001, he promised transformational approaches and doing jobs with fewer people. In October 2001, Cebrowski was assigned to head the Pentagon's new Office of Force Transformation, shortly after which Admiral Vernon Clark canceled the DD-21 and replaced it with a "family" of ships, including the littoral combat ship, being motivated to produce ships cheaper and faster to increase fleet size. Clark declared the LCS was his "most transformational effort" and number-one budget priority in 2003.<ref name= "wired3aug11">[https://www.wired.com/2011/08/future-warship-ran-aground/all/ How the Navy's Warship of the Future Ran Aground] {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170917032140/https://www.wired.com/2011/08/future-warship-ran-aground/all/ |date=17 September 2017}}, Wired, 3 August 2011</ref>

The Navy committed to the $15&nbsp;billion (2003) program in advance of rigorous analysis or clearly defined purpose, appearance, or survivability. Proponents typically pointed to its speed, asymmetric littoral threats, and impact on the U.S. shipbuilding industry. The LCS suffered from requirements creep, adding more missions and equipment, potentially rendering it too complex and expensive to use. When it was decided the ship would not be expendable, the original concept of a small, cheap, simple coastal warship became bigger, more expensive, and more complicated, with a smaller crew due to automation. The task force assigned six different missions which had been previously performed by individual ships: submarine and mine hunting; combating small boats; intelligence gathering; transporting special forces; and counter-drug and piracy patrols. Each ship would be big enough to sail across the Pacific alone, embark a helicopter, have a minimum 40 knot top speed, and cost $220 million. The Navy was only willing to build one type of ship; the task force, realizing that it was virtually impossible for one vessel to fill all roles, advocated a large hull to cover the mission range through modularity, organic combat power, and unmanned systems. Empty space was left for weapon and sensor mission modules costing $150 million. When the first production contracts were awarded in 2004, no mission module worked outside of a laboratory. Fast, cheap construction was emphasized, solving problems with technology.<ref name="wired3aug11"/>

[[File:USS Freedom (LCS 1), the crew mans the rails.jpg|thumb|{{USS|Freedom|LCS-1|2}}, the first LCS, on commissioning day]]
In 2003, the Navy launched its first experimental LCS, ''Sea Fighter'', designated as fast sea frame or FSF-1.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nicholsboats.com/x-craft.htm |title=Sea Fighter (X-Craft) |publisher=Nicholsboats.com |access-date=8 May 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120430003420/http://www.nicholsboats.com/x-craft.htm |archive-date=30 April 2012}}</ref> In 2005, the SWATH-hulled ''Sea Fighter'' entered service as an experimental vessel using mission modules.<ref>{{cite press release |author=Nick Young |url=http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=19463 |title=Navy Sea Fighter Makes San Diego Home |id=NNS050803-02 |publisher=Navy News Service |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120217101116/http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=19463 |archive-date=17 February 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> As the ''Oliver Hazard Perry'', {{sclass|Osprey|minehunter|5}}, and {{sclass|Avenger|mine countermeasures ship|5}} classes were reaching the end of their lives, the U.S. Navy released the LCS requirement. In 2004, [[Company:Lockheed Martin|Lockheed Martin]], [[Company:General Dynamics|General Dynamics]] and Raytheon submitted design proposals. It was decided to produce two vessels each (Flight 0) of the Lockheed Martin design (LCS-1 and LCS-3) and of the General Dynamics design (LCS-2 and LCS-4). After these are brought into service, and experience gathered on the design's usability and efficiency, the future design for the class would be chosen (Flight I). The ultimate decision was to fund both designs as two variants of the class. On 9 May 2005, Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England announced that the first LCS would be named {{USS|Freedom|LCS-1|6}}. Her keel was laid down on 2 June 2005 at Marinette Marine, Marinette, Wisconsin.<ref>{{cite press release |author=Naval Sea Systems Command Public Affairs |url=http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18629 |title=Keel Laid for First Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom |id=NNS050603-18 |publisher=Navy News Service |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204040217/http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=18629 |archive-date=4 February 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> The contract to build the ship was managed by Lockheed's Maritime Systems and Sensors (MS2) division, directed by Fred Moosally.<ref name="CRS"/> On 23 September 2006, LCS-1 was christened and launched at the Marinette Marine shipyard.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,114781,00.html |title=First Littoral Combat Ship Christened |date=25 September 2006 |publisher=Military.com |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211075319/http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,114781,00.html |archive-date=11 February 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> On 19 January 2006, the keel for the General Dynamics trimaran, {{USS|Independence|LCS-2|6}}, was laid at the Austal USA shipyards in Mobile, Alabama. LCS-2 was launched 30 April 2008.

===Budget overruns and deployments===
In 2007, the U.S. Navy canceled contracts to build LCS-3 of Lockheed Martin and LCS-4 of General Dynamics and Austal USA, citing failure to control [[Finance:Cost overrun|cost overrun]]s.<ref>{{cite news|title=Navy Cancels Lockheed Ship Deal|newspaper=Washington Post|date=13 April 2007 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202159.html|access-date=22 July 2007|first=Renae|last=Merle|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080515233100/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202159.html|archive-date=15 May 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref> Subsequently, the Navy announced a new bidding process for the next three ships, the winner building two ships and the loser building one.<ref>{{cite news|title=Navy Restarting Contest for Halted Shipbuilding Program|newspaper=Washington Post|date=3 April 2008 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/02/AR2008040203210.html|access-date=30 April 2008|first=David|last=Sharp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104180557/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/02/AR2008040203210.html|archive-date=4 November 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> In the 26 September 2008 U.S. presidential debate, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) cited the LCS as an example of botched contracting driving up costs unnecessarily.<ref>{{cite news|title=Transcript of presidential debate|publisher=CNN|date=26 September 2008 |url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/index.html|access-date=26 September 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080927114029/http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/index.html|archive-date=27 September 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref> In March 2009, then-Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced that LCS-3 would be named {{USS|Fort Worth|LCS-3|2}} after Fort Worth, Texas,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12538|title=U.S. Department of Defense|website=U.S. Department of Defense|access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091201001138/http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12538|archive-date=1 December 2009 |url-status=live}}</ref> and the fourth ship would be named ''Coronado'' after Coronado, California.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12550|title=U.S. Department of Defense|website=U.S. Department of Defense|access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091201001148/http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12550|archive-date=1 December 2009 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/mar/15/1m15coronado22541-future-warship-bear-citys-name/?zIndex=67291 |title=San Diego Union-Tribune, Future Warship To Bear The City's Name, March 15, 2009 |publisher= Signonsandiego.com |date=15 March 2009 |access-date=8 May 2012}} {{Dead link|date=September 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}</ref> The contracts for LCS-3 and LCS-4 were renewed in early 2009.<ref>{{cite news |last= Washington Post |date= 24 March 2009 |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302912.html |title= National Briefing: Lockheed Gets Second Ship Deal |format= Newspaper article |newspaper= Washington Post |access-date= 25 March 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20121107183842/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302912.html |archive-date= 7 November 2012 |url-status= live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://blog.al.com/press-register-business/2009/05/austal_to_build_second_lcs.html |title= Navy orders second LCS from Austal |date= 2 May 2009 |access-date= 5 May 2009 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120303062210/http://blog.al.com/press-register-business/2009/05/austal_to_build_second_lcs.html |archive-date= 3 March 2012 |url-status= live}}</ref>

In April 2009, the Navy announced its revised procurement plan that three ships be funded in the FY 2010 budget; officials also hinted that the Navy may not down-select to one design for further orders, pointing out complementary features of the two designs.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/06/defense_lcs_costs_060109/ |title=Cost estimates rise for first LCS ships |work=Navy Times |access-date=8 May 2012}}</ref> Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman called for [[Finance:Fixed-price contract|fixed-price contract]]s to be adopted.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/22/2853162-former-navy-sec-says-ship-buying-system-flawed |title=Former Navy Sec. says ship buying system flawed; Associated Press |publisher=Newsvine.com |date=22 May 2009 |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324123545/http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/22/2853162-former-navy-sec-says-ship-buying-system-flawed |archive-date=24 March 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> Pressure mounted in Congress for the Navy to control the cost: in June 2009, during a hearing of the House Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss, said that other contractors would be keen to build LCS as the subcommittee added language requiring the Navy to open bidding if either lead contractor walked away from the offered $460&nbsp;million fixed price contracts.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0609/061209cdpm1.htm |title=House panel reverses cuts in aircraft programs |publisher=Govexec.com |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606134322/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0609/061209cdpm1.htm |archive-date=6 June 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In response, the Naval Sea Systems Command conducted a study on whether reducing the top speed requirement from 40 knots to 30 could help keep the ships under the price cap.<ref>{{cite news |last=Shalal |first=Andrea |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52J59G20090320 |title=U.S. Navy studies slower but cheaper LCS ships |work=Reuters |access-date=8 May 2012 |date=20 March 2009 |archive-date=18 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211118103255/https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52J59G20090320 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The Congress asked the Navy to study improvement programs on existing ships in place of the LCS program. In June 2009, Vice Admiral Barry McCullough, USN testified in a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting that the ''Oliver Hazard Perry''-class frigates and ''Avenger''-class minesweepers were too worn out to cover the gap if the LCS suffered further delays.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/06/navy_lcs_gap_061609w/ |title=Navy has few FFG options to fill LCS gap |work=Navy Times |access-date=8 May 2012}}</ref> Retired Admiral James Lyons, USN called for a $220&nbsp;million common design with the U.S. Coast Guard's National Security Cutter (NSC) program to save costs and meet "limited warfare requirements".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/05/why-we-need-better-ships/ |author=The Washington Times |title=Why we need better ships |work=The Washington Times |date=5 July 2009 |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607121004/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/05/why-we-need-better-ships/ |archive-date=7 June 2011 |url-status=live}}</ref> A Huntington-Ingalls study found that the NSC would be a better match for the listed mission set while lacking the LCS's mission modules to perform many missions.<ref>Ewing, Philip. [http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/28/industry-view-why-the-navy-needs-a-patrol-frigate/ "Industry view: Why the Navy needs a 'Patrol Frigate'"]. {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120331234317/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/28/industry-view-why-the-navy-needs-a-patrol-frigate/ |date=31 March 2012}}. ''DoD Buzz'', 28 March 2012.</ref>

