« Republicans, Democrats, Businesses, and Good Gov. Groups Support the DATA Act--Here's Why You Should Too | Main | New Video: Danielle Brian Talking Government Oversight on C-SPAN »

Apr 23, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c68bf53ef0168ea99f284970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Failed Equipment, Flawed Designs Plague Lockheed Littoral Combat Ship:

Comments

em3ledoux

As a former sailor I find this.. well I am at a loss for words. Polite words anyway.

David

When I worked at House Appropriations Committee in 2006-7, I examined the Navy RDTP&E budget. At the time, the Navy planned to have a sail-off and choose the better of the two proototypes. (That did not happen as the Navy continues to build both ships despite the enormous logistics tail that is applied by not narrowing down to a single production model.) Furthermore, the requirements for the Littoral Combat Ship was that it was to have three very different capabilities. However, as built, it only carries two capabilities, but must go into port to offload one capability and install the one it was not carrying. Why are we continuing to pour money down this rathole?

Dfens

It is hard to believe the General Dynamics ship is being hailed as the good version of the Little Crappy Ship. It's design is fundamentally flawed by its unstable design. At least the problems with the Lockheed ship can be fixed, at a great profit to Lockheed, naturally.

Really though, isn't this program just one more example of why our Navy ships should be designed by the US Navy as they once were and not by defense contractors who are not only robbing us of money, but also of the capacity to defend our shores and routes of commerce? POGO has repeatedly called for the insourcing of once outsourced government jobs. Can there be any better case against outsourcing than the decimation of our Naval forces by defense contractors?

The comments to this entry are closed.