DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Polmar's Perspective » Ships that Won’t Sail

Ships that Won’t Sail

lpd-17.jpg

“No more amphib excuses” reads the head­line of a recent edi­to­r­ial in Navy Times news­pa­per. The edi­to­r­ial went on to enu­mer­ate some of the prob­lems being encoun­tered by the Navy’s new amphibi­ous ships of the San Antonio (LPD 17) class.

After a con­struc­tion period that lasted twice as long as planned, and cost twice as much as orig­i­nally bud­geted, the San Antonio was belat­edly placed in com­mis­sion on 14 January 2006.

But the ship was not ready for ser­vice and, after two and a half years of being “fixed,” the San Antonio was to deploy with an amphibi­ous group. But on the eve of her August sail­ing it was dis­cov­ered that there were prob­lems with the stern gate to her dock­ing well, where LCU land­ing craft and AAV amphib­ian assault vehi­cles are car­ried and discharged.

After addi­tional work was per­formed the ship was able to deploy two days later.

Still, the San Antonio prob­a­bly goes down in Navy his­tory as hav­ing taken the longest time on record from being placed in com­mis­sion to first deploy­ment. This is amaz­ing when one con­sid­ers that the LPDs are basi­cally “trans­port ships” with dock­ing wells and heli­copter decks. The Navy has been build­ing dock­ing well ships since the early 1940s, with the first, the USS Ashland (LSD 1), com­pleted in 1943.

The new LPDs have rel­a­tively sim­ple and basic sys­tems — no high-​​tech radars, no sonar, no advanced mis­siles, no nuclear propul­sion, no advanced elec­tronic war­fare sys­tems. Okay. As the Navy Times edi­to­r­ial of 8 September pointed out, the Navy and indus­try spokes­men “repeat­edly have given the same excuse: You will always have issues with the first ship of a class.”

That is not a true state­ment — look at the inter­vals between being placed in com­mis­sion and the first deploy­ment of the first U.S. nuclear-​​propelled sub­ma­rine, the Nautilus (SSN 571); the first Polaris sub­ma­rine, the George Washington (SSBN 598); the first nuclear sur­face war­ship, the Long Beach (CGN 9); the first Aegis war­ship, the Ticonderoga (CG 47); and many other high-​​tech lead ships.

Now the sec­ond ship of the San Antonio class, the USS New Orleans (LPD 18), has been found to suf­fer from a long list of prob­lems. That ship, also behind sched­ule and far over cost, was com­mis­sioned on 5 March 2007 — a year and a half ago. The recent report of a Navy inspec­tion team con­cludes that the ship “can­not sup­port embarked troops, cargo or land­ing craft,” and was deemed “degraded in her abil­ity to con­duct sus­tained com­bat operations.”

These ships were built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems at Avondale, Louisiana. An addi­tional ship, the Mesa Verde (LPD 19), was com­mis­sioned on 15 December 2007, and sev­eral more are under con­struc­tion at the yard.

By accept­ing these ships the Navy has taken respon­si­bil­ity away from the ship­builder to pay for fix­ing these mas­sive prob­lems. Beyond these issues, the basic design of the LPD 17 must also be ques­tioned. Compared to the Navy’s pre­vi­ous LPD class of 12 ships com­pleted from 1965 to 1971, the San Antonio class is one-​​third larger (24,900 tons com­pared to 16,585 tons), but has min­i­mal improve­ments in troop, vehi­cle, and land­ing craft capac­i­ties, with a slight increase in speed.

Coupled with the delays and major cost increases in the Navy’s lit­toral com­bat ship (LCS) pro­gram, and the Navy’s con­tin­ued con­fu­sion and changes in the DDG 1000 advanced destroyer pro­gram, the cred­i­bil­ity of the Navy’s ship­build­ing efforts must be ques­tioned. When addressed in the broad con­text of the shrink­ing size of the fleet and the expected reduc­tions in ship­build­ing bud­gets, the sit­u­a­tion should be con­sid­ered critical

– Norman Polmar

Share |

September 19th, 2008 | Polmar's Perspective | 408455 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/09/19/ships-that-wont-sail/Ships+that+Won%27t+Sail2008-09-19+10%3A18%3A16Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « New AF Dress Coat Left Flapping in the Wind | Iranian Cyber Warfare Threat Assessment » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Valcan says:
    September 19, 2008 at 6:39 am

    Ok what the heak is going on over at Fleet HQ.
    fist theres bil­lion dol­lar “destroy­ers” that are 700ft long and cant take a hit but are sup­posed to sup­port amphib. land­ings.
    Then like you said theres the LCS pro­gram which sounds good (id go with the tri­marid­ian hulled ver­sion btw just my .02)but is way over bud­get.
    and now this a sim­ple ship that aparently from inception…sucks and any­one find it inter­est­ing those retards decided the ship the metal from the twin tow­ers would be in a troop transport…that cant trans­port troops.
    God help us some­one go kick the entire pen­te­gon in the nuts…

