Comments on: ‘Incompetent’ Navy Wastes Money

By: Joseph T. Whitley

Joseph T. Whitley — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:56:42 +0000

Personally I can agree with this statement in that I also believe that the 600 ship navy that Lehnan and Reagan formulated during this historic turn in the history of the Navy was the American Spirit on its highest carma. If there is to be a rebirth in the American Spirit I believe that someone like him could do the job for generations to come. Reagan always wanted to clarify the definition of Who are “we” during the climax of the Cold War that if this was not an element to resolve the Soviet and American Relations in the 1980’s. It is nice to know that we are finally on communicable terms and our focal point is the reduction of terroristic elements we face in society. jtimwhitley@bellsouth.net

By: Testpilot

Testpilot — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:09:03 +0000

Maybe it is not the technology that wastes the bucks,it is the quality and caliber of the folks in leadership positions! In my opinion, with very few exceptions, there isn’t a leader amongst them. For years, we have been selecting PC officers who end up selecting other PC officers who couldn’t lead their way out of a corn maze. We have no vision for the future, no mission relation to the “missions” that we are doing now, and no leadership to take us in a new direction. Many of the PM’s are not given the authority to execute nor held accountable when they don’t. There is such a high risk aversion, that new ideas or new apporaches are stamped out, and die onthe vine with the creative force officer that tried to make a change.It is time for the Old Guard to step aside.

By: NavyDocsWife

NavyDocsWife — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:50:18 +0000

Unfortunately, this mismanagement has halted bonuses, prevented good sailors from attending career advancing schools, and PCS moves. I should know. My husband recently attempted to turn in his packet for IDC School and was told to re-submit it in October. He had to re-enlist at our current duty station and we’re not stuck here for another two years.

By: ChrisT

ChrisT — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:05:36 +0000

This is the same John Lehman who screwed up the Hawaiian Superferry (2 catamaran ferries that the State of Hawaii refused to let operate because of environmental concerns) and now his company is lobbying Congress and the military to lease these ships from them at exorbitant rates so they can pay the builder? This is the type of leadership people listen to?

Getting back to navy procurement, the only good shipbuiilding program that is on track is the one that is being built by NASSCO in San Diego, they are actually deliving ahead of schedule. Big complex ships. Of course, MSC kept changes down to a minimum and really looked at life cycle costs.

The big Navy also does not keep experienced civilians in the building yards to make sure the shipbuilder meets requirements. Having revolving door military involved who have to “make their mark” to get promoted causes massive changes, with the associated cost increases.

By: gb

gb — Sat, 30 May 2009 21:44:10 +0000

During the upgrade of the Belknap to flagship 6th fleet. I had a divisoin officer (Lt) inform me that the ship had an open checkbook for whatever was desired. And yes the checkbook was used for the conversion to flagship. However, the division officer went out of his way to blow money on things he wanted. Where was the oversight? And for the record, Belknap was too damn small to handle the flag and his people. And all the waste was sent to the bottom by the Navy when the ship was done away with.

By: Wayfarer

Wayfarer — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:44:35 +0000

The Navy, or DoD, cannot expect a system of any sort to remain cutting edge. The ability to change should be a contract item. The contracting process MUST allow for future innovations, that might improve the change order problem. Two savings immediately come to mind: 1> Contractors that make or assemble equipment cannot own the intellectual rights to national assets (DoD must be legal to reproduce for its assets, including spares) and 2> Procurement must be small business friendly (Less Defense Contractor Dependent). No hardware store has an inventory of “O” rings for a Fighter Jet. When the services need such a spare, a small company that could mill one out has to buy the rights to reproduce parts from the OEM (that tax dollars paid them to do). One way or the other, a part that could be re-manufactured (and improved in the process) is a political football and in the current way of procurement, delivered at an astronomically inflated price (because a Defense Contractor would have to open the assembly line again or the administrative cost to outsource the job to the same small company is SO VERY EXPENSIVE). Where has DoD, or the Navy been on getting smarter to this issue for all this time. I suspect somewhere between them and our congressional leaders open source to U.S. Small Business can guarantee quality and provide huge savings. That the short story, the long story is having a national strategy that is linked to the Administration’s cabinet and on down the local level in our military industrial complex.

By: calyano

calyano — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:24:37 +0000

The aftermath of the IInd WW taught us many lessons. That successful conquest remains depends on access to human minds. Still psychological warfare remains in its infancy. When it comes to armed combat a little more has to be done on the development of submarines, dirigibles and floating docks. The floating monsters that we have churns the ocean waters for a good half hour before it attains speed!

By: tincan sailor

tincan sailor — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:26:18 +0000

charlie
it just tells me that you’ve been away from ships for a long long time. That was before VERTREP.

By: Callen

Callen — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:20:54 +0000

The navy wants 40 subs? Can someone tell me anything the submarine navy has done for national security in the last 20 years??

Oops, I guess that is classified…

By: Michael Roberts

Michael Roberts — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:07:36 +0000

I spent 20 years in the navy on everything from gunboats to tincans, Salvage ships to oilers, Tin cans too. If we do not stop looking at the past and what used to work then China is going to serve our head to us on a platter. They have a goal, which is the absorption of Taiwan, They are very focused and they are unwavering on that goal. Could we stop them? Today it is doubtful, tomorrow it is certain that we can not.

