....besides "Meyer the Hank"





Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013

The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be
small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the
firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo.

Vice Admiral Tom Copeman, the commander of naval surface forces, called
on the Navy to consider a ship with more offensive capability after the
first 24 vessels are built, according to a Navy official who asked not
to be identified discussing the confidential document.

Copeman’s memo, prepared late last year at the request of Admiral
Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, indicates the Navy may
be starting to re-examine the $37 billion program. The ship has been
beset by troubles, including cracks and corrosion, its price has doubled
since 2005 to $440 million per vessel and a decision to build two
versions will add to longterm operating costs.

A review could lead to an eventual redesign of the ship or the
development of an entirely new vessel.

“He’s raising issues which no one with active-duty stars on their
shoulders has said before,” said Norman Polmar, an independent naval
analyst and author who’s spoken to Navy officials about Copeman’s memo.
“He’s not playing the total party line. I think it will have an impact
on people expressing their views.”


Producing a ship that can accommodate larger guns or Harpoon anti-ship
missiles “would be a major redesign,” Polmar said in an interview. “It
will be real work to put major weapons on the ship.”
Two Versions

The two versions of the Littoral Combat Ship -- derided by critics
inside the Navy as the “Little Crappy Ship”-- are being built
simultaneously.

A steel-hulled vessel is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by a team
led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) (LMT), and an aluminum trimaran is
being built in Mobile, Alabama, by a group led by Austal Ltd. (ASB)
Lockheed’s first ship developed a crack in the hull, and Austal’s vessel
had corrosion problems.

Conceived in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the
ship was designed to replace aging frigates and other vessels. It’s
intended to perform missions such as clearing mines, hunting submarines,
interdicting drugs and providing humanitarian relief.

Nothing has haunted the LCS more than the perception that both variants
are too lightly armed and may not survive an enemy attack. The
Pentagon’s chief weapons tester has cited flaws with the ship’s guns and
concluded that its helicopter isn’t powerful enough to tow mine-hunting
equipment.
Not ‘Survivable’

The ship “is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to
maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile
combat environment,” Michael Gilmore, the weapons tester, said in a
January report.

Until now, Navy officials have maintained that the ship has sufficient
defenses to perform its missions while working in tandem with the rest
of a battle group.

“These ships are designed for speed,” Rear Admiral Tom Eccles, deputy
commander for naval systems engineering at the Naval Sea Systems
Command, said at a Surface Navy Association conference in January.
“They’re designed to be in the fight and then get out of the fight when
it’s required.”

Copeman’s assessment suggests that the Navy may rethink that strategy.
In a speech at the same Navy association conference, Copeman spoke
publicly about the possibility of creating a “Super LCS,” likening it to
the evolution in fighter jets from the F/A-18 Hornet to the Super
Hornet. The newer plane is a larger version of the aircraft built by
Chicago-based Boeing Co. (BA), with longer range and more endurance than
its predecessor.
‘We’re Out-Gunned’

The vice admiral’s memo calls for a vessel that can operate
independently rather than traveling under the protection of better-armed
ships, according to a government official familiar with the document who
isn’t in the Navy and asked to not be identified.

“It’s born of this nagging fear in the surface warfare community and
elsewhere that we’re out-gunned by the Chinese, who have a series of
surface-to-surface missiles,” said Bryan McGrath, a retired naval
officer who commanded a destroyer.

Outfitting the LCS with heavy-duty missiles or guns would add weight,
and “additional weight means a loss in both speed and endurance,” said
McGrath, a critic of the Littoral Combat Ship who is director of
consulting at Delex Systems Inc. in Herndon, Virginia.
‘Thoughtful Look’

The Navy projects that the $37 billion program will buy 52 ships. Of
those, four have been built and the Navy has agreed to buy 20 more
through 2015.

“We’re committed to 52 LCS’s,” Captain Danny Hernandez, chief spokesman
for Greenert, the chief of naval operations, said when asked about
Copeman’s memo.

Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Maryland, is building its Littoral Combat
Ships in partnership with Marinette Marine Corp., a subsidiary of
Fincantieri SpA, based in Trieste, Italy. The other version is made by
Austal, based in Henderson, Australia, in partnership with Falls Church,
Virginia-based General Dynamics Corp. (GD)

Greenert requested the memo from Copeman, which was entitled “Vision for
the 2025 Surface Fleet” and was previously reported by Defense News. The
comments on the LCS are three paragraphs in a 10-page document on the
future of the Navy’s surface fleet.