In May 2012, [[Company:Northrop Grumman|Northrop Grumman]] Aerospace Systems released a study that showed seven LCS can more efficiently perform anti-piracy patrols in the Western Indian Ocean than a fleet of 20 conventional ships for a quarter of the cost.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0609/news/unmmaned_antipiracy_180609.html |title=Unmanned Assets Could Save 75% of Cost of Anti-Piracy Operations |publisher=Defense-update.com |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120514090327/http://defense-update.com/newscast/0609/news/unmmaned_antipiracy_180609.html |archive-date=14 May 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref> To help reduce cost of each ships, in September 2009, Navy Acquisition Chief Sean Stackley and Vice Admiral Barry McCullough indicated that only one contractor would be offered a fixed price contract in 2010 for up to ten ships,<ref>{{cite news |last=Borak |first=Donna |date=17 September 2009 |title=Navy revises Littoral Combat Ship buying plan |url=https://www.sunjournal.com/2009/09/17/navy-revises-littoral-combat-ship-buying-plan/ |work=Sun Journal |agency=Associated Press |location=Washington |access-date=8 April 2019 |archive-date=18 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211118103258/https://www.sunjournal.com/2009/09/17/navy-revises-littoral-combat-ship-buying-plan/ |url-status=live}}</ref> followed by an offer to build five additional ships of the same design as the first contract to the secondary builder.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/LCS091809.xml&headline=LCS%20Solicitation%20Canceled,%20To%20Be%20Reissued |title=LCS Solicitation Canceled, To Be Reissued |publisher=Aviationweek.com |access-date=8 May 2012}}</ref> The Congress agreed with the Navy on this plan.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009oct00080.html |title=Conferees agree FY 2010 Navy shipbuilding authorization |publisher=Marinelog.com |date=9 October 2009 |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120522161945/http://marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009oct00080.html |archive-date=22 May 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref> On 23 August 2010, the U.S. Navy announced a delay in awarding the contract for 10 ships until the year's end.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/08/navy-lcs-decision-delayed-082310/ |title=Navy puts off LCS decision |work=Navy Times |access-date=8 May 2012}}</ref>

FY 2010 budget documents revealed that the total costs of the two lead ships had risen to $637&nbsp;million for ''Freedom'' and $704&nbsp;million for ''Independence''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/defense_lcs_costs_100709w/ |title=New LCS prices to be revealed |work=Navy Times |access-date=8 May 2012}}</ref> On 16 January 2010, ''Independence'' was commissioned in Mobile, Alabama.<ref name="USS Independence Commissioned">{{cite press release |url=http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50586 |title=USS Independence Commissioned |author=Surface Forces Public Affairs |id=NNS100116-31 |publisher=Navy News Service |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629192602/http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50586 |archive-date=29 June 2011 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that deploying the first two ships will delay the overall program because these two ships were not available for testing and development so changes may have to be made in the second pair of ships during construction instead of in advance.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/08/navy-lcs-report-083110w/ |title=GAO: Early LCS deployment hurt the program |work=Navy Times |access-date=8 May 2012}}</ref> The U.S. Navy responded that "Early deployment brought LCS operational issues to the forefront much sooner than under the original schedule, some of which would not have been learnt until two years on."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100910_1_n.shtml |title=U.S. defends early deployment of littoral combat ship |publisher=Janes.com |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100916053957/http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100910_1_n.shtml |archive-date=16 September 2010 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2013, Under Secretary of the Navy Robert O. Work explained that cost overruns were partly due to the shipbuilders' bidding to American Bureau of Shipping commercial standards, the Navy changed this to Level I survivability standards for greater crew survivability, although the ships were not expected to operate after being hit.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1035|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130415103319/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1035 |url-status=dead|title=Navy's No. 2 Civilian Chronicles Missteps in Littoral Combat Ship – B…|date=15 April 2013|archive-date=15 April 2013|website=archive.is|access-date=14 November 2018}}</ref> The Navy acknowledged that their failure to communicate clearly that the experimental and developmental nature of the first two ships caused a perception that the overall LCS program was in worse shape.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_01_28_2013_p14-535170.xml |title=Upgraded LCS Starts Certification Trials. |access-date=6 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130520164336/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_01_28_2013_p14-535170.xml |archive-date=20 May 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref> A GAO report in July 2014 found that the annual cost to operate an LCS was $79&nbsp;million, compared to $54&nbsp;million to operate a larger frigate. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus pointed out that new vessels traditionally start off costing more to operate because of difficulties with building and testing ships simultaneously; GAO reports of new warships since the 1960s support this claim. As more littoral combat ships are built and enter service, Mabus said operational costs will decline to acceptable limits.<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140725/NEWS04/307250041/Mabus-Cost-LCS-will-decline Mabus: Cost for LCS will decline] – Navytimes.com, 25 July 2014</ref> On 2 November 2016 the Pentagon blocked publication of cost overruns on both designs.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/pentagon-blocks-littoral-combat-ship-overrun-from-a-gao-report |title=Pentagon Blocks Littoral Combat Ship Overrun From a GAO Report |last1=Capaccio |first1=Anthony |date=6 March 2017 |website=www.bloomberg.com |publisher=Bloomberg |access-date=8 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170307111747/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-06/pentagon-blocks-littoral-combat-ship-overrun-from-a-gao-report |archive-date=7 March 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On 2 December 2016, it was reported that the GAO was critical of the LCS's ability to complete a navy requirement of 30 consecutive days underway without a critical failure of one or more essential subsystems. DOT&E Michael Gilmore states that the current LCS fleet "have a near-zero chance" of meeting this requirement.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gao-the-miracle-of-the-lcs-didnt-happen/article/2608619|title=Pentagon's top tester: Littoral ships 'have a near-zero chance of completing a 30-day mission'|date=1 December 2016|access-date=14 November 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171022154420/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gao-the-miracle-of-the-lcs-didnt-happen/article/2608619|archive-date=22 October 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Building both designs===
Instead of declaring a winner out of the two competing designs, the U.S. Navy in November 2010 asked the Congress to allow for the order of ten of each design.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://uk.reuters.com/article/navy-ships/us-navy-said-to-buy-lcs-warships-from-both-bidders-idUSWEN247520101103 |title= US Navy said to buy LCS warships from both bidders |work= Reuters |date=3 November 2010 |access-date=24 March 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180324223930/https://uk.reuters.com/article/navy-ships/us-navy-said-to-buy-lcs-warships-from-both-bidders-idUSWEN247520101103 |archive-date=24 March 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Cavas, Christopher P. [http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/11/defense-navy-picks-both-lcs-designs-110310/ "Navy asks Congress to buy both LCS designs"] Navy Times, 4 November 2010</ref> U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said that the change was made because both bids were under the Congressional price cap.<ref>Hillman, Lou [http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/north_counties/marinette-marine-lcs-contract-split-essentially-done Senator: LCS contract split "essentially done"] {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101106081110/http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/north_counties/marinette-marine-lcs-contract-split-essentially-done |date=6 November 2010}} WLUK, 5 November 2010</ref> Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that unlike the possibility of splitting orders for projects like KC-X or the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136, the Pentagon had already paid the development cost for both designs so there was no further development required for both designs and have them compete for future orders.<ref>Drew, Christopher. [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/business/06ship.html "To Capitalize on Low Bids, Navy Hopes to Name 2 Winners for Ship Contract"]. {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180324165336/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/business/06ship.html |date=24 March 2018}}. ''{{wipe|New York Times}}'', 5 November 2010</ref>

