We have come very close to destroying the Navy Brand as a marketing person would understand it. Look at the video below, and if you know what I mean you will only see one person who in one second says, "Navy."
Skipper - I need to buy you a beer.
The other guys? Who knew the Battlestar Galactica convention was going on?
Hat tip Coops.
1 hour ago
13 comments:
Still not a fan of ball caps and whites though. I also don't like men wearing an untucked shirt hanging out of the bottom of a sweater. It doesn't match for me. I'm not hip.
I am with you on that but .... when surrounded by NWU Type whocankeeptrack .... it is just nice to see both whites and a ball cap anywhere...
What...you didn't see the preview for "Battleship?" Hey, if you wear whites with ball caps, and NDUs with ballcaps, maybe Rihanna will come be your coxswain!
Only saw one individual, the rest must have been camouflaged or something - Hope they don't go overboard, you would never find them.
Maybe they can add a bright orange thing to help localization during MOB. Maybe even make the orange thing float.
Not a big fan of the ballcap/whites combo either...what's wrong with the combination cover? It screams professionalism and "Navy".
I recently asked an 1120 friend of mine why he didn't wear his combination cover with his khakis...he said, and this is verbatim- "Don't take this the wrong way, but as a JO I learned that only a$$holes and warrant officers wore those."
Trop whites and a <span>ballcap</span>?!? Really? Geez, if that's the best the SWO's can do, well, you're right, the "brand" (and I hate that kind of management-speak) is kaput. As for the rest, well let's just hope our newest CNO says, "uh, no."
"SWO-Babies" have been running the Navy for 11 years now (Clark, Mullen, and Roughhead), let's see if another community can get us back on course!
Since when can you wear a ballcap with whites? That's a new one on me.
Sorry, couldn't pay attention after my mind latched onto the thought "$700 million for a DDG-51 versus $600 million for an LCS".
Everything after that was noise while I looked for the scotch.
"One thing to notice while reading these is that ship construction contracts do not include important equipment like guns, radar, combat systems, missile launchers, etc. Those are bought independently as “Government Furnished Equipment,” though ship construction contracts do pay to have that equipment installed in the ships. Many of those contracts are not publicly announced, or not broken out specifically by ship. As such, ancillary contracts covered here are suggestive and informative, not comprehensive."
Link: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Adding-Arleigh-Burkes-Northrop-Grumman-Underway-06007/
If I'm not mistaken the reduction gears are also GFE and not priced in the shipbuilding contract.
Wonder how far off they really are. Wikipedia lists FY11 costs of a Billion for a Burke Flight IIa (which seem light as other numbers point to 1.2B ) and the last contracts for LCS (Wikipedia source) have LM & Austal @ uner 440 mil + some wiggle room and and additional "Government Furnished Equipment" . Add mission modeules at yet to be determined prices and maturity and the gap closes a lot more.
Yes, there are plenty of other costs that add gap to the Burke but there is also a tremendous capability gap as well.
Scratch that pricing - BW's link has the following "The current DDG-51 Flight IIA version would remain in production from FY 2010-2015, buying 2 more Flight IIA ships in 2011 at a total cost of about $3.5 billion, and then another 6 from FY 2011-2015."
From what i understand that counts the cost of basicly restarting the Burke line of construction sense we were of course going to buy DDG-1000 only from now on. >:o
Post a Comment