Thursday, June 16, 2011

Pentagon calls LCS "unreasonably expensive" and "impractical"

Wait .... let me put that in better context.

From our buddy over at ELP.
On another note, this from insidedefense.com (subscription).
Pentagon Waives Testing Requirement For Navy's Littoral Combat Ship

The Pentagon has waived the statutory requirement for full-up, system-level survivability testing of the Littoral Combat Ship because it would be "unreasonably expensive" and "impractical," a decision blessed by the Defense Department's top weapons tester, DOD officials say.
LCS - the gift that keeps giving. Roll in the fail.

I guess putting Sailors in combat not knowing the ability of their "warship" to actually do that "overseas contingency operation" thingy is asking too much. Making sure you can explain to the family members of those killed in combat why their sons and daughters are at the bottom of the sea is "unreasonably expensive" and "impractical."

I'll let you answer that question in front of a Senate investigation committee sometime later this decade or next.

79 comments:

solon said...

To paraphrase the script from the movie TITANIC:  "Epic Fail, right ahead!"

Anonymous said...

Ken Adams owes me beer...

Anonymous said...

Not the first to get a waiver, won't be the last.

LT B said...

Time to write your Congressman, and maybe cc Congressman West since he is on that committee.  I am tired of this silliness.  Now that we have this whole Navy Ethos thingy, I would like to step away from that and share something w/ Navy leadership.

Honor, Courage, Commitment.  You may have heard about these things at some point in your career.  I would invite you and your careerism to embrace these silly little concepts.  Granted, in DC they may be quaint and naive, but for those that go to sea, possibly off the coast of Lebanon (for instance), or be playing in the South China Sea mucking around with the ChiComs, etc., these ideals may eventually translate to life and death.  But hey, screw that, we need FITREP bullets and follow on defense contracting jobs. 

sid said...

Ken Adams owes me beer.

Anonymous said...

Statements without references = opinion, not fact. Please post.

Stork said...

<span>Statements without references = opinion, not fact. Please post</span>

ewok40k said...

 Next real war will do all those tests for free...
If you dont count sailors lives that is...

kmadams85 said...

Sid, refresh my memory on this particular bet... not trying to back out, but don't want you collecting prematurely either.  :)

Retired Now said...

proof along with our (short) posts ? That sounds fine except it sure changes everything. Next you'll want our full names, where we work, etc. Even we agree to provide All such info, then you will need us to explain all the references we provide, and in general, teach you and hold your hand so that you just might (but not likely) understand some small part of each post.

Sorry, your rules just won't work in this forum. Regulars to each different Blog site quickly come to discern which post-er's are subject matter experts and which are to be disregarded.

Right now, there is no absolutely perfect blog, but many of them function quite well without having to rigorously prove each presented fact or each evaluated opinion. Too many lawyer like logical referenced proofs would not work well. You can fairly quickly detect which posts routinely have the ring of authenticity.

sid said...

I guess putting Sailors in combat not knowing the ability of their "warship" to actually do that "overseas contingency operation" thingy is asking too much.

Not if it means you can make some really sweet Green off the deal....

Stork said...

Lighten up dude. Obviously "Guest' knows of other classes of ships that had a waiver. My point was why not list one or two examples when making such a statement. Not on any troll hunt here, just looking for a little more detail in a posting.

sid said...

It was on the USNI blog some time back. You said that live fire testing was going to be done by LCS hull #5 or so (as I remember-will have to dig it up in a bit)...

But as I suspected, it was going to get blown off -every pun intended- altogether.

Good news is I go for cheap Mexican Ken...

sid said...

Guest is right...

LFT&E was deliberately made "optional"...

Big Money Talks.

BTW...I first read of frustration over this in these journals.

Not that any SWO's will bother...

but

Ask this guy....

sid said...

I guess putting Sailors in combat not knowing the ability of their "warship" to actually do that "overseas contingency operation" thingy is asking too much.

Especially if it means it complicates the revenue stream....

sid said...

more correctly...full up shock testing.

Scott Brim, USAF Partisan said...

The statutory requirement for full-up, system-level combat survivability testing assumes that survivabiity is part of the technical and operational performance specification.