In December 2010, the Government Accountability Office identified some problems with the designs including extremely long crew training time, unrealistic maintenance plans, and the lack of comprehensive risk assessment.<ref>Slack, Donovan. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/13/kerry_pushes_a_late_deal_on_ships/ "Kerry pushes a late deal on ships"]. {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110407235559/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/12/13/kerry_pushes_a_late_deal_on_ships/ |date=7 April 2011}}. ''Boston Globe'', 13 December 2010.</ref> On 13 December 2010, both production teams extended their contract offers until 30 December in order to give more time for the Navy to push through the plan. The Navy would be forced to award the contract to only one team if it failed to secure Congressional approval. The Navy budgeted $490&nbsp;million for each ship while the Congressional Budget Office projected a cost of $591&nbsp;million for each ship.<ref>Capaccio, Anthony. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/lockheed-austal-extend-prices-on-littoral-ship-bids-update1-.html "Lockheed, Austal Extend Prices on Littoral Ship Bids"]. {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141129030325/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/lockheed-austal-extend-prices-on-littoral-ship-bids-update1-.html |date=29 November 2014}}. ''{{wipe|Bloomberg News}}'', 13 December 2010.</ref><ref>Douglas W. Elmendorf [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12007/12-09_McCain_Letter_Final.pdf CBO letter to McCain] {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111012204634/http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12007/12-09_McCain_Letter_Final.pdf |date= 12 October 2011}} [[Organization:Congressional Budget Office|Congressional Budget Office]], 10 December 2010.</ref> Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley testified to a Senate panel that the actual price range was $440 to $460&nbsp;million.<ref>Shalal-Esa, Andrea. [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1427815720101214 "U.S. Navy urges Senate to approve LCS warship plan"]. {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101217125516/http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1427815720101214 |date=17 December 2010}}. ''{{wipe|Reuters}}'', 14 December 2010.</ref>

A day before the offer's expiration, both Lockheed Martin and Austal USA received Navy contracts for an additional ten ships of their designs; two ships of each design being built each year between 2011 and 2015. Lockheed Martin's LCS-5 had a contractual price of $437&nbsp;million, Austal USA's contractual price for LCS-6 was $432&nbsp;million. On 29 December 2010, Department of Navy Undersecretary Sean Stackley noted that the program was well within the Congressional cost cap of $480&nbsp;million per ship. The average per-ship target price for Lockheed ships is $362&nbsp;million, Stackley said, with a goal of $352&nbsp;million for each Austal USA ships. Government-furnished equipment (GFE), such as weapons, add about $25&nbsp;million per ship; another $20&nbsp;million for change orders, and "management reserve" is also included. Stackley declared the average cost to buy an LCS should be between $430&nbsp;million and $440&nbsp;million.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203525404576050230082124722 |work=The Wall Street Journal |first=Nathan |last=Hodge |title=Lockheed, Austal Unit Win Navy Bid |date=30 December 2010 |access-date= 8 August 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170903033739/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203525404576050230082124722 |archive-date=3 September 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> In the fiscal year 2011, the unit cost was $1.8&nbsp;billion and the program cost $3.7&nbsp;billion.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/analysis-fiscal-year-2012-pentagon-spending-request/ |title= Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2012 Pentagon Spending Request | work = Cost of war |date=15 February 2011 |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110805235044/http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/analysis-fiscal-year-2012-pentagon-spending-request/ |archive-date=5 August 2011 |url-status= live}}</ref>

[[File:US Navy 120109-O-ZZ999-001 The littoral combat ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Coronado (LCS 4) is rolled-out at the Austal USA assembly bay.jpg|right|thumb|{{USS|Coronado|LCS-4|6}} is rolled out in 2011]]
In May 2012, Robert Work said that the two designs may each be best suited to different theaters, the LCS-1 design being better suited for the enclosed waters of the Middle East, while the LCS-2 design for the Pacific Ocean's open waters. In order to increase commonality, the Navy will force both types to use the same combat system electronics.<ref>Freedberg Jr., Sydney J. [http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/21/navy-needs-both-lcs-types-for-war-with-china-iran-robert-work/ "Navy Needs Both LCS Types For War With China, Iran"]. {{webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120525165838/http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/21/navy-needs-both-lcs-types-for-war-with-china-iran-robert-work/ |date=25 May 2012}}. ''AoL Defense'', 21 May 2012.</ref>

The handoff from General Dynamics to Austal of management for the ''Independence'' class led to a 13-month schedule slip as the company struggled with building the JHSV ships at the same facilities.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.stripes.com/littoral-combat-ships-see-new-delivery-delays-navy-says-1.220267|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130616003232/http://www.stripes.com/littoral-combat-ships-see-new-delivery-delays-navy-says-1.220267 |url-status= dead|title=Littoral combat ships see new delivery delays, Navy says | work = Stripes |date=16 June 2013 |archive-date= 16 June 2013|access-date=14 November 2018}}</ref> In May 2013, the GAO called for a pause in ship construction until issues with the sea frames and modules were resolved.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/congressional-watchdog-advises-slowing-spending-on-ship.html |url-access=subscription |title=Congressional Watchdog Advises Slowing Spending on Ship |work= Bloomberg |date=31 May 2013|access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141129030322/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/congressional-watchdog-advises-slowing-spending-on-ship.html|archive-date=29 November 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> In August 2013, the USN revealed plans to reduce the procurement rate in 2016.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/25/lcs-kerfuffle-navy-gao-may-be-in-violent-agreement-after-all/ |title=LCS Kerfuffle: Navy, GAO May Be In 'Violent Agreement' After All |first= Sydney J. Jr.|last=Freedberg|date=25 July 2013|access-date= 14 November 2018|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130728113927/http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/25/lcs-kerfuffle-navy-gao-may-be-in-violent-agreement-after-all/|archive-date=28 July 2013 |url-status= live}}</ref>

===Operational issues===
A 2012 report by Rear Admiral Samuel Perez, USN, found that the ships lacked the manpower and firepower to complete the missions required by regional combatant commanders. The report found that the LCS is "ill-suited for combat operations against anything but" small, fast boats not armed with anti-ship missiles. It also found that the excessive beam (width) of the trimaran ''Independence''-class ships may pose a "navigational challenge in narrow waterways and tight harbors".<ref>{{cite news|date=2013-05-07|title=Navy Ship Can't Meet Mission, Internal U.S. Report Finds |url= https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/navy-ship-can-t-meet-mission-internal-u-s-report-finds.html |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150109195546/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/navy-ship-can-t-meet-mission-internal-u-s-report-finds.html|archive-date= 9 January 2015 |access-date=14 November 2018|website=Bloomberg}}</ref> The report also found that the contractor-based maintenance scheme for the ships had led to poorly supervised and unaccountable contractors leaving problems unresolved. As contract workers are required to be American, they must be flown out to any foreign ports visited by an LCS.<ref>Ewing, Philip. [http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/24/how-could-the-navy-begin-to-remake-lcs/ "How could the Navy begin to remake LCS?"] {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120728014958/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/24/how-could-the-navy-begin-to-remake-lcs/ |date=28 July 2012}} ''DoD Buzz'', 24 July 2012.</ref> A special panel was appointed to investigate "challenges identified".<ref>Freeman, Ben. [http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/08/navy-appoints-panel-to-address-warships-problems.html "Navy Appoints Panel to Address Warship's Problems"]. {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20121003113145/http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/08/navy-appoints-panel-to-address-warships-problems.html |date=3 October 2012}}. ''POGO'', 24 August 2012.</ref> Twenty more bunks were installed to allow for a larger crew.<ref>"[http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/its-all-in-the-package-the-littoral-combat-ships-mission-modules-016450/ It's All in the Package: the Littoral Combat Ship's Mission Modules] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140907214746/http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/its-all-in-the-package-the-littoral-combat-ships-mission-modules-016450/|date=7 September 2014}}" ''Defense Industry Daily'', 3 September 2014. Accessed: 5 September 2014.</ref>