“He appreciated the thoughtful look he gave into the future,” Hernandez
said of Greenert’s reaction to the memo. He said the Navy chief
considered Copeman’s proposals to be “interesting and useful.”
‘Offensive Power’

Those who have read Copeman’s recommendation offered differing
interpretations of the changes he envisions. While the Navy official who
asked to not be identified said the current LCS designs could be
revised, the other government official said the proposed changes would
amount to developing a new type of ship.

“There’s inexpensive ways, less expensive ways, to dramatically increase
the offensive power of our surface fleet, I think, without spending
hundred, tens and tens of millions of dollars on research and
development and come up with new classes of ships,” Copeman said in the
January speech, according to a transcript. “I think we can look at what
we’ve got, and what we’ve got on the drawing boards right now, and take
great advantage of that.”
Two Versions

Copeman’s memo didn’t discuss whether one of the two current designs
should be scrapped or whether just one version should be used as the
base model for future improvements, the Navy official said.

Building both versions of the ship, which have different designs and
parts, adds about $400 million in operating and maintenance costs over
the lifetime of the vessels, according to Rear Admiral James Murdoch,
who oversees the ship’s procurement.

The LCS program is “in a period of steady production and has
demonstrated the maturity of most of its critical technologies,”
according to an annual assessment of major weapons programs released
today by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress.

The GAO raised questions about the effectiveness of the ship’s “mission
modules,” portable containers of weapons systems that can be switched
for different missions.

The modules the Navy has accepted so far “do not yet meet requirements,”
and the first ones won’t be fully operational until 2018, when the Navy
will have purchased 30 ships, the GAO said.

“The mission packages aren’t ready,” said Polmar, the naval analyst.
“We’ve got the least capable 3,000-ton warship in the world.”


http://tinyurl.com/cwhd238

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
....besides "Meyer the Hank"





Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013

The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be
small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the
firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo.

Vice Admiral Tom Copeman, the commander of naval surface forces, called
on the Navy to consider a ship with more offensive capability after the
first 24 vessels are built, according to a Navy official who asked not
to be identified discussing the confidential document.

Copeman’s memo, prepared late last year at the request of Admiral
Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, indicates the Navy may
be starting to re-examine the $37 billion program. The ship has been
beset by troubles, including cracks and corrosion, its price has doubled
since 2005 to $440 million per vessel and a decision to build two
versions will add to longterm operating costs.

A review could lead to an eventual redesign of the ship or the
development of an entirely new vessel.

“He’s raising issues which no one with active-duty stars on their
shoulders has said before,” said Norman Polmar, an independent naval
analyst and author who’s spoken to Navy officials about Copeman’s memo.
“He’s not playing the total party line. I think it will have an impact
on people expressing their views.”


Producing a ship that can accommodate larger guns or Harpoon anti-ship
missiles “would be a major redesign,” Polmar said in an interview. “It
will be real work to put major weapons on the ship.”
Two Versions

The two versions of the Littoral Combat Ship -- derided by critics
inside the Navy as the “Little Crappy Ship”-- are being built
simultaneously.

A steel-hulled vessel is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by a team
led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) (LMT), and an aluminum trimaran is
being built in Mobile, Alabama, by a group led by Austal Ltd. (ASB)
Lockheed’s first ship developed a crack in the hull, and Austal’s vessel
had corrosion problems.

Conceived in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the
ship was designed to replace aging frigates and other vessels. It’s
intended to perform missions such as clearing mines, hunting submarines,
interdicting drugs and providing humanitarian relief.

Nothing has haunted the LCS more than the perception that both variants
are too lightly armed and may not survive an enemy attack. The
Pentagon’s chief weapons tester has cited flaws with the ship’s guns and
concluded that its helicopter isn’t powerful enough to tow mine-hunting
equipment.
Not ‘Survivable’

The ship “is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to
maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile
combat environment,” Michael Gilmore, the weapons tester, said in a
January report.

