DDG-1000 dead in the water!

[DanMa1156]

I understand about 20% of this thread, and it's AWESOME. Wish we would / could discuss these kinds of nitty-gritty's more often.

Agreed this is great!

 

[navy09]

Ya, I wish we could do it on a (slightly) higher level though.

 

[Flash]

Bottom line? We suck. Our acquisition process is as broke as broke can be.

If you needed any more proof of that, here is the latest news on our broke acquisition process:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/23/AR2008072301437.html

The thing that surprised me the most, that they have about only 60% of the auditors that they did 20 years ago. With the increasing complexity and size of defense contracts, I would think we would need more auditors and not less.

 

[eddie]

The thing that surprised me the most, that they have about only 60% of the auditors that they did 20 years ago. With the increasing complexity and size of defense contracts, I would think we would need more auditors and not less.

Automation / computers factor into that loss (Accounting / related fields are an incredible mystery to me)?

 

[Flash]

Automation / computers factor into that loss (Accounting / related fields are an incredible mystery to me)?

You still need human eyes to ensure that everything is kosher. The numbers can add up, but you need to make sure that the money is going to where it is supposed to be going.

From what little I know about it, it is still a very labor intensive work that needs people.

 

[BigRed389]

At least they can do AAW, something the LCS can't. And the problem of doing both at the same time, that could be solved by better systems integration that already exits on US platforms. I was using the costs of the Euro FFG's and their capabilities vs the LCS, when the LCS doesn't cost much less than a Euro FFG and still can't even come close to capability. I still can't figure out why the Navy would bother with glorified minesweepers/hunters for a littoral mission when they would need an escort to protect it in higher threat areas from those threats where is has NO capability.

As for aviation and strike assets, they have been gradually diminishing in numbers for years, and there are never enough. We are already stretching the Navy thin, ask FlyNavy about that, and I don't see the LCS helping out much to relieve the service. We will have a ship that cannot operate independently in higher risk areas, like most of the littorals we are talking about, and can't effectively be a force multiplier like the Navy needs. Even the SWO's working with me today agreed with me (being reservists has softened them in their old age).

You are going to be so concerned about a poorly maintained Kilo that you are not going to see the F-4 and the gunboats with ASCM's that come up your rear and take you out.

That is a common and well-known problem with many radars, making the transition in a coastal environment. And that is why we have radar operators instead of just a computer.

I think we're treading into classified territory here, but in the SWO CRUDES community, I've noticed there are two groups.

One group is the AEGIS oriented group that is worried about RCS reduction, BMD, basically the high speed anti ship missiles flying at us.

The other is the GWOT group, that looks at the low tech, economical threat. These guys have served on FFGs, MCMs, PCs, sometimes amphibs. They worry about MIO/VBSS, MIW, and USW, and particularly the littorals.

Then you have the gator SWOs, who are fat dumb and happy(figuratively), b/c they don't even bother worring about every single detail of all warfare areas.

Point is, everybody argues for their piece of the pie. I don't disagree with you on LCS being too expensive for not much capability(the mission modules aren't even ready yet). The point is, you argue it's a glorified minesweeper, but MIW briefs I've gotten are downright scary, particularly the hypothetical economic impact. And LANTFLT ships transiting to the Gulf always transit restricted waters, which again, is not a pleasant scenario.
The MIW(particularly expeditionary MIW) and littoral USW missions are not being tacked on to LCS to relieve the load on the fleet, the argument made is that it creates a capability we do not really have at the moment.

Too bad there's no discussion forum like this on SIPR.

The one point I would disagree with is that it would seem we are overstuffed on strike assets. Or perhaps the surface community does not have enough platforms to properly multitask.
Just recently we had a number of ~$1B dollar DDGs with the most capable air defense system in the world and a great deal of $500K TLAMs off the coast of Somalia to merely do counterpiracy/MIO operations and firing 5" and 20mm rounds. This is something a fast frigate or "LCS-type" ship could have done far more efficiently.

 

[navy09]

Too bad there's no discussion forum like this on SIPR.

High side AW

 

[Brett327]

High side AW

High side ≠ SIPR. Common misconception and perpetual pet peeve of mine.

Brett

 

[navy09]

High side ≠ SIPR. Common misconception and perpetual pet peeve of mine.

Brett

Please enlighten me.

 

[Mumbles]

High Side = TS//SCI level.... known as JWICS

SIPR is SECRET//GENSER

 

[navy09]

Rog, thanks.