In 2013, Captain Kenneth Coleman, the U.S. Navy's requirements officer for the program, identified the LCS as being especially vulnerable to tactical aircraft armed with standoff anti-ship missiles.<ref>[http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/April/Pages/LittoralCombatShipSetsSailonFirstDeployment.aspx "Littoral Combat Ship Sets Sail on First Deployment"]. {{webarchive |url= https://archive.today/20130415093356/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/April/Pages/LittoralCombatShipSetsSailonFirstDeployment.aspx |date=15 April 2013}}.</ref> Vice Admiral Thomas H. Copeman III is reported to be considering an upsized "Super" LCS,<ref>[http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/18/copeman-littoral-reevaluate/ "Report: Navy 3-star wants to reevaluate littoral ships"]. {{webarchive |url= https://archive.today/20130616003342/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/18/copeman-littoral-reevaluate/ |date=16 June 2013}}.</ref> with space to install needed firepower, because he noted that the 57 mm main gun was more suitable to a patrol boat than a frigate.<ref>{{cite news |last= Lerman |first= David |date=28 March 2013 |title=Ships costing $37 billion lack firepower, U.S. commander warns |url= https://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/28/business/ships-costing-37-billion-lack-firepower-u-s-commander-warns/ |work= Bangor Daily News |agency=Reuters |location= Washington |access-date= 8 April 2019 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180702094501/http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/28/business/ships-costing-37-billion-lack-firepower-u-s-commander-warns/ |archive-date= 2 July 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.defenseworld.net/news/8145/Navy_Plans_Re_designing_Troubled_Littoral_Combat_Ship|title=Navy Plans Re-designing Troubled Littoral Combat Ship |website = Defense world |access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181114182230/http://www.defenseworld.net/news/8145/Navy_Plans_Re_designing_Troubled_Littoral_Combat_Ship|archive-date=14 November 2018 |url-status= live}}</ref> Austal's vice president for sales, Craig Hooper, suggested that the ships should instead be used for UAV operations.<ref>[http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2013/04/austal_usa_executive_defends_l.html "Austal USA executive defends Littoral Combat Ship against firepower critics"]. {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131212122557/http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2013/04/austal_usa_executive_defends_l.html |date=12 December 2013}}. Ellen Mitchell, Alabama Media Group, 10 April 2013.</ref> Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has called the lack of identified missions for the LCS "one of its greatest strengths".<ref>[https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2013/6/13/navy-secretary-defends-littoral-combat-ship "Navy Secretary Defends Littoral Combat Ship"]. {{webarchive |url= https://archive.today/2023.11.25-042255/https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2013/6/13/navy-secretary-defends-littoral-combat-ship |date=25 November 2023}}.</ref> The various modules all use the same [[Internet Protocol]] formats.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/05/30/lcs-forges-common-it-backbone/|title=LCS Forges Common IT Backbone|date=30 May 2013 |access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171023082712/https://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/05/30/lcs-forges-common-it-backbone/|archive-date=23 October 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=2013-04-23|title=Littoral Combat Ship Network Can Be Hacked, Navy Finds |url= https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/littoral-combat-ship-network-can-be-hacked-navy-finds.html |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150126012210/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/littoral-combat-ship-network-can-be-hacked-navy-finds.html |archive-date= 26 January 2015 |access-date= 14 November 2018|website= Bloomberg}}</ref> In 2013 Congressional auditors found that the ships lacked robust communications systems and a USN review "uncovered classified deficiencies" in the ship's cyberdefenses.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/cyberdefenses-for-littoral-combat-ship-getting-retooled.html |title= Cyberdefenses for Littoral Combat Ship Getting Retooled |last1= Capaccio |first1=Tony |date=6 May 2014 |website = Bloomberg |access-date=8 May 2014 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140508223321/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-06/cyberdefenses-for-littoral-combat-ship-getting-retooled.html |archive-date=8 May 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref>

At a hearing on 25 July 2013, the House Armed Services Committee's seapower subcommittee argued with Vice Admiral Richard W. Hunt on how the LCS would be employed if tensions with North Korea or China led to a confrontation in the Western Pacific. Hunt said the ships are designed in accordance with the Navy's survivability standards, and that the LCS would be used during the initial phase in the theatre and sense the environment before hostilities occur. Detractors claim the LCS is not survivable enough for long-range threats that China possesses; LCSs are built to the Navy's survivability category Level I+, higher than Level I patrol craft and mine warfare ships, but lower than the Level II ''Oliver Hazard Perry''-class frigate they are replacing. The Navy has said the LCS was designed to pull out of combat upon sustaining damage.<ref name= "janes29july13">[http://www.janes.com/article/25239/in-china-or-north-korea-scenario-lcs-would-be-in-the-fight-usn-says In China or North Korea scenario, LCS would be in the fight, USN says] {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130801094539/http://www.janes.com/article/25239/in-china-or-north-korea-scenario-lcs-would-be-in-the-fight-usn-says |date=1 August 2013}}, Jane's, 29 July 2013</ref> The baseline LCS seaframe designs, however, boast a better air and missile defense capability than the partially disarmed and now retired Perry class, which somewhat counters claims that LCS is "unsurvivable".<ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.usni.org/2015/01/22/opinion-lcs-survivability-questions-linger|title= LCS Survivability Questions Linger |date= 22 January 2015|access-date= 16 September 2015 |publisher= United States Naval Institute|last= Wills|first= Steven |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150909174106/http://news.usni.org/2015/01/22/opinion-lcs-survivability-questions-linger |archive-date= 9 September 2015 |url-status= live}}</ref> Other observers suggest that the ships' lifecycle costs and resilience challenges result from the optimal-manning concept, which increases the Navy's dependence on contractors and diminishes opportunities to monitor and repair engineering systems during operations.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Panter |first1=Jonathan |last2=Falcone |first2=Johnathan |date=December 28, 2021 |url=https://warontherocks.com/2021/12/the-unplanned-costs-of-an-unmanned-fleet/ |title= The Unplanned Costs of an Unmanned Fleet |website=War on the Rocks}}</ref>

The deployment of USS ''Freedom'' was seen by the Navy as an opportunity to test the ship and operational concepts in the real-world. The Navy was about to conclude a war game at the Naval War College to examine ways of exploiting LCS capabilities in Western Pacific and other scenarios. Hunt added that the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission package would play an important role in protecting aircraft carriers and amphibious ships, and the mine countermeasures (MCMs) mission package would also provide necessary port security and waterway patrol capability following combat operations.<ref name="janes29july13" />

A [[Engineering:Government Accountability Office|Government Accountability Office]] report in April 2014 found that several U.S. 7th Fleet officials thought the LCS was more useful in the Persian Gulf, but not suitable in the Pacific theater as they lacked the speed, range, and electronic warfare capabilities. The first two vessels from each maker were found to be overweight and not meeting performance requirements for endurance or sprinting over 40 knots. Navy leaders contend that the LCS's shallow draft is well suited for Pacific operations due to the many shallow-water ports, typically difficult for larger warships to access. The GAO report recommended the Navy consider buying fewer ships of the type if its limitations prevent effective use in the Pacific theater.<ref>[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/littoral-ship-s-fitness-for-asia-questioned-in-u-s-navy.html Littoral Ship's Fitness for Asia Questioned by Some in U.S. Navy] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150111165014/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/littoral-ship-s-fitness-for-asia-questioned-in-u-s-navy.html |date=11 January 2015}} – Bloomberg.com, 10 April 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/11/7th-fleet-admits-lcs-not-suited-for-pacific.html?comp=7000023435700&rank=1 7th Fleet Admits LCS Not Suited for Pacific] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140413142243/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/11/7th-fleet-admits-lcs-not-suited-for-pacific.html?comp=7000023435700&rank=1 |date=13 April 2014}} – Military.com, 11 April 2014</ref> The GAO also found that both designs were overweight and underperforming.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-749|title=Littoral Combat Ship: Additional Testing and Improved Weight Management Needed Prior to Further Investments|website=U.S. Government Accountability Office|date=30 July 2014|id=GAO-14-749|access-date=14 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118155309/https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-749|archive-date=18 November 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Revised requirements and designs===

[[File:USS Rushmore (LSD 47) passes PCU Coronado (LCS 4).jpg|thumb|USS ''Coronado'' (LCS-4) (right) passes {{USS|Rushmore|LSD-47|6}}.]]

A 2013 DOT&E report on the two LCSs raised doubts about their survivability, as they did not include features for sustained combat operations.<ref name=USNI_whats_next>[http://news.usni.org/2014/02/25/whats-next-lcs "What's Next After LCS?"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140601035453/http://news.usni.org/2014/02/25/whats-next-lcs |date=1 June 2014}}. USNI.org, 25 February 2014.</ref>  Concerned that the LCS would make up one-sixth of the Navy's 300-ship force, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel directed the Navy to submit alternative proposals for a new surface combatant comparable to a frigate that can operate in all regions under conflict conditions.<ref>[http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/02/26/navy-plans-new-future-with-32-ship-lcs-fleet/ "Navy Plans New Future with 32-Ship LCS Fleet"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140226192909/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/02/26/navy-plans-new-future-with-32-ship-lcs-fleet/ |date=26 February 2014}}. DoDBuzz.com, 26 February 2014.</ref>

The Navy began to look into improvements for the last 20 ships of the 52-ship LCS procurement to increase capabilities to that of a frigate. It was reported that the navy was considering four different options as "leading contenders" for the role of this new frigate. The first being the {{sclass2|Legend|cutter|4}} (''National Security Cutter''), in use by the U.S. Coast Guard. Another being the group of three {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|0}} variants of differing size, (both shorter and longer than the current ''Freedom'' class). The third was a once hinted at "international" version of the {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|4}}, that could be Aegis-equipped, and lastly, an American-built version of the Spanish Navy's F-100-class frigate.<ref name=USNI_whats_next/>

On 30 April 2014, the Navy issued two requests for information (RFI) to industry to give the LCS task force follow-on designs to Flight 0 ship models. One RFI was for design concepts and information on cost and lethality, and the other was for specific systems and technologies. Mission areas consisting of anti-air, surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, and mine countermeasure missions will offer a range of mission and capability options based on the threat environment that will drive design work and costs. Options for the proposed small surface combatant (SSC) were a modified version of the LCS, an existing alternate ship design, or an entirely new design.<ref>[http://news.usni.org/2014/04/30/navy-asks-industry-input-follow-littoral-combat-ship "Navy Asks Industry for Input for Follow-on to Littoral Combat Ship"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140502001646/http://news.usni.org/2014/04/30/navy-asks-industry-input-follow-littoral-combat-ship |date=2 May 2014}}. News.USNI.org, 30 April 2014.</ref>

On the proposal's due date, ship designs were submitted by Lockheed Martin, Austal USA, [[Company:Huntington Ingalls Industries|Huntington Ingalls Industries]], and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, and separate combat systems proposals were submitted by Lockheed, [[Company:Raytheon Company|Raytheon]], and General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems (GD AIS); ship and combat systems responses were limited to 25 and 15 pages respectively. Lockheed's response was a variant of their ''Freedom''-class LCS; different upgrades included an advised increase in length to {{convert|125|m|ft|abbr=on}}, vertical launch systems for Standard Missile 2 missiles or the [[Engineering:RIM-174 Standard ERAM|Standard Missile 6]], and the SPY-1F Aegis radar or an Air Missile Defense Radar derivative. Austal USA submitted a modified ''Independence''-class ship, adding permanently installed systems like a towed array sonar, torpedoes, vertical launch anti-submarine rockets, and aviation capability to support the MH-60 helicopter in place of mission modules. Like Lockheed's submission, it has a VLS for Standard missiles, a 76&nbsp;mm gun in place of the 57&nbsp;mm gun, and can take on an Aegis or ADMR radar. Huntington Ingalls submitted a larger, more heavily armed National Security Cutter. General Dynamics also made an unspecified response.<ref>[http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20140523185730/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140523/DEFREG02/305230023/Ideas%2DPour%2DUS%2DNavy%2Ds%2DSmall%2DShip%2DTask%2DForce "Ideas Pour in to U.S. Navy's Small Ship Task Force"]. Defensenews.com, 23 May 2014.</ref>

Results from the Navy task force on LCS upgrades, capabilities, costs, and alternative options were completed by 31 July 2014 for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to review.<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140731/NEWS04/307310057/No-report-expected-just-yet-LCS-alternative No report expected just yet on LCS alternative] – Navytimes.com, 31 July 2014</ref><ref>[http://news.usni.org/2014/08/01/navy-wont-discuss-lcs-follow-taskforce-results-next-budget "Navy Won't Discuss LCS Follow-on Taskforce Results Until Next Budget"] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803021539/http://news.usni.org/2014/08/01/navy-wont-discuss-lcs-follow-taskforce-results-next-budget |date=3 August 2014}}. News.USNI.org, 1 August 2014</ref> The Navy senior leadership briefed top Pentagon officials on proposals for the new SSC on 6 October 2014. A decision is to be made by February 2015 in advance of the 2016 budget submission.<ref>[http://www.navytimes.com/article/20141016/NEWS04/310160064/Hagel-briefed-new-Navy-surface-ship-no-decisions-yet "Hagel briefed on new Navy surface ship, but no decisions yet"]. Navytimes.com, 16 October 2014.</ref> On 12 December 2014, a joint statement was issued by the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations endorsing SSCTF recommendations for a modified LCS to complement the planned 32 LCSs for a 52-strong Small Surface Combatant fleet.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84854 |title=Joint Statement by Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations on Endorsement of SSCTF Recommendations |author=Office of the Secretary of the Navy |id=NNS141212-19 |publisher=Navy News Service |date=12 December 2014 |access-date=10 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222155338/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84854 |archive-date=22 December 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84849 |title=Navy Moving Forward With LCS |id=NNS141211-10 |publisher=Navy News Service |date=12 December 2014 |access-date=10 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160106151044/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84849 |archive-date=6 January 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On 11 December 2014, Hagel accepted the Navy's recommendation to base the 20 SSCs on more powerful versions of both existing LCS designs. The SSC shall have an improved 3D air defense radar, air defense decoys, better electronic warfare system, over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles, multi-function towed array sonar, torpedo defenses, additional armor, and displace less than Flight 0 vessels. The SSC will focus on anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare; mine countermeasures will be handled by existing LCSs. Although not designed for modularity, it will maintain the ability to carry mission modules and LCS mission package equipment, including 30&nbsp;mm and 57&nbsp;mm cannons (upgrading to a 76&nbsp;mm gun would have had marginal benefits for increased costs), Hellfire missiles, {{convert|11|m|ft|adj=on|sp=us}} RHIBs, and the ASW variable-depth sonar. Current plans lack vertical launchers for Standard missiles; the SSC is planned to be able to operate alone. The over-the-horizon surface-to-surface missile will likely be in the Harpoon Block II class. Other enhancements include spaced armor, installation of [[Engineering:M242 Bushmaster|Mk 38 Mod 2 25&nbsp;mm chain guns]], improved decoy systems, the SeaRAM missile interceptor, a "lite" version of the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), and improved signature management through [[Degaussing|degaussing]]. An SSC will cost $60–$75&nbsp;million more than a Flight 0 LCS, with procurement beginning by 2019. Hagel also directed the Navy to study which improvements could be added to LCSs; completed ships cannot accommodate all changes, more can be added to incomplete ones, the final number and mix of each type has yet to be determined.<ref name="military11dec14"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/11/hagel-new-ship-based-lcs/20266187/ |title=Hagel: New ship to be based on LCS |website=navytimes.com |last=Cavas |first=Christopher P. |date=11 December 2014 |access-date=2 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned-lcs-hulls-picked-navys-next-small-surface-combatant |title=Up Gunned LCS Hulls Picked for Navy's Next Small Surface Combatant |website=usni.org |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |date=11 December 2014 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160324215307/http://news.usni.org/2014/12/11/gunned-lcs-hulls-picked-navys-next-small-surface-combatant |archive-date=24 March 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20141212-ssc-lcs.html |title=Modified LCS Selected for Follow-On Small Surface Combatant |website=seapowermagazine.org |date=12 December 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141214172124/http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20141212-ssc-lcs.html |archive-date=14 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141211/DEFREG02/312110041/Hagel-New-Ship-Based-LCS |archive-url=https://archive.today/20141214154956/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141211/DEFREG02/312110041/Hagel-New-Ship-Based-LCS |url-status=dead |archive-date=14 December 2014 |title=Split Decision on New US Navy Ship |website=defensenews.com |date=11 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://defense-update.com/20141212_lcs_rearmed.html#.VI2sScIfodU |title=The US Navy wants better armed, more protected LCS based surface combat ships |website=defense-update.com |date=12 December 2014 |last=Eshel |first=Tamir |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160429122803/http://defense-update.com/20141212_lcs_rearmed.html#.VI2sScIfodU |archive-date=29 April 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/lcs-lives-hagel-approves-bigger-gunned-upgrade/ |title=LCS Lives: Hagel Approves Better Armed Upgrade |website=breakingdefense.com |last= Freedburg |first=Sydney J. |date=11 December 2014 |access-date= 2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160530233825/http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/lcs-lives-hagel-approves-bigger-gunned-upgrade/ |archive-date=30 May 2016 |url-status= live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/hagels-new-small-surface-combatant-ssc-gives-lcs-eyes-teeth-and-toughness/ |title= Hagel's New Small Surface Combatant Gives LCS Eyes, Teeth, and Toughness |website= Defense media network |last= Oldham |first=Chuck |date=12 December 2014 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000634/http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/hagels-new-small-surface-combatant-ssc-gives-lcs-eyes-teeth-and-toughness/ |archive-date=4 March 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The decision was made on SSC upgrade features to prioritize over-the-horizon surface and ASW capabilities with a greater degree of self-defense, not anti-aircraft or missile defense, which will be left to large surface combatants. Although a [[Engineering:3D radar|3D radar]] is included in the designs, a VLS was absent from the hulls, contrary to what naval experts suggested and industry submissions contained. Adding a vertical launch system was evaluated, but was determined to be too heavy and large and requiring long and costly changes; modular aspects of the ships may allow for the addition of the smaller Mk 56 VLS for the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile. When emphasized on ASW, the ships will combine the fixed multi-function towed sonar array with the mission package's variable depth sonar to have "the most effective ASW sensor platform in the Navy". For SUW, the key addition is the inclusion of an over-the-horizon anti-ship missile; the Navy is looking at potential systems that could compete with the Harpoon Block II. Aside from lethality changes, the service also intends to have a common combat management system for both variants.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.usni.org/2014/12/15/navy-fleet-put-lcs-follow-focus-surface-sub-threats-not-air |title=Navy: Fleet Put LCS Follow-on Focus on Surface and Sub Threats, Not Air |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |website= USNI |date=15 December 2014 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160306230651/http://news.usni.org/2014/12/15/navy-fleet-put-lcs-follow-focus-surface-sub-threats-not-air |archive-date=6 March 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In January 2015, the Navy announced that the up-gunned LCS will be reclassified as a frigate, since the requirements of the SSCTF was to upgrade the ships with frigate-like capabilities. Hull designations will be changed from LCS to FF; existing LCSs back-fitted with modifications may also retroactively earn the FF label.<ref name="usni15jan15"/> The Navy is hoping to start retrofitting technological upgrades onto existing and under construction LCSs before 2019.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/04/navy-plans-to-expand-speed-up-lcs-modifications.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm |title=Navy Plans to Expand, Speed-Up LCS Modifications |website= Military |last=Osborn |first=Kris |date=4 March 2015 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160604003844/http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/04/navy-plans-to-expand-speed-up-lcs-modifications.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm |archive-date=4 June 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> In order to free up weight to include the new systems, the frigates will remove certain items from the LCS that will no longer be needed, such as the crane and other handling equipment needed to launch and recover the RMMV for the MCM mission package, which the frigate upgrade does not have.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.usni.org/2015/04/15/frigate-will-leverage-littoral-combat-ship-testing-focus-on-new-combat-systems |title=Frigate Will Leverage Littoral Combat Ship Testing, Focus on New Combat Systems |last=Eckstein |first=Megan |website= USNI |date=15 April 2015 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160422025454/https://news.usni.org/2015/04/15/frigate-will-leverage-littoral-combat-ship-testing-focus-on-new-combat-systems |archive-date=22 April 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> In order to accommodate the changes while using the same hull designs, the original LCS high sprint speed has been dropped for the frigate to optimize it for survivability and lethality; it will also deploy two 7-meter RHIBs rather than the 11-meter RHIBs previously used.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.usni.org/2015/10/15/navys-future-frigate-will-be-optimized-for-lethality-survivability-will-not-retain-lcss-speed |title=Navy's Future Frigate Will Be Optimized For Lethality, Survivability; Will Not Retain LCS's Speed |last= Eckstein |first=Megan |website= USNI |date=15 October 2015 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160321143912/http://news.usni.org/2015/10/15/navys-future-frigate-will-be-optimized-for-lethality-survivability-will-not-retain-lcss-speed |archive-date=21 March 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

