Werner wrote: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?
What agents precisely is it that you think is causing this? Surely not merely the broad and non-specific "private ownership". How do you see the change in ownership addressing this issue?
I think the 3 agents that cause this is:
1. The process from selection to delivery is non-transparency
2. The selection and production process is not open to true, serious, and clean competition
3. The supplier has little or no technological and organization synergistic relationship with an more powerful commercially competitive arm in the supplier organization.
How do you see a transfer to government ownership addressing these agents of corruption?
I merely want the operators to be responsible for construction. They cannot take bribes or misdirect government funds without risking a long prison term. In addition, there is the possibility that those who build the ships might just see an alignment with those who must fight on them.
Asking Russia to build our ships could not be a worse situation than that which confronts us now. San Antonio reminds me of the 19th Century iron monitors that could not float and did not have engines.
The Iowas and 2 of the Forrestal class were built in Navy yards. I do not see how this is such a radical proposal. The whole reason the Navy Yard system was abolished was to benefit big business and big labor at taxpayer's expense.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Werner wrote:I merely want the operators to be responsible for construction. They cannot take bribes or misdirect government funds without risking a long prison term. In addition, there is the possibility that those who build the ships might just see an alignment with those who must fight on them.
Asking Russia to build our ships could not be a worse situation than that which confronts us now. San Antonio reminds me of the 19th Century iron monitors that could not float and did not have engines.
The Iowas and 2 of the Forrestal class were built in Navy yards. I do not see how this is such a radical proposal. The whole reason the Navy Yard system was abolished was to benefit big business and big labor at taxpayer's expense.
If you actually staff the navy yard with uniformed navy personal under military discipline, then that's fine. But I think you will have a hard time finding recruits.
In that civilian staffed navy yards did better back then than what is to be found at civilian yards now, that I think is mainly attributable to the generally cleaner procurement process, less influenced by the unhealthy curruptive power of the military industrial complex, that existed back then. I don't think the government yards on the whole did better than the civilian yards at the time.
A charming idea to think that America was less corrupt in the 1880s-1910s. Tammany Hall, Teapot Dome, Boss Tweed, Union Busting, interlocking directors, etc.
I think it's fair to say that corruption enjoys a long and noble history in the USA.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
If I may add a different perspective to this interesting debate, the French government is finally taking steps to get out of the navy yard procurement system for its main units.
The state-run and military-supervised DCN (Direction des Constructions Navales) was eventually found to add unnecessary cost and delay to the entire ship procurement process. Quality was also an issue, as evidenced by the mishaps of the Charles De Gaulle CVN program. For twenty years or so, the French navy has been procuring ships from civilian yards. For example the very successful Flor�al class frigates were procured from the Chantiers de l'Atlantique � Saint Nazaire, the builders of Queen Mary 2, but now even first line warships are to follow the same path.
Actually, there is a plan to merge DCN with Thales, the Anglo-French defence conglomerate, which would be tantamount to privatising the DCN altogether, a move not well regarded in union and political left circles.
although i see werner's point, i think that jean-paul brings up a good point. let's not forget the things that the current shipbuilding system HAS done right... like the spruance class, the tico class, and the arleigh burkes. whether or not you actually like the designs of the ships themselves, they were reasonably (reasonably being the key word here) well run programs that produced a good product (that should have served a lot longer than they did, in the case of the spru-cans).
Werner wrote:I merely want the operators to be responsible for construction. They cannot take bribes or misdirect government funds without risking a long prison term. In addition, there is the possibility that those who build the ships might just see an alignment with those who must fight on them.
Asking Russia to build our ships could not be a worse situation than that which confronts us now. San Antonio reminds me of the 19th Century iron monitors that could not float and did not have engines.
The Iowas and 2 of the Forrestal class were built in Navy yards. I do not see how this is such a radical proposal. The whole reason the Navy Yard system was abolished was to benefit big business and big labor at taxpayer's expense.
Can you be more specific about the points you raise over the use of government funds. Can you prove this corruption or is this mere speculation?
Does the infrastructure still exist in Navy yards? The ships you cite were built half a century ago. If not who will pay for it?
If you, personally, worked in the shipbuilding industry, what would your thoughts be on suddenly being conscripted into the military?
Fundamentally, I agree that there is some merit in centralising the production of warhsips, but I think some of the measures you propose are unrealistic.
I think if you compare the costs of the French FREMM and the USN LCS 3 & 4, you will arrive at a similar conclusion. There should be no reason why the European ship is so much less expensive ($100,000,000 per ship). The LCS carries no special or unique technologies. In fact, LCS 2 & 4 are based on Australian designs already in the water. Their only unique quality was a high top speed (which the Navy said it has no use for) at the expense of almost all it's mission range (which the Navy says is essential).
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
In the UK there is another path warships have been built and are being built to lease to the MOD navy. All the necessary maintenance is undertaken by the company the RN provide the operational manpower. In effect the MOD does not own these ships. At the end of their tenure they can be sold on or if the ships have been so designed leased or sold to commercial operations. This might sound an anathema, warships being sold into commercial hands but that what is happening. This is a very hard headed commercial undertaking were by the tax payer does indeed get value for money. Gone are the days I remember of "cost plus� and a standard for the admiralty and one for the commercial sector now its nearly all commercial standards, pipe work, generators, refrigeration, valves etc.
Dave Wooley
Werner wrote:I think if you compare the costs of the French FREMM and the USN LCS 3 & 4, you will arrive at a similar conclusion. There should be no reason why the European ship is so much less expensive ($100,000,000 per ship). The LCS carries no special or unique technologies. In fact, LCS 2 & 4 are based on Australian designs already in the water. Their only unique quality was a high top speed (which the Navy said it has no use for) at the expense of almost all it's mission range (which the Navy says is essential).
Labour costs, costs of raw materials, cost of transport of raw materials rates of taxation levied to the builder will need to be considered etc. Given a strong EUR and a weak USD, have you factored that in? Are these costs based on benchmark exchange rate or allowing for fluctuations in it. Are you allowing for wastage of raw material? The impact of expensive oil currently has less impact in Europe due to a weak dollar, oil being priced in dollars. Therefore cost of transport is less adversely effected than in the USA.
What you are suggesting is that the French ships have been better project-managed but better management on one part is not evidence of corruption on the other.
Maybe not Russia, but why not see if the French can build the US some cheap ships?
Government-supported monopolies are not a manifestation of free enterprise. I think competitive bids from competing shipyards would still be most cost-effective, especially if some of these shipyards are not domestic and competing in the world shipbuilding market. The only consideration in using foreign shipyards should be security issues of proprietary information.
I would suggest, as an alternative to nationalizing private shipyards, we should consider privatizing government shipyards. During WWII, we had many private shipyards in military production. from Bath in maine to Kaiser in California. Right now, I think our large unit production is limited to Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. Litton builds smaller units in Pascagoula, MS. I'm not sure if there are others active, but many are probably still in private production and could consider military contracts if offered.
Of course, there are notable foreign companies cabable of building large ships. Japan and Finland come to mind immediately. Foreign competition could help keep prices in line. Domestic shipbuilding should not be viewed as a pork-barrel industry, but a world-class industry producing realistic products at realistic prices. As I was fond of saying, "We build stout ships in Mississippi".
