NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Marines Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Defeat At New Orleans

September 1, 2008: Three years ago, the amphibious ship USS San Antonio (the first of its class) entered service. Or at least tried to. The builders had done a very shoddy job, and it took the better part of a year to get the ship in shape. The second of the class,  the USS New Orleans, was also riddled with defects that required several hundred million dollars to fix.

Many consider the San Antonio class as a poster child for all that's wrong with American warship construction. The ships are being delivered late, and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The list of problems with the ships is long and embarrassing. Although the San Antonio did get into service, it was then brought in for more inspections and sea trials, and failed miserably. It cost $36 million and three months to get everything fixed.

San Antonio is the first of twelve LPD 17 class ships. Each is 24,900 tons displacement and 684 feet long. The navy crew is 360, and 720 marines and all their equipment are carried. There is 25,000 square feet for vehicle storage and a 24 bed hospital, with two operating rooms and the ability to set up another hundred beds in an emergency. Onboard weapons include two Bushmaster II 30mm Close In Guns and two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers to defend against anti-ship missiles. The ship is designed to carry and use two LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion vehicle), and 14 of the new AAAV (Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle), as well as the current AAV. The MV-22 (Osprey tiltrotor aircraft), as well as current helicopters, can operate off the ships flight deck. The AAAV and MV-22 are expected to be in service in the next few years. Each LPD 17 costs about $800 million. The LPD 17 class replaces four other classes of amphibious ships (LPD 4, LSD 36, LST 1179 and LKA 113).

While the admirals are correct in blaming the shipyards for many of the problems, the navy shares a lot of the blame as well. It is, after all, the navy that draws up the contracts, and supplies inspectors during construction of the ships. While Congressional interference can be blamed as well, in the end, it's the navy that has the most to say, and do, about how the ships are built. The problem is, admirals who stand up and take on the contractors and politicians put their careers on the line. But it appears that a number of admirals are willing to take the risks, and try for some fundamental reform, and finally fix the "system" that turns out more problems than warships. Victory is not assured. The shipyards and their suppliers have powerful allies in Congress. All that money translates into votes that gets incumbent politicians reelected. Congress is not inclined to attack this kind of patronage and pork, since nearly all members of Congress depend on it. The admirals can openly complain, but offended legislators can quietly cripple the careers of those critics. The smart money is betting against the good guys here.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article SURFACE FORCES : Aging Ships and Running Men


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

CJH       9/1/2008 11:46:39 AM
I guess that the idea of requiring a surety bond preliminary to the government's contracting for a ship is not a viable option.
 
I believe that I have read that the ancient Roman government contracted out to individuals and syndicates who were required to put up bonds guaranteeing their performance.
 
Quote    Reply

afrc       9/2/2008 12:12:30 AM
I guess that the idea of requiring a surety bond preliminary to the government's contracting for a ship is not a viable option.
 
I believe that I have read that the ancient Roman government contracted out to individuals and syndicates who were required to put up bonds guaranteeing their performance.
 
This is excellent idea... I would love to see this implemented, but the system is way too corrupt to allow it. The problem is not with Navy alone... we have problems with Army and Air Force. I read a few articles about outrageous waste of money with some USAF contracts (practically criminal) and companies were not even fined... sometimes even rewarded with more contracts. There is no personal responsibility at all any more and it is the same in civilian sector. This becomes society-wide problem and military is reflection of society. Maybe capitalism is dying?
 
Quote    Reply

Mrbinga       9/2/2008 11:43:46 AM
Is the USS San Antonio any where near being operable?  Last time I read anything about her and granted this was a long time ago she sounded like a complete and udder lemon with no hope of having any of her kinks worked out.
 
Quote    Reply

dziban303       9/2/2008 3:18:34 PM
It should be noted that the AAAV was renamed the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) almost five years ago.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Performance Bonds   9/2/2008 3:30:01 PM
Well, I don't know but I'm willing to bet that the USN had something to do with this "debacle."  If it IS a debacle, to be distinguished from the growing pains of creating a new class of vessel.  Look at the LCS Program, the Navy kept changing it's mind about the system performance, well no builder is going to be able to build on time or on-budget to such a changing buyer...the same may have happened here, the builders may have met the time constraint at the cost of quality...I don't know.  But the point is, how would a "bond" meet that?  The Bond protects the GOVERNMENT, not the bondee, executing the bond.  If the Bondee is jerked around by the government and can't meet the performance requirements of the contract, do they lose the bond?  If that happens why contract with the government?  Contracts already have non-performance clauses in them, what would a bond requirement to better?
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       9/3/2008 12:06:29 AM

I guess that the idea of requiring a surety bond preliminary to the government's contracting for a ship is not a viable option.

Actually, there is something close to this - the default conditions of the FAR stipulate that if a contractor defaults on a contract they can lose the ability to have future bids considered on ANY future federal contract. For a defense contractor that can essentially mean the company is kaput. There is also the possibility of late delivery fines or decreased payment if the acceptance criteria are met.
 
However,  the problem that the government runs into (in defense procurement and other areas) is that the there is insufficient diversity in the marketplace to really support competitive bidding.  Consider the JSF - there were two bidders. For naval construction there are how many shipyards to choose from? - not many. In that sort of environment, there is not a lot the DoD can do to enforce good behavior from a contractor - they could invoke the default clause and kill the company, but then they would have no one to build their ships/airplanes/etc...  One way around this is to allow foreign companies to bid, but many people (from Congress to the press to the military to domestic industry) don't like the idea of relying on off-shore industry to protect the country.
 
Another source of problems is changing criteria from the DoD and insecure funding. A project starts up, then gets canceled, then restarts, then the requirements are changed, so the contractor needs more money, so it gets canceled again, then restarted, then its 5 years later and the requirements need to be changed again, etc...
 
This is not to say that there aren't fundamental problems with how procurement is done. Ben Rich (director of the Lockheed Skunk Works) details a number of them in his book 'Skunk Works.'
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Mrbinga       9/4/2008 11:42:40 AM
So should we have any reasonable expectation that this ship will ever work?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    mrbinga   9/4/2008 12:13:36 PM
Be cautious, if you listened to the media and the "commenteriat" you'd be convinced that the finest armoured combat team in the world, the M-1 and the M-2/3, were nothing but dogs...
 
Right now it is stylish to comment on the failure of the LPD-17.  This may or may not be true, notice we don't get any reports on the good points of the boat...I doubt that there is ANY program that has only bad points, so we are lacking any baseline to compare...how bad is the LD-17?  As compared to other lead vessels of various class, as compared to the testing standards, is 95% pass rate a "fail" as far as the navy is concerned?  Who knows, it's not really mentioned in many of the articles here is it?
 
Bottom-line: be cautious, a lot of this is like asking the EX-Husband's opinion of his former wife, you aren't going get the whole story...
 
Quote    Reply

arodrig6       9/5/2008 1:10:04 PM

Right now it is stylish to comment on the failure of the LPD-17. 
It's always stylish to comment on the faults of a major government procurement (military or not). This is is because it gives everyone someone to be upset with, depending on your preference: "stupid" Congress, "warmongering" DoD, "greedy" contractors, "inattentive" public - pick your preferred demon and you can make a case to blame them. This makes a much better story than "Government Procurement Goes According to Plan"
 
There is probably a bit of shadenfreude in all these stories...

 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy