--- title: "Congress Is Giving The Navy 3 More Littoral Combat Ships Than It Wants Or Needs" date: "2018-09-19" modified: "2018-09-19" authors: - name: "Paul Szoldra" job_title: "Editor" link: "https://taskandpurpose.com/authors/paul-szoldra.md" url: "https://taskandpurpose.com/news/littoral-combat-ships-congress-ndaa/" categories: - "Analysis" - "Military Branches" - "Navy" - "News" - "Ships" - "Tech & Tactics" --- # Congress Is Giving The Navy 3 More Littoral Combat Ships Than It Wants Or Needs ![]() Lawmakers are giving the U.S. Navy three more littoral combat ships than the service actually wants or needs, because of course they would. Although the Navy set a requirement of 32 LCS', lawmakers offered up funding for three more while cutting funding for modules that would make the current ships more useful, such as an anti-submarine warfare package and a variable-depth sonar. As Defense News' David Larter [reports](): *The annual cutting spree has created a baffling cycle of inanity wherein Congress, unhappy with the development of the modules falling behind schedule, will cut funding and cause development to fall further behind schedule, according to a source familiar with the details of the impact of the cuts who spoke on background. All this while Congress continues to pump money into building ships without any of the mission packages having achieved what’s known as initial operating capability, meaning the equipment is ready to deploy in some capacity.* *(The surface warfare version has IOC-ed some initial capabilities but is adding a Longbow Hellfire missile system that will be delayed with cuts, the source said.)* The Navy isn't the only service to deal with this kind of weirdness. [The Army, for example](), repeatedly and emphatically told Congress, *please, for the love of all that's holy, do not give us money for any more tanks*, before lawmakers authorized a truckload of cash for the service to buy more or upgrade its existing tanks. Then, of course, there is the issue of the LCS itself, which has been unofficially dubbed the "Little Crappy Ship" due its host of problems, from insane cost overruns to lack of survivability. Or its absence in the deployment schedule, despite nearly a dozen ships being deemed ready. Still, funding more of a terrible ship rather than improving the existing ones is pretty much par for the course in the defense contracting world. With LCS numbers 33, 34, and 35, we're just seeing the most recent examples. ![]() ## Author Paul Szoldra was the Editor in Chief of Task & Purpose from October 2018 until August 2022. Since joining T&P, he has led a talented team of writers, editors, and creators who produce military journalism reaching millions of readers each month. He also founded and edits [Duffel Blog](), a popular satirical newsletter for the military. Before becoming a journalist in 2013, he served as a Marine infantryman in Afghanistan, Korea, and other areas of the Pacific. His eyes still go up every time a helicopter from Camp Pendleton flies over his office in Southern California. ### Author social links [Twitter]() [LinkedIn]() [Facebook]() [Instagram]() ## More - [Say Hello To The Latest In The Navy’s Most Godawful Line Of Warships]() - [The Navy Needs To Stop Buying Big Ships To Do All Its Small Jobs]() - [The Navy wants to slap a laser on a littoral combat ship for the first time]() - [Navy relieves commander of littoral combat ship on deployment]() - [Did The Navy Just Admit The Littoral Combat Ship Is A Failure?]() - [The Navy Is Finally Deploying Its Worst Warship Again After Years Of Problems]() - [The Navy is upgrading littoral combat ships to fight drones]() - [US Navy decommissions another littoral combat ship, the USS Milwaukee]()