However, if a traditional level of combat survivability is not being required of LCS, as was explicity stated years ago by Admiral Hamilton at the start of the LCS program, and if the LCS specifications don't require traditional combat survivability, why should one expect that expensive testing be gone to assess LCS' combat survivability?

It is easier and cheaper for all concerned, pro-LCS and anti-LCS alike, simply to publicly acknowledge that LCS was never intended to have a traditional level of combat survivabilty, and in actual fact it doesn't, for better or worse.   

The reality of the situation is this:  only when an LCS is lost in a combat engagement that a traditional warship could have easily survived, will the wisdom of not having a traditional survivability requirement be seriously questioned.

Stork said...

Thanks Sid.

sid said...

I was just looking for Hamilton's dismissive quote!!!

NAVSEA took down that interview a couple years back (Stalin style History...If we erase all traces of it, it didn't happen), but I've repeatedly posted his remarks for posterity.

Just kind that one part where he mentioned the would "meet statutory requirements."

When I first read it, I knew damned good and well they had no intnetions of meeting LFT&E.

sid said...

Just kind that one part where he mentioned the would "meet statutory requirements."  

Just -can't find-...

But here it is.

Anyway here is the quote from the now dead NAVSEA link
http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/LCS_Forum2.htm
Question: Does your modeling simulation get into the area of survivability? Are you looking at some shock test with these [voice drop, word inaudible]?
RADM Hamilton: As you know from reading the requirements documents, the survivability piece on LCS is different than DDG 51 or DDX or several of our other combatants. And what we’ve chosen to do here is couple high speed and maneuverability and situational awareness in ways that allow LCS to be in the right place at the right time and to be out of the right place at the wrong time. Okay?
We have some modeling and simulation of the designs and know what effects different weapons might bring to those particular designs. But again, because our desire for speed gets us to alternative and lighter materials, the damage tolerance for large cruise missiles for example are not the same as those on a DDG 51.
Question: And do you envision shock test at some point in the future?
RADM Hamilton: I envision engaging with DOT&E to satisfy our statutory requirements.

FCC said...

80 sailors times $400k SGLI = 32 million dollars to stimulate the economy!

sid said...

So.

Now they have "satisfied their statutory requirements."

Global Force For Good.

kmadams85 said...

My recollection was that I said one ship would go through a shock trial, probably the third to fifth of the class.  I haven't seen the full article yet, so hard to say what they actually waived.  Need to know what kind of testing they've asked to waive.  Was it overmatch, or test-to-failure?  If so, then the waiver request is absolutely valid.  That kind of testing makes sense on a single asset from a large production run, but not on something with the kinds of quantities we see in ship production.  We do those kinds of tests on ships that have outlived their service lives.  If the tests waived were intended for system characterization or model verification, then a waiver is a harder sell.


Just for the record, consider this<span>"Realistic survivability testing"</span> consists of "testing for vulnerability of the system in combat by firing munitions likely to be encountered in combat (or munitions with a capability similar to such munitions) at the system configured for combat, with the primary emphasis on testing vulnerability with respect to potential user casualties and taking into equal consideration the susceptibility to attack and combat performance of the system." 

Also of interest is this guidance to program managers from the Defense Acquisition University: "Test asset planning: Because Live Fire testing is inherently destructive it is important plan for test assets that may not be returnable to the field. These may be older units that are not going to be repaired and returned to use or first articles in the event of a new program."

DeltaBravo said...

well, Little Coffin Ship might never see combat anyway... don't you have to be able to leave the pier to do that?   Maybe the point is moot and they know it.

Scott Brim, USAF Partisan said...

Admiral Hamilton:  "And what we’ve chosen to do here is couple high speed and maneuverability and situational awareness in ways that allow LCS to be in the right place at the right time and to be out of the right place at the wrong time. Okay?"
 
In other words, Admiral Hamilton's unspoken and unacknowledged assumption -- but one that is currently operative for all practical purposes -- is that an LCS will never be hit.
 
A corrolary assumption -- one that is likewise unspoken and unacknowledged, and is also currently operative, for all practical purposes -- is that an LCS warship and its crew are 100% expendable. 

