The long-awaited decision on which competitor will win the Navy’s littoral combat ship competition is expected to be revealed Wednesday afternoon, and the answer will surprise most people.Really? Really?
The winner? Both teams.
Sources said the Navy, rather than selecting one team to build 10 ships, will instead award construction contracts to both Lockheed Martin and Austal USA to build 10 of their ships, for a total of 20 new LCS hulls.
One source said the ships will continue to be built with separate combat systems, rather than go through a time-consuming effort to install a common system on all the ships.
I don't want to hear any more from these people about configuration control, systems commonality or gains from economies of scale. I don't want to hear them tell one more Commanding Officer that he needs to make hard choices.
LCS - a dog's breakfast of intellectual fail from CONOPS through production. Almost as bad as sending an XO to Court Martial for failing to implement something that doesn't exist.
If this pans out - it is only one thing; full-spectrum systemic fail.
Would someone make a d@mn decision. The right one would be to kill the entire program before it does more damage to our long-term Operational and Tactical capabilities ... but no ... punt the decision to others to deal with.
The minute someone finds out who the next Chairman and Ranking member of the HASC is going to be - please send me an email.
UPDATE: Thanks to Matt and DefenseDaily, here we go.
HASC Ranking Member Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) is expected to assume the chairmanship of the panel. He laid out a "broad vision for national defense policy" yesterday that focuses on "investing in theNew day. Will be interesting to see where they lay down their markers.
...
The House Appropriations Defense subcommittee (HAC-D), meanwhile, will undergo a leadership change with the shift of power to the Republicans. While current Ranking Member C.W. "Bill" Young (R-Fla.) would be the natural pick, current term-limit rules wouldn't allow him to regain the chairmanship he previously held, according to a GOP aide. Those rules could be changed, or Young could be granted a waiver. The next-senior Republican on the HAC-D now is Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.).
Three current HAC-D members will not return next session. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) lost to GOP challenger Steve Southerland on Tuesday. Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.) lost in the Democratic primary in August. And fellow HAC-D member Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) in August lost the Republican primary race for the seat vacated by Sen. Sam Brownback (R- Kan.), which Rep. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) won on Tuesday.
The top four HASC Democrats lost their reelection battles: Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), Vice Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), Readiness subcommittee Chairman Solomon Ortiz (D- Texas), and Seapower subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.); Ortiz, though, may seek a recount.
The most senior HASC Democrat to be reelected is Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), though it is not clear if he would become the committee's ranking member, because he is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) would be next in line, because the more-senior Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) did not seek reelection.
...
ther defense-minded lawmakers to lose their reelection bids Tuesday include
HASC members Reps. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) and Glenn Nye (D-Va.). In the Senate, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a former Navy admiral, lost his bid for the seat he took from Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the primary election. Sestak lost on Tuesday to Republican Pat Toomey.
UPDATE In comments, our buddy Gal thought I should make my response to his more pithy comment a post ... but what the heck, an update will do. Check out comments if you want to see what sparked it. Hey, I'm quoting me again......
I don't disagree (that) all things involving building a ship is political - but there is a cause to our present situation.
If LCS was designed and implemented properly there would be a set of facts that the Navy could point to that would make such political behavior unnecessary or at least mitigated to only 49.9% of the decision matrix. As it is, we have an ill-defined program based on an unexecutable CONOPS with NMC weapons systems and non-integrated warfighting capabilities as a primary method of tactical power projection.
This became political to the degree it is as there is no militarily arguable reason that we need this white elephant of a program.
The Jeff-boats analogy is imperfect but useful and I encourage everyone to go to InfoDis and see your very thoughtful post.
I am well past arguing the finer points of LCS like I have in the past - I won that argument and have enjoyed the free beers because of it. Nor do I feel the need to go into long discussions of the entrails-reading that is the inside the beltway programatics anymore - as it is just background noise to the basic malfunction that is LCS: it is a huge expense for little to any warfighting use. It is actually a huge negative because of the drain it is on our shipbuilding budget.
