The minesweeper instrument on my project got moved to the LCS so they could add another mission to the ship’s capability. But the instrument weighed 1,000 pounds and was helicopter towed by a MH-53. To move it they had to tow it with the much smaller LCS’ MH-60. Towing with the 60 meant the helicopter had to go so slow that if there was a problem they’d drop in the drink before recovery. So, they regularly towed it faster which put them at the edge of their stress level. The pilots regularly guillotined the $150k tow cables and lost the multi-million dollar package thereby requiring a $300k deep dive recovery. So, the political decision to move the mission to a ship it was unsuited for led to the Navy losing a potentially good minesweeping device. Pure politics.
I have to wonder what other mission were moved to the LCS for which it is also unsuited. For example, Hezbollah has Chinese made, Iranian supplied anti-ship missiles it fires from shore. They have hit five Israeli patrol boats resulting in loss of life. The Israeli boats are MUCH smaller and harder to hit.
Also, a single mine would destroy the LCS’s very light hull. I think this is another idea-fart from a planner who spent his career at a desk.
What do you think of the idea of just building additional San Antonio class amphibious transport dock ships, capable of fielding a variety of manned and unmanned vessels and mission packages? The ships could sit further out at sea, out of range of shore-based anti-ship missiles, while being able to haul and support larger vessels for close littoral work.
And when not needed for LCS-type tasks, the ships would be available in case we again needed amphibious capability again.