Hagel: Fast new ship begins new era in Pacific

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Joseph Morton

SINGAPORE — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has repeatedly cited the fast new combat ships that will rotate through Singapore in the coming years as evidence that the United States is committed to a shift in its military focus to the Asia-Pacific region.

Underscoring the point once more, Hagel took a tour Sunday of the first ship to arrive, the USS Freedom.

He started the tour by thanking the crew over the ship's public address system, or MC1 in Navy parlance.

“What you represent to our country and our partnerships in the Asia-Pacific I don't think can be overstated,” Hagel told those on board. “You are really defining a new era, a new era of partnerships. New ship, new capacities, new opportunities.”

FULL story and photos at link.


Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20130603/NEWS/706039922/1685#hagel-fast-new-ship-begins-new-era-in-pacific

[Democracyinkind]

1. He forgot

"new wars"... If anything, they always know their PR.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. That was the 'new opportunities' bit.

[PuffedMica]

2. Oh Great!, We are staking our Far East policy on Lockheed Martin's Little Crappy Ship

The LCS was sold to Congress as an inexpensive fleet of flexible ships that could quickly be outfitted to meet any changing threat. That quickly changed as the design committee kept adding stuff to the hull until it is outfitted with every feature of of a heavy cruiser, costs twice as much as when it was approved, and the quick change mission packages don't work. Lockheed Martin played right along as the good yes-man contractor and just kept adding to the bill. The cash register at Bethesda, Maryland just keeps ringing.

Now we can't get rid of the thing because Lockheed says we are going to have it weather we want it or not.

[Kolesar]

3. Thanks for the program summary of the LCS

With Congress getting stupider by the day, there is no check on programs like this.

[East Coast Pirate]

5. Congress isn't stupid.

That's their meal ticket. Chow time!

[shawn703]

12. Reminds me of the Pentagon Wars

[hobbit709]

33. And they started getting hull cracks during the sea trials.

[jpak]

35. They are shockingly underarmed - their main defense is to run away

yup

[PuffedMica]

36. That is not quite the way it was sold to Congress

The Littoral Combat Ship was supposed to be a bare vessel that would be outfitted to meet its assigned mission. The ships were going to operate in groups, with some carrying Mine Counter Measures equipment to hunt mines, some with an anti-submarine warfare Mission Module and others with surface attack equipment. Then the committee started adding things. Things like cannons and Rolling Airframe Missiles that burdened the ship with more weight and demands on the propulsion system. (It grew like a pig; contractors like that because it puts more money in their pockets).

The Navy would start with three Mission Modules. They would have SUW for surface attack, MIC for mine counter measures and ASW for anti-submarine warfare. There were supposed to be more Mission Modules later when the first three were perfected.

The ASW Mission Module suffered a set back when its antonymous vehicle was canceled. The Navy determined that its other feature, a helicopter carried variable depth sonar, was pretty much the same as the sonar used by all the other ASW helicopters in the fleet, so it was suspended. The people working on the sonar were reassigned and the ASW Mission Module was returned to the requirements phase of the acquisition process. (The Navy will let you know when something happens).

The MIC Mission Module lost part of its capability when the Navy determined that airborne mine destroying system was not going to work, but they said the rest of the Module would take up the slack. They also have an antonymous mine hunter they claim works, but the Navy does not talk much about it. The crown jewel is a helicopter towed sensor suite that can locate bottom mines. The only problem with it is that the MH-60 helicopter only has the lift capacity to carry either the tow cable or the sensor suite, but not both at the same time. Testing is being conducted by only loading the helicopter with the minimum fuel load for a quick test, not anywhere near as much as would be required to conduct a mine sweeping operation. (The Navy is working on this problem and they will let you know when something happens).

The SUW takes the cake. The Navy decided to leverage an Army program called the Non-Line Of Sight missile and convert it for shipboard use. The problem came when the Army decided the NLOS was not going to work and canceled the program. The Navy objected but the Army told them tough cookies; the Navy did not contribute funds for development, they can go pound sand. The Navy has insufficient funds to continue development of the NLOS, so they when to their friendly missile contractor Raytheon and are going to buy a less expensive substitute missile. The NLOS would have a range of 25 mile, but the Raytheon missile has a range of 2.5 miles. Raytheon claims they can get that range up to 5 miles with no problems. So to make up for the deficiencies with the Surface Warfare module, the Navy is going to give the ship a Surface Interdiction capability. They are going to outfit the LCS with a couple of Ridged Hull Inflatable Boats and supply the crew with a shipping container filled with M-16 rifles and hand implaced explosives. (The Navy will probably issue a new combat ribbon for being in a gunfight at sea with drug dealers).

[unhappycamper]

4. After arriving in Singapore, the USS Freedom

had to go to the repair shop. Something about water in the oil.........

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Shakedown cruise problems are normal.

A ship's first cruise is called the "shakedown" cruise, because that is when initial problems are expected to show up. Usually they are fairly minor.

[hack89]

19. These first ships are in essence test ships

to discover all the problems before the ships go into full production.

[Kolesar]

30. When "freedom" means "we humbly throw us at your mercy" ... eom

[another_liberal]

6. Just what America needs!

A new way to start a war with Russia or China, and do it really, really fast too. At something approaching a billion dollars a copy, the Military Industrial Complex can't wait to make a bunch more of them.