So many in our leadership have expended their reputations defending this program for reasons that are best explained by themselves - as a result, no one in a uniform can fill the decision gap that exists on where to go - no one in Congress believes them, and for good reason.
Politics will rule this until the uniformed leadership can point to a clear path that is defendable against hard questions, math, and facts. LCS cannot be and has never been defendable beyond the briefing table and the PPT slide.
I was giggl'n at myself after I pounded this out as I am getting to the point that my anger is turning to maniacal laughter as this rolling trainwreck continues forward ---- then I get quite again as I remember why I am angry. Simple.
We build ships to go to war. These ships are filled with Sailors. These Sailors are willing to put their lives on the line in order to execute the orders of the Commander in Chief in defense of their nation's interests. These Sailors have families. When we put them in harm's way, we need to make sure that they have the best systems that are not only survivable, but are able to engage in response the full spectrum of reasonably expected enemy actions that may come over the horizon, and do so in a manner that brings about positive Tactical, Operational, and Strategic Effects. If you don't build warships to do that - you intentionally throw away the lives of Sailors, destroy families, and more importantly, put your nation at Strategic Risk.
Why did we do this? For a narcissistic need to feel that we are smarter than any other generation - that we are transformational - that by the force of our own specialness we can do more with less than anyone else because we am so much better. Because we believe that personal loyalty is more critical than institutional loyalty. We will support something not because it is the right thing, but because the person who controls my career will punish me if I do not - even though every professional bone in my body tells me what they propose won't work and will be a negative impact on our future.
That is why we have reached the point that there is only one thing to do if we are serious about having an effective fleet in a decade. Kill the entire program. If we must, build enough LCS until we can license build a Nansen/Absalom type with 12-24 ship run until we can get a domestically designed multi-purpose Frigate somewhere between the size of LCS and DDG-51. Take those LCS we built and give them to the USCG as medium endurance cutters and cut our losses, accept our lessons, and make sure we don't do this again.
Anything else is vanity, or as the original Greek said; bubbles.
52 comments:
Its readily apparent they didn't want to deal with the backlash from selecting one.
Looks like they are waiting for Congress to kill the program once and for all.
If there ever was a rpogram that needed to go away, its this one.
Words fail. Two money pits. Genius. All that dough for a helpless useless undermanned eggshell of a deathtrap "ronson" gunboat. Oh, pardon me, TWO varieties of etc, etc. Beyond comprehension.
It can move, until it gets rough. It can shoot, tiny little short range rounds. Can it communicate with other fleet units and ashore all over the world with equipment common and compatible with the rest of the Navy? I have absolutely no idea, but I'm not betting on it. For multimegabucks beyond belief.
Did they take the block "moral courage" off of the fitrep forms? Or did the KGB poison the water fountains at the 5 sided cave of the winds and Navsea activities with stupid inducing agents as a last act of defiant revenge? ICFIBI, BOHICA, SNAFU, FUBAR.
But WHY?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Then we wonder why we can't get ships built at a rate to maintain a fleet.
Lookee here! All you "kit bashers" could have fun...maybe a contest hosted by CDR Sal!
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10126799
And for those of you with some M80s stashed...never mind, I won't make any more suggestions.
Simple. GBW: Follow the money.
You know, those retired FOGOs still have large house payments, and we couldn't have them on the dole, now could we? They may not have more campaign contributions to make.
CDR Sal had the best idea a few years ago...
If you are a FOGO, and sign documents that disburse the people's money for programs, then you should be barred from working for the companies in reciept of said funds for a period of 5 years.
I would add that any backdoor gigs as "consultant" should not be allowed either.
How much does a 4 star make in retirement these days anyway?
This from the same bunch who needed to save money by not paying sailors their clothing allowances and delaying promotions. Leadership 101 Navy style. Screw your people first, give the money to contractors who will eventually smile upon your post-retirement resume.
