Did you read this??? http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA561687
You could buy a fleet of boats that meet all of these requirements with very little modification for a steal right now.
Looks like another corporate welfare program for G-Money. No wonder he just used a different corporate welfare program to buy another shipyard in Mississippi. There must be a Congressman from Mississipi on the Appropriations Committee who is receiving big campaign donations from G-Money, and wants these new vessels built in Mississippi. (That’s just a guess, I haven’t researched it).
I had not but just did. It’s worse than I thought.
You see, the key word in all that mumbo jumbo is ‘modularity.’ That single word means they want one ship class that can do everything wonderfully with quick plug-and-play adaptability. In reality it means they’ll make a boat far too big and expensive that can’t do anything until the modules are added. Those modules will be delivered eventually after further development and acquisition.
Think of the two LCS class ships, the gee-wiz go-fast boats that break all the time and couldn’t withstand an assault from a bee hive. How magnificent those ships will be, some day, once the mission mods are finally developed and installed.
Or think EPF/JHSV and the mission bay plug-ins that haven’t been developed. High speed hospital ship anyone?
Or think AKE, the all-in-wonder that can’t pump jet fuel faster than I can piss a pint so the old Kaiser oilers have to co-deploy with them, and a hull no one wants to come alongside for CONREP due to the single screw/single rudder.
Or the AFSB (whatever the new acronym) that USN doesn’t like after building it. Do-it-all that can’t do much. I guess it’ll be a cool helo carrier.
So yeah, a commercial build is grossly unsuitable for their Vision. They want to build a shell and engine with berthing space and a large hole to plug in modular units for salvage, diving, sub rescue, patrol, oil spill, humanitarian aid (wait, wasn’t that the Vision for JHSV?) and God only knows what else the Good Idea Fairy comes up with.
A commercial boat is built for a specific job and is expected to do that job. This is a wish list all-in-one Jack of all trades but master of none continuation of the past several failures.
[QUOTE=coldduck;180625]Did you read this??? http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA561687
You could buy a fleet of boats that meet all of these requirements with very little modification for a steal right now.[/QUOTE]
I hope the designer has cleared the use of the X-Bow concept with Ulstein. They own the rights to this concept.
[QUOTE=DeckApe;180634]
You see, the key word in all that mumbo jumbo is ‘modularity.’ That single word means they want one ship class that can do everything wonderfully with quick plug-and-play adaptability. In reality it means they’ll make a boat far too big and expensive that can’t do anything until the modules are added. Those modules will be delivered eventually after further development and acquisition.[/QUOTE]
Like the joint strike fighter f35?
I can only assume you didn’t read and just looked at pictures…
Oh yea, ECO has the rights to build X-Bows, so I’d say yes, it’s been cleared.
[QUOTE=KrustySalt;180707]I can only assume you didn’t read and just looked at pictures…
Oh yea, ECO has the rights to build X-Bows, so I’d say yes, it’s been cleared.[/QUOTE]
My question was “tongue in cheek”, but since you brought it up:
ECO has the right (or had?)to build two specific offshore vessels from a “design and equipment packet” from Ulstein. I don’t think they have a blanket agreement to use the Ulstein X-bow design for any other vessels.
An Ulstein designed Offshore Patrol Cutter was proposed earlier, but rejected by USCG. This was not together with ECO however: http://gcaptain.com/ulsteins-x-bow-incorporated/
So far vessels with Ulstein X-Bow has been built at many yards, incl. in China, but all have been to Ulstein “design and equipment packets”.
And yes I did look true the document, although not reading every word. It appears to me that the proposal is to use the X-Bow, but the rest is based on own design, with existing USN modular equipment to be incorporated.
What I can say is that they are trying to make the vessels very much “multi-purpose”, but may run the risk of making them “multi-useless” by incorporating too many tasks, modular and interchangeable equipment not withstanding.
One hull design with same machinery and basic equipment, but with fixed equipment for different specific tasks for individual vessels in the fleet to ensure efficiency. Leaving sufficient deck space for some “Mission modules” to ensure flexibility may be a better idea.
This is similar to the concept for the existing Ulstein designed CSVs for ECO.
Man they really need to just build 2 different classes. 1 class that supports the diving and has the moon pool, big crane dive chambers, etc. That could be the one that has the 15 ft max draft, slap some reefer plug outlets on deck, now you can load containers and there’s your humanitarian requirement. Let’s just assume there’s 5 sets of “mud tanks”. First 3 are where you put your oil for your oil recovery, the last 2 are where you put your extra fuel for long trips. Now it’s good to go and good for something.