A report released in September 2015 indicated that the first 24 ships would retain the basic design principles of the LCS program, with upgrades where needed. This group would be considered "Block 0" and also retain the "LCS" designation, for the time being. Ships 25 through 32, "Block 1" would include significant upgrades and design changes, inline with the intended capabilities of the last 20 ships of the total 52-ship procurement, these being the new "Frigate" class. The new frigates will be larger, have increased defensive and survivability capabilities and more permanent missions packages, as opposed to the original modular design.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf |title=Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress |last=O'Rourke |first=Ronald |publisher= Congressional Research Service |date=18 April 2016 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160402160813/https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33741.pdf |archive-date=2 April 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Reduced procurement and early retirement===
On 14 December 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the Navy to reduce the planned procurement of LCS and FF ships from 52 to 40, and down-select to one variant by FY 2019. The intent of this cut was to reallocate funds to other priorities, including buying more F-35C Lightning II and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters, and SM-6 missiles, accelerating Flight III ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyer DDG-51 acquisition, and expanding development of the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) for the Block V {{sclass|Virginia|submarine|1}}. Though fewer ships will be available in some instances, those needs will be met by higher-end ships to ensure forces in various fleets have the capabilities and posture to defeat potential advanced adversaries.<ref name="militarytimes17dec15">{{cite web |url= http://www.militarytimes.com/story/defense/naval/2015/12/16/littoral-combat-ship-lcs-navy-budget-fighter-super-hornet-joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin-fincantieri-austal/77452734/ |title=Pentagon Cuts LCS to 40 Ships, 1 Shipbuilder |last=Cavas |first=Christopher P. |website= Military times |date=17 December 2015 |access-date=2 May 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160106151042/http://www.militarytimes.com/story/defense/naval/2015/12/16/littoral-combat-ship-lcs-navy-budget-fighter-super-hornet-joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin-fincantieri-austal/77452734/ |archive-date= 6 January 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.usni.org/2015/12/16/secdef-carter-directs-navy-to-cut-littoral-combat-ship-program-to-40-hulls-single-shipbuilder |title=SECDEF Carter Directs Navy to Cut Littoral Combat Ship Program to 40 Hulls, Single Shipbuilder |website= USNI |date=16 December 2015 |access-date=2 May 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160414173504/https://news.usni.org/2015/12/16/secdef-carter-directs-navy-to-cut-littoral-combat-ship-program-to-40-hulls-single-shipbuilder |archive-date=14 April 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In February 2020, media reports stated that the U.S. Navy, as part of its fiscal 2021 budget, proposed to retire the first four LCSs in 2021 as part of a cost-savings measure. If approved, these would be USS ''Freedom'' and USS ''Fort Worth'' from the ''Freedom'' class, and USS ''Independence'' and USS ''Coronado'' from the ''Independence'' class. This plan has yet to be approved by Congress.<ref>{{Cite web | work = The drive |url= https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32148/the-navy-now-wants-to-retire-the-first-four-of-its-troublesome-littoral-combat-ships|title=The Navy Now Wants to Retire the First Four of Its Troublesome Littoral Combat Ships| date=10 February 2020 |access-date=18 February 2020 |archive-date= 15 February 2020|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200215011821/https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32148/the-navy-now-wants-to-retire-the-first-four-of-its-troublesome-littoral-combat-ships |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/24/us-navy-proposes-decommissioning-first-4-lcs-more-than-a-decade-early/ |title= US Navy proposes decommissioning first four LCS more than a decade early | work =Defense News |date=24 December 2019 |access-date=18 February 2020 |archive-date= 18 November 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20211118103311/https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/24/us-navy-proposes-decommissioning-first-4-lcs-more-than-a-decade-early/ |url-status= live}}</ref><ref>[https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/us-navy-to-retire-first-4-littoral-combat-ships "US Navy To Retire First 4 Littoral Combat Ships"] {{Webarchive |url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200222022226/https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/us-navy-to-retire-first-4-littoral-combat-ships |date=22 February 2020}}. The diplomat, 14 Feb 2020</ref>

On 18 June 2021, ''Naval News'' reported that, in a report to Congress, the Navy planned to inactivate ''Fort Worth'', ''Coronado'', ''Detroit'' and ''Little Rock'' in Fiscal Year 2022 and put them on the Out of Commission in Reserve (OCIR) list.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Manaranche|first=Martin|date= 2021-06-18 |title=U.S. Navy Issues FY22 Shipbuilding And Decommissioning Totals to Congress |url= https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/06/u-s-navy-issues-fy22-shipbuilding-and-decommissioning-totals-to-congress/ |access-date= 2021-06-18|website=Naval News|language=en-US|archive-date= 18 June 2021|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210618115805/https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/06/u-s-navy-issues-fy22-shipbuilding-and-decommissioning-totals-to-congress/ |url-status= live}}</ref> In the final budget Congress forbade the Navy from retiring the three ''Freedom'' class ships in Fiscal Year 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaGrone |first=Sam |url=https://news.usni.org/2022/03/09/last-minute-fy-22-728-5b-defense-bill-funds-13-navy-ships-12-f-a-18s-saves-3-lcs-from-decommissioning |title=Last Minute FY 22 $728.5B Defense Bill Funds 13 Navy Ships, 12 F/A-18s; Saves 3 LCS From Decommissioning |website= USNI |date= 10 March 2022 |access-date= 28 April 2022}}</ref> By May 2022, the Navy shifted its plans to decommission nine LCS warships in Fiscal Year 2023, citing their ineffective anti-submarine warfare system, their inability to perform any of the Navy's missions, constant breakdowns, and structural failures in high-stress areas of the ships.<ref>{{Cite web |last1= Liebermann |first1=Oren |last2=Kaufman |first2=Ellie |last3= Lendon |first3=Brad |date=2022-05-12 |title=US Navy chief defends plan to scrap troubled warships even though some are less than 3 years old |url= https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/politics/us-navy-scrap-warships/ |access-date=2022-05-13 |website=CNN}}</ref>