At least there's nothing this ship can do. That ensures it can't fail.
Neither of the above would have been the militarily correct answer from a Flag officer with some brains and a spine. Apparently those in charge have neither, and came up with this cowardly refusal to dismiss either flawed craft, let alone both.
It would be better to give the money to crack addicts to go buy drugs than to saddle the Navy with useless crap like this. Absolutely pure waste, probably with fraud and incompetence to make it worse.
Unfrickingbelievable- from military officers, but typical of worthless politicians. Too bad we cannot unelect some flags.
The problem is that Flag Officers have become and have been politicians for a long time. Two ship designs with a common mission, but aside from being able to float, no commonality. I would say priceless, but at $500,000,000 a copy, I would say stupid. I mean if we are going to spend that kind of money x 20 or $10,000,000,000, why don't we go totally crazy and build something along the lines of a mother ship that transports PT Boats to various shallows around the world? Makes just as much if not more sense...still stupid.
if you took that same $ 10 billion, you could build a dozen new NSC National Security Cutters for the Coastguard. And, as usual, those Coastie's would use them wisely, and make them last 45 more years each.
Can we vote on this ? Build 4,200 ton NSC's for USCG that will last for 45 years or
build 3,000 ton USN LCS which will last maybe 20 yrs if you enjoy constant ovhl periods to replace/repair everything.
NSC with 140 crew racks, or LCS will 75 crew racks.
NSC with 60 day endurance or LCS with 5 to 7 days endurance.
I truly never believed they (the Admirals) would ask to build both hulls. I would have liked to been a fly on the wall during those discussions just see how they rationalized the decision.
This just advertises the Navy's lack of confidence in what they want and what they think they have. Classic programatic punt.
Sounds like career preservation and some really bad "sea daddyism" going on inside NavSea. Sad, and we wonder why ships like the San Antiono can't deploy, an XO decides to go to GCM instead of Admiral's Mast, the Big E couldn't deploy, and the Virginia Class are shedding after any time out to sea.
God help those who will have the unenviable duty to serve on those failures of a ship.
I am afraid "Even pirates can sink an LCS" headline is in the making.
"Widowmaker 2"?
If you read Jimmy Doolittle's autobio "I Could Never Be So Lucky Again," he discusses being called in to see why the B-26 was having such a high fatality rate. Turned out it was a training issue, and I think it was "not quite enough." Anyhow, once he got involved, the record got much better. It was a plane that had to be flown fast all the time...even on landing, and that was different, so they just took more time to train to that point.
Sal, not Navy driven bro, LCS became political. Think Jefferson gunboat job program in 2010. Post up with notes.
FOGO...or SES...or Presidential appointee.
And we'll cheerfully continue their pay at 100% after retirement for five years as compensation. It's dirt cheap compared to bad decision-making. Soft graft is a massive problem for the Federal Government.
PT Boats had 4 torps, twin .50s, 40mm cannon, and towards the end 16 5' rockets. The gunboat version had no torps but had 6 twin 50s, and 2 40mms.
Hell, that'd probably do fine against pirates and guys in little boats. And be cheaper. And I bet you could kill a LCS with one too.
Holy Cow......Galrahn on Salamander?! I want to know when are we going to have a panel on MIDRATS with Salamander, Galrahn, BLACKFIVE, POWERLINE, and Michael Yon?
Gal,
I don't disagree with you as all things involving building a ship is political - but there is a cause to our present situation.
If LCS was designed and implemented properly there would be a set of facts that the Navy could point to that would make such political behavior unnecessary or at least mitigated to only 49.9% of the decision matrix. As it is, we have an ill-defined program based on an unexecutable CONOPS with NMC weapons systems and non-integrated warfighting capabilities as a primary method of tactical power projection.
This became political to the degree it is as there is no militarily arguable reason that we need this white elephant of a program.
The Jeff-boats analogy is imperfect but useful and I encourage everyone to go to InfoDis and see your very thoughtful post.