Next class is the towing and salvage. I think it should be about 19 or 20 ft deep, I believe the deeper the wheels are, the better. Your standard anchor handler setup; pins in the stern, and winches, drums and ROV behind the house. Big ol sturdy A-frame on the stern and you have salvage ability. Again, reefer plugs on dexk, first 3 sets of mud tanks for oil recovery, last 2 sets for fuel and you’re set.
Both classes will have the FRCs and (unneeded) lifeboats in the side of the house like the Island Boats and Iron Horse have, FiFi monitors on the fly bridge like most OSVs and you’re set. At least now they’ll be good at something and not bad at everything.
Still don’t see a need for a 4 point anchoring system. Does anyone believe an OSV of any style can hit 18-20kt? I always believed a hull design has a max speed no matter how much power you throw at it (displacement hull) but I’m not a Navel Arch. Maybe an Ax-bow? 60 persons, entertainment areas and a safe room is no problem, some of the new OSVs are housing 70+ with no annexes. I also don’t see the need for 4 screws on the stern, but oh well.
[QUOTE=KrustySalt;180740]At least now they’ll be good at something and not bad at everything.[/QUOTE]
This is the US government you’re talking about here, remember?
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;180765]This is the US government you’re talking about here, remember?[/QUOTE]
Yes, sadly these vessels will be 2 years behind on delivery, massively over budget, poorly built and useless. But it’s the government and they always pay.
ain’t that the truth! contractors deliver SHIT vessels to the Navy who gladly pays more for all the SHITTY work to get fixed but don’t blame the contractors, blame the FUCKING PINHEADS in NAVSEA!
[B]GAO: Navy Pays Shipbuilders Extra to Fix Mistakes[/B]
By MarEx 2016-03-09 16:31:58
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report criticizing the construction quality guarantee measures in Navy and Coast Guard shipbuilding contracts, saying that for most ships reviewed, the measures “did not help improve cost or quality outcomes.”
The GAO futher found that in four of six vessel contracts studied, the government had effectively given shipyards additional profits to correct defects, despite guaranty clauses – “essentially rewarding the shipbuilder for delivering a ship that needed additional work.”
Among other vessel types, two of the ships studied were of the LCS class – USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) and USS Coronado (LCS 4) – on which “the Navy spent $46 million and $77 million, respectively, under . . . post-delivery agreements to correct defects, complete ship construction, and assist with tests and trials, among other tasks,” GAO said. However, GAO noted that the Navy did not track which of these expenses were the “result of shipbuilder-responsible defects.”
GAO contrasted these outcomes with the final procurement cost for Coast Guard Fast Response Cutter Paul Clark (FRC 6), in which the USCG paid up front for a warranty against defects. The cost of the warranty came to about 40 percent of the cost of needed repairs for defects, meaning that the shipbuilder bore the majority of the expense to bring her up to specification.
The GAO distinguished between warranties written to federal standards, which give “the government a contractual right to direct the correction of defects at the contractor’s expense,” and guarantees, which are “Navy-specific” contract clauses that do not follow guidelines used by the rest of the government. “Without a clear objective and guidance for using a guaranty and for determining when a warranty is appropriate in shipbuilding, Navy contracting officers do not have the information they need to make informed decisions regarding which mechanism is in the best interest of the taxpayer,” the agency said.
“[The Department of Defense and the Navy] should take steps to structure contracts so shipbuilders cannot earn profit for correcting defects for which they are responsible; determine whether a warranty is appropriate; and establish a guaranty objective and guidance,” the agency concluded.
The U.S. spends about $17 billion per year on defense shipbuilding, and Congress had directed GAO to conduct the study to see if there were opportunities for cost efficiencies.
GAO has issued reports critical of the Navy’s acquisition process in the past, including a recent examination of the contentious Littoral Combat Ship program.
LCS 3 contractor Lockheed Martin said Monday that its ships “have met or exceeded Navy specifications for quality and performance prior to acceptance. The Lockheed Martin-led LCS team is executing the program within the Navy’s budget and fulfilling its commitment to build 11 ships at a competitive construction price of approximately $360 million each. With each ship produced, the team is increasing efficiency and productivity."
Have I ever mentioned how much I LOATHE the EMM EFFING goobermint?
“With each ship produced, the team is increasing efficiency and productivity”
Why don’t they just say increasing profit? So much more efficient a statement.