The newest Littoral Combat Ship, the USS St. Louis, is launched in Wisconsin in December. The LCS class has been bogged down by defects. (Courtesy U.S. Navy)
Roll Call: Navy routinely buys defective ships
Former shipbuilding executive: “There’s an old adage: ‘A ship so nice, we built it twice’”
For the U.S. Navy, buying warships that are defective, unfinished or both has become the norm.
The habit is expensive, dangerous and leaves overworked sailors to deal with faulty ships in need of repair from day one — yet it has escaped sufficient scrutiny in Washington.
Contrary to the Navy’s own policy, and despite spending nearly $16 billion on average in each of the last 30 years on new warships, most U.S. combat vessels are delivered from private shipbuilders with flaws significant enough to impair the vessels’ ability to perform missions or to keep crews safe, according to recent audits conducted for Congress.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: With no accountability (and no serious penalties), this problem is only going to continue. The same can be said about the Air Force (F-35), and the US Army (Comanche helicopter).
26 comments:
When the money comes easy and there is no oversight why bother looking for excellence. The military has the same level of concern regarding its killing of innocent people, which is to say none at all.
All true, but this is why we build in metrics to measure and qualify pieces and they are installed. I work in the private sector engineering and these issues are common and mostly understood. However, big government contracts equal lots of opportunities for purposefully causing cost issues.
Republicans Are Realizing That Trump Is Too Crazy To Be President
A Russian 'troll slayer' went undercover at a troll factory
Actually extreme caution is taken to avoid the killibg of "innocent people" even to the point of jeopardizing the lives of our personnel both military abd non military. The perception problem is IMHO largely due to poor messaging on the part of the US government.
Also, our choice of which missions to pursue would be helpful. We can't continue being everyone else's chump. Unfortunately our foreign policy is often based upon ideology. This makes it easy to manipulate us.
As for the weapons we buy, how do other countries do this? Perhaps we can try abd improve how we do this by studying others trying to emulate them when and where possible. I think treating it more like a private enterprise would be a step in the right direction.
Poster
Remember the coined phrase "collateral damage" and consider what the several hundred thousand innocent people, people who were collaterally damaged during the highly illegal Iraq II war, might say, except they can't because they are dead thanks to the USA, its military and a dedicated penchant for criminal activities in the world.
Extreme caution be damned and you know it.
Da comrade, I see you two switch roles. Clever haha
Bposter defending US haha that's too cute. And Boombastic bob is doing his boom boom bombastic shtick
You guys are cracking me up. Vodka for all!!!
I always defend my country America when it is wronged. You must have missed it.
The US takes extreme efforts to avoid civilian casualties/collateral damage to the point of undermining our own interests, endangering our own national security, and placing our own military personnel in extreme danger I pointed out to Mr. Huntley the error in his post. I know people who planned US military actions and participated in them so I know his statements are false and are slander. They are allowed to persist because the US government is very poor at messaging whereas many of our enemies are extremely good at messaging Now if you have something to add here besides impugbing my motives, please do so.
The coined phrase "collateral damage" is an example of bad messaging on the part of the US government and excellent messaging on the part of America's adversaries. IMHO more accurate statements would be "human shields used by America's as pawns/cannon fodder in their malicious attempts to harm Americans " keep in mind the Iraq government was able to count on the support on many of the world's most powerful governments and media outlets. As such; the primary responsibility for Iraqi deaths belongs with the Iraqi government and the allies of this government.
This is also where the illegalities lie in terms of illegalities the US government is as near to blameless as can be, at least this would apply to the Bush Administration.
I'd like to see a UN Tribunal on this. Unfortunately such a forum would simply rubber stamp whatever position America's adversaries take. Even if the Tribunal dis somehow decide for America in some way, there's currently no mechanism in place for America to collect. As such, it would be unwise for America's leaders to agree to such a forum at this time. Hopefully someday we can get there.
"Extreme caution be dammed and you know it." In the case of extreme cautions being taken to avoid non combatant casualties, I know this to be true from the numerous military service members I know. As for the other, we know from the skilled messaging employed by America's adversaries and the lack of such by the US government A IN Tribunal at this point risks revealing such uncomfortable truths As such, I don't see America's adversaries allowing this right now.
military people you might know will not tell you shit about what goes on that they might do that should not be done
Actually if you take the time and the effort to get to know them, truly respect them, and truly appreciate them, their service, and the enormous sacrifices they and their families make, they will tell you quite a bit. Very few non military people actually do this.
I wanted to serve in the military but my eyesight is poor. I was unable to do this. I have taken the time and effort to get to know many of these men and women so I understand it better than most civilians do.
What I was responding to was Mr. Huntley's uniforned assertion that the US military has no concern for non combatants. The reality is that extreme efforts are taken to the point of endangering the actual mission, endangering the lives of American military, personnel, and endangering our national security.
I then responded to the later assertion that America is primarily responsible for dead Iraqis. IMHO the primary responsibility for this lies with the Iraqi leasership of the time and the numerous and extremely powerful allies they had. We could open up a UN Tribunal on this but this risks revealing uncomfortable truths that allies of the Iraqi government wouldn't want revealed. Therefore I don't see that happening anytime soon.
you are an accountant. Have poor eyes? ok. so you wear glasses. guess what: the military would take you or would have.
as for me: no advice, plz, about getting to know our military. I was in the military.
Poster
"The reality is that extreme efforts are taken to the point of endangering the actual mission, endangering the lives of American military, personnel, and endangering our national security."
How about this extreme effort to protect its own military and avoid endangering its own national security.
Stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, especially those that did you no harm. You might think restitution will never come home to America but the cost is already happening and has been for quite a while. If cannot see that, you are blind.
Also regarding the deaths of Iraqi non combatants at the hands of their government were the direct, albeit perhaps unintended, result of the illegal invading a sovereign nation for no justifiable reason.
Those deaths are on America and on the heads of all Americans whether they accept it or not.
Michael
"When the money comes easy" is a reference to stuff like unrequested funds being approved and a complete lack of oversight as regards the accounting of money spent or perhaps stolen. Remember the trillions unaccounted for.
WNU
http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/acquisition-phases
Maybe they gave TMRR short shrift or the underestimated the difficulties in making something work along the bleeding edge if technology.
Apparently Norway developed a good missile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
I am trying to remember what Canada developed. Canada has 7 times the population of Norway.
I know you as a person can get things done. You have proven it many times over, but Canada not so much. So ...
Buehler, Buehler, Buehler, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_inventions
You make my point. The Canadians have done nothing on defense.
There is 1 item in the last 50 years, the CAPDAT. Actually it was all the rage and then they decided it didn't really work so they are moving away from it.
Flameout!
So Mr/Ms annoy, you have a point?
You made the point that you were wrong.
Canada has had 1 defense related invention in the last 50 years.
A country of 35 or so million and it pulls less weight than a country of 5 million like Norway.
You should have read your own link and also learned the history of CAPDAT, MARPAT and see how they rank against other systems.
CAPDAT will get used. They are developing an urban variant for when the Canadian Armed forces attempt to retake the 3 largest Canadian cities form certain settlers, who stone women.
Anon
I am sorry but I don't understand. You said previously "you make my point" now you say "you made the point that you were wrong" what is your point?
It sounds as if you are trying to criticize Canada for not spending a lot of money on defense. Is that so? Because for sure the USA doesn't spend very much money, if any on defense, but, it does spend a whole lot of money on offense, so much so that the country is so deeply in debt it can no longer look after its people properly, or, its infrastructure.
Bob,
The point that you made proved that you, Bob, were wrong.
Spend a lot of money not spend a plot of money, I do not think it matters.
Canada's heart is not in it to be a defense partner. They like being carried.
There were Ukrainian and Polish units in Iraq. They were small units, but we appreciated the m greatly. We realize those countries were poor, but they were doing what they could.
"In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict."
Other than the British and the Americans I never saw any English speakers in country. They were in the Rear with the gear (Kuwait).
It is more than just money. It is mindset. Canada is not inventing anything to help with any military effort, because they have no intention of honoring their the defense alliance they sign up for.
They are oath breakers.
And you are a coward.
Anon
1. one of the reasons the US was "so sure" Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, you know like poison chemicals used in gas attacks was because the US gave him the stuff to gas the Iranians way back and were sure he still has some of the stuff laying around. He also used some of that US supplied gas on the Kurds.
2. He invaded Kuwait/Saudi Arabia.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145
3. Broke and armistice? Links please.
Iraq II was illegal and criminal and should you manage to come up with rebbutles there were numerous war crimes committed during the "criminal war".
They did not declare all of their WMDs
They did not return all the Kuwaitis they held prisoner.
I know inspectors.
You inspector was jailed on child porn charges. Real sterling specimen there. No kidding. He is a real fine specimen of a liberal.
Good God many but you are daft. Saying you are neutral is not giving an endorsement for an action.
There are two ways of viewing this. One is that they were giving Saddam rope. The other is that they were being goods little liberals or RINOs and mouthing platitudes about how our way is no better than your away at any time on anything.
Saying you are neutral can mean "We are not the World's policeman"; "We believe that you are wrong, but we are not willing to bleed. (This was the Boston Brahmins after the Civil.
They were anti-slavery. They put their lives on the line. They paid a high price. If they had to do it over; they would be against slavery but may not have picked up a sword if they had to do it again); or it can mean moral relativism. You belong in the latter camp.
Your guy was Scott Ritter.
"Globalresearch is an "anti-Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars"
Hmmmm Anti-western No wonder bobby Boo likes it.
Bob,
"Stop meddling in the affairs of other countries...." Very respectfully American foregin policy is not as simplistic as the talking point you present.
Your last sentrnce pretty much sums up why we can't a tribunal at this point. The outcome of such an event is predetermined and evidence to the contrary will not be heard or considered. Perhaps when attitudes change or when America has a powerful advocate who can ensure we receive proper representation we can get there. The real problem is not getting Americans to accept something. IMHO the real issue is America's adversaries. Getting them to accept a result less than favorable to them even if it were possible in a court they staff and control which is unlikely is going to be problematic at best.
Besides the way you describe Iraq is not the way I remember it in 2003. I remember a country that was a grave and gathering threat to America, had the support of the whose who of the world powers, had bribed or threatened the world's major International bodies and persinnel to the point they were lap dogs to the Huessein government, had a weapons inspections team under their control through a combination of bribery and fear, and I could go on.
We really need this Tribunal. Unfortunately until vile Anti-American attitudes are diminished and/or America has a major power or powers as advocates I don't see it being able to happen. Of course the real issue is the American people and the American government accepting something, paying out reparations, and later finding out they weren't guilty to this extent and/or this still doesn't satisfy America's adversaries who continue the conflict against America along with their being no way for us to recover the reparations paid that shouldn't have been.
Post a Comment