 

[SkywardET]

Because of our current acquisition system, I am more than happy to accept new acquisitions. The contracts for Burke class ships were signed in the '80s, so a lot of the gear is from the '70s even on ships built in the '90s. It will soon be the '10s, and although many ships won't even be 20 years old by then, some of the technology will be 35+ years old.

So I'm all for technology demonstrators. The Zumwalt and LCS platforms will not be replacing Burkes, after all, so there will still be a large pool of capabilities to draw from. It may be expensive and using a broken procurement system, but at least it's something new and will use modern technology.

 

[Brett327]

Because of our current acquisition system, I am more than happy to accept new acquisitions. The contracts for Burke class ships were signed in the '80s, so a lot of the gear is from the '70s even on ships built in the '90s. It will soon be the '10s, and although many ships won't even be 20 years old by then, some of the technology will be 35+ years old.

So I'm all for technology demonstrators. The Zumwalt and LCS platforms will not be replacing Burkes, after all, so there will still be a large pool of capabilities to draw from. It may be expensive and using a broken procurement system, but at least it's something new and will use modern technology.

The point that many of us are making is that there are much more efficient and cost effective ways of fielding new technology than creating an entirely new class of ship that won't go into real production (the aforementioned economies of scale being foremost). We, as officers, should all have the proper stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars in mind at all times. Your acceptance of this fiscally irresponsible method demonstrates a fundamental disregard for that concept and is intellectually lazy. We can and ought to strive to do better.

Brett

 

[SkywardET]

The point that many of us are making is that there are much more efficient and cost effective ways of fielding new technology than creating an entirely new class of ship that won't go into real production (the aforementioned economies of scale being foremost). We, as officers, should all have the proper stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars in mind at all times. Your acceptance of this fiscally irresponsible method demonstrates a fundamental disregard for that concept and is intellectually lazy. We can and ought to strive to do better.

Brett

With respect, I disagree. I do disagree with the decision to only produce two Zumwalt-class ships, but I am glad that at least we will get two. It will be much better than zero.

In my experience, new technology is far cheaper than old technology. I guess I am in a position to see it from the opposite end of what people in procurement positions see. When it costs, say, $21,000 to replace a very simple circuit card on an ancient radar (a card which I could build for about $300, and have repaired for $12.08), vice replacing infinitely more complex circuit cards on modern radars for less than a thousand dollars, I see the need to upgrade to cheap modern technology.

I also disagree that I am intellectually lazy, because I have thought about the alternatives. There are two--better procurement or no procurement. I firmly believe that a better procurement procedure will not happen until there becomes a critical need for it, such as an open, protracted war with Russia or China. So that leaves the option of no procurement. We can simply keep Perry-, Burke-, and Ticonderoga-class ships until they cost their initial price tag every other fiscal year to maintain.

At least being fiscally irresponsible in this way will yield some tangible benefit. In what way would you prefer to be fiscally irresponsible?

 

[Brett327]

With respect, I disagree. I do disagree with the decision to only produce two Zumwalt-class ships, but I am glad that at least we will get two. It will be much better than zero.

In my experience, new technology is far cheaper than old technology. I guess I am in a position to see it from the opposite end of what people in procurement positions see. When it costs, say, $21,000 to replace a very simple circuit card on an ancient radar (a card which I could build for about $300, and have repaired for $12.08), vice replacing infinitely more complex circuit cards on modern radars for less than a thousand dollars, I see the need to upgrade to cheap modern technology.

I also disagree that I am intellectually lazy, because I have thought about the alternatives. There are two--better procurement or no procurement. I firmly believe that a better procurement procedure will not happen until there becomes a critical need for it, such as an open, protracted war with Russia or China. So that leaves the option of no procurement. We can simply keep Perry-, Burke-, and Ticonderoga-class ships until they cost their initial price tag every other fiscal year to maintain.

At least being fiscally irresponsible in this way will yield some tangible benefit. In what way would you prefer to be fiscally irresponsible?

You're thinking in binary terms and you're making a lot of assumtptions that don't hold water in the real world. New gear isn't always cheaper to maintain - it depends on a great many factors. As I stated, there are far less wasteful ways of fielding new technology. It's not the procurement process that is to blame for this (though it has its own bevy of faults). It's the requirements gang who need an ass-kicking. Lastly, what makes you think a "major war" would reform procurement? After all, the military-industrial complex was created by WWII.

Food for thought,

Brett