Sunday Funnies

Well, this explains a lot. Initial LCS Concept Development meeting video has been released.

Fullbore Friday

When you honor a great man's passing, use the time to measure yourself against the man at his best. If in his shoes, what would you have done? How would history and the man in the mirror evaluate your actions?

Last week, one of those on the top shelf passed.

Jeremiah Denton, the Vietnam War POW who has died at age 89, uttered one of the great statements of defiance in American history.

In 1965, he was shot down in his A-6 during a bombing run over North Vietnam. He became a captive for more than seven years and endured an unimaginable regime of torture, humiliation, and isolation, managing to retain his dignity and spirit even as his captors went to hideous lengths to snuff them out.

The next point is why many in uniform, rightly, don't take well to any representative of our nation bowing to anyone.

Soon after his capture, a young North Vietnamese solider signaled to him to bow down and, when he refused, pressed a gun to his head so hard it created a welt. Denton quickly learned that this would be mild treatment. He was taken to Hoa Lo Prison, or the Hanoi Hilton, where he led the resistance to the North Vietnamese efforts to extract propaganda confessions from their prisoners.

As Denton related in his book, When Hell Was in Session, they tried to starve one out of him.

Take time to read all of Rich Lowry's tribute.

For a man who had many highlights in life - this is the one that I think is the most powerful and sublime.

Must have been the Tiddledeewinks of Wargames II - Electric Boogaloo

I was just going to add this on to the post from a few days ago, but decided to bump it as a standalone instead.

Slightly modified from the original with parts redacted to protect both innocent and guilty, the below was sent along to me by an exceptionally reliable and trusted source.

If you have not already, read the original post for context, then come back.

... a few comments on the recent LCS wargame. ...

Rowden discussed the NWC wargame on LCS in the Aviation Week article, but if you look, there was also a wargame at NPS on LCS as well led by retired Army Col. Jeff [redacted] under Jeff [redacted]. Two things are noteworthy about the two wargames.

First, ... Rowden's claims about LCS from the NWC wargame is very misleading, and he distorts the results. The game tested the modules as currently envisioned under the assumption they would work as expected, and they did find new roles for LCS within the context of a very large wargame that didn't focus on LCS at all, but they also found a lot of shortcomings with LCS even as envisioned. I've been told the NWC report from the wargame will be out in 6 weeks and will likely not match up well with what Rowden said to the press. 

Second, the NPS wargame came to very different conclusions, indeed the conclusions are almost opposite what Rowden claimed from the NWC wargame.

For example. At NWC - based on Rowden's comments:
- LCS plays well in open water.
- LCS needs to be bigger.
- LCS sensing and ASW could be used for CSG operations.
- LCS is a replacement for DDGs, freeing them for other things.

At NPS,
- Littoral Ops benefit from smaller ships, LCS being a step in the right direction DOWN from a frigate sized vessel.
- LCS should not be thought of as a destroyer or frigate.
- LCS is best used in dispersed squadrons, networked over an area for dominating space vs sending in larger task forces to dominate space.
- LCS would focus on single module tasking vs a destroyer that leverages multipurpose tasking.
- LCS should not be tied to CSG formations.

It has really bothered a lot of people that Rowden ran off to the press and intentionally gave misleading and distorted comments related to the NWC wargame. It is also important to note that his claims regarding the NWC wargame findings on LCS - which was part of a big wargame not focused on LCS - are exactly opposite what NPS concluded in their wargame that was more focused on Littoral Warfare with the LCS playing a featured role.

Par for the course of the worst in the not-so-finest traditions of the LCS program.

Diversity Thursday

I really love when Diversity Bullies run in a pack. They get comfortable in a pack. They let is all hang out, let the mask slip, show a little ankle, part the veil ... it is such a sight to see.

They feel free to show their narrow, obsessed, angry, bitter view of themselves and the world they live in.

As you all know, we spend millions of dollars each year feeding the diversity industry. We send out uniformed and civilian employees to conferences, and hire professional grievance mongers with advanced degrees in sectarianism and division to good positions. We then force our Sailors to be subjected to their venom and spite.

They never solve anything, why, that would put them out of a job. No, their job is to find something for people to suspect their Shipmates about ... and if they can't find anything, they'll make it up.

So, next time you are asked to spend some of your money to send someone to a diversity conference, some sectarian award ceremony sponsored by some ethnically discriminatory organization, or hire someone to fill a HR position with a certain academic background, make sure you know what you are getting in to. Make sure you know who they are influenced by, and what kind of stew they are soaking in - and what they will be bringing across your quarterdeck.

This isn't an April Fool's joke - I actually thought it was. It is ligit.


BEHOLD the Diversity and Inclusion Gaggle in all its Glory!

