497 comments posted · 14 followers · following 2

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - Guided Munitions Resur... · 0 replies · +3 points

Although this article is reffering to ground troops, it's very much a Navy issue too. We amass so much capability in a relatively localized battle group with a fairly limited number of ships (historically speaking).

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Video: F-35 Completes ... · 0 replies · +4 points

Do you think the guys on the ground count rounds or caliber during a CAS mission, or are they more interested in the fact that they get the CAS in the first place? No one seems to complain when an F-16 or F-18 is providing CAS with their 20 mm gun and 5 seconds of trigger.

8 years ago @ Defense Tech - Firm Displays 'Dragon ... · 1 reply · +1 points

There's a difference between having sensors to understand orientation in space and having stabilizing systems to correct for the movement. The latter is heavy, expensive, and power intensive. Not to mention that the sensors needed to stabilize a gun require far more accuracy than standard COTS gyros provide.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Touring the USS Corona... · 0 replies · +1 points

This part has always bothered me. The Navy didn't go all-in on the automation, despite having the technology commercially available to do so. The commercial sector has been doing automation for years. For example, Maersk's latest 165,000 tonne Triple-E class ships have a total crew of 19! The Navy, like always, is resistant to change.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Touring the USS Corona... · 2 replies · +2 points

1. As William stated, that's the air wing on board.

2. No. It's not a size limitation, but rather a heat and weight issue.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Touring the USS Corona... · 0 replies · +2 points

Who exactly do you think designed the LCS ship? You realize (obviously not) that one of this country's oldest and most successful warship design firms, Gibbs & Cox (including the Burkes and OHPs).

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Touring the USS Corona... · 1 reply · +1 points

"We have no business creating this many ships when the mission set is basically optimized towards those two things."

What exactly do you think the SUW mission set for the LCS is? Also, it's a great design for MCM as well (it's other mission). Folks seem unable to look past the name of the ship to see what it's intended to do. I will admit that it's current ASW mission set (carrier escort ASW) is not what it was designed for (littoral ASW). The fact of the matter is that anti-piracy/anti-drug is all part of the the LCS SUW mission (Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure, AKA VBSS). A job that's currently handled by VERY expensive DDG's that would be better served handling duties that they were actually designed for. Same goes for the MCM mission, you have DDGs that are being relegated to MCM duties because the Avenger Class is so long in the tooth and dwindling in numbers. SOMETHING has to handle the less sexy missions of the Navy.

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Kendall Touts Acquisit... · 3 replies · +1 points

"Yeah, we'd never be able to scam that system."
Does it matter if the taxpayer saves money?

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Kendall Touts Acquisit... · 2 replies · +1 points

LCS, proof that taking an entity (in this case shipyards AUSTAL and Marinette Marine Co.) with no defense experience and having them build a defense product has a STEEP learning curve. They didn't have the proper workforce, they didn't understand the requirements/standards, and they didn't have the facilities. In that case it was well understood before the contract was awarded, and the experiment was intended to spur economic development (it worked), but it was expensive, and ultimately you still needed an experienced "big brother" prime contractor to ensure success (Lockheed and General Dynamics).

8 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Kendall Touts Acquisit... · 5 replies · +1 points

"product performance clause"

You can't have a product performance clause on a contract when you can't foresee the performance weaknesses. Hindsight's always 20/20. But if you start applying blanket product performance clauses on DoD contracts, than you'll end up pricing yourself out of a product. Primes won't sign up for that much risk without making you pay for it.

A smarter contracting tool, at least in larger unit cost items, is cost-incentives. If you, the contractor, saves me one dollar, I the DoD, will give you an ADDITIONAL ten cents of profit. Now the DoD saves money on the units over time and the contractor is incentivized to keep costs under control.