Nick Chaleunphone said...

Some please just Kill the LCS program and tell the US Navy to go shopping for a MEKO or European Corvette Design. Heck The US Navy can talk to the European Navys that have Corvettes in their fleet and possibly buy the design rights to have US Ship builders build in the US. As for the remainder of the LCS, just give it to the US Coast Guard and let the US Coast Guard take the LCS to replace their 210 and 270s.

leesea said...

just to nitpick a bit the subject line should add: "<span>full-up, system-level survivability testing".</span>

BUT you are otherwise VERY correct.

It is not that the LCS have no survivability, just the lowest level which isn't being tested - dahh??  See Ken's more definitve answers below.  We don't actually want to sink an LCS but a good measure of its survivability would be nice to know?

Know that these ships are expected to become pickets at the forward edge of battle area i.e. those dangerous green waters and WILL~ be protected by the Battle Network - cough, gag.

Grandpa Bluewater. said...

If you didn't do it prior to moving from a single prototype to series production you have corrupted the process.

At best it will be done late and be fine. You won your gamble.

If it is done late and requires some redesign and some rework, the fix will be required on all ships built and under construction and will cost plenty, plus you must redesign the construction sequence for whatever the fix requires, also costing plenty. 

If done late and no fix is possible, you have a number of ships which are deathtraps, which you may be able to use for non combat duties, but are using money for combat worthy ships to build and operate deathtraps, so you have less (in practical terms, no) money to build badly needed combatants.

If you waiver the test, most specifically in this case, they will be used as if they had passed it. Sailors will be injured and die needlessly, eventually.  Material professionals should know this. Now luck might save you and the sailors. You bet your career (maybe), and their lives (no maybe about it).

The problem with waivers is that the assumption that tests never catch unforseen problems.

Like the corrosion from leakage from a bad sea valve which eventually led to grounding of the main battery cabling which initiated the Bonefish fire. Which the waivered battery compt pressure test (waived after failure) would have found, since the rust ate into the cabling at their bulkhead/overhead penetration watertight fittings. 3 dead, ship decommissioned.  The casualty scenario was applicable to existing SSN designs as well (shudder).  

There was a lot of high falutin' noble sounding malarky put out by the cognizant authorities that authorized the waiver; ground truth remains "don't waiver major safety tests" because you know those test did or will fail. 

Fix it, or junk it. It's about duty and responsibility. On some things decent folk don't gamble.

LCS delende est.

Squidly said...

In other news, ADM Greenert was just selected as CNO.  Let the games begin.

Aubrey said...

"And what we’ve chosen to do here is couple high speed and maneuverability and situational awareness in ways that allow LCS to be in the right place at the right time and to be out of the right place at the wrong time. Okay? "

This picture is what that particular outlook buys you (HMS Invincible)

sid said...

More from the '10 DOT&E Report...

<span><span>

The LFT&E Management Plan describes the major tests and
analyses that will serve as the basis for DOT&E’s survivability
assessment. To address the vulnerability implications of
building ships with aluminum structure to commercial
standards, relevant to both ship designs, the LFT&E program
will include the following surrogate tests: fire-induced
structural collapse test of a multi-compartment aluminum
structure, internal blast test of a multi-compartment aluminum
structure, and an underwater explosion-induced inelastic
whipping test of a surrogate ship.
</span></span>

sid said...

<p><span><span>It is not that the LCS have no survivability, just the lowest level which isn't being tested - dahh??<span>  </span></span></span><span> </span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>Its not clear that the ships truly meet Level I at all, or if they are built to some exception based on what NVR could be semi-sucessfully back engineered into the two designs....</span></span>
</p><p><span> </span><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>But one this IS certain...</span></span>
</p><p><span> </span><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>Littoral COMBAT far, far, removed from the "least severe environment anticipated"....</span></span>
</p>

sid said...

Beatty thought he had pretty good vision...

Just like the Network sycophants of today who think clarity of vision will keep them from being hit.

They keep thinking that and some day, somebody will get their A** whacked right hard.