The city of Madison hosted the 15th annual national White Privilege Conference last week at the Monona Terrace to discuss issues of white supremacy, social justice, education and the Tea Party.
...
Our first account comes from the breakout session titled Stories from the front lines of education: Confessions of a white, high school English teacher.

The session was facilitated by Kim Radersma, a former high school English teacher in California and Colorado. Radersma is currently working toward her Ph. D. in critical whiteness studies at Brock University in Ontario, Canada.

No, you can't make this stuff up.

She said anyone who is going into teaching and education must be a political figure.

"Teaching is a political act, and you can't choose to be neutral. You are either a pawn used to perpetuate a system of oppression or you are fighting against it," Radersma said during the session. "And if you think you are neutral, you are a pawn."
...
"Being a white person who does anti-racist work is like being an alcoholic. I will never be recovered by my alcoholism, to use the metaphor," Radersma said. "I have to everyday wake up and acknowledge that I am so deeply imbedded with racist thoughts and notions and actions in my body that I have to choose everyday to do anti-racist work and think in an anti-racist way."

She argued that until white people admit they have a problem, they will not be able to fight against white privilege.

"We've been raised to be good. 'I'm a good white person,' and yet to realize I carry within me these dark, horrible thoughts and perceptions is hard to admit. And yet like the alcoholic, what's the first step? Admitting you have a problem, ... "If you don't want to work for equity, get the fuck out of education," Radersma said. "If you are not serious about being an agent of change that helps stifle the oppressive systems, go find another job. Because you are a political figure."
...
Radersma said she taught a lower-level English class at the high school and her students were exclusively people of color. However, she said the Advanced Placement course in her school was almost all white and Asian students. Her principal observed class one day and commented on the difference in students between the two courses.

That experience, and the fact that her boss did not know how to tackle the problem, led her to leave the classroom and work toward her Ph. D. Radersma told the group she realized the problem was the institutionalized racist structure of education and her white privilege was causing the racial achievement gap.

"I came to higher ed to study. What is this problem that I'm scared of? I don't know what to do. My principal is scared of this. Where do I point? Who's at fault? My white body is at fault," she said. "My racial identity, as a white person who believes that I am somehow better or more deserving, is the problem."

Yea ... put her in your local public school system. Actually, you don't have to - people like her are legion.

Yes, we all should take a moment and pray not just for her ... but for the poor man who wakes up next to her. Maybe he needs to get together with TGMTDWS and go bowling.

"My partner, who is a man, can't tell you about feminism. He knows a lot about it. He considers himself a feminist, but you want to learn feminism from him? No," she commented during the session. "You need to learn feminism from a woman. You need to learn what it is like to be a woman from a woman. He can't teach that. I can't teach students of color nearly as well as a person of color can."

Yep, she's a catch, she is.

Another topic of discussion was how white people's actions, like donating to charity or helping a family in need, are inherently racist. A white attendee of the conference told a story about how her family donated school supplies to one of her classmates when she was in first grade because the family could not afford them.

The receiving family had moved from India, according to the attendee. While she was happy to be helping when it happen years ago, she was now questioning her family's motives.

"It was like 'well why don't you swoop in and save the day and give her all this stuff because we can afford to do that for them' kind of mentality," she said in the session.

Radersma agreed and said the family that was helped likely felt discriminated against.

I hope you're enjoying this opportunity to sniff around the diversity sauna ... you're paying for it.

The conference was paid for in part with taxpayer dollars. According to the Wisconsin Reporter, the conference received at least $38,000 from hotel room tax revenue, University of Wisconsin schools, and the City of Madison.

In addition to taxpayer and private funding, individuals had to pay upwards of $440 to attend the four-day conference.

How many people paying the $440 are getting that funding from government sources (i.e. taxpayers)?

Once last note - admit it Skippy, you're sad you missed it.

Part Two of our coverage of the White Privilege Conference: "The Longer You are in the Tea Party, the More Racist You Become."

The Ethos of a Defense Acquisition Professional?

Read the following quote from Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics).

We must speak truth to power about problems within our programs and about ill-advised guidance that will lead to poor results. Successful acquisition requires a culture of "telling bad news fast," and that values accountability without a "shoot the messenger" mentality.

OK, here is the question I have; are we rewarding such behavior? Where does the up and coming, hard charging young man or woman look for the behavior that gets rewarded?

In the rolling train wreck that is the LCS program - did we support and reward those who, "spoke truth to power?" How about those who, "told bad news fast?"

Forget just LCS, can someone point to me any of the recently minted Flag Officers who have such a reputation? 

