Comments on: Navy Surface Force in Deep Trouble

By: John

John — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:20:34 +0000

Since most military procurement is an exercise in pissing away as much money as humanly possible before someone demands that something actually be produced, the Navy has no one but itself to blame.
Ditto the Air Force. $30 billion in R&D, decades come and go — and all so they can pop out 100 copies of something before they move on to the next wonder weapon.
If you guys actually frigging produced something in a timely fashion, you’d have the weapons you claim to want before somebody thought to cancel them. But then the R&D gravy train would come to a halt, so we know why you drag your feet about everything.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:19:08 +0000

Good Afternoon VR,
First off thank you for your open response on this issue. There is much of what you said that is little more then standard Government boiler plate regarding small business and spreading the wealth. Sub contracts are assigned to companies in specific congressional districts that have perhaps shake congressional support for a project.
The issue I will address are poorly written specifications for a weapons program and the “dialogue” issue.
You are supporting my contention weapons projects originate not with the end user, the military, but with defense contractors who see an opening and lose cash and decide to exploit it. You button hole a flag officers do a sell job and he starts the ball rolling or if you can’t sell it to the brass, well you can always just “Cunningham” it with a member. After a successful program and the General/Admiral retires, ends up on s board and make sure that his/her replacement know what great guys all you are and that you look after folks who look after you.
The second issue is of course you statement regarding “dialogue” between contractors during the development and bidding process on a contract, it’s called collusion if I remember correctly. Of course I know, that you know this is illegal, and I’m surprised that you would even admit to it on a public board such as defense tech. This site is visited by many people who work in the Federal Government and I would be very surprised if you are unknown to them, be careful of what you say VR. But I do agree with you it happens, a lot.
Your comment about needing a steady flow of defense contracts to stay in business doesn’t wash. The United States has a capitalistic economy where firms are expected to sell in several arenas of the economy. Out side over defense contraction a manufacturing concern that has only a single customer won’t be in business very long.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Valcan

Valcan — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:10:44 +0000

The idea of having a thin skinned ship for shore assualt is kinda stupid if i remember correctly the idea is to put it 50mils our from the beach…meaning we have to buy the efv or the marines are no longer marines in that they can storm beach heads.
Why cant the navy just build a ship capable of going in with good armor very good anti missles/air defenses, Able to support troops with alot of firepower and land troops ashore.….hell why not just combine the assualt ship and the shore bombardment role?

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:05:52 +0000

Good Afternoon Folks,
A timely picture with this posting, a San Antonio Class amphibious warfare ship. One that is constructed so poorly that in a collision by the U.S.S. New Orleans with the con of the U.S. Hartford a couple of days ago resulted in a ruptured fuel cell and 25K gallons of diesel was dumped.
Would anybody want to speculate how much damage would have been done to the “war ship” if an attack like the U.S.S. Cole took place instead a a bump in the nigh with a thin skinned sub?
I’m sure the mighty American industrial can build a better war ship then the U.S.S. New Orleans. With the lives of American sailors and Marines at steak the American public and Congress should demand better, we are for sure paying for it.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:35:13 +0000

Build more Flexships: mutirole ships vs solo role ships like CVs & SSNs.
Make the new DD1K a Multirole ship.
Same for LPD 17 types (minus ASW role).
& for DDGX.
Then see the Navy get funded.
& CUT Navy bureaucracy to fund the Surface Navy.
Cut DOD bureaucracy alone for Funding.
Stuff can be done.
Change program specs.
Change policies & regs.
Change vendors?
Sample ideal Flexships: US Destroyers WW2:
ASW
Gun Platform
AAW
Beachead support
Fire support
C3I
Early warning
ALL from US DD DE types.
Thats a Flexship & add to LPD 17 & DDG1K class alone.
Very doable.
LPD 17s do not do ASW.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:42:01 +0000

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 20, 2009 12:54 PM
While i agree with you in some ways blaming it all on the idea of privitization is simply false. The system has reached its present destionation because of apathetic voters, corrupt senators and congressmen, a horrible ship building system, and many many other reasons. If we had followed the idea of capitalism simply letting those who could give use the best product for the cheapest amount within the areas we give them this problem would be much less likly. Instead the idea of cheap cheap cheap and payoffs to government officials has gotten us to our present state.
Its quite simple design a system that lets only the best and strongest survive and you get the best and strongest systems. Evolution.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:53:12 +0000

I wonder why we are building the “21st century carrier” (Gerald Ford) before it’s 21st century escorts (frigates, destroyers, cruisers, etc?)
The way it looks now the carrier people are getting everything they want at the expense of the other surface combatants (and the submarine people…nobody leave out them submarines).
There are certain missions carriers are appropriate for, and then certain ones you need the smaller ships for. I mean, what’s the worst that can happen; we depend on other nations to interface modern destroyers and cruisers as long as we bring the airpower?

By: PolicyWonk

PolicyWonk — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:18:41 +0000

The navy and its ship acquisition problems have become an embarresment. What they need to do with write an initial requirement for what they are looking for and STOP altering the design during construction (or otherwise mid-stream).
This is essentially the same thing that we did during WW2…

By: scubafreak

scubafreak — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:50:08 +0000

Frankely, the biggest issue in defense procurement is the lack of talent in project management. This lack has allowed constant meddling in design and construction phases that should have been locked down, resulting in incredible delays and cost overruns. The people currently in the procurement chain appear to simply be incapable of allowing a ship or system to proceed without stopping dozens of times during construction to demand expensive, time consuming and often IRRELEVANT changes.
The best way to contain costs and delays is to adhere to well-established proceedures that would freeze changes to a design until completion, then making any requested changes and upgrades AFTER the initial work had been completed, validated and delivered.

By: Valcan

Valcan — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:39:27 +0000

dude have to agree scrap the LCS figure out a better cheaper desgin that can be mass produced.
DDG has some good some bad points power systems sound promising and such…but as a program cut it figure out a way to upgrade the DDG 51s that are going to be produced.
Subs we need em bad hell do we even have othere anti sub platforms now that the vikingsare gone?
damnit there where some ships the navy gave to the CG before 911 then found out they needed would those with maybe the support of a small surface ship be sufficent to stop pirate threats?