But, back to that pic...A little Wayne P Hughes wisdom:

“The period from 1865 to 1914 rivals even our present age for sweeping technological development in peacetime…
Tactical analysis failed in two significant respects only: overvaluation of speed, and failure to forsee the effects that poor visibility would have on major fleet actions.”


and, borrowing from Baron Brassey's concerns a century ago....


An admiral an admiral having Freedoms and Independences in his fleet will be certain to put them in the line of battle, where their comparatively light protection would be at a disadvantage.

These sadly conceived boats won't outrun History.

Anonymous said...

Hey Stork, it's my opinion that this isn't the first weapon system to be waived for LFT&E. Also, I said nothing about "other classes of ships" that had a waiver.  People like you inserting words is part of the reason I keep comments short.

Stork said...

Guest, simply saying that including an example or two of other weapon systems that have been waived would have helped add credibility to your statement for someone not that familiar with LFT&E. No malice was intended. 

Anonymous said...

I think folks are confusing Full up system level testing that is required as part of the LFT&E.  This is not the same as shock testing, Survivability testing of systems, etc.  I believe, but havent seen the waiver so havent read end to end, that the FUSL was waived, which is the norm.  No one can afford to take a ship nowadays and intentionally hit it to see what the ensuing damage does.  In fact, the waiver process was intentionally put in place to avoid having to destroy platforms which might be limited in number.

If the waiver was to cancel shock testing, TSST and the M&S that are also part of LFT&E, then we got a problem, but I believe the plan is still to shock one of these eventually (LCS 5?).  Same thing was done with DDG's, shock, TSST, M&S done, but no FUSL.

I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of the scuttlebutt in WNY.

Aubrey said...

"G<span>lad you don't accuse Sal of spewing opinion instead of facts"</span>

For the love of God - its a BLOG, anyone with an IQ above that of paramecia assumes Sal is spewing opinion.  Many of us just happen to trust that opinion and the experience/knowledge behind it.  If you came to this part of the interwebz looking for pure fact you might to re-visit that copy of "The Web for Dummies" you have on the shelf....

sid said...

Deflect the argument inot arcane defense acquisition-ese all you want Guest.

These ships are still deathtraps that will get sailors killed and battles lost one day.

DeltaBravo said...

Like buying a Chevy Vega for your kid's first car.... bon voyage!

Someday the Senate hearings will be fascinating as they get up there and say with a straight face that they did not know they were putting men in direct jeopardy putting them on such a vessel.

Stork said...

After following Sal for many years, I've come to trust his opinions and statements. Someone going by "Guest", well, there is no basis for me to have trust in what is being written without refs/examples. I'm not a DC or acquisition type. Only spent most of my 27 years AD forward deployed and have just come off sea duty. So yes, I am concerned for the safety and welfare of my shipmates that may sail in harms way in ships that are inadequate.

sid said...

<span>Someday the Senate hearings will be fascinating as they get up there and say with a straight face that they did not know they were putting men in direct jeopardy putting them on such a vessel.</span>

Once you boil it down....

Its <span>ALLLLL</span> about the money.

sid said...

Looking at that last pic linked...

Heck, the Glamorgan....forward deployed in a storm tossed war zone ...with a fair speed bent on after absorbing an Exocet is so much more squared away than the Freedom is after conducting a few days of local ops, that you'd think the latter was was a joke.

Oh wait...

It is.

sid said...

<span>Looking at that last pic linked...  
 
Heck, the Glamorgan....forward deployed in a storm tossed war zone ...with a fair speed bent on after absorbing an Exocet is so much more squared away than the Freedom is after conducting a few days of local ops, that you'd think the latter is a joke.  
 
Oh wait...  
 
It shouldn't be...But a sad one it is....</span>

seattle fire said...

Again, why would the USCG want the LCS?  How would it fare as a SAR platform during the Alaskan crab season?  Would it be able to do extended patrols in the Marianas looking for EEZ violators?  What role would it fill as a training platform during African Partnership Station? 
The USCG has had its problems and seems to have turned them around.  Perhaps a better question would be why not replace LCS with the NSC? 

