US Navy News and updates

[Terran]

Often times off the shelf is used to try and trim the fat and delay off a project. When this works it’s often as the parent product was already inline with the objective product. Example The Spearhead class. Its base is a car ferry they didn’t modify it far from that and the role it takes it more or less the same. It’s just instead of a Soccer Mom 4x4 it’s Stryker ICV 8x8s.

In the case of Constellation class that became a trap. The Navy didn’t want to have to go through the process of designing & Testing/qualifying a new hull. This forced the USN to pick based off existing hull designs that were built to completely different specifications. Even had they chosen the F100 frigate already equipped with Aegis systems this would have been the same outcome as the intended mission equipment is so fundamentally different. Ironically well trying to avoid the consequences of a new Hull they inflicted upon themselves the consequences of a new hull. A Catch 22.

 

[John Fedup]

This article illustrates another impediment to defence acquisition, consultants. Not only a navy problem either, it is applicable to other departments and many governments worldwide. Nothing pollies like better than awarding their consultants plus it provides a convenient delay mechanism.

The Department of Defense's $2.4 Billion 'Submarine' Mistake

Consider the $2.4 billion deal administration inked in July with Deloitte Consulting to boost submarine construction, by an administration that had claimed there isn’t enough money in the budget to fund two needed nuclear attack submarines.

nationalsecurityjournal.org

 

[spoz]

Firstly, they are not just contracted as consultants for this - what the author appears to overlook is that there is a lack of submarine building (and maintenance) capacity in the US at present, so there is no point in just ordering a boat which there is no capacity to build. This contract is seeking to address that. Secondly, Australia is providing quite a bit of capital to the US for this very purpose; and the amount seems about right; so it may not even be US $ that are paying.

Like so much of the commentary in the US at the moment this takes a fact, at least partiality out of context, and embroiders it for what are probably partisan purposes.