Just like we say we want critical thinkers and those with a broad and diverse education, preferably an advanced degree? Are these a priority? If so, are these priorities reflected in the latest Command screen boards? How about selection to Flag?

Are we likely to find critical thinkers, or those who have a standard issue career path that is much closer to the "shut up and color" response to creative friction?

The below is a good read - I just wish it was reflected in reality - experience shows that I don't think it is.

What Does It Mean to Be a Defense Acquisition Professional by CDR Salamander

Hat tip DF.

A Moment with the HMS Queen Elizabeth

Just checking in at the 'yard.

Must have been the tiddledeewinks of wargames

Once more unto the breach. 

Why does this bit from Michael Fabey over at AviationLeak give me flashbacks to breathless Russian commentary about the latest Soviet presidential election?

Awwww, heck; EagleOne took a swipe at it, so let's give it a swipe;

In the coming decade, enemy forces that focus on aircraft carriers, destroyers and other ships of a carrier strike group and ignore the little Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will do so at their own peril.

Thus dismissed, the LCS will be able to sneak up on the opposition and deliver quite a punch with a surface-to-surface missile from more than 100 nautical miles out.

So much for questions about lethality.

That’s just a taste of what some of the U.S. Navy’s best and brightest wargamers are discovering in the last week of March during some sophisticated simulated action involving LCS models in production now.

Yes – now. The wargamers are not using some modified LCS or new small surface combatant as was ordered recently by the Pentagon.

“The ships we are playing are the ships we are building today,” says Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare.

Wait for it ... wait for it ...

The LCS, he says, could swing out from the group, nearly unobserved, and deliver a sneak attack with missiles that can hit a target 120 to 130 nautical miles away. There are missiles now, he says, available or in development, that the Navy is confident will work with the ships.

Bawahahahahah!



Good googly moogly, where does one start.

First of all, "nearly unobserved" is like being "nearly pregnant." LCS is not a small ship by any measure. "Smaller" yes, but small? No. Depending on which version you are talking about, that huge wake is visible from space. While being part of the glorious "Battle Network" and controlling its drones, it is leaking enough stuff in to the electromagnetic spectrum that a 1980s RadioShack fuzz-buster could detect it. 

You don't need LCS to do a multi-axis attack. That whole paragraph is straight from the "teenager thinks he's discovered s3x" category of innovation.

That isn't even the funny part.

The funny part is,

... attack with missiles that can hit a target 120 to 130 nautical miles away. There are missiles now, he says, available or in development, that the Navy is confident will work with the ships.

Notional missiles do not count. We aspire to have such a missile, but we don't have it, and won't for quite awhile in any appreciable number. We aspire to have any post-NLOS ASUW missile on LCS, but we don't even have one with a longer range than the, ahem, primary gun. "Fairy Dust" is not a program of record. Yes, a new ASCM is in the works, but let's let it make it to the Fleet before we declare victory in WestPac and come home.

"...confident will work." Weren't we confident NLOS would work on LCS? You know, in 1987 I was fairly confident that the University of Georgia cheerleader would stick with me as I went to get a pitcher refill, but that didn't quite work out for me either - though at least I had a fresh pitcher of beer for my troubles.

LCS could be tasked to do some destroyer-type missions to free up the DDGs for other jobs.

Ouch, that whiplash hurts! Didn't we spend almost a decade telling everyone that LCS was transformational and didn't need to do the work that frigates do, because, well, we don't need frigates? We knew that it couldn't function as a multi-mission frigate anyway ... now we're going to jump an entire class of ships and say it can perform as a DDG? You and what spare displacement?

Or ... could it be that it is going to do some of the frigate missions that we have DDG doing right now because we don't have frigates in the numbers we need? OK, I will buy that. LCS will do some of the frigate missions that DDG are doing because we don't have frigates because we don't need frigates because we have LCS; and that LCS will do the DDG's frigate missions so our DDG can do CG missions as we aren't building CG anymore. Did I get that right?

...they can take a punch and deliver one.

“Are they lethal and survivable? Absolutely.”

OK, I'll take the whiplash from the other direction. I thought the LCS speed was its greatest weapon so it could run away and let its wake do the killing for it? I thought it isn't designed to take a hit, it isn't manned to take a hit, as a matter of fact - the CNO has even discussed the need to keep it out of the fight because ... it can't take a hit? What happened?

Other thing that’s also supposed to be interchangeable are the mission module packages and he says the gaming proves that out as well. But now the Navy is looking at making even quicker changes by swapping out whole crew sets – that is to move one module crew onto another ship with that module already in place.

“Say you have a crack ASW crew,” he says. In that case, it may be better to swap out crews instead of modules.

Now we're moving in to unicorn poop'n skittles territory.