Retired Now said...

pic of 10,000 lb explosion going off next to Navy ship AUGUST 2008:

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=62562


What would this do to an LCS-1 ?    ( or an LCS-2 for that matter).

Retired Now said...

This Hi-Res Photo of SHOCK TEST #2 going off right next to LPD-19 USS MESA VERDE, looks pretty impressive.  AUGUST 2008.

However, it didn't do much  damage according to much latter reports.    BTW, there was a 3rd one of these SHOCKS conducted after this one and it was even closer to LPD-19.   The US Navy web site strangely never released any pictures of the final (third) shock explosion.   Of course, there was a budget set aside to do various repairs after all 3 explosions were finished.   Evidently, this was pretty common, to select the 3rd new construction ship of a Navy warship  class, and then conduct a series of Shock tests to ensure equipments really meet Grade A shock standards.  

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/080816-N-6031Q-213.jpg

You can actually enlarge this photo somewhat, since it is pretty hi-resolution.

Anonymous said...

That would be an excellent course of action,  because the NSC is cheaper than LCS, a little larger, carries 150 crew (all in nice staterooms not in bolted on Conex boxes without bathrooms), fuel for a 30++ day u/w patrol, food for a 60 day patrol, has a full sized and fully equipped SCIF, uses the same AEGIS core software command and control system, has both a radar Gun Fire Control System as well as an optical GFCS,  handles and rides extremely well even up off the Barents Sea between Russia and Alaska in April, and will no doubt, travel at a higher max sustained speed than the LCS if encountering Sea States 3,4, and above, etc.. .. .. .. .. ..

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Little Coffin Ship is the best description yet.

Byron said...

"Someday the Senate hearings will be fascinating as they get up there and say with a straight face that they did not know they were putting men in direct jeopardy putting them on such a vessel."

And we'll happily line up and tell the Senate, "Oh, hell yes you did, we've been warning you for years now!"

sid said...

Oh...

I suspect there will be some "regulatory compliant" test that will occur whcih will alos satisfy an obligatory photo op....

Likely won't say diddly about how well either design will fare in a real world hostile MIW environement though.

There are <span>bonuses</span> at stake by God!

Retired Now said...

LCS-1 was commissioned about 2.5 years ago. Never crossed the Pacific or Atlantic or steamed near a big storm. Yet, her hull has some cracks, and her humongous sized gas turbines had to replaced already. Speculation is that those ridiculously overpowered main gas turbines totalling 96,000 hp might not have sufficient foundations. BTW, 96,000 hp is now referred to as a more trendy number = 72 MW, which is more hp than LHD-8 has , and she is over 40,000 tons !

Anonymous said...

It is all about the money, which is why there is a waiver process.... in the law.  We don't build ships with unlimited budgets, as much as the shipyard workers and SWOs would like us to.

sid said...

You don't build them based on sane and rational "Requirements" of late either....

sid said...

Some grist for the mill...

sid said...

More here...

But I will opine that given the all too incestuous relationship between those who have had oversight over such things and the Primes they go to work for soon after, is likely eating away at the purported objectivity of these tests.

As mentioned several times now...

Its ALLL about the Money.

sid said...

Bet's on about how all this is going to be gundecked....

Sometime in the not too distant future, there will be some densely turgid report released on a holiday Friday afternoon about how the LCS's "meet requirements", and how the OT&E plan is to be implemented.

Since everyone knows these ships cannot be realistically tested, this plan will rely almost exclusively on Modeling & Simulation. A contract will be let to some subsidiary of LockMart or Northrop Grumman to do the M&S studies...

Which, not unexpectedly, will come back after everyone has forgotten about this decidedly boring topic and dutifully state that the test objectives have been met.

ok. Cheap Mexican cervezas are chillin' in the icebox...

Any takers?

<p><span><span>"If we don’t test, the model is always right.” </span></span>
</p><p><span> </span>
</p><p><span><span>(Jim O’Bryon)</span></span>
</p>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

sid,

That is a SUCKER'S bet.  Of COURSE it will be gundecked.  And the PM and FOs who not only authorize, but facilitate the effort will be handsomely rewarded.  And the outgoing and incoming CNO will approve wholeheartedly.  Political expedience and deliberate dishonesty have replaced honor and integrity.

