So about the F35.....it floats?! Taxpayer funded waste.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by G51989, Jul 31, 2014.

  1. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #1
    http://www.businessinsider.com/littoral-combat-ship-will-be-modified-if-not-replaced-2014-7

    The latest pile of crap to come out of the defense complex

    Interesting, so the ship of the future, that will be cheaper and better than the ships its intended to replace....

    Is actually WAY more expensive....
    With a very thin hull that has navy officials very clearly worried...
    Did not meet any performance goals.... and actually underperformed
    And according to the navy, is so under-gunned it can't properly defend itself

    Even the Navy says it doesn't seem to be interested in these overpriced junk ships in their current form, they want a total refit and redesign, or an entire new ship.

    I assume Lockheed should be writing a check back to the taxpayer for squandering yet more money.

    That went super well.

    Hmmm, under armored, slower than advertised, and hardly any ability to actually carry out the business of war. How the hell did this thing cost so much?

    So this is one of those ships thats supposed to be able to do work on land, on sea, and in air...it just can't go near anything armed with anti ship missiles....useful...

    So why are we paying for this pile of crap?

    Seems just like the F35, it would have been better to developed a few lines of purpose built ships at a lower cost. not this " Jack of all trades, blown up by small anti missiles " blunder we have.
     
  2. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #2
    Bringing back the Iowa's make more sense than these ships and it doesn't make any sense to bring back the BB's!

    I find it funny that they built the two classes of LCS's as a competition to see which one is better, but they end up ordering both!
     
  3. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #3
    Planning Naval strategy and the sort of ships the fleet will need is an inherently difficult (impossible) job.

    Ships take years to design and build, and have a service life measured in decades. And even the smallest such vessels now come with a price tag counted in the billions.

    Almost inevitably, by the time the ships are in service the world has changed in some unforeseen way, and naval commanders and sailors are asked to perform a mission with vessels somewhat less than ideal for the task.

    In the first Gulf War, the US Navy found itself confronted with the threat of Iraqi magnetic mines in shallow waters, that it simply hadn't anticipated facing in a (planned for) war with the Soviet Union. It ended up relying on Britain's Royal Navy which had a fleet of 30+ year old minesweepers, and the crew skills to operate them.

    The point is, the Littoral Combat Ship was never planned to fight a blue-water war with China or Russia deploying anti-ship ballistic missiles. So it doesn't need to be particularly heavily armored. The LCS was planned to operate in a world where roughly 70% of the population lives within 50 miles of the coastline, where sea levels are rising due to Global Warming. And where global security is threatened more by terrorism and pirates than by enemy aircraft carriers and submarines.
     
  4. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #4
    The Iowas should have never been brought back, hell I think they should have been scrapped at this point. Besides the Missouri, the Iowas didn't do much.

    Murica **** yeah! Coming to pee away more tax money! Murica!

    ----------

    This is true.

    Also true.

    This is true.

    The American military still operates as if the Soviet Unions still exists, it keeps the tax money flowing into their coffers.

    You are totally missing the point.

    The Navy laid out a very specific set or guidelines and performance and weapons loads.

    These ships don't meet any of that. To the point that the navy is considering rejecting the ships, and demanding a new ship, or a major overhaul.

    What Lockheed has done, is under power, under defend, under arm, and generally make these ships not meet what the navy wanted, for 34 billion.

    I feel they did it on purpose.

    Now Lockeed gets to redo the entire thing, on the taxpayer dime for what the navy actually wants.

    So they get to charge double the price of what they quoted originally.

    I think they did this on purpose.
     
  5. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #5
    As I've said before, it's increasingly clear that the Pentagon's acquisitions program is broken.

    It's like a ATM that feeds cash into a shredder, it just consumes money and produces nothing of value.

    Can anyone name a Pentagon program that hasn't been a total charlie foxtrot in the last decade?
     
  6. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #6
    It's not broken at all.

    America doesn't actually have real enemies anymore.

    So the military just makes crap up to stuff their coffers with taxpayer money.
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    I'm quite sure that neither Lockheed nor any of the other contractors or subcontractors deliberately set out to build a defective vessel.

    I've had a tiny bit of experience providing highly-engineered products to the US Government. And, from my experience, its a miserable experience. One almost guaranteed to bring financial ruin upon all but the wiliest operators. (Howard Hughers almost went bankrupt supplying helicopters to the Army during the 1960s).

    Without getting into too many details, when you get a DOD contract, you end up trying to satisfy a about a hundred different masters. Not just meet the specifications set forth in original RFQ - but also the whims and fancies of everyone from the various political overlords, to the Mandarins that make up Pentagon procurement, Naval engineering, and everyone form the EPA to OSHA, by way of the Coast Guard and the World Wildlife Fund. (I'm not kidding about the last one....)

    Every decision you or your engineers make - from the sort of welding rod to the brand of toilet paper you use, suddenly gets to be second guessed by bureaucrats whose job security depends on proving how important their powers of observation are. People who had precisely zero input into setting the specification - and who really couldn't care less about seeing the product succeed or your company paying its employees,

    None of which makes for a particularly inexpensive or efficient process. At the end of the day, you are pretty likely to end up with something that sorta satisfies most of the people involved.

    But you aren't going to end up with a particularly gorgeous and/or inexpensive product. Thats not gonna happen.
     
  8. G51989, Aug 1, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2014

    G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #8
    I'm actually sure they did, after the F35 mess, they k now they can now double dip.

    Provide the wrong product, not refund the taxpayer, and get even more of our money.

    Years ago I worked for NewPort News. Trust me, they are out to screw the taxpayer as much as possible.


    I am aware of all of this, and pretty sickened by it.


    You know what needs to be done?

    Nationalize defense contractors.

    The damn Russians are looking at putting the PAK 50 into production, which outperforms the F22, for 1/4th the cost per plane.

    Sometimes, in the next 10 years. I can't wait to watch PAK 50's blow F22s and F35s out of the sky. For 1/4th of the price.
     
  9. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #9
    Nope, because with all that money floating around and no one to hold the military industrial complexes feet to the fire we just get a constant stream of overpriced and often useless crap.
     
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    Not my area of expertise, but, wasn't it "terrorism and pirates" that blew open the Cole? Would some serious armor have been better? But, if the LCS is supposed to be a Coast Guard cutter, don't we already know how to build those?
     
  11. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #11
    I agree they should have never been brought back to service as we both know about previous discussions. I was just connecting the LCS's to the same logic of bringing the Iowa's back in the 80's( and even now). Which there isn't any logic. But the LCS's make less sense than the Iowa's. At least the BB's are better protected even with the crappy CWIS's and have a better chance of getting close to shore with their armored hull. The LCS's as pointed out have no armor and no weaponry for anti-ship missiles.

    But I do disagree about scrapping the other Iowa's outside of Missouri. They are the last of their kind. Americans should be exposed to them as much as possible. It just sucks one is in Hawaii which is hard to do for most people, the other two are on the East Coast and only one on the West Coast. They are all in high tourist locations, but still....
     
  12. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #12
    Yep, and the American people hear the world " Defending your freedom! " and eat it all up.
     

Share This Page