    Reply
  2. Camp says:
    September 19, 2008 at 8:55 am

    “Future Weapons: USS San Antonio (LPD-​​17)“
    http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​4​w​T​m​6​i​l​V​Lok

    Reply
  3. C-Low says:
    September 19, 2008 at 9:52 am

    Over reg­u­la­tion and gov­ern­ment intru­sion has stran­gled, hand­i­capped, and finally crip­pled the US indus­trial base.
    These woes in basic work­man­ship are just the symp­toms of a much larger and deeper indus­trial rot. A nation that can­not com­pete in civil­ian ship­build­ing, is going to have a hard time build­ing a Warship at rea­son­able cost (lack of infra­struc­ture) or qual­ity (lack of experience/​skilled labor).
    No amount of HQ tweak­ing or over site will fix that. The best the HQ can do is cut cost in the design phase (pick one and stick, redesign mid­stream is bru­tal to cost), and work on get­ting more num­bers (R&D is a sin­gle cost that is insane when added to a small lot but if pro­duced in num­ber R&D can be minor).

    Reply
  4. DC2 Jennings says:
    September 19, 2008 at 10:00 am

    C-​​Low, what are you talk­ing about? Over reg­u­la­tion and gov­ern­ment intru­sion? Yeah, and that is why we are in the eco­nomic mess we are in too. Oh, my bad, it is the oppo­site. And that is what is hap­pen­ing here with our lack of gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion and over­sight. Regulation and over­sight works very well for other coun­tries in Europe that make very well engi­neered equip­ment.
    How about the lack of reg­u­la­tion allow­ing con­trac­tors to cut cor­ners to make money at the expense of the sys­tem actu­ally work­ing due to a lack of over­sight. Our gov­ern­ment sys­tems are so over­stretched that they are not doing what they are sup­posed to do. That is our prob­lem.
    DC2

    Reply
  5. Jimbo Jones says:
    September 19, 2008 at 10:20 am

    Surly these con­stant bunglings in the US mil­i­tary procur­ment sys­tem can­not all be by mis­take, i imag­ine there must be alot of crooked and dodgy deal­ings going on. If you yanks carry on this way in fifty years time you’ll be buggered.

    Reply
  6. CR says:
    September 19, 2008 at 11:31 am

    Union work­man­ship at it’s finest.….…

    Reply
  7. triggerma53 says:
    September 19, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    I tryed to get on at the avon­dale but was told there was no work while I watched almost every non eng­lish speak­ing his­panic man and women b hired.I doubt they where legal r have expe­ri­ence at build­ing warships.Could cheap,unorganized,and unex­pe­ri­enced labor­ers b the problem?I say unor­ga­nized becuase of com­mu­ni­ca­tion issues.

    Reply
  8. Tad says:
    September 19, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Of course the Navy has to accept infe­rior ships. If it didn’t, then how would high-​​ranking offi­cers ever expect to get cushy jobs with mil­i­tary con­trac­tors after they leave the service?

    Reply
  9. Roy Smith says:
    September 19, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    “My par­ents are with AIG.” “Your par­ents rock.“
    With much thanks to Lehman Brothers,Merrill Lynch,& AIG,our nation is so close to bankruptcy,that we are close to not even being able to build a row boat for the Navy.
    The one thing about the San Antonio Class LPD that nobody seems to men­tion is that it was built with the co-​​ed navy in mind​.It has work­ing wash­ing machines,it has expanded liv­ing space to allow the female sailors to feel com­fort­able. It was built to meet “polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness” & so what if they sac­ri­ficed “mis­sion” & war time abil­ity to make it noth­ing more than a cruise ship to make the fem­i­nists happy. I bet the wash­ing machines work just fine with­out ANY prob­lems on the San Antonio.
    Political Correctness & “Tailhook” made this ship non-​​deployable. The ONLY emphasis,the only thing demanded with this ship was that it be made cushy & com­fort­able for female sailors,& they ignored every other thing or mis­sion this ship was sup­posed to do to meet THAT prime directive.

    Reply
  10. Tony Conner says:
    September 19, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    The reduc­tion in ship­yards and exper­tise is now becom­ing appar­ent. The DOD wanted far fewer sup­pli­ers to deal with under then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, now they have what they wished for! The lack of over­sight by the US Navy dur­ing the design and con­struc­tion is a sec­ondary issue. The US will not be able to main­tain a 313 ship Navy at the cur­rent pace of com­mis­sion­ing. It may be time to have a top down review of the entire indus­trial base for ship build­ing and weed out the bad actors.