Somebody thinks these people should hold positions of great responsibility in the Navy.  I wouldn't let them lead a fire team in combat.  Neither would a squad leader.  Because they are not to be trusted.  And for that, they should be ashamed.  They aren't, of course, which speaks loudly.

sid said...

But URR...

With cheap mexican..You can't lose...!

Forgot to mention that these ships are a "covered system", so somebody is going to have to cover their A$$$
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>

LFT&E Waivers
</span></span>
<span><span>

Covered systems may seek a waiver from having to conduct "Full-Up System Level (FUSL)" LFT&E if they can show that the system-level testing would be unreasonably expensive and impractical. They must also propose an alternative approach as a substitute for the full-up testing. This alternative approach is an appropriate combination of component and sub-system testing, modeling and simulation, and engineering analyses. DOT&E must concur with this alternative approach.

LFT&E waivers must be approved prior to Milestone B or upon entry into the acquisition process if the entry is beyond Milestone B. The SECDEF has delegated waiver approval to the USD (AT&L) for ACAT I programs and to the Component Acquisition Executive (CAE) for ACAT II programs. After these milestone points, a LFT&E waiver can only be granted through special approval of Congress.
</span></span>

DeltaBravo said...

I may just be a civilian.  And not even an engineer.  But if reading about this floating death trap for half an hour with MY lack of expertise makes me angry, THERE IS A PROBLEM.  My father, my father in law and my brothers and my brother in law have been on minesweepers, heavy cruisers, aircraft carriers (WWII-era and post WWII-era carriers), Spruance-class destroyers, submarines, LKAs and whatever is out there that hosts the USMC on its floats.  Navy has a MORAL OBLIGATION to those who entrust the lives of their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers, mothers, sisters and daughters to these ships to make damn sure that those vessels have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving a Cole-like attack, storms at sea, a fire or even a damn run-in at the pier.  To let a ship with these manifested inadequacies get this far through the process unchecked borders on criminal negligence.  Full stop.

Nick Chaleunphone said...

I think the best way for the US Navy to save it's skin is to Kill the LCS program and go with the US Coast Guards NSC and modifiy the NSC for Naval use. That would mean enlarging the NSC in order to accomidate Frigate weapons and systems on board in addition to the NSC systems. They can even buy into the NSC and make two versions one for the US navy and one for the US Coast Guard. Can u imagine whan a Navilized version of the NSC would look like with Frigate weapons and systems.

sid said...

The NSC is not built to survive in combat either....

DeltaBravo said...

That storm, by the way, lasted for 1.5-2 DAYS.  Cogitate on the implications of that.

sid said...

In other words, Admiral Hamilton's unspoken and unacknowledged assumption -- but one that is currently operative for all practical purposes -- is that an LCS will never be hit.  

Oh...

Its very acknowledged and spoken, as seen in the ppt contained in this CRS report and excerpted below....

"WE WON"T GET HIT"

Yeah. Sure.

Ok Captain...

Thats what these guys said too.

I know some folks who can impart some wisdom on that score.

Not that I'd expect you or your fellow SWOs to pay any mind...

Perhaps we should discuss how constraining the Littorals are when busting about at 40 plus knots in a 3000 ton ship.

Especially given the demonstrated skill in shallow water navigation in recent years.

Anyway...From that O'Bryon guy again...

Misconception No. 5: We won't get hit. This is not borne out by
history and current defense trends worldwide do not point to history
reversing itself. Both sides are working very hard on countermeasures,
reduction of radar cross section and additional stealthy components
and tactics. However, as we have seen in every major conflict, we will
get hit and will be damaged. Statistics from the Vietnam war alone
show that even in the midst of a conflict in which we enjoy air
superiority, the U.S. lost more than 5,500 fixed and rotary-wing
aircraft.

sid said...

In other words, Admiral Hamilton's unspoken and unacknowledged assumption -- but one that is currently operative for all practical purposes -- is that an LCS will never be hit.  

Oh...

Its very acknowledged and spoken, as seen in the ppt contained in this CRS report and excerpted below....