[alarimer]

7. "U.S.S. Freedom"

Gag me.

Yes, these are the expensive new ships that don't work. But all Congresscritters love military pork.

[GeorgeGist]

8. A global farce.

[GaribaldiB5]

9. Why don't We build useful ships?

Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2013, 09:12 AM - Edit history (1)

I've always wonder why all the cruise lines who advertise constantly on TV get their ships from countries like Denmark, South Korea, Finland. We're the only country stupid enough to build ships that no one actually pays to be on. This is yet another class of high wage jobs that just mysteriously disappeared from the USA. We seem able to build 90,000 ton aircraft carriers, but can't manage container ships or cruise liners.

[kentauros]

15. For that matter, we don't build much in the way of useful military ships, either.

Why not more hospital ships? Or ships that would carry engineering and search & rescue personnel and equipment? Why put that burden on the weaponized ships, like they do now (other than the few hospital ships)?

But, I know the answer, because it's the usual one: There's no profit in helping people.

[hack89]

20. We do that right now

all of our amphibious ships are designed specifically for disaster relief as a secondary mission and have paid prominent roles in disaster relief operations all over the world. At home, Katrina is a great example - five large amphibious ships were there, carrying helicopters for relief efforts, providing food and berthing for rescue worker as well as medical aid. The two largest ships, USS Bataan and USS Iwo Jima both have 600 bed hospitals with 6 operating rooms. USS Iwo Jima tied up in downtown New Orleans and became the center for disaster recovery operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_disaster_relief#Navy

[kentauros]

21. Yes, "secondary mission."

I'm talking Primary Mission, as in designed specifically, and only, for S&R/humanitarian efforts. No weaponization of such ships whatsoever.

If we'd had such humanitarian-only ships (especially Engineers for rebuilding docking facilities) in Haiti, it might not have been as bad a clusterfuck as it was. I never did understand why they didn't have equipment for makeshift/temporary docks. It's not like the militarized Engineers haven't ever had to rebuild or install temporary facilities in bombed out docks...

[telclaven]

25. Because that's not what a military is for

However, if we followed the idea of spliting the military into a stability force and an offensive force, that'd be doable. Watched a great TEDS video that made me think how we could restructure our military.

[kentauros]

27. Then that's what we ought to do.

I didn't mean that the military should only be one or the other, just that we have the means to create that stability force, too. I'll have to look for the TED video. I love the work they do

[telclaven]

31. This is it

Very thought provoking.

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

[kentauros]

32. Thank you

I'll watch it at lunch

[Eleanors38]

28. The debate over the humanitarian mission of the

military (esp. the Navy) becoming a major focus has been going on for the last 20 yrs. The drawback is how this will be viewed by other nations: Is the face of the U.S., for good or ill, the military and nothing but the military?

[kentauros]

29. Well, if there's a way of meshing them into the UN forces for humanitarian aid,

then I'm all for that, too

One big advantage of using the military for humanitarian aid is that they can be mobilized much faster than anyone else. Mostly because they either have bases nearby or ships.

Now, I wouldn't have a problem converting part or all over some of our existing air bases into emergency/humanitarian aid bases. I don't see a problem with that, other than the fact that it's likely not as profitable to the MIC.

[Laelth]

16. Welcome to DU. n/t

-Laelth

[hack89]

18. The US used to subsidize commercial shipbuilding until 1981

prior to then, US yards averaged 20 commercial ships a year. When the government subsidies ended so did commercial ship building. All those other shipbuilding countries still subsidize their ship building industries.

http://www.marinelink.com/article/shipbuilding/the-future-american-shipbuilding-805

[hrmjustin]

23. Welcome to DU my friend!

[BrainDrain]

10. Spiffy....

Isn't that nice? We named it the USS Freedom. Which means that when we don't agree with the kind of freedom your want for yourselves, we can send this nice boat to your shores and kill lots and lots of you until you have the RIGHT kind of freedom. Ours. And of course the blood-sucking corporations that come with our brand of freedom that you will learn to love or we will kill some more of you until you do.

Great.

[KG]

11. 'partner-ships': protecting the interests of multinational corporations, the true mission

of the US military...

[madrchsod]

14. it always has been

since this country started the navy has always been used to protect trade. most if not all empires throughout history have used naval power to protect its trade and coastlines.

[madrchsod]

13. this shifting of naval forces was set in motion by bush.

this is an on going commitment since the 2003-4. there is no need for a robust atlantic fleet because all the action is has shifted to the pacific and indian ocean. hell the us fleet were doing mock war scenarios during bush`s command.

[hedgehog]

22. Why are the Navy personnel wearing camouflage uniforms?

[telclaven]

26. I've been asking that question ever since

I saw Air Force personnel sporting blue and grey tiger stripes.

Combat fashion I guess

[RC]

34. When I was in the Navy, the public address system was called the 1MC

1 Main Circuit (1MC) is the term for the shipboard public address circuits on United States Navy vessels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1MC

What else is wrong with this story, besides the name a war ship, "USS Freedom". "USS Hope For War" would be more like it.

Oh, and the man in the background in camouflage? He could very well be a Marine security guard. That is Defense Secretary Hagel and he is on the bridge, after all.