Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Thu May 9, 2013, 09:21 AM May 2013

U.S. Navy Spends $37 Billion On A Ship That Barely Works


The Littoral Combat Ship was supposed to anchor the Navy of the future. Instead, a report obtained by Bloomberg News reveals a program plagued by problems, high costs, and an inability to meet even simple docking requirements.

Ideally, the Littoral Combat Ship is one vessel that can transform to fulfill one of three roles at a time: anti-mine, anti-submarine, or ocean surface combat. To do this, it uses interchangeable modules, helicopters, unmanned underwater vehicles (sea drones!), and missiles, depending on the mission. In theory, the modules work like LEGOs, swapping out a sonar array from the anti-submarine kit for a 30mm gun in the surface warfare kit.

In practice, the modules don't work. The goal was for a 96-hour turnaround between modules in place and specific other tools needed (the above-mentioned helicopters, etc). A ship that adaptable and flexible could respond rapidly to a crisis. But the report obtained by Bloomberg reveals that while a 96-hour module exchange is technically possible, it requires a nearby dock, with all the components for the next module already on hand. That takes a lot of advance planning to set up and requires fetching spare modules from naval bases beforehand (a process that took weeks in a training exercise.)

The Littoral Combat Ship is also a far cry from durable. A more recent report says the ship is not expected to remain capable after taking a hit from an opponent, which is a significant problem for a naval vessel. Granted, it is not designed to carry on a full naval battle by itself, but it doesn't take an enemy warship to sink it. Instead, this $440 million ship can be knocked out of a fight by a single hostile cruise missile.

more

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/us-navy-spends-37-billion-ship-that-barely-works
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. Navy Spends $37 Billion On A Ship That Barely Works (Original Post) n2doc May 2013 OP
It does work. Octafish May 2013 #1
Truth. CrispyQ May 2013 #2
Yup...it works perfectly.. truebrit71 May 2013 #5
The military is truly the edhopper May 2013 #3
"it is not expected to be survivable against enemy attack." dixiegrrrrl May 2013 #4
LOL, it may have problems but who wrote this? snooper2 May 2013 #6
Very poorly written zipplewrath May 2013 #9
Well certainly no one could have predicted this... Fumesucker May 2013 #7
It appears the F-35 has a a sea going companion using technology for the sake of using technology. gordianot May 2013 #8

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
1. It does work.
Thu May 9, 2013, 09:55 AM
May 2013

Works beyond their wildest dreams transferring money from schools, roads, etc. and into the pockets of Lockheed Martin shareholders cough.

edhopper

(33,615 posts)
3. The military is truly the
Thu May 9, 2013, 09:57 AM
May 2013

inefficient, boondoggle ridden government that the Repukes rail against, Yet they love throwing money at it.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
4. "it is not expected to be survivable against enemy attack."
Thu May 9, 2013, 09:59 AM
May 2013

Guess our state's Republican Senators have brought home the bacon in contracts.

Two versions of the Littoral Combat Ship are being built simultaneously. A steel-hulled vessel is being made in Marinette, Wisconsin, by a team led by Lockheed, and an aluminum trimaran is being built in Mobile, Alabama, by a group led by Austal Ltd.
 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
6. LOL, it may have problems but who wrote this?
Thu May 9, 2013, 10:07 AM
May 2013

"while a 96-hour module exchange is technically possible, it requires a nearby dock, with all the components for the next module already on hand."

, um, no shit--

And NASCAR pit crews can change 4 wheels and fuel a car in 12 seconds, but they have to have the gas and new tires on hand LOL



Have you seen the promotional video?



zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
9. Very poorly written
Thu May 9, 2013, 11:57 AM
May 2013

Quite honestly I couldn't figure out what they were saying. "Doesn't work" seems to be a reference to how long it takes to convert. Okay, right now it takes longer than 96 hours. I'd bet that has alot to do with the infrastructure, or lack thereof, for supporting these ships and their conversions. 96 hours is lightening speed. There are commercial container ships that spend that much time in port. Aircraft carriers spend WEEKS if not months in dock between deployments.

I'm sure this ship has its troubles, and I'm confident that it is riddled with problems that probably extend predominately from the "we can do it so we will do it" brand of DoD procurement. But I'll be damned if I can figure out from this article what the problems are.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
7. Well certainly no one could have predicted this...
Thu May 9, 2013, 10:09 AM
May 2013
while a 96-hour module exchange is technically possible, it requires a nearby dock, with all the components for the next module already on hand. That takes a lot of advance planning to set up and requires fetching spare modules from naval bases beforehand


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»U.S. Navy Spends $37 Bill...