"WE WON"T GET HIT"

Yeah. Sure.

Ok Captain...

Thats what these guys said too.

I know some folks who can impart some wisdom on that score.

Not that I'd expect you or your fellow SWOs to pay any mind...

Perhaps we should discuss how constraining the Littorals are when busting about at 40 plus knots in a 3000 ton ship.

Especially given the demonstrated skill in shallow water navigation in recent years.

Anyway...From that O'Bryon guy again...

Misconception No. 5: We won't get hit. This is not borne out by
history and current defense trends worldwide do not point to history
reversing itself. Both sides are working very hard on countermeasures,
reduction of radar cross section and additional stealthy components
and tactics. However, as we have seen in every major conflict, we will
get hit and will be damaged. Statistics from the Vietnam war alone
show that even in the midst of a conflict in which we enjoy air
superiority, the U.S. lost more than 5,500 fixed and rotary-wing
aircraft.

OldCOB said...

Not an issue.  The course plotter will move the ship around the explosions.  Thought everybody knew that.

Byron said...

DB, that was my very first objection to LCS some four years ago...even if everything works they way they said it would (and it hasn't) the crew is too small to both fight the ship and save the ship. In battle, you often have to do both. That's a fact that has been proven time after time.

LT B said...

Byron, you clearly haven't seen the Powerpoint presentations on this ship.  If so, you would drink the Kool-aid.  Wait, we have to make the ship seem more invisible in the last slide and change the font size.  I'll get it out to you after that.  :)

Grandpa Bluewater. said...

Byron would have trouble drinking kool-aid while banging on the table with his fist, cussing in cajun, and resisting the urge to upchuck in his hard hat.

Need more like him.

sid said...

<span>AVOID BEING HIT</span>

-SPEED

-OVERBOARD SYSTEMS







<span>“The period from 1865 to 1914 rivals even our present age for sweeping technological development in peacetime…  </span>
<span>
Tactical analysis failed in two significant respects only:<span> overvaluation of speed</span>, </span>



<span>and <span>failure to forsee the effects that poor visibility would have on major fleet actions.</span>”  </span>

sid said...

Nothing like blowing off historical constants...

(Cebrowski was straight-up wrong.)


<span><span>AVOID BEING HIT</span>  
 
-SPEED  
 
-OVERBOARD SYSTEMS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<span>“The period from 1865 to 1914 rivals even our present age for sweeping technological development in peacetime…  </span>  
<span>  
Tactical analysis failed in two significant respects only:<span> </span></span>
</span>

<span><span><span>overvaluation of speed</span>, </span>  
 
 
<span>and</span></span>


<span><span><span>failure to forsee the effects that poor visibility would have on major fleet actions.</span>”  </span></span>

sid said...

Nothing like blowing off historical constants... 
 
Cebrowski was straight-up <span>WRONG</span>. 
 
 
AVOID BEING HIT   
  
-SPEED   
  
-OVERBOARD SYSTEMS 
  
 

“The period from 1865 to 1914 rivals even our present age for sweeping technological development in peacetime…     
  
Tactical analysis failed in two significant respects only: 
 
<span>overvaluation of speed,    </span>
  
and 
 
<span>failure to foresee the effects that poor visibility would have on major fleet actions.”  </span>



Speed WILL NOT keep you alive....

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

But we have a conservative bent, and may be ignored.

Retired Now said...

Craig Hooper AUSTAL vice president, was on the front page of the MOBILE Saturday newspaper trying not to comment about major rust problems onboard LCS-2 USS Independence.

Seems the Navy on LCS-2 has discovered that in the vicinity of the steel propulsion shafts, there is an old nemesis:  dissimilar metals.  Craig Hooper is quoted in the paper,  "dynamic corrosion is a common problem for any ship.  It's a known issue, and fixes are widely known in the maritime community".

Craig Hooper has recently been hired as AUSTAL's vice president for sales, marketing and external communication.  A drydocking is now planned so that the water jets can be removed since they have "suffered significant corrosion".    The article ends stating that Finland's Wartsila "built the waterjets for Independence and is building the waterjets for the Coronado, Hooper said".   

