Shipbuilding proposal

[Werner]

This may seem like a radical idea coming from me especially, but I think we have to turn back the clock to 1900 shipbuilding. We could also borrow a bit from the NASA model.

What I propose is nothing less than a nationalization of the military shipbuilding industry and a re-establishment of the Bureau of Construction and Repair. Ordinarily, I would say no government entity is as efficient as private industry, but in the case of shipbuilding, I believe the level of corruption at the political, industrial, management, union and oversight levels has ruined the paradigm.

I propose the existing yards Federalized by the USN, and the management and unions be thrown out. Workers would be compensated as enlisted and junior officers with commissions. There would be no profits. Line officers in charge would be much less likely to allow the kind of graft and mismanagement we have seen lately.

Since the existing system is only a financial parasite, I cannot see how this change could make procurement any worse.

We could also examine the aircraft procurement program with a similarly jaundiced eye.

For certain, the money saved ought to be put toward returning from the current 250 ship navy with 10 carriers to a 600 ship navy with 16 attack and 12 support carriers, the level established by Arleigh Burke in the 1960s.

[richter111]

I just worry that you get what you pay for....

But I completely agree the corruption is rampant, the results bloated and piss poor.

Ric

[kennylibben]

if you get what you pay for we should be having ships made out of solid gold.... military costs are way too high for what we are getting.

[Werner]

I still boggle at the fact that the LCS slipped over $300 million per unit for what is essentially a fast cutter. Even the Navy says it has no use for 45+ knots, but would gladly trade that for double or triple range.

On paper, the LCS looks like a Perry with a smaller armament and much shorter range. Since the Navy barely has use for Perry, essentially consigning them to anti-drug and anti-pirate uses, I imagine there will be fewer uses for the LCS.

Given the ships' status at the close of 2007, I wouldn't be looking to sell any to the "International Cooperation Opportunity" group. No amount of booze and hookers is going to get them to buy an elephant this white.

I have to believe the DDG-1000 will be seen to be similarly flawed, once the kimono is opened. If it is going to cost nearly CVN prices for a destroyer, it better have the same offensive power as a carrier.

Given these three designs, I really wonder if those building or ordering ships have any idea what they're used for. These seem to repeat many old mistakes without any new ideas to offset them. The LCS is the USS Cyclone all over again. A type of ship the USN did not want and can not use. It is obvious that the USN sees the minimum ship as one that can become a meaningful part of a carrier task group, have enough endurance not to be a drag on the force, and have enough power to take and keep her station in all weather. Oh, and it ought to have more than self-defense weapons at it's disposal.

I also think we should start a letter writing campaign to rename the USS Gerald Ford USS Enterprise, since she is replacing CVN-65. If things stay the way they are now, 2012 will be the first year since 1934 with no ship of that name in the fleet. Besides, this practice of naming combat ships after inconsequential politicians has to stop sometime.

[Gone Asiatic]

I still boggle at the fact that the LCS slipped over $300 million per unit for what is essentially a fast cutter. Even the Navy says it has no use for 45+ knots, but would gladly trade that for double or triple range.

On paper, the LCS looks like a Perry with a smaller armament and much shorter range. Since the Navy barely has use for Perry, essentially consigning them to anti-drug and anti-pirate uses, I imagine there will be fewer uses for the LCS.

Given the ships' status at the close of 2007, I wouldn't be looking to sell any to the "International Cooperation Opportunity" group. No amount of booze and hookers is going to get them to buy an elephant this white.

I have to believe the DDG-1000 will be seen to be similarly flawed, once the kimono is opened. If it is going to cost nearly CVN prices for a destroyer, it better have the same offensive power as a carrier.

Given these three designs, I really wonder if those building or ordering ships have any idea what they're used for. These seem to repeat many old mistakes without any new ideas to offset them. The LCS is the USS Cyclone all over again. A type of ship the USN did not want and can not use. It is obvious that the USN sees the minimum ship as one that can become a meaningful part of a carrier task group, have enough endurance not to be a drag on the force, and have enough power to take and keep her station in all weather. Oh, and it ought to have more than self-defense weapons at it's disposal.

LCS was a useless ship from conception. How it got as far as it did is a confirmation of graft and corruption in the process.

I also think we should start a letter writing campaign to rename the USS Gerald Ford USS Enterprise, since she is replacing CVN-65. If things stay the way they are now, 2012 will be the first year since 1934 with no ship of that name in the fleet. Besides, this practice of naming combat ships after inconsequential politicians has to stop sometime.

Yes...ships`s named after inconsequential politicians...wait till Hillary gets "corronated." Who the bloody feck will ships be named after under her utopian liberal enlightened regime?

.

[Werner]

USS Julius & Ethel Rosenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Rosenberg

[Guest]

The US government's staggeringly corrupt management of all aspect of Iraqi reconstruction causes me to believe nationalizing naval ship construction would only serve to throw open the doors to hitherto undreamed of channels and styles of corruption.

[Guest]

...wait till Hillary gets "corronated." ....

.

You mean crowned.

At least if the crown passes from Husband to the wife, no one can snicker that we are following the North Korean example of primogenitural succession typified by the succession of Big Kim by little Kim, and big Bush by little Bush.

[Rob]

Werner - all very well but:

1. Where do you find the crew? Hasn't the US military got recruitment problems, especially when fighting a war that is not univerally support within it's own country?