Until now, Navy officials have maintained that the ship has sufficient
defenses to perform its missions while working in tandem with the rest
of a battle group.

“These ships are designed for speed,” Rear Admiral Tom Eccles, deputy
commander for naval systems engineering at the Naval Sea Systems
Command, said at a Surface Navy Association conference in January.
“They’re designed to be in the fight and then get out of the fight when
it’s required.”

Copeman’s assessment suggests that the Navy may rethink that strategy.
In a speech at the same Navy association conference, Copeman spoke
publicly about the possibility of creating a “Super LCS,” likening it to
the evolution in fighter jets from the F/A-18 Hornet to the Super
Hornet. The newer plane is a larger version of the aircraft built by
Chicago-based Boeing Co. (BA), with longer range and more endurance than
its predecessor.
‘We’re Out-Gunned’

The vice admiral’s memo calls for a vessel that can operate
independently rather than traveling under the protection of better-armed
ships, according to a government official familiar with the document who
isn’t in the Navy and asked to not be identified.

“It’s born of this nagging fear in the surface warfare community and
elsewhere that we’re out-gunned by the Chinese, who have a series of
surface-to-surface missiles,” said Bryan McGrath, a retired naval
officer who commanded a destroyer.

Outfitting the LCS with heavy-duty missiles or guns would add weight,
and “additional weight means a loss in both speed and endurance,” said
McGrath, a critic of the Littoral Combat Ship who is director of
consulting at Delex Systems Inc. in Herndon, Virginia.
‘Thoughtful Look’

The Navy projects that the $37 billion program will buy 52 ships. Of
those, four have been built and the Navy has agreed to buy 20 more
through 2015.

“We’re committed to 52 LCS’s,” Captain Danny Hernandez, chief spokesman
for Greenert, the chief of naval operations, said when asked about
Copeman’s memo.

Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Maryland, is building its Littoral Combat
Ships in partnership with Marinette Marine Corp., a subsidiary of
Fincantieri SpA, based in Trieste, Italy. The other version is made by
Austal, based in Henderson, Australia, in partnership with Falls Church,
Virginia-based General Dynamics Corp. (GD)

Greenert requested the memo from Copeman, which was entitled “Vision for
the 2025 Surface Fleet” and was previously reported by Defense News. The
comments on the LCS are three paragraphs in a 10-page document on the
future of the Navy’s surface fleet.

“He appreciated the thoughtful look he gave into the future,” Hernandez
said of Greenert’s reaction to the memo. He said the Navy chief
considered Copeman’s proposals to be “interesting and useful.”
‘Offensive Power’

Those who have read Copeman’s recommendation offered differing
interpretations of the changes he envisions. While the Navy official who
asked to not be identified said the current LCS designs could be
revised, the other government official said the proposed changes would
amount to developing a new type of ship.

“There’s inexpensive ways, less expensive ways, to dramatically increase
the offensive power of our surface fleet, I think, without spending
hundred, tens and tens of millions of dollars on research and
development and come up with new classes of ships,” Copeman said in the
January speech, according to a transcript. “I think we can look at what
we’ve got, and what we’ve got on the drawing boards right now, and take
great advantage of that.”
Two Versions

Copeman’s memo didn’t discuss whether one of the two current designs
should be scrapped or whether just one version should be used as the
base model for future improvements, the Navy official said.

Building both versions of the ship, which have different designs and
parts, adds about $400 million in operating and maintenance costs over
the lifetime of the vessels, according to Rear Admiral James Murdoch,
who oversees the ship’s procurement.

The LCS program is “in a period of steady production and has
demonstrated the maturity of most of its critical technologies,”
according to an annual assessment of major weapons programs released
today by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress.

The GAO raised questions about the effectiveness of the ship’s “mission
modules,” portable containers of weapons systems that can be switched
for different missions.

The modules the Navy has accepted so far “do not yet meet requirements,”
and the first ones won’t be fully operational until 2018, when the Navy
will have purchased 30 ships, the GAO said.

“The mission packages aren’t ready,” said Polmar, the naval analyst.
“We’ve got the least capable 3,000-ton warship in the world.”


http://tinyurl.com/cwhd238



It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating?

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013



It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating?