    Reply
  11. matt says:
    September 19, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    The United States has a long and proud his­tory in shipuild­ing and until recently, I had never heard of a major ship pro­gram that has gone so badly awry. The lit­toral class ships are in the same boat.
    Ever since the major ship­yards were bought out by the con­glom­er­ates, these pro­grams have suf­fered. I am going to guess that there were plenty of lay­offs and cost cut­ting mea­sures and that they may have let key engi­neers go. This is an absolute disgrace.And no one is seem­ingly held account­able. The Pentagon Protective Service at work.

    Reply
  12. sglover says:
    September 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    “yes because china rus­sia india would never then try to fill our shoes.….“
    Yeah, so?
    Tell you what — the day the com­bined Sino-​​Slavo-​​Indian armada appears off the coast of Delaware, I’ll give you a five spot and call you Sun Tzu.
    Oh, and it’s espe­cially hilar­i­ous when arm­chair impe­ri­al­ists yam­mer on about how their crit­ics want to “IGNORE THE WORLD”. I don’t know how many ALLIED gov­ern­ments have expressed seri­ous reser­va­tions about sig­nif­i­cant aspects of our for­eign pol­icy (e.g., our glo­ri­ous adven­ture in Iraq) — and our La-​​Z-​​Boy Caesars not only dis­re­gard their con­cerns, but actively ridicule them. Right now our rather frag­ile (and enig­matic) Pakistani “ally” (or client, or what­ever) is telling us that maybe it’s not such a good idea to lob mis­siles and SEAL’s into their land, and vio­late their sovreignty.
    In the mean­time, it ought to be pretty obvi­ous by now that we can’t even “fill our own shoes” with any com­pe­tence. Our attempts to “man­age” the world have reached the point of seri­ously dimin­ish­ing returns AT BEST. More and more, they are harm­ing us more than our “ene­mies”.
    Forget all this crap about Pentagon won­der­toys. For about 20 years now, they haven’t made ONE American more “secure”. The ONLY Americans served by the Pentagon serves, now, are the 1%-2% at the top of the pyra­mid. Read Andrew Bacevich.

    Reply
  13. sglover says:
    September 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Has this “Roy Smith” fel­low fin­ished high school yet?

    Reply
  14. pfcem says:
    September 19, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    C-​​Low is cor­rect. The prob­lem with the LPD-​​17, the LCS & the DDG-​​1000 (& a WHOLE LOT MORE) is TOO much gov­ern­ment involve­ment. People who don’t know jack telling peo­ple who do what to do & ow to do it.

    Reply
  15. Roy Smith says:
    September 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    from Wikipedia
    “San Antonio is the first U.S. Navy ves­sel to incor­po­rate new crew com­fort fea­tures, includ­ing bunks with increased head­room, in-​​rack fans, and pull-​​out lap­top com­puter shelves.“
    I stu­pidly threw away the book that talked about how the San Antonio was built PRIMARILY with the Co-​​ed navy & putting females on “tra­di­tion­ally” all male ships in mind. It was sup­posed to be an improve­ment over the other ships still in the Navy fleet,& it was sup­posed to be a leap for­ward in “crea­ture com­forts” & in the fem­i­niza­tion of the Armed Forces.
    Whatever the mission,as planned by Bush,Sr.,Clinton,& Bush,Jr.,was for this ship,it sure wasn’t for com­bat.
    You know,I won­der if this is why the “experts” are pooh poohing the threats from Russia,China,now Pakistan(thank you very much George W. Bush),etc. & scream­ing to the top of their lungs about “imag­i­nary” [ter­ror­ist] threats? They know that they com­pletely FUBAR’d our mil­i­tary & they are try­ing to keep our minds occu­pied with [imag­i­nary] ter­ror­ist threats(including “liq­uid” bombs,who takes THAT SHIT seriously?),economic cri­sis’,& “killer weather.” I left out the major joke called the “National Election.”