Too bad the Navy considers these LCS as in production, vice as only R&D ships !      Since when is it ever a good idea during peacetime to go "into production" on warships that are just beginning their RDT&E testing phase ?     NAVSEA shipbuilding programs make Big mistakes,  not little ones.   

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Hooper's rust problem is between his ears. 

Never met a guy who knew so much about things he didn't know.

sid said...

Here is the article...


MOBILE, Alabama -- A littoral combat ship built at Austal USA’s Mobile River shipyard will have to be dry-docked to remove water jets that have suffered significant corrosion, the Bloomberg news service reported today.
While not discussing LCS-2, U.S.S. Independence, specifically, Craig Hooper, Austal’s vice president for sales, marketing and external communication said that “dynamic corrosion is a common problem for any ship.

So, is the LCS-2 somewhere in the vicinity of Panama City and headed to Mobile to go into the yard?

Also, whn forward deployed one day...

How will this congenital problem affect making the speed that is the premise underlying the ability of the ship to live -and run if not fight- another day?

sid said...

Then there is this...

"Corrosion control must become a way of life and must be viewed, resourced, and managed as a critical mission across the Surface Fleet," said McManamon. "Right now we are focusing efforts on developing and executing a standardized preservation plan."

sid said...

Then there is this...

"Corrosion control must become a way of life and must be viewed, resourced, and managed as a critical mission across the Surface Fleet," said McManamon. "Right now we are focusing efforts on developing and executing a standardized preservation plan."

Uh. Yah Think?!?!?!

Since when is this a new revelation?

sid said...

Wow... =-O

Which boat is this?

Only boats I ever saw with that much rust were ones that had been decommissioned and brought back.

And, these are the ships that will be called upon to protect the LCS?

Humph...With swiss cheese armored decks...

Priorities....

Anonymous said...

Homeowners requisition this titanic garner of captivating a concession at desired unsophisticated cost. This is because lenders ruminate over on them as verging on hazard free-born borrowers. At any figure online secured confidence has this added sway of convenient mandate of any lend amount. A allow that comes in script at marine starboard outline means you can accomplish varied works without worrying transfer price escalation. Close operating of online secured credit you can total improvements on your skilled in which enhances connected with value. You can also utilize the appreciation amount in search marrying or eerie drive or can take at the time tour.

Online secured credit is offered inseparable to online lenders. These lenders be dressed displayed a unpretentious online pertinence which requires the borrower to substitute c inform some chip in a attack details like allowance amount, its ambition, repayment duration and bodily information like the borrowers occupation. Online attentiveness stick-to-it-iveness reaches to the lender instantly with the click of the mouse and enables lender in constant processing and approval of the loan.

Online secured advance is approved against the borrowers quality that has some high-mindedness body up in it. Any residential chattels or any valuable asset serves the principle of collateral. On securing the merit, lenders structure the risks byzantine in the loan and are in a tolerable inclination of offer online secured remuneration at approachable terms. Lenders heedfulness lop off advantage well-disposed on online secured loan. The tariff of break up in details can be reduced as a remedy for the applicant who has off effectively or apt probity history. Underneath online secured lend you can avail an amount depending on your repaying sensitivity and open-mindedness in collateral. On the large online lenders approve 5000 to 75000 as secured loan. A borrower can come to a decision to recompense online secured advance in 5 to 30 years. Larger repayment duration and falling off good rates makes online secured trustworthiness less bothersome to repay.

As idiosyncrasy of radical confidence borrower is with the lender as asylum, lenders approve online secured appropriate to such people without delay. So people having grade united's religion problems like up to date payments, arrears, payment defaults, county court judgments are approved online secured credit in smoother way. Access various lenders providing online secured commendation and engage online to the suitable lender. Online lenders do not jurisdiction any compromise processing ring and so the applicant saves a straws this way.


http://www.zimbio.com/General/articles/fUe_BnmXNpH/Include+Homeowner+Insurance+Coverage+Mortgage?add=True

http://www.homeoftester.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=390489
http://61.7.230.203/KM/index.php?action=profile;u=575104