I am well past arguing the finer points of LCS like I have in the past - I won that argument and have enjoyed the free beers because of it. Nor do I feel the need to go into long discussions of the entrails-reading that is the inside the beltway programatics anymore - as it is just background noise to the basic malfunction that is LCS: it is a huge expense for little to any warfighting use. It is actually a huge negative because of the drain it is on our shipbuilding budget.
So many in our leadership have expended their reputations defending this program for reasons that are best explained by themselves - as a result, no one in a uniform can fill the decision gap that exists on where to go - no one in Congress believes them, and for good reason.
Politics will rule this until the uniformed leadership can point to a clear path that is defendable against hard questions, math, and facts. LCS cannot be and has never been defendable beyond the briefing table and the PPT slide.
(Part 1 of 2)
This will be corrected, hopefully, along with JSF, LPD-17, and DDG 1000 during the next budget cycle. The one benefit of doing a POM every year now is that it is harder and harder to tell lies. Why? Because you no longer have a two year buffer before reality smacks you in the face.
Salty,
Gal and I have been commenting on each other's sites for years .... and before then on BBS/Forums under different names. We just don't do it as much as we used to as we are both too big for our britches and perfer to ping each other in email instead.
Obviously, you need to read InfoDis and CDRSalamander EVERY DAY and EVERY COMMENT without fail. Shame on you.
Oh, and I think both of us have been on PowerLine as well and B5 on a regular basis ... so you almost have your Fantasy Football team. As for Yon, I wish him well - bless his heart.
There is and has been a string of epic fails with respect to the 30 year shipbuilding plans. DDG 1000 - CG(X) 9 billion dollar battlestar gallacticas turned into a huge fail...we now know that is not the future. The alternative, little crappy ships, is failing unmercifully but the Navy is scared to pull the plug on that too. There are NO future ship classes: we are repeating the DDG-51 hull form in FLT III, and we reopened the 51 production lines to build more until FLT III actually starts.
The scary part is that it is not just our shipbuilding: our NOC, MARSTRAT and other high-level documentation resemble the organizational adult ADHD that is epitomized by our shipbuilding, the FRP, the lack of maintenance and training, our focus on "things that matter" like DIVERSITY. God, I could go on, but I have already been talked off the ledge earlier this morning.
You can believe that I'll be pounding out an email to Sen. Rubio begging him to kill this white elephant. Galrahn, you're an old school Harpooner. Please build test scenarios against the possible threats. When inputing the survival ratio, do not assume that the automatic systems are as efficient as those provided by real sailors. Do assume that any below waterline hit during combat will cause combat efficiency to become degraded as manpower from this small crew will have to go fight the flooding. Please reference CDR. Lippolds description on Midrats of his crew's heroic fight to save the Cole, arguably a ship much better designed to survive. Please tell me what systems the LCS can defeat on it's won
Byron,
I have a bunch of new Harp stuff, still model in it for AI vs AI with modern stuff to think about tactics, strategy, etc... I should pass this stuff on to you to fool around with sometime. Its all in latest ANW version. Once a nerd, always a nerd.
Overall construction weaknesses aside, damage control seems most important thing. Anyone who has interest in Naval history knowns damage control is difference between ship living to fight another day (Big E vs Japan!) and becoming artificial reef. Those ships if ever forced into combat would become the "Yankee fireworks" like Shermans in the sights of Tiger. At least the Sherman was cheap and easy to mass produce. LCS is neither. And US cant rely on mass manpower anymore.
