The LCS farcial debacle rears its ugly head yet again

from Bloomberg yesterday

[B]U.S. Navy LCS – Fit For Service Or ‘Incredible Failure’?[/B]

By Bloomberg On April 9, 2014

by Tony Capaccio (Bloomberg) U.S. Navy officers in the Pacific fleet say the service’s Littoral Combat Ship may lack the speed, range and electronic warfare capabilities needed to operate in Asian waters, according to a congressional audit.

“Several 7th Fleet officials told us they thought the LCS in general might be better suited to operations” in the smaller Persian Gulf, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a 56-page report, labeled “For Official Use Only,” obtained by Bloomberg News.

The Navy should consider buying fewer of the ships if its limitations prevent effective use in the Pacific, according to the report by GAO, Congress’s watchdog agency. The report follows others that have questioned the cost, mission and survivability in combat of the ship that’s designed to operate in shallow coastal waters.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a Feb. 24 memo that “considerable reservations” led him to bar negotiations for any more than 32 of the vessels, 20 fewer than called for in the Navy’s $34 billion program. The Littoral Combat ship is made in two versions by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Austal Ltd. (ASB)

Hagel’s doubts may be bolstered by the new audit, with conclusions that were summarized in its title: “Littoral Combat Ship: Additional Testing and Improved Weight Management Needed Prior to Further Investments.”

The first two vessels — one from each maker — are overweight, resulting in “not meeting performance requirements” for endurance or sprinting over 40 knots (74 kilometers per hour), the GAO said.

“This situation has led the Navy to accept lower than minimum requirements” on the two ships, the report said.

‘Incredible’ Failure

The report is likely to be discussed today at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s seapower panel headed by SenatorJack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat. Senator John McCain ofArizona, the panel’s top Republican, recounted the ship’s troubles in a speech yesterday on the Senate floor.

“Failure this comprehensive is incredible, even for our broken defense procurement system,” McCain said of a program that received congressional approval to spend more than $12 billion since 2004.

Lieutenant Caroline Hutcheson, a Navy spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement that the service was aware the report was coming out and expects “it to cover areas already being collaboratively addressed by the Navy and industry.”

“We continuously refine and test the LCS program to learn the full extent of possibilities for these first-of-a-kind ships,” she said. “We’ve incorporated engineering modifications which improve performance and continue to look at the concept of employment, as exemplified” by a recent war game.

Singapore Deployment

The GAO reviewed the 10-month deployment to Singapore last year of the USS Freedom, a ship built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed.

Pentagon officials highlighted the Freedom’s visit as a step in the U.S. refocusing on Asia, demonstrating the Defense Department’s commitment to send its best equipment there to reassure allies.

While the deployment provided “important real-world lessons” that “are being used to refine plans for subsequent deployments,” the GAO said, “significant unknowns persist regarding LCS concepts and use.”

The Freedom’s stay was marred by 55 days lost due to mechanical problems with gears, hydraulics, generators and water jets, “which is a significant portion of its” deployment, the agency said.

Contractors Criticized

On the ships’ burgeoning weight, the GAO criticized the performance of Lockheed and of Henderson, Australia-based Austal. It said the companies repeatedly submitted inaccurate or incomplete reports, and those deficiencies “have hindered Navy oversight of LCS weight challenges.”

The agency suggested that the Pentagon examine withholding funds from the companies to ensure more accurate reporting.

Joe North, Lockheed’s vice president for ships, said in an e-mailed statement that its version met “the U.S. Navy’s weight requirements at delivery, and the company has submitted all weight reports” in “accordance with contractual requirements.”

Michelle Bowden, a spokeswoman for Austal USA, said in an e-mail that the company had no comment on the agency’s report.

Hagel has ordered a Navy report by the end of this year on potential ship options that would be “generally consistent with the capabilities of a frigate,” including a modified version of the Littoral Combat Ship or a new vessel.

My GOD! Why cannot the Navy see that these ships are utterly worthless $350M PIGS?

.

I bet the LCSs that are too late to cancel will be shoved into the fleet and relinquished to drug interdiction ops like the hydrofoil gunboats that operated out of Key West in the late 80’s.
Just another episode in the fleecing of America!

When are they going to put one of us in charge so we can put an end to all this silly business?

Probably after one of these floating beercans gets turned into Swiss cheese when they are on the receiving side of a surprise RPG attack by Al Qaida or Somalian pirate.

I remember seeing the price on a 1 gallon can of primer in the Navy being about $150, and I heard deck drains run the Navy about $530. The entire runnings of the organization have become a complete farce. This article is just the next in a tall stack.

From the folks who brought us the TWIC …

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/McCain-Blasts-US-Navys-LCS-Ship-Plan-2014-04-10/

Coverage of McCains speech by USNI: http://news.usni.org/2014/04/10/document-john-mccain-speech-littoral-combat-ship-program 24 hours later they post this: http://news.usni.org/2014/04/11/navy-leaders-fleet-size-fall-240-ships-without-budget-relief You have some desk jockey (Cdr, Capt, Admiral, take your pick) with a pet project (read big money project with long term and well compensated job opportunities) glossing things over as being peachy-keen. Then you have the front line guys that have to utilize this schnit saying ‘Thanks, but no thanks’. One of 3 damn platform, ASW, doesn’t even work and won’t until 2018. And its performance is even questionable then! Being a simple deck plate guy, I don’t see why they can’t just continue utilizing modernized, existing platforms that are proven to work, namely the Perry class FFG. Tested twice and survived. Hell, the F-18 began service 34years ago and was revamped 20 years ago. The B-52 is 60 years old and they are expecting it to be around for another 25. I get that they are planes, but why can’t the same be applied to ships. Are the commies building a platform that is so damn superior to anything we have? And the Navy only built 6 PHMs. Those pos boats needed refueling everyday and you couldn’t use conventional supply tankers. Utilizing destroyers in UNREP wasn’t feasible and I can personally attest that it was a grueling operation for the ships crew, E-5 and below. And that was in calm, Caribbean waters. Just my 2 cents from the lower ranks.

Wikipedia says they are considering external tanks or floatation appendages for these ships. I just came from a ship with such appendages. They have a tendency to break off…and wash up on a beach somewhere, and the usual hilarity ensues. Won’t name the ship but it’s a swath hull, built overweight by Halter. I’m sure you can put two and two together and figure out which one I’m talking about. It’s a sore subject.

[QUOTE=catherder;135096]Wikipedia says they are considering external tanks or floatation appendages for these ships. I just came from a ship with such appendages. They have a tendency to break off…and wash up on a beach somewhere, and the usual hilarity ensues. Won’t name the ship but it’s a swath hull, built overweight by Halter. I’m sure you can put two and two together and figure out which one I’m talking about. It’s a sore subject.[/QUOTE]

a vessel named the FERDINAND HASSLER perchance?