All those who have actually done ASW, non-permissive ASW, I want you to ponder that a bit. Take awhile longer. Feel free to ponder equipment, crew coordination, crew fatigue ... go ahead; take your time ...

This gets kind of embarrassing to read.

And, despite concerns to the contrary, he says the ships are up to the job. The naysayers, he says, are just being unrealistic.

But the naysaying has had an impact on the program. The Navy had planned for an LCS fleet of 52. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, though, has told the service to halt contract negotiations at 32 ships because of concerns over survivability and lethality and he directed the Navy to look at a more frigate-like vessel for future small surface combatant needs.

Even a Frigate can be vulnerable, though.

“You put a missile into any ship, that ship is going to have a bad day,” Rowden says. “In any open-ocean fight, any ship – alone and unafraid – is vulnerable.”

Given the right conops, LCS will be a force to be reckoned with, he says.

“I see no issue with the survivability of these ships. The idea is to reach out and touch someone before they reach out touch you. With a destroyer, the LCS becomes very lethal.”

Unrealistic? What is unrealistic is to be this far in to a program and still not have one that can do anything more than permissive surface search with the reach of a patrol gun boat. What is unrealistic is to ask the taxpayer to trust a program that from NLOS, to manning, to not-even-IOC mission modules are at, "trust us, they're great on PPT" stage. What is unrealistic to run best-case-enemy-doesn't-get-a-vote wargames using notional weapons and then declaring victory. Can we ask LtGen Van Riper to play OPFOR at least?

A level-1 ship, optimally manned, and as thin skinned as it is - and you have "no issue with the survivability." I'm sorry, that beggars belief.

Wait, what? That quote again, "With a destroyer, the LCS becomes very lethal."

That when the LCS will, "...swing out from the group, nearly unobserved, and deliver a sneak attack with missiles that can hit a target 120 to 130 nautical miles away."

Anyone can click the LCS tab below and go back almost a decade - we don't need to rehash it all. This spin is a textbook example of when the customer (Navy) starts to speak like an industry spokesman.

It not only hurts the credibility of the person saying it, it hurts the credibility of the Navy.

Anyone who has been through a few wargames knows how it works. We play "what if" with imaginary weapons with assumed capabilities all the time, but we don't pretend they reflect revealed truth. To use it in this way ... sad. Might as well use the magazine capacity of Harpoon 1.0 as your benchmark.

One more article, this one from the recent Senate Armed Services Committee gaggleex;

Greenert explained that LCS meets or exceeds the same standards of those elements of survivability and recoverability. He said the attributes of survivability in the LCS is comparable to frigates and better than the ships it is designed to replace such as mine countermeasures (MCM) and patrol craft (PC). 


"We can work on the susceptibility, and we do have a plan in place," said Greenert. "I want better survivability.

 The LCS is an important small surface combatant the Navy needs now and in the future," said Greenert. 
Although he supports the overall LCS design, he indicated he is open to modifications that would increase both survivability and flexibility of the platform. 


In responding to more questions about the need for a small surface combatant, Greenert described that the next ship after LCS could look quite different although maybe the same LCS hull. Greenert compared it to the evolution of Hornets and destroyers. He pointed out that the Navy is coming up on a fourth flight Arleigh Burke destroyer which the Navy is very, very, satisfied with.



At least the CNO is with those who DO have an issue with survivability.

... but,

Soon after the hearing the Director of Surface Warfare, Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, confirmed this with interested media.

"There's no doubt we're continually learning more about how we can best employ the ship as part of the integrated force, but the bottom line is that it meets the mission it was intended to do," said Rowden. "We have to remember that the overarching question when looking at survivability is 'how are we going to operate these ships?' LCS has a validated set of requirements - and it meets them."


Sigh. We have no idea if it can meet the mission or not. If the mission is to create enough CDR-Commanders so you can mint more SWO-CAPT, then sure it meets that mission. 

We are commissioning these things left and right and yet don't even have one that has deployed and operated with a single fully mission capable mission module. It can't fight any surface ship half its size even. That one 57-mm; who are you going to seduce into range for that? MIW, ASW, etc. All PPT and still in development.


That last line about survivability and "how we are going to operate these ships" - that is a dodge. That is the "we'll run away," we'll be "stealthy"," "we'll be under the umbrella of a DDG." All spin and smoke.

For the last 18-months or so, I thought we were making clear-eyed progress in trying to find the best way to use the LCS we have to serve the Fleet and provide our Sailors a solid platform. Now, well, we seem to have wandered back in to fantasy land. This does no one any good, and is a set back on multiple fronts.

---

UPDATE: As he reminded us in comments, I would highly recommend that everyone take time to re-read Sid's LCS Seminar from August of 2008 here.