----------------------------------------

I read an article about the cost overruns on these ships a month or so
ago. It bothered me that the two versions are being built by
companies owned (in one case) by a foreign country (Italy) and the
other as a joint venture or something with a company in Australia.

Why aren't American warships built by Americans?

In article , says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013



It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating?

----------------------------------------

I read an article about the cost overruns on these ships a month or so
ago. It bothered me that the two versions are being built by
companies owned (in one case) by a foreign country (Italy) and the
other as a joint venture or something with a company in Australia.

Why aren't American warships built by Americans?

We may not have the capacity to build the ships.

On 3/28/13 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:23:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013

The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be
small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the
firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo.


Did you ever see the movie "Pentagon wars"? It is worth the rental.

This looks like the same deal.

... and yet these guys can't find $30 billion of waste anywhere
without withdrawing a carrier battle group from the middle east.

It is why I think we can't trust our government with our money.


Yeah, we should turn our economy over to the Wall Street banksters...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013



It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating?

----------------------------------------

I read an article about the cost overruns on these ships a month or
so
ago. It bothered me that the two versions are being built by
companies owned (in one case) by a foreign country (Italy) and the
other as a joint venture or something with a company in Australia.

Why aren't American warships built by Americans?

We may not have the capacity to build the ships.

--------------------------------------

That's damn scary.

In article , says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013



It's our money being wasted. Why are you gloating?

----------------------------------------

I read an article about the cost overruns on these ships a month or
so
ago. It bothered me that the two versions are being built by
companies owned (in one case) by a foreign country (Italy) and the
other as a joint venture or something with a company in Australia.

Why aren't American warships built by Americans?

We may not have the capacity to build the ships.

--------------------------------------

That's damn scary.

It is a consequence of our prosperity in the later half of the 20th century.

In article om,
says...

On 3/28/2013 5:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
....besides "Meyer the Hank"





Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013

The U.S. Navy?s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be
small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the
firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo.

Vice Admiral Tom Copeman, the commander of naval surface forces, called
on the Navy to consider a ship with more offensive capability after the
first 24 vessels are built, according to a Navy official who asked not
to be identified discussing the confidential document.

Copeman?s memo, prepared late last year at the request of Admiral
Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, indicates the Navy may
be starting to re-examine the $37 billion program. The ship has been
beset by troubles, including cracks and corrosion, its price has doubled
since 2005 to $440 million per vessel and a decision to build two
versions will add to longterm operating costs.

A review could lead to an eventual redesign of the ship or the
development of an entirely new vessel.

?He?s raising issues which no one with active-duty stars on their
shoulders has said before,? said Norman Polmar, an independent naval
analyst and author who?s spoken to Navy officials about Copeman?s memo.
?He?s not playing the total party line. I think it will have an impact
on people expressing their views.?


Producing a ship that can accommodate larger guns or Harpoon anti-ship
missiles ?would be a major redesign,? Polmar said in an interview. ?It
will be real work to put major weapons on the ship.?
Two Versions

The two versions of the Littoral Combat Ship -- derided by critics
inside the Navy as the ?Little Crappy Ship?-- are being built
simultaneously.

A steel-hulled vessel is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by a team
led by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) (LMT), and an aluminum trimaran is
being built in Mobile, Alabama, by a group led by Austal Ltd. (ASB)
Lockheed?s first ship developed a crack in the hull, and Austal?s vessel

Harry doesn't pay his taxes, it isn't any of his money.

On Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:42:13 PM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:

Why aren't American warships built by Americans?

We can't afford American-Union built ships.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 20:49:03 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:59:14 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:23:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Ships Costing U.S. $37 Billion Lack Firepower, Navy Told
By David Lerman - Mar 28, 2013

The U.S. Navy’s troubled Littoral Combat Ship, a vessel intended to be
small and speedy for use in shallow waters close to shore, lacks the
firepower it needs, a top U.S. navy commander said in a classified memo.


Did you ever see the movie "Pentagon wars"? It is worth the rental.

This looks like the same deal.

... and yet these guys can't find $30 billion of waste anywhere
without withdrawing a carrier battle group from the middle east.

It is why I think we can't trust our government with our money.


Yeah, we should turn our economy over to the Wall Street banksters...

Who do you think runs it now?

A better question is who do you think should continue to run it?