    Reply
  16. Roy Smith says:
    September 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    Truthfully,there are many rea­sons why there are so many prob­lems with the San Antonio. I men­tioned one(feminism),but every­body else also have valid points to include shut­ting down so many shipyards,hiring of ille­gal aliens(& union bust­ing),& just the wide­spread waste & fraud going on. It’s not just Navy ships,it’s also the Air Force spend­ing money on stu­pid shit like new dress uni­forms instead of a much needed aer­ial tanker. The Army lost their minds over a decade ago when they thought the answer to helped strapped sol­diers was to give them a black beret to wear,woo hoo. Meanwhile,they’re teas­ing our pricks with the “Future Combat System,” but noth­ing legitimate(or use­ful) has gone into mass pro­duc­tion to help our troops.…..TODAY.
    I can hardly see any­thing with sat­is­fac­tion that helps our armed forces today.
    We need our F-​​22 Raptors in Afghanistan TODAY to pro­tect our forces from the very F-​​16s that we sold to Pakistan(Again,thank you George W. Bush for piss­ing off the Pakis & turn­ing them against us). We need American ARMOR & more anti-​​tank mis­siles to counter if Pakistan decides to send their armor into Afghanistan to aid the Taliban.
    The navy is retir­ing the Tarawa class amphibi­ous ships(& sink­ing them to the bot­tom of the ocean as fast as pos­si­ble) before their replace­ments have been built.Judging by the LCS & the San Antonio,we may never see them built. I won­der how the George HW Bush air­craft car­rier is com­ing along,have we f**ked that up too?

    Reply
  17. Roy Smith says:
    September 19, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    To any­body who says that we could defeat the Pakis any day of the week,.….NOT IF WE DON’T HAVE THE NEEDED WEAPONS IN AFGHANISTAN(instead of sit­ting idle in Europe,Iraq,& South Korea) TO DO IT!!!!!!!

    Reply
  18. Valcan says:
    September 19, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    Forget all this crap about Pentagon won­der­toys. For about 20 years now, they haven’t made ONE American more “secure”. The ONLY Americans served by the Pentagon serves, now, are the 1%-2% at the top of the pyra­mid. Read Andrew Bacevich.
    Posted by: sglover at September 19, 2008 02:34 PM
    AH ok now we get down to what you realy are jus­tan­other socalist..my bad “pro­gres­sive” your spoutin the same old bs again
    i dont blame a man for doin good in life and i wont demand half his money hell and i am in the poor bracket he..ever noticed this evil cap­i­tal­ist gov­ern­ment has brought more ppl out of poverty than any other are all amer­i­cans liv­ing like kings?..no but we have the chance too?..is it fair..no
    but id rather stick with a gov thats keept us free for over 200yrs than the soft slav­ery your type yourn for
    ———
    Tell you what — the day the com­bined Sino-​​Slavo-​​Indian armada appears off the coast of Delaware, I’ll give you a five spot and call you Sun Tzu
    china is cur­rently gain­ing more and more power in africa and all over the world and every­where they go they bring slav­ery and mis­ery with them dar­fur? any­one zim­bobwa?
    as for arm chair ceasar no…i just didnt buy into all the crap of my coun­try or ppl being evil

    Reply
  19. Roy Smith says:
    September 20, 2008 at 1:06 am

    Strategypage​.com has a very inter­est­ing story about the USS San Francisco sub­ma­rine dis­as­ter. Apparently,whoever prints the maps show­ing geo­graph­i­cal points like the under­wa­ter mount that the San Francisco didn’t have the money to print new up to date maps so the sub­ma­rine would know that that obsta­cle was there. The San Francisco was sail­ing with out­dated maps. Over 90% of the crew on the San Francisco were injured,but the two corps­men on board weren’t. So peo­ple on the sub­ma­rine were punished,but the map mak­ers,& the higher ups who knew that this prob­lem existed,got off scot free. This disaster,along with the San Antonio,LCS,& Zumwalt Destroyer disasters,can be laid at the feet of the Pentagon & the Office of the Sec.Def.

    Reply
  20. Roy Smith says:
    September 20, 2008 at 7:59 am

    I like to make love to park benches.

    Reply
  21. Roy Smith says:
    September 20, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Looks like some “Caravan Rubbish(or what we like to call Trailer Trash/​Trailer Park Trash)” is being cute.
    Anyway,there has just been a ter­ror­ist attack in Islamabad,Pakistan. We are doing our level best to piss off peo­ple we should not be piss­ing off(like the Pakistanis),& at the same time,we are sab­o­tag­ing our own weapons we need to defend our­selves. we see China & Russia with weapons we know are grossly infe­rior to our own,& then we let our supe­rior weapons rot & rust in motor pools,ship yards,& air fields. We were sup­posed to build a sim­ple cruise ship that could be used by cruise lines in peace time for tourists & con­verted into com­mand ships in war time & that turned into shit. Most peo­ple on this blog take the promises of our gov­ern­ment as the “inerrant word of God” when it comes to promis­ing 1000s of new F-​​35s or other weapons​.As far as you’re concerned,if the gov­ern­ment “promised” it,then it’s com­ing. I can’t help but shake my head & laugh at such naivety. The rea­sons why our weapons pro­cure­ment pro­gram is so bro­ken is because of ter­mi­nal sick­ness in our lead­er­ship. People blame the work­ers for build­ing shoddy products,but NOBODY has the balls to clean it up. Our sol­diers are going to get their butts kicked because our gov­ern­ment will not stand up & pro­tect them,& give them the equip­ment they need(equipment that works). The prob­lem with the San Antonio is part of a ter­mi­nal sick­ness with our Pentagon that will NEVER get any better.