By: EdT

EdT — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:21:15 +0000

this isn’t news.… same story for the last 25 years… US Navy ship building is all about politics; we need 40 subs like we need a hole in our head… we need troop ships, carriers and support ships; freeze the specs and build ‘em. Maybe a new sub every 7–10 years.

By: Deano

Deano — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:46:28 +0000

Well boys and girls...the DoD's mantra of "Doing MORE with LESS!" has finally put PAID to our efforts! No acquisition person wants to do the job of two or three people (who have left or bailed out to get away from a bad boss or overworked job situation) AND then get "blamed" for not performing!!The Navy's acquisiton people were told for years they would be paid on a "par with our commercial peers" - HA! We were officially dubbed a "Professional Series" and asked to work harder. Forget it - I can make the same pay doing a "lesser" GS job in Civil Service (and I did). I did NOT miss working week-ends and holidays - or even all the time spent helping other (acquisition) people with contract "problems" they could not solve- they were "book" learned with the right college degree and credentials - but had little to no knowledge of Navy ship systems or private contractors methods. Sad but there it is - until they decide to "pay the price" DoD will NEVER get competent acquisition people to stay in Civil Service and put up with the extra workload. The private sector pays far more, assign mentors to guide their new people (thereby insuring quality performance), AND take much better care of their acquisition personnel. Its still called "quality of life"

By: RJM

RJM — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:45:25 +0000

Sea basing, the large mobile off shore platforms the author talks about, has ben in testing and development for a long time. It’s part of the MPFF program, which is about as expensive a shipbuilding program as you can conceive.

The issues with sea basing are many, not to mention the “interface”. Our current state of technology with regards to that interface isn’t sufficiently developed to do tackle this.

Also, Sestak does a remarkably poor job of comparing the Burke class destroyer, later replaced by a drone in hunting pirates. The issue is numbers of ships, yes. It’s also national security focus and he makes a nonsensical argument from that to arrive at a 240 ship Navy.

By: duwongo

duwongo — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:44:29 +0000

@sub guy Wow. You’ve really missed the boat on this one.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:29:34 +0000

china cant weld… plus they cant even keep their own navy running… why the hell would we buy warships from them… we would spend more money modding a chinese ship to be to our standards and pass sea trials then we would if we built one ourselves.. The navy… like the airforce need to build somehing not too high-tech so we can afford the numbers we want… the f-22 got the AF in trouble.. and the navy is having the same problems w/its cutting edge ships… desisn one that has the technology of the times… but is affordable and does the mission… the navy is going to have to compromise to get what they want…

By: TBH

TBH — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:22:06 +0000

I worked in Navy acquisition for over 30 years and I think they are doing quite well. It is hard to find a multi billion enterprise that couldn’t use some improvement. I think the biggest problem with changes, etc. is the system. Navy provides budget inputs, president “adds value”, approves and submits to congress, both houses “add value” and approve the budget and the Navy gets to execute.
For a new ship from “concept to ship launch” takes years…lots of opportunities each year for politics to affect ongoing efforts (e.g. Reagan-positive and Clinton-negative). Somehow we still have the best Navy in the world…Go Navy!

By: Arctic Fox

Arctic Fox — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:21:07 +0000

Why don’t we buy our Navy ships from China?

It would be cheaper, and the Chinese have alredy stolen most of the technological secrets.

More seriously (and yes, Chinese espionnage is serious), the Navy suffers from much the same malady as the rest of Amercian culture… the desire to get something for nothing.

We want a large, first-class Navy with plenty of command-opportunities. We want to form the ships into “squadrons,” so there are even MORE command opportunities. We want mission sustainability and presence. Indeed, we want ships that can perform multi-missions: Track quiet subs, while targeting ballistic missiles, while performing gunfire support, while deploying SPECOPS forces, while doing ELINT, all while un-rep’ping, at night, in rough seas.

Yet we want small crews ‘cuz large crews are too expensive when payday comes around, plus ooooh — those retirement bennies.

And we want it all to come cheap.

Hey, you don’t always get what you pay for in this world. But you NEVER get what you don’t pay for.

By: Tony Conner

Tony Conner — Thu, 28 May 2009 10:37:29 +0000

I have to add that there is an endemic problem with the US Navy for ship procurement in that the construction of a large ship takes between 5 and 7 years. The naval planners get to go through at least 4 threat analysis exercises in that time and ask the shipyards to update their designs to include the latest electronics, weapons, signature suppression, etc. The costs can be contained on the initial build by eliminating these updates as the ship is under construction. Of course, then the upgrades will have to be budgeted in to future procurements.
The DOD acquisition workforce has been redirected in the past 10 years to babysit the contractors, not develop the overall requirements. The concept as stated in an earlier commentary is to let the contractor tell the DOD what it needs and it will be cheaper? The deletion of military specifications and standards was the beginning of the NEW way of doing business. You reap what you sow and we now have cost containment problems. Perhaps the OLD way of doing business was the correct way.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 28 May 2009 06:25:36 +0000

The entire time I was in the Navy the supply / acquisition guys were the dumbest group on board. I see it has changed.
The Navy just closed the supply training school in Athens, GA. I guess they figured out they can’t be trained.
Now we have Obama-nomics for the Navy.

By: SSDD

SSDD — Thu, 28 May 2009 05:43:19 +0000

Lucky for all I have the answer. Clearly we dont have the sailors cleaning enough. If we could just get some deckplate leadership and attempt to fully utilize the asset of 164 available hours per week per sailor all of these problems would go away. Obviously a cleanliness issue.