==Foreign sales==
Saudi Arabia and [[Place:Israel|Israel]] both expressed an interest in a modified version of the ''Freedom'' variant, the LCS-I,<ref>{{cite web |url= http://defense-update.com/newscast/1107/news/141107_lcsi.htm |title= Israel's Littoral Combat Ship Program (LCS-I) |website= Defense update |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120406145550/http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/1107/news/141107_lcsi.htm |archive-date= 6 April 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref> but Israel dropped out of this project in favor of a new frigate design to be built in Israel.<ref>{{cite web | work = Defense industry daily |url= https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/an-lcs-for-israel-04065/ |title= Son of Sa'ar |date= Feb 23, 2022 |access-date= May 28, 2022}}</ref> Interest by Saudi Arabia in LCS continues however. Media reports indicate that Saudi Arabia could buy two to four ships of Lockheed Martin's ''Freedom''-class LCS variant as part of the Saudi Arabian Naval Expansion Program II—a program to modernize the nation's oldest warships operating in the Persian Gulf.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://news.usni.org/2015/09/15/reports-saudis-interested-in-lockheed-martin-littoral-combat-ship-as-part-of-20b-fleet-expansion |title= Reports: Saudis Interested in Lockheed Martin Littoral Combat Ship as Part of $20B Fleet Expansion |date= 15 September 2015 |access-date= 15 September 2015 | publisher= United States Naval Institute |last= LaGrone |first= Sam |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150916123629/http://news.usni.org/2015/09/15/reports-saudis-interested-in-lockheed-martin-littoral-combat-ship-as-part-of-20b-fleet-expansion |archive-date= 16 September 2015 |url-status= live}}</ref> On 22 May 2017, as part of an arms deal between the United States and Saudi Arabia, the acquisition of four Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC) ships based on the ''Freedom''-class LCS was announced.<ref>{{cite web|title=Saudi Arabia Procures Four MMSC based on Lockheed Martin's Freedom LCS |url= http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/may-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5224-saudi-arabia-procures-four-mmsc-based-on-lockheed-martin-s-freedom-lcs.html |website=Navy Recognition |access-date= 27 May 2017|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170525093404/http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/may-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5224-saudi-arabia-procures-four-mmsc-based-on-lockheed-martin-s-freedom-lcs.html|archive-date=25 May 2017 |url-status= live}}</ref>

In October 2010, the Taiwanese navy showed interest in procuring U.S. littoral combat ships, to replace aging {{sclass|Knox|frigate|1}}s.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1152955&lang=eng_news |title=MND denies having finalized aging frigate replacement plan |newspaper=Taiwan News |date=11 January 2010 |access-date=8 May 2012 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111213173050/http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1152955&lang=eng_news |archive-date=13 December 2011 |url-status= dead}}</ref> In November 2023, Taiwanese media reported that Taiwanese navy was planning to procure littoral combat ships with support from the Legislative Yuan. However, the Taiwanese Navy denied the plan.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=24&SerialNo=187765 |title=傳美軍要求台灣採購濱海戰鬥艦？　國防部駁：無規劃 |website=Up Media |date=20 November 2023 |author=鍾知諭 |language=Traditional Chinese}}</ref> According to analysts, the probability of introducing LCS to Taiwan was low due the incompatibility with existing naval infrastructure and combat system, high maintenance requirement, high cost of sustainment, and the possibility of introducing propaganda opportunity for {{wipe|China}} considering LCS's poor reputation.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twvanguard.com/%E8%BB%8D%E4%BA%8B%E7%86%B1%E9%BB%9E/14052/ |title=【梅復興觀點】籌購LCS「濱海作戰艦」的省思（下） |website=Taiwan Vanguard |date=20 November 2023 |author=梅復興 |language=Traditional Chinese}}</ref>

Japan will design its own version of the ''Independence'' class.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20140307000045 |title=Japan to design own version of littoral combat ship with US help |date=7 March 2014 |website= Want China times |access-date= 7 March 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140310154049/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20140307000045 |archive-date= 10 March 2014}}</ref> The warship concept was unveiled in the defense trade-show MAST Asia 2017.<ref>{{Cite web |url= http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2017/mast-asia-2017-show-daily-news/5283-mast-asia-2017-japan-s-atla-unveils-future-multi-purpose-trimaran-concept.html |title=MAST Asia 2017: Japan's ATLA Unveils Future Multi Purpose Trimaran Concept |date= 13 June 2017 |website=Navy Recognition |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20190413022445/http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2017/mast-asia-2017-show-daily-news/5283-mast-asia-2017-japan-s-atla-unveils-future-multi-purpose-trimaran-concept.html |archive-date= 13 April 2019 |url-status= live |access-date= 12 April 2019}}</ref>

The Royal Malaysian Navy has also built its littoral combat ship based on the [[Engineering:Gowind-class design|''Gowind''-class design]], named [[Engineering:Maharaja Lela-class frigate|''Maharaja Lela''-class frigate]].<ref>{{Cite web |last= Yeo |first= Mike|date=2017-08-24|title= Malaysia launches its first French-designed LCS as Navy moves to modernize |url= https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2017/08/24/malaysia-launches-its-first-french-designed-lcs-as-navy-moves-to-modernize/ |access-date=2021-03-28|website= Defense News |language= en-US |archive-date= 18 November 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20211118103432/https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2017/08/24/malaysia-launches-its-first-french-designed-lcs-as-navy-moves-to-modernize/ |url-status= live}}</ref>

==List of littoral combat ships==
[[File:Flickr - Official U.S. Navy Imagery - The first of class littoral combat ships USS Freedom and USS Independence maneuver together during an exercise off the coast of Southern California. (2).jpg|thumb|First ships of each class of littoral combat ships, USS ''Freedom'' and USS ''Independence'', maneuver together during an exercise off the coast of Southern California, 2011]]
{{As of|2019|December}}, a total of 35 littoral combat ships is planned, including 16 ''Freedom''-class ships and 19 ''Independence''-class ships.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The US Navy -- Fact File: Littoral Combat Ship Class - LCS |url=https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1650&ct=4 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190503230720/https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1650&ct=4 |archive-date=3 May 2019 |access-date=17 February 2019}}</ref> Ships are assigned to either Littoral Combat Ship Squadron One,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcsron1/Pages/default.aspx|title=Cmdr, LCSRON1|publisher=public.navy.mil|access-date=25 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180226211745/http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lcsron1/Pages/default.aspx|archive-date=26 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navy.mil/local/lcsron1/|title=LCSRON1 homepage|publisher=navy.mil|access-date=25 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180226211808/http://www.navy.mil/local/lcsron1/|archive-date=26 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> based in San Diego Ca., or Littoral Combat Ship Squadron Two,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.public.navy.mil/surflant/lcsron2/Pages/default.aspx/|title=LCSRON2|publisher=public.navy.mil|access-date=25 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180226211746/http://www.public.navy.mil/surflant/lcsron2/Pages/default.aspx/|archive-date=26 February 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84442|title=Littoral Combat Ship Squadron 2 Established|publisher=navy.mil|date=14 November 2014|access-date=25 February 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180119235142/http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84442|archive-date=19 January 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> based in Mayport, Florida.