Still aircraft forced to land at high speed is pretty unsafe... and ship designed to keep high speed all the time is pretty unsafe too :P
you should have made this a post!! Unlike most, I like the new plan, but observe the enormous flaw - the lie that becomes total cost of ownership. We have nothing other than LCS/DDG-1000/DDG-51 on the drawing board - and that is the real crime given how long it takes to start a new line.
the guys with PT boats are nowadays pirates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-3FOeBXDHA
Sorry, I've always been an HC guy, never wanted to get all wrapped up in the H3 drama :) Still, having done thousands of scenarios (including that bastard Kola2, better known as Lehmans Graveyard of Ships in the North Atlantic), I can picture what would happen to either LCS if a real world adversary engaged them. For starters, a small boat, three bad guys and a load of RPGs could damn near sink an LCS. There's so many blind spots for crew served weapons that it isn't funny. A modern ASM with off-board guidance would sink one outright. A helo launched missile like Hellfire would get a mission kill at the least and leave LCS and her crew ripe for the picking.
Last but certainly not least, given the propensity for those Rolls Royce turbines to crap out (Freedom just puked up another and is in San Diego getting it fixed....again.) I wouldn't count on all that speed stuff to get them the hell out of Dodge.
Sal, shame on me for not having GOOGLE ALERTS set to record each and every step. I'm putting myself in HACQ. Either that or the Cone of Shame.
DISLIKE. Have you ever been on one of the National Security Cutters? WMSL-750 has as many issues as LPD-17. In addition, WMSL-750 was designed to roll WITH a carrier strike group, which is a mission that is not nearly as relevant as when the CONOPS was drafted. To quote CAPT Kirk of the ENTERPRISE, "What does God need with a ship?" Well, "What does the Coast Guard need with a Destroyer?"
They don't.
just holding the course steady over here in Navy Pentagon!
par for course for the Navy Pentagon
Yes, issue of moral courage. And a lack of technical expertise to defend when one hull is down-selected. The same fear that is driving the USAF punting of the KC(X) decision is present here: The Navy is terrified that they will be stuck without ships and with climbing bills as this thing is fought in the courts.
Solution set: 1) Grow nuts 2) Make NAVSEA defend your OPNAV decisions 3) inform those who don't win and who contest that they will land on the DoN enemies list.
I like the idea of NANSENs as a ship to fill the DE role, to act as escorts for the amphibians and fleet train, freeing up the BURKEs to run with the carriers, and ABSALOMs to do the stuff LCSes are supposed to do. Build both, all the design work has been done, shipyards should be able to start cutting steel for them shouldn't they?
Salty G. You are, unfortunately, partially correct. I would bet $$$ (lots) that first of class (Bertholf - and no, I've never been onboard her) will always have chronic 1st of class problems. But look at NSC number 2 which departed Pensacola Naval Air Station earlier this year. It sailed across Gulf of mexico, thru the Panama canal, then headed South to cross the equator (for a fun ceremony) then cruised up west coast of Mexico, did some training at San Diego, then proceeded up coast to San Fran, and rendez vous'ed with 1st of class Bertholf for some joint u/w ops. NSC-2 never refueled at all on this entire trip ! And since they carry 60 days of frozen chill and dry provisions, they can patrol off Alaska to run off all those illegal fishing vessels from other countries.
On the Coast Guard web site, there is other evidence that a large (FFG-7 sized WMSL) NSC is needed by Coastguard. They carry two helo's, and 3 RHIB's with two large boats docked in a well deck for VBSS ops in open ocean. Admittedly smaller Cutters could do coastal VBSS ops. Did you know that every single tanker entering USA, for example, Houston to supply refineries, has a 100 percent Muslim crew ? USCG does VBSS before the tankers enter harbor. Oh, and one other thing: on the Coastguard web site, they discuss a command and contrl system called SCIF/SESS which is quite sophisticated and large with much comm/radio capablility. This is to permit one NSC underway off Los Angeles or NYC or ..... to function as an on scene (100 percent secure) Commander in the event of something like another 9/11.
NSC's are all tasked with the usual other things that WHEC's have done: deploy overseas with Carriers, do joint training overseas with other countries, etc. With unsurpassed ENDURANCE (much longer than any AEGIS DDG or old Navy FFG), these NSC's are a bargain for whatever they might cost. Only 8 are planned, but our country plans to replace all 12 High Endurance Cutters which are over 40 years old now.