    Reply
  22. Roy Smith says:
    September 20, 2008 at 10:33 am

    I am no friend of Israel & Israel is no friend of mine. As far as Israel is concerned,I am an Amalekite. I am descended from Duke Amalek,King Agag,& Haman the Agagite. I am both an Amalekite & a Gormogon of the Antient Noble Order of the Gormogons.

    Reply
  23. ant says:
    September 20, 2008 at 10:51 am

    This is odd, but it looks like the US are not the only ones hav­ing dif­fi­cul­ties these days with what are really ‘sec­ond line’ war­ships. The Royal Navy’s Albion and Bulwark LPDs had dread­ful engi­neer­ing prob­lems in biuld (and have a deeply flawed design– no organic air! Madness, but no doubt it saved a minis­cule pro­por­tion of the bloated build cost) and the Bay’s built to a Dutch design, could not be com­pleted by the British lead yard and half of them had to be towed around to the oppo­site coast for com­ple­tion. In Australia the com­ple­tion of a French designed ‘phib bank­rupted their main yard.
    Building front line war­ships is no easy task, but my sus­pi­cion is that these ‘cheaper’ ships have too many cor­ners cut in the design and build plan­ning stage. Understandable, they’re crit­i­cal resources and these days naval plan­ners have realised this and used almost any means nec­es­sary to get the build approved. Risky though, and navies around the world are pay­ing the price.

    Reply
  24. Roy Smith says:
    September 20, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    I like to make love to car exhausts.

    Reply
  25. unmannedanimal says:
    September 20, 2008 at 7:59 pm

    A Shipyard is cho­sen from among a pool who have bid on it the win­ner is NOT he who bids low­est but he who builds con­sis­tently on time and bud­get with best qual­ity?
    Posted by: Valcan at September 20, 2008 03:43 PM

    Reply
  26. Farmer Bob says:
    September 20, 2008 at 8:53 pm

    No more know-​​how? America has become a land of 100 paper-​​pushing bureau­crats for every guy who can use a wrench.

    Reply
  27. SMSgt Mac says:
    September 21, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Heads up Christian,
    It looks like DT may have been descended upon by drive-​​by trolls and sock pup­pets.
    An aside on the real com­men­tary going on. A lot of the com­ments seem to be based upon the assump­tion that because the US has been doing X since way back when, that X should be a no-​​brainer now. Unfortunately, a lot of the dif­fi­culty in doing what has always been done is that the peo­ple who did it before are dead or retired. the peo­ple they were train­ing to replace them left the indus­tries (through lay­off or frus­tra­tion) in the 90’s when America cashed in its ‘peace div­i­dend’. Couple the break in the knowl­edge chain with the impact felt on the gov­ern­ment side, like get­ting rid of ‘over­sight’ and replac­ing it with ‘insight’ pro­gram offices in the never end­ing drive to improve the ‘tooth to tail’ ratio. to sum­ma­rize: The mil­i­tary has a too-​​miniscule infra­struc­ture left to pro­vide guid­ance and insight much less over­sight. Contracts no longer require or pay for cer­tain man­age­ment deliv­er­ables that are now seen as un-​​neccessary ‘over­head’. Skilled work­ers are hit­ting retire­ment in a mass exit an there is a trough in the curve between Boomers and Gen Yers where Gen X should be.
    Oh yeah…and now we’re fight­ing a real-​​time war that’s eat­ing into exist­ing infra­struc­ture and putting pres­sure on all the other bud­get pots. It has oper­a­tors clam­or­ing for more things to meet imme­di­ate needs and telling long-​​range plan­ners to for­get about the future because they have prob­lems to deal with NOW.
    Now tell me, Does any­one (who is not comatose or lazy) really have a right to be sur­prised that hard things are get­ting harder to do? Just askin’!
    Oh, and BTW: I under­stand NG has taken it in the bot­tom line (and still is pre­sum­ably) over the San Antonio’s travails.