2. Who is paying for all this? Surely the tax revenue would be better used elsewhere?

3. As regards names of ships? Who decides if the name of the politician is of no consequence? You?

4. Presumably you have a basis for the allegations of corruption you are throwing round?

5. What incentive is there to a civilian worker becoming part of the military? Lack of bonus scheme, possibly reduced income, lack of union....I can see that one impressing them.

Cheers,

Rob

[Lesforan]

Werner,

It somewhat boggles me that you would propose such an idea. We don't need nationalized shipyards.

What is wrong with the concept of the Navy putting forth a set of specifications and performance criteria? And opening up the competition between privately-owned shipyards to tender proposed designs? Maybe even producing some well-detailed builder's models (full-hull, of course).
And these followed by a bidding process, vetted by the GAO?

What is the logic of having a navy, in part to guarantee free trade, produced by a socialized monopoly?

We may as well just order the ships from the Chinese (after they figure out how to build carriers).

[Seasick]

Without Rumsfeld LCS will be dead soon. Most likely it will be restructured into a FFG more along the lines of the OHP with low observable modifications similar to the Arleigh Burke class VLS for ESSM and a 57mm gun.

The DDG-1000 (ex-DDX, ex-DD21) has been in development for 15 years now and they still havn't built one. At some point you just have to go with what is ready.

[Guest]

We may as well just order the ships from the Chinese (after they figure out how to build carriers).

They will coat them with GHB and paint them with lead paint.

[winstonshu]

although i agree that there are major problems with the shipbuilding process today, i think that it would be a mistake to assume that a military bureacracy (which, let's not kid ourselves, is what this proposal would evolve into) would be any less susceptible to corruption would be a mistake.

isn't there a case ongoing about a serving army officer in kuwait and his wife who accepted a crapton of bribes for favoritism in awarding contracts?

there needs to be a fix, no doubt, but i doubt that this is the answer.

[Werner]

isn't there a case ongoing about a serving army officer in kuwait and his wife who accepted a crapton of bribes for favoritism in awarding contracts?

I think you're referring to Senator Diane Feinstein.

Between 2001 and 2006, Diane Feinstein served as the ranking member of the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, also known as the "MILCON" subcommittee. Feinstein also served as chair of the MILCON subcommittee when the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002.

While on the MILCON subcommitte, Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions of dollars to firms owned by her husband, Richard C. Blum. This included millions of dollars in contracts awarded to Blum's Perini Corporation to provide goods and services in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Imagine yourself a crook. Now, imagine yourself a Congressman. But I repeat myself. ~ Mark Twain

[winstonshu]

although feinstein's case is pretty atrocious too, this is the one i'm referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world ... actor.html

[Werner]

America has no native criminal class, apart from Congress. ~ Mark Twain

[Mark Petersen]

One of the yards* in Sturgeon Bay, WI did a lot of work for the Navy on smaller classes of ships such as Mine Sweepers their having to fit through the St Lawernce Seaway. Eventually they refused to do any more work for the Navy as the specs kept getting changed during construction. Issue the requirement for the ship class as to speed, range, seakeeping ability, armament, sensors suite and crew requirements as to size, berthing etc. And keep to those specs. Don't change horses in the middle of the damn stream.

*IIRC it was Petersen Brothers (no relation). I'm pretty sure they are out of the ship building business as the last time I was in Door County I saw ads for a Petersen condo development

[Werner]

Although my proposal seems counter to logic (even to me), I think we have exhausted the possibilities with the current scheme. It is thoroughly corrupt and broken, and I don't know how to fix it. What remains is to throw it out. I believe the USN did this once before, at the beginning of the "New Navy" era.

[Guest]

Although my proposal seems counter to logic (even to me), I think we have exhausted the possibilities with the current scheme. It is thoroughly corrupt and broken, and I don't know how to fix it. What remains is to throw it out. I believe the USN did this once before, at the beginning of the "New Navy" era.

It is the price one pays when an entire industrial chain is secretive, has zero commercial value, and profits entirely by its ability to suck blood from tax payers. Such industry can be expected to see much more return in improving its ability to engender corruption than in improving its efficiency in doing what it claims to do for a living.

That fundamental fact about the industry will not be changed regardless of whether the Government owns the ship builders. It could only change if the government not only own the entire supply chain from beginning to the end, but also completely abolish the secrecy that surrounds it. Neither of which is feasible, so the idea is a dead end.

[Werner]

USS San Antonio LPD 17 was launched in 2003 and commissioned 14 January 2006 at a cost of $1,850,000,000.00 (most emphatically not the mere $815 million seen in some documents). It's interesting that the Navy cut the buy from the 12+ ships (scheduled to replace 41 existing ships), to 8 or 9, and yet the program cost was unchanged (a phenomena seen in the F-22 program).

As of 22 June 2007, the ship still languished in the yard's hands. The Secretary of the Navy said categorically the ship "is not mission capable", 23 months after delivery. Problems range from leaks to steerage issues. It is possible the entire class is a costly failure. Northrup Grumman's punishment for it's failures is to be handed $23+ billion to develop DDG-1000.

Immediately after delivery the ship went to Newport News for $6,000,000 in emergency repairs. Now there are uncounted millions in additional expense to repair a ship that has yet to operate one day as a combat unit.

How is this an effective and efficient use of US tax dollars? What can we expect from future expenditures? How would my alternative provide a worse outcome than this?