RN: roger that, was aware. Did some engineering for the NSC back when she was still getting built, before she went to the WSESRB. I never, ever doubt the professionalism, seamanship or capability of our Coast Guard. It is simply the finest in the world. Period. I do, however, doubt the boondoggle of an acquisition program, "DEEPWATER," which was the single largest disaster in Coast Guard History. Does WMSL 750 class have some cool C4I? Yes. RESCUE-21, CGC2 are both great systems. Their ability to "link" (lower case L) into the digital voice and data networks of local emergency responders is cool; however, it would have been of no use in Katrina when the power went out (and oops, so did all the digital comms). The ships are over armed (NULKA, CIWS, 57mm BOFORS gun, LINK-16, LINK-11, LINK-22A, .50s, 25mms) and yet not Grade A shock qualified. We don't use her for what she was designed for (Carrier Battle Group Ops), and instead we are using her as a Coast Guard SEA BASE, which while interesting and compelling, does not justify the dollars spent or the requirements that she still carries.
My Seapower Magazine for November states on page 25 that the USCG is requesting for FY2011 $513million for a fifth NSC.
So - we have a deep draft ship, able to stay up with CBG's, with long range, the size of a frigate, or a really cool looking couple of speed boats.
not grade A shock qualified, not a warship. Not that LCS is. Wharf Rat, see my discussion with Retired Now down below. NSC is a neat ship, but not being used for what it was designed for.
Um, Ewok? The B-26 turned out to have the lowest operational loss rate of any USAF bomber in the ETO. As for "<span>aircraft forced to land at high speed," next thing you'll tell me that jets are less safe that prop-jobs. Maybe we should go back to the DC-3 and the Boeing Clipper? :)</span>
That's not to mention one of the first battles in which the Marauder participated was Midway, in which the poor buggers got creamed. They had deployed as torpedo bombers and didn't make a single hit.
Yet at the end of the day the Marauder turned out to be a pretty decent aircraft. I doubt the same can be said for the new LCS designs.
Small irony alert for the history geeks; when the USAF was created, A-26 became the B-26
.
The Navy hasn't successfully procured or built anything new since the Arleigh Burke... the problem is much bigger and more systemic than LCS. The system is fundamentally broken.
If it wasn't, the Navy could just buy the designs for any of the several Scandinavian corvettes and light frigates, build them in Mississippi, and have 1000 of them for $50 mil apiece... but that would make sense and we can't have that.
I guarantee you that this is what happened. A couple of months ago, one of the MilCorps found out the other was in the running for the contract. So the war of the suitcases full of cash started (all of which went into our distinguished solon's of the soon to be lame duck Congress campaign fund accounts) and the "distinguished solons" starting squeezing various admirals nuts with threats of budget cutbacks for pet programs. Given that the admirals and civilian leadership no longer have the guts to say no, they took the cowards way out and went with both builds.
Of course, going with both builds means that whole theme of commonality of parts thing got kicked right out the window, but hey, when Congress is putting the full course press on, something has to give. Be nice if the honor and courage most ensigns have when the enter the service was still there when they get to flag rank, but hey, the process pretty much makes sure that that little characteristic is beaten out of them by the time they get there. Honest officers get tired of fighting a losing battle and get out. The Congressional ass-kissers stay in. And this is the Navy they give you: one with less CVNs, and a bunch of gunboats that will start killing their sailors as soon as the BBs start flying.
So...
We see both turkeys will be trotting to water...
Where are the mission modules?
The World Wonders...???
DEEPWATER was , is , and will always be regarded as a disaster. Fortuanately, it is fading away and dissolves in 2011 completely.