{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"
|+ List of littoral combat ships
|-
! scope="col" | Hull
! scope="col" | Name
! scope="col" | Variant
! scope="col" | Commissioning
! scope="col" | Decommissioned
! scope="col" | Homeport
! scope="col" | Builder
! scope="col" | Notes
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-1
! scope="row" |{{USS|Freedom|LCS-1|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 8 October 2008
| 29 September 2021
| ''n/a''
| Marinette Marine
| Decommissioned 29 September 2021 in San Diego, CA<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-10-04|title=Navy Decommissions First Littoral Combat Ship USS Freedom, Strikes Tug USNS Sioux |url=https://news.usni.org/2021/10/04/navy-decommissions-first-littoral-combat-ship-uss-freedom-strikes-tug-usns-sioux|access-date=2021-10-06|website=USNI News|language=en-US|archive-date=6 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211006012441/https://news.usni.org/2021/10/04/navy-decommissions-first-littoral-combat-ship-uss-freedom-strikes-tug-usns-sioux |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-2
! scope="row" |{{USS|Independence|LCS-2|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 16 October 2010
| 29 July 2021
| ''n/a''
| Austal USA
| Decommissioned 29 July 2021 in San Diego, CA<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title=USS Independence (LCS 2) Decommissions After Distinguished Service |url=https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2713512/uss-independence-lcs-2-decommissions-after-distinguished-service/|access-date=2021-07-30|website=United States Navy|language=en-US|archive-date=30 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210730200438/https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2713512/uss-independence-lcs-2-decommissions-after-distinguished-service/ |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-3
! scope="row" |{{USS|Fort Worth}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 22 September 2012
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-4
! scope="row" |{{USS|Coronado|LCS-4|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 5 April 2014
| 14 September 2022
| ''n/a''
| Austal USA
| Decommissioned 14 September 2022 in San Diego, CA<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|last=Burgess|first=Richard R.|date=2021-07-09|title=Navy Details 2022 Ship Retirement Schedule |url=https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-details-2022-ship-retirement-schedule/|access-date=2021-07-12|website=Seapower|language=en-US|archive-date=12 July 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210712113054/https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-details-2022-ship-retirement-schedule/ |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-5
! scope="row" |{{USS|Milwaukee|LCS-5|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 15 November 2015
| 8 September 2023
| ''n/a''
| Marinette Marine
| Decommissioned 8 September 2023 in Mayport, FL<ref>{{Cite web| date=2023-09-08|title=USS Milwaukee decommissioned, combat ship active since 2015 |url=https://www.fox6now.com/news/uss-milwaukee-decommissioned-combat-ship-active-november-2015|access-date=2023-09-09|website=FOX 6 Milwaukee |language=en-US}}</ref>
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-6
! scope="row" |{{USS|Jackson|LCS-6|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 5 December 2015
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|Scheduled to be decommissioned in 2024.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Mongilio |first=Heather |date=2023-09-27 |title=Navy to Decommission Littoral Combat Ships USS Little Rock, USS Detroit This Week |work=USNI News |url=https://news.usni.org/2023/09/27/navy-to-decommission-littoral-combat-ships-uss-little-rock-uss-detroit-this-week |access-date=2023-10-03}}</ref>
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-7
! scope="row" |{{USS|Detroit|LCS-7|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 22 October 2016
| 29 September 2023
| Philadelphia Navy Yard
| Marinette Marine
| On hold at NISMF pending foreign military sale
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-8
! scope="row" |{{USS|Montgomery|LCS-8|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 10 September 2016
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|Scheduled to be decommissioned in 2024.<ref name=":4" />
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-9
! scope="row" |{{USS|Little Rock|LCS-9|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 16 December 2017
| 29 September 2023
| Philadelphia Navy Yard
| Marinette Marine
| On hold at NISMF pending foreign military sale
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-10
! scope="row" |{{USS|Gabrielle Giffords|}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 10 June 2017
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-11
! scope="row" |{{USS|Sioux City|}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 17 November 2018
| 14 August 2023
| ''n/a''
| Marinette Marine
| Decommissioned 14 August 2023 in Mayport, FL<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|date=2023-08-14|title=USS Sioux City officially decommissioned |url=https://www.ktiv.com/2023/08/14/uss-sioux-city-officially-decommissioned/|access-date=2023-08-14|website=KTIV Television|language=en-US}}</ref>
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-12
! scope="row" |{{USS|Omaha|LCS-12|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 3 February 2018
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-13
! scope="row" |{{USS|Wichita|LCS-13|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 12 January 2019
|
| Naval Station Mayport
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-14
! scope="row" |{{USS|Manchester|LCS-14|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 26 May 2018
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-15
! scope="row" |{{USS|Billings|}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 3 August 2019
|
| Naval Station Mayport
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-16
! scope="row" |{{USS|Tulsa|LCS-16|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 16 February 2019
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-17
! scope="row" |{{USS|Indianapolis|LCS-17|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 26 October 2019
|
| Naval Station Mayport
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-18
! scope="row" |{{USS|Charleston|LCS-18|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 2 March 2019
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-19
! scope="row" |{{USS|St. Louis|LCS-19|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 8 August 2020
|
| Naval Station Mayport
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-20
! scope="row" |{{USS|Cincinnati|LCS-20|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 5 October 2019
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-21
! scope="row" |{{USS|Minneapolis-Saint Paul|LCS-21|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 21 May 2022
|
| Naval Station Mayport
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-22
! scope="row" |{{USS|Kansas City|LCS-22|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 20 June 2020
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-23
! scope="row" |{{USS|Cooperstown|}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 6 May 2023
|
| Naval Station Mayport
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-24
! scope="row" |{{USS|Oakland|LCS-24|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 17 April 2021
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-25
! scope="row" |{{USS|Marinette|LCS-25|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 16 September 2023
|
|
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-26
! scope="row" |{{USS|Mobile|LCS-26|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 22 May 2021
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-27
! scope="row" |{{USS|Nantucket|LCS-27|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
|
|
|
| Marinette Marine
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-28
! scope="row" |{{USS|Savannah|LCS-28|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 5 February 2022
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-29
! scope="row" |{{USS|Beloit|LCS-29|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
|
|
|
| Marinette Marine
|<ref name="New LCS">{{Cite web|last=Program Executive Office Unmanned and Small Combatants|date=2018-09-18|title=Navy Awards Three Littoral Combat Ships |url=https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/1637672/navy-awards-three-littoral-combat-ships/|access-date=2021-03-28|website=Naval Sea Systems Command|language=en-US|archive-date=18 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211118103313/https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/1637672/navy-awards-three-littoral-combat-ships/ |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-30
! scope="row" |{{USS|Canberra|LCS-30|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 22 July 2023
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-31
! scope="row" |{{USS|Cleveland|LCS-31|6}}
| {{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
|
|
|
|Marinette Marine
|<ref>{{Cite web|last=NAVSEA, Office of Corporate Communications|date=2019-01-15|title=Navy Statement on Littoral Combat Ship |url=https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/1732665/navy-statement-on-littoral-combat-ship/|access-date=2021-03-28|website=Naval Sea Systems Command|language=en-US|archive-date=29 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190729122709/https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/1732665/navy-statement-on-littoral-combat-ship/ |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-32
! scope="row" |{{USS|Santa Barbara|LCS-32|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 1 April 2023
|
|Naval Base San Diego
|Austal USA
|<ref name="New LCS"/><!----
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-33
|Unnamed
|{{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
|
|
|Marinette Marine||---->
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-34
! scope="row" |{{USS|Augusta|LCS-34|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
| 30 September 2023
|
| Naval Base San Diego
| Austal USA
|
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-36
! scope="row" |{{USS|Kingsville|LCS-36|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
|
|
|
|Austal USA
|<ref name="LCS36&38">{{cite web |url=http://www.austal.com/news/austal-awarded-lcs-36-and-38 |title=AUSTAL AWARDED LCS 36, AND 38 |publisher=Austal |date=16 December 2018 |access-date=17 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181218054335/http://www.austal.com/news/austal-awarded-lcs-36-and-38 |archive-date=18 December 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><!----
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-37
|Unnamed
|{{sclass|Freedom|littoral combat ship|5}}
|
|
|Marinette Marine||---->
|-
! scope="row" |LCS-38
! scope="row" |{{USS|Pierre|LCS-38|6}}
| {{sclass|Independence|littoral combat ship|5}}
|
|
|
|Austal USA
|<ref name="LCS36&38"/>
|}
Note: The Navy has yet to place orders for 17th, 18th, and 19th ''Freedom''-class variants. Should that occur, they will be entered on this list as "LCS-33", "LCS-35", and "LCS-37".

==See also==
{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}
* Sea Fighter (FSF-1), experimental USN littoral combat ship
* Project 22160-class patrol ship
* {{sclass2|Gowind|corvette|1}}
* {{sclass|Braunschweig|corvette|1}}
* {{sclass|Holland|offshore patrol vessel|1}}
* {{sclass|Kamorta|corvette|1}}
* {{sclass|Khareef|corvette|1}}
* {{sclass|Tuo Chiang|corvette|1}}
* Type 056 corvette
* {{sclass|La Fayette|frigate|1}}
* {{sclass2|River|patrol vessel|1}}
* [[Engineering:MEKO|MEKO]] or "littoral combatant ship"
* Milgem-class corvette
* {{sclass2|Sigma|corvette|1}}
* Doha-class corvette
* Fleet class USV – An unmanned surface vessel designed to be carried by the LCS, and used for MCM & ASW.
* [[Engineering:IRobot Seaglider|iRobot Seaglider]] – UUV tested for use with Persistent Littoral Undersea Surveillance (PLUS) prototype system.
* [[Engineering:Juliet Marine Systems Ghost|Juliet Marine Systems Ghost]], a proposed replacement for the LCS
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{Cite news |first=Joaquin |last=Sapien |date=2023-09-07 |title=The Inside Story of How the Navy Spent Billions on the "Little Crappy Ship": How the Navy Spent Billions on Failed Littoral Combat Ship Program |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230907105013/https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship |archive-date=2023-09-07 |access-date=2023-09-09 |website=ProPublica}}

==External links==
*[https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1650&ct=4 Official U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ship Class Fact File]
*[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102789.html?hpid=topnews GAO criticizes cost overruns] First two LCSs to exceed budget of $472&nbsp;million by more than 100 percent.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20111020205834/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2006/NATIONSFIRSTLITTORALCOMBATSHIPCHRIS.html Press Release] from Lockheed Martin Corporation on the launch of LCS-1 ''Freedom''.
*[http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/the-usas-new-littoral-combat-ships-updated/index.php Defense Industry Daily] LCS info, pictures, timeline, links to pages about LCS robot vehicles.
*https://web.archive.org/web/20070623104736/http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/
*{{curlie|Regional/North_America/United_States/Government/Military/Navy/Ships/Surface_Combatant/Littoral_Combat_Ship/}}
*[https://www.austal.com/ Official Austal website]
*[http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=10396 Press Release] issued from the Department of Defense relating to the Stop Work order.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20160304023316/http://www.windsofchange.net/images/SHIP_LCS-GD_cutaway.png General Dynamic LCS cutaway view painting]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20091026165942/http://www.lmlcsteam.com/video/day-in-life.html Lockheed Day In The Life video]
*[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/25ship.html Lesson on How Not to Build a Navy Ship]
*[http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showgallery.php/cat/4869 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Pictures] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807000822/http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showgallery.php/cat/4869 |date=7 August 2010}} Pictures at DefenceTalk
*[http://www.defencetalk.com/tag/littoral-combat-ship/ Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) News] News at DefenceTalk


[[Category:Ship types]]
[[Category:Weapon development]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Littoral_Combat_Ship}}

{{Sourceattribution|Littoral combat ship}}