    Reply
  28. DC2 Jennings says:
    September 21, 2008 at 7:37 pm

    Mac,
    Not to get into a philo­soph­i­cal bat­tle with you on age groups, but the Gen Xers are here and they are lead­ing. They are lead­ing the way and try­ing to fix the screw ups of the Boomers. Bush and Clinton, yep, Boomers. The lead­ers of com­pa­nies that out­source American jobs, Boomers. And who are the lead­ers in the trenches right now try­ing to fix those deci­sions? Gen X.
    You are cor­rect, a com­plete and total lack of over­sight is what is caus­ing all of these prob­lems within our pro­cure­ment sys­tem. And it will con­tinue until that is changed.
    DC2

    Reply
  29. Buck says:
    September 21, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    I believe some of you should go back and re-​​read the news­pa­pers form 1994 and after perus­ing, you could deter­mine where the lat­est foul-​​up came from, and the office wasnt oval.
    For some of you oth­ers look back to the viet times and see how the inspec­tors have been treated, and you will find the rest of the prob­lem, and we boys of the blue can show you what hap­pens after that.

    Reply
  30. Patrick J. Busche says:
    September 21, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    The new USAF uni­form is a good idea. Additionally the total money spent on research and devel­op­ment for it is only frac­tion­ally the cost of one air­craft. Rest assured, most air­men will prob­a­bly like the uni­form.
    P.J. Busche
    SSgt, USMC retired
    Semper Fidelis

    Reply
  31. Billiam Mortain says:
    September 21, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Roy,you sure are an Amalakite.Big time.Just what America needs >Skinhead by chance,boy? I visit new sites look­ing for info and I run into ” Amalakites” and pro­fes­sional TROLL hunters.Thought they were git­tin rid o skin­heads? Give me a break,as they say.What is the mat­ter with America? Too many “AMALAKITES” and Xers.Several of many prob­lems with a pro­fes­sional army–people who can’t do any­thing else join the army.B.M.

    Reply
  32. unmannedanimal says:
    September 21, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    @dc2
    i think the curve in ques­tion is spe­cific to the man­u­fac­tur­ing indus­try and to a lesser extent the defense indus­try, nei­ther of which were hir­ing when gen x-​​ers were look­ing for work because of out­sourc­ing and peace-​​time decline respectively.

    Reply
  33. Roy Smith says:
    September 22, 2008 at 2:49 am

    I like to make love to teddy bears.

    Reply
  34. SMSgt Mac says:
    September 22, 2008 at 4:25 am

    Hey DC2– no bat­tles, just data.
    I never said there weren’t Gen Xers, just not enough of them. I have a pro­pri­etary slide some­place that shows it plain and clear with a big arrow point­ing to the trough ask­ing the rhetor­i­cal ques­tion “where is Gen X?”, but you can get the same idea from mar­ry­ing the data in the age per­cent­age dis­tri­b­u­tion slide and the slide show­ing the total num­ber of aero­space work­ers declin­ing over the years at: http://​www​.aia​-aero​space​.org/​s​t​a​t​s​/​c​h​a​r​t​s​.​cfm.
    It’s a weird envi­ron­ment in aero­space now. As a barely-​​boomer (p***es me off to be lumped in with that group — I think of myself as post-​​hippie) I’m still barely under the aver­age age of all aero­space work­ers — in about two years I instantly become the old man. I’m work­ing with a lot of sharp new peo­ple we’re bring­ing in as fast as we can, and all the com­pa­nies are being as agres­sive as their cul­tures will allow in improv­ing ‘knowl­edge man­age­ment’ but I pre­dict that a new aero­space cul­ture will have to arise (for bet­ter and worse)in the next decade or so and that there will be mas­sive misssteps along the path as old lessons are “redis­cov­ered” the hard way.

    Reply
  35. DC2 Jennings says:
    September 22, 2008 at 8:58 am

    MAC,
    Leave it to you to come up with some tech­ni­cal gob­bly gook that in the end makes sense and allows me to under­stand what you are say­ing. Now I do agree with what you and Animal said. I per­son­ally think that we could do more will less for so long that the string has finally broke under the ten­sion. That is clearly evi­dent in all of our facets of gov­ern­ment today.
    Someday we will real­ize that out­sourc­ing isn’t the cor­rect solu­tion espe­cially when it comes to over­sight and reg­u­la­tion by our gov­ern­ment. That’s just let­ting the foxes into the hen­house.
    Somewhere we have to find the medium between the $700 ham­mer that works too well and the $2.99 China gim­mick that causes fin­ger can­cer and oozes black goo when exposed to temps above 80 degrees. I think we cur­rently find our­selves on the China gim­mick side of the pen­du­lum.
    DC2

    Reply
  36. steve says:
    September 22, 2008 at 10:43 am

    WTF do you guys expect to hap­pen? There’s no penalty for fail­ure in today’s pro­cure­ment sys­tem. What hap­pens to Northrop or General Dynamics if they screw the pooch? Nothing, they just get another con­tract. I wish I worked in a field where it didn’t mat­ter if any­thing I did worked or not. Why isn’t this ship back in their ship­yard being repaired? If this hap­pened to a new car you bought you would expect to be able to take it back to the dealer. The way things are now it’s like once you leave the deal­er­ship, you absolve the­car­man­u­fac­turer of any responsibility.