Was the USCG to blame for DEEPWATER ? The concept was to hand complex cutter acquisition off to the 2 heavy hitters: LOCKHEED MARTIN and NG. And for NSC cutter 1, Bertholf, the old Coastguard on site shipyard supervisors, could be counted on one hand, without using all fingers. It would have been a good idea if LM and NG had been more efficient and knowledgable about shipbuilding, and also not been so interested in taking their time, (which runs up cost). But, you've read all the DEEPWATER INC. past discussions. DEEPWATER just flat out failed to listen to and respond to any USCG inputs to the NSC program.
Turns out the new cutter has a good design now, albeit very crammed full of so many systems you can understand the high cost of each NSC. There have been some suggestions, good ones I think, to reduce the overly complex NSC's and save maybe 20 percent of the cost of building ea one. If the USCG could start cranking them out faster, cheaper, slightly less loaded with "extra" goodies, then this would be a good course of action. Especially since the follow on "class" called Medium Security Cutters ( WMSM ) are not even under a contract to start even the basic design !! Stand by for the first WMSM to be on her initial Sea Trials maybe around the year 2020. USCG could finish off another 10 WMSL's by then, if they would only reduce the overkilling complexity of unneeded extra's.
"the world wonders" You're quoting the infamous episode with Admiral Bull Halsey late in WW-II off the coast of the Philippines.
He was suckered / tricked by the Japanese and he was sent a simple inquiry msg from Admiral Nimitz in Hawaii.
" All the world wonders, where is the Seventh Fleet ". It wasn't (probably) intended by Chester Nimitz to be terrible put-down. (?)
Admiral Halsey forgot that to confuse any Japanese codebreakers, the US Navy would routinely append a few extra, non-sense words onto radio msg's.
The first part of this msg to Adm Halsey was, "All the world wonders... " and was to be ignored, of course.
However, being bull-headed, Adm. Bull Halsey took it personnaly and threw his hat onto the deck and cursed and did an embarrassing tantrum in front of part of his staff.
Hence the forever damning phrase, " all the World Wonders " or as you wrote, "The World Wonders".
You utilized this historic phrase quite properly in your succinct blog above.
I think part of the problem is that if they had downselected to one bidder, the other would have protested. Which would have tied the whole program up for at least three months...and more likely MUCH longer. LCS would have turned into the Navy's equivalent of KC-X.
This way, the Fleet gets something...even if it's overpriced and underperforming.
Neither version of LCS is really battle worthy.
LCS-1 class and LCS-2 class (most likely) are not prepared for an EMP attack.
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/101101-N-5684M-060.jpg
and look now we get a mini-LCS:
Force Protection- Coastal (FP-C) Patrol Craft
$5,000,000
Sen. John F. Kerry (MA) requests $5,000,000 for:
Duclos Corporation
Somerset, MA
(show me on a map)
Summary
Potential Recipient: Duclos Corporation Location: Somerset, MA Purpose: Force Protection- Coastal (FP-C) Patrol Craft Request: $5,000,000 Project Description: The requested funds will provide a capability to persistently patrol shallow littoral areas beyond sheltered harbors and bays and into less sheltered open water out to the Departure Sea Area (DSA). This capability will offer increased force protection of friendly and coalition forces and critical infrastructure.
and guess who will be fielding it? NECC/RIVERINE........ OY.
Fantastic Photo, posted today on the Dot NAVY Dot MIL web site. That CVN is USS Ronald Regan, and, of course, that "blast" shown is really just a fantastic sunrise. But the point is that no USN surface warship including the tiny LCS research and development projects, are not ready for even a small EMP blast.
Has LCS-1 gotten its new MT30 yet?
Also, how did the BRILLIANT! idea of removing the rails out of the stack...for weight savings...work out for yah?
Anyway.
I mentioned then that the Trent engine, which forms the core of the MT30, was a right finicky motor.
Well, yet more evidence of that just showed in a dramatic fashion....
It will be interesting to watch the LCS-1s for the reliability of their gas turbines.
We should just impound -John -gottalilbooboonhisfingerwhichgothimaPurpleHeart-Kerry's Friendship for the job....
Post a Comment