Comments on: Navy-Coast Guard Ship Merger Proposed

By: buy dofus kamas

buy dofus kamas — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:32:32 +0000

I thought that if I love her I could like her all things, so in order let her in the game felt happy, I spend many money to buy dofus kamas for her.

By: kamas

kamas — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:19:36 +0000

Speak our story now, perhaps our story was very common, I met her in the last year, at that time we only said a few words, at that time she was buy the kamas now, we changed our telephone each other, from then on

By: Knight gold

Knight gold — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:18:46 +0000

It represents K2 Network commitment to offering cheap Knight gold what today is gamers want and approach to innovation and creativity.

By: Tibia Gold

Tibia Gold — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:17:31 +0000

When some trusted players were given to the opportunity to buy Tibia Gold expand selected parts of the game world, I as well as several others stepped in. My submissions sometimes were too ambitious

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:38:06 +0000

Navy should do this with ALL CG cutters alone & recuse DDs, DDGs, FFs as replacement CG cutters.
(new paint & new name & equip, same hull & engine & some weapons deck).
Save $$$$$$$, good call.
More jobs.

By: Stitch

Stitch — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:39:58 +0000

Combining these two programs is just scratching the surface. There is so much potential by shifting our shipbuilding paradigm.
As of now, we have a significant disconnect between the requirements process, acquisition and procurement processes and finally outfitting the ship for sea duty.
The entire process can take up to 10–12 years to take a concept and actually turn it into usable fighting machine. For example, when a ship is originally designed, the information technology will go through a minimum of 12 technology updates and possibly 3–4 major improvements; i.e. single servers to blade servers.
What I believe we need is to develop specific hull designs for specific mission requirements; i.e. blue water vs. brown. Next, standard packages; galleys, communications, engine and power plants will serve for all hull designs.
The specific mission packages will be designed and constructed as needed to constrained physcial sizes and tested separately.
As the hulls are completed, standard packages and the appropriate mission modules can be assembled in the yards based upon the current threat and mission needs.
In the future retrofits will be dramatically improved as old modules are removed and new ones added.
Currently, the NAVY is using this concept on the LCS, except the mission packages are on the deck in steel containers, not integral to the ship.
The time is right, and the NAVY and Congress are trying to resolve these issues but it is going to take some bold new ideas and strong leadership to take advantage of standardization and modular design.
p.s. it is ashame that the PEO was fired. The LCS program was a result of the Cole and a lot of stops were pulled out to try and get a new ship a float. He (or she) was a casuality of the process.

By: jajj

jajj — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:48:19 +0000

OK, Up here in the northwest we had a big write up on campain donations and mysterious funds being given to build boats nobody requested. To find the story it is in the Seattle Times, Sunday 2007OCT14, “$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted”. Now this may be a place to find waste. Why not use monies to build boats we need, not to repay for large campaing donations. Amazingly enough this is not mentioned in the story above. The party whining about waste dosn’t look into the waste it has produces itself.
This may (will) spark more debate over waste on the other side of the fence, so let the slinging begin, but it doesn’t excuse it in this or any instance. (Yes there is waste everywhere. And in case there is a comment on waste abroad, I was there doing my part as well.) We can point fingers everywhere, but we do need to find the waste and stop it in any instance we can find. Something as blaintant as this without holding your own party accountable is a problem. It is a thing of look there’s a problem, but we caused it, let’s fix it before we have a knee jerk reaction. It’s time we look at the cause of the problem and fixing those instead of doing something just as stupid as what had caused it.
jajj

By: murc

murc — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:25:20 +0000

I will never understand the way these people think. thye make every decision be harder then it really is.
Hopefully after enough people get fired, things will straighten up a bit.

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:43:38 +0000

It’s amazing that the people who will man and command the new ships never seem to be included in the talk of what should be included and excluded. The admirals think they have all the answers.
After all, they commanded a ship … 10 or 15 years ago … and it’s not possible that anything has changed.
They need to get input from the crews of the newest ships to find out what still needs to be tweaked, removed or added. And they need to plan for the next decades war, not the last decade.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:30:00 +0000

Why am I skeptical that having an incompetent contract management office in the Coast Guard try to coordinante with an incompetent contract management office in the Navy is going to produce a better managed ship building process? Maybe would should pull in the incompetent managers of the Air Force air tanker program, and the Air Force contract mangers that managed to bungle a commercial off the shelf helicopter purchase for the Army (they forgot to order the air conditioner option needed to make the electronics work) out of retirement just for good measure.