    Reply
  37. gsak says:
    September 22, 2008 at 11:00 am

    This reminds me of a story..
    In Missile Control, we had 17″ LCD mon­i­tors that cost $22,000. One day dur­ing patrol, I sub­mit­ted some for­mal paper­work (through my Chain-​​of-​​Command) ask­ing why we had to pay for “COTS” flat-​​panels that cost so much.
    The head of SSP (Strategic Systems Programs) called my Captain to per­son­ally com­plain about me, and voiced his con­cern about the issue pos­si­bly caus­ing harm to the Navy’s rela­tion­ship with our LCD dis­play con­trac­tor, Eaton.
    So, I was written-​​up for NJP, for the next minor “any­thing” that hap­pened. I fought it, and (thank­fully) it was even­tu­ally dropped.
    Just a small exam­ple of the small things that take place, behind-​​the-​​scenes, that get in the way of the good that should be hap­pen­ing in our Navy.
    MT2

    Reply
  38. Jimbo Jones says:
    September 22, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    “Words/​ Posted by: gsak at September 22, 2008 11:00 AM“
    Should have taken it to the press. Terrible story and a prime exam­ple of the crooked-​​ness i was whin­ing about lower down in this mighty thread. That SSP man­ager guy needs putting down.

    Reply
  39. Rick says:
    September 22, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Unmannedanimal,
    Sorry, but I must dis­agree with you about this affect­ing only the defense depart­ment, et al. There is a short­age of skilled work­ers for about any trade you can name.
    I also have to dis­agree about it being just a pop­u­la­tion prob­lem. These kids were look­ing for work at the very peak of the down­size and out­source wave. The entry level jobs that would have taught them the skills we are now in such des­per­ate need of are any­where but in the US.
    Basically I think we are reap­ing what our pol­icy mak­ers have sown, and I don’t see that chang­ing any time soon.

    Reply
  40. unmannedanimal says:
    September 22, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    @rick
    i think we’re on the same page. i did not intend to say that the defense indus­try is uniquely lack­ing in skilled work­ers. i was try­ing to put dc2’s asser­tion that gen-​​x is here and lead­ing in con­text with mac’s evi­dence from aero­space by con­trast­ing man­age­ment and engineers/​machinists/​etc.
    as i under­stand it this isn’t a prob­lem with pop­u­la­tion, such that the solu­tion is greater or lesser num­bers of gen-​​xers. i think this is a prob­lem described within a pop­u­la­tion e.g. the dis­tri­b­u­tion of knowledge/​skills within gen-​​x is markedly dif­fer­ent from that of the boomers and their chil­dren, cre­at­ing knowl­edge gaps in the amer­i­can work­force.
    why the change in dis­tri­b­u­tion? was gen-​​x pulling IT and finance jobs out of the air while man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs lay idle and unfilled? were they try­ing to fill a vac­uum in the wake of a glob­al­iz­ing indus­try? i don’t know. at this point i can con­fi­dently say that i am out of my depth as well as my age bracket.

    Reply
  41. Trial Lawyer says:
    September 22, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    Could it be that our highly skilled labor force is dry­ing up and so these delays could, in part, be due to a longer learn­ing curve? Designing and man­u­fac­tur­ing cut­ting edge equip­ment involves cut­ting edge exper­tise. With the aver­age age of our work­force declin­ing (due to large num­ber of retir­ings), is there a debil­i­tat­ing drain on experience?

    Reply
  42. gsak says:
    September 23, 2008 at 11:07 am

    That depends par­tially on what you con­sider an accept­able Engineering Department; how much of a dif­fer­ence you per­ceive between a full team of very expe­ri­enced engi­neers, and three or four old salty guys lead­ing a bunch of younger guys and girls.
    Personally, I think it is tech­ni­cally a drain on expe­ri­ence; although, I must say that I’ve known the engi­neer­ing staff at Gunderson and they’re a sharp group. And they have a decent per­cent­age of younger peo­ple on their team.
    With solid Team Leads, a younger work­force is pretty com­pe­tent. Maybe it’s just that only the older guys are worrying?

    Reply
  43. demophilus says:
    September 23, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    I don’t know much about ship­build­ing, so I don’t really know what to con­tribute here, except that Mac, Byron, Mark1 and gsak seem to hit the nail on the head.
    Apart from that, it seems that a cat­a­stropic break­down in ship con­tract­ing can’t be traced to a sin­gle point fail­ure, like unions or gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion. There’s too many mov­ing parts in this kind of fan­dango for a sin­gle cause.
    That being said, our “lead sys­tems inte­gra­tors” don’t seem to be inte­grat­ing too well. LockMart and NG bought into the ship­yards because they thought they could make money at it. Looks like they were right.
    Call them scape­goats, or fat­ted calves. Any way you slice it, it’s well past time we trimmed some fat.

    Reply
  44. Ptsfp says:
    September 26, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    As a for­mer employee of a lead­ing machine tool man­u­fac­turer I have seen sev­eral of these prob­lems up close and per­sonal.
    The biggest prob­lem is that the US is send­ing most of it’s man­u­fac­tur­ing over­seas to China. When the sub-​​assemblies arrive from China, they are tested and pro­grammed or mod­i­fied. The fail­ure rate from equip­ment com­ing from China was very high. But, sup­pos­edly it led to more profit(for the exec­u­tives), but at what cost?
    The sec­ond prob­lem, espe­cially where I worked was that they had a very hard time recruit­ing and retain­ing young work­ers. Let’s face it, the major­ity of young work­ers don’t want to turn a wrench. So what you ended up with was a skilled work force that will be retir­ing very soon, and a bunch of young peo­ple bid­ing time until some­thing bet­ter comes along. Their really was no mid­dle work­ers to take over for the retir­ing work­force. We will soon loose a lot of expe­ri­ence and tal­ent that will not be replaced.
    We need to rebuild American man­u­fac­tur­ing and not build China by send­ing our hi-​​tech man­u­fac­tur­ing there. American man­u­fac­tur­ers are sell­ing their souls to China in the name of greed. If this does not stop soon, it will cost us all dearly.

    Reply
  45. angel says:
    October 21, 2008 at 5:23 am

    That’s OK!But take a closer look fol­low­ing link,It’s great to DVD and PSP con­verter for mac!
    DVD Ripper for Mac,
    Mac DVD Ripper Suite,
    Mac DVD Converter Ultimate Suite,
    Mac DVD Copy,
    Mac DVD Creator,
    Mac DVD to iPod Converter,
    Mac DVD to iPhone Converter,
    Mac DVD to MP4 Converter,
    Mac DVD to Apple TV Converter,
    Mac DVD to PSP Converter,
    Mac DVD to BlackBerry Converter,
    Mac DVD Audio Ripper,
    Edit DVD,
    Vob Converter for Mac,
    VOB to iPod Converter for Mac,
    VOB to Apple TV Converter for Mac,
    VOB to PSP Converter for Mac,
    VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac,
    VOB to M4V Converter for Mac,
    VOB to 3GP Converter for Mac,
    VOB to MPG Converter for Mac,
    VOB to AVI Converter for Mac

    Reply
  46. angel says:
    October 23, 2008 at 1:30 am

    That’s OK!But take a closer look fol­low­ing link,It’s great to DVD and PSP
    con­verter for mac!
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​r​i​p​p​e​r​-​s​u​i​t​e​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​s​u​i​t​e​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​c​o​p​y​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​c​r​e​a​t​o​r​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​t​o​-​i​p​o​d​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​t​o​-​i​p​h​o​n​e​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​t​o​-​m​p​4​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​t​o​-​a​p​p​l​e​-​t​v​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​t​o​-​p​s​p​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​t​o​-​b​l​a​c​k​b​e​r​r​y​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​m​a​c​-​d​v​d​-​a​u​d​i​o​-​r​i​p​p​e​r​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.macd​v​drip​per​.org/​h​o​w​-​t​o​-​e​d​i​t​-​d​v​d​-​t​r​i​m​-​v​i​d​e​o​-​c​r​o​p​-​t​a​k​e​-​e​f​f​e​c​t​s​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/,
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/​v​o​b​-​t​o​-​i​p​o​d​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​f​o​r​-​m​a​c​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/​v​o​b​-​t​o​-​a​p​p​l​e​-​t​v​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​f​o​r​-​m​a​c​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/​v​o​b​-​t​o​-​p​s​p​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​f​o​r​-​m​a​c​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/​v​o​b​-​t​o​-​m​p​e​g​4​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​f​o​r​-​m​a​c​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/​v​o​b​-​t​o​-​m​4​v​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​f​o​r​-​m​a​c​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/​v​o​b​-​t​o​-​3​g​p​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​f​o​r​-​m​a​c​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/​v​o​b​-​t​o​-​m​p​g​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​f​o​r​-​m​a​c​.​h​tml
    http://​www​.vob​con​vert​er​mac​.com/​v​o​b​-​t​o​-​a​v​i​-​c​o​n​v​e​r​t​e​r​-​f​o​r​-​m​a​c​.​h​tml

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage