Monday, July 30, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Offshore Missle Defense
Expertise in Congress occasionally manifests itself from an unlikely source. One of the unduly lesser heralded, but remarkably brilliant and versatile, Members of Congress is Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD). Who else in Congress is an experienced working farmer, a college and university lecturer on diverse subjects, a Ph.D. in human physiology - and a self-made man, working his way out of relative poverty!
Representative Bartlett also has become an authority on national defense. By sheer, if irrelevant, coincidence, his two predecessors from the 6th Maryland Congressional District also developed some military expertise. (The 6th comprises bits of Baltimore and Montgomery Counties and all of more rural and small-town Western Maryland; hence, it amalgamates a touch of suburban Baltimore and Washington.)
If coincidences are interesting, consider the following. Bartlett’s immediate predecessor was Beverly Butcher Byron (served 14 years, 1979 - 1993), who, from lovely wife and mother, in her widowhood was elected to succeed her husband, Goodloe Edgar Byron (1971 - 1978), who had died only in his forties. (Goodloe and I were in law school together, graduated from The Infantry Officers School and The Army Judge Advocate General’s School together.) Goodloe and Beverly were conservative Democrats. Yet another coincidence: Goodloe’s father (1939 - 1941) and widowed mother (1939 - 1941) held the seat. J. Glenn Beall (1943 - 1953) and his son, J. Glenn Beall, Jr. (1969 - 1971), held the seat, each later elected United States Senator.
So much for familial and other coincidence.
Now Ranking Minority Member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, Representative Bartlett has developed an exceptional military and defense-needs knowledge. Not surprisingly, he is among the (unfortunately, too few) Members of Congress who advocate greater submarine construction.
The House of Representatives, if belatedly, has moved in the submarine-construction direction, the so-called “Virginia-Class” submarine. However, apparently only about one Virginia-Class submarine is to be launched each year - down from four or more of the then ultramodern “Los Angeles-Class” submarines during the 1980s. To amateurs the exact statistics are immaterial. The point is that we are becoming - probably already have become - deficient in submarine capability.
China, perhaps not unexpectedly, is reported to be building submarines faster than we are. However, one need not hypothesize about likely future military problems with China. Rather, one can think about dire possibilities closer to home. Whether the source or a source would be China is irrelevant.
At best the situation is unclear, and not especially reassuring, as to the state of our defense against offshore missiles. It doesn’t take much imagination, and no knowledge of ballistics, to realize that a powerful, modern submarine, undetected offshore, could launch devastating missiles against civilian targets along our Atlantic, Caribbean and Pacific Coasts - cities, towns, roads, bridges, so forth.
If we are to defend ourselves against offshore missiles, nuclear and otherwise, launched by offshore submarines, we obviously need our own submarines to pinpoint and disable or destroy those terrorist submarines lurking in the sea. We also need submarines to assist the United States Coast Guard in monitoring of commercial shipping and private vessels which may launch offshore missiles. The Coast Guard also needs substantially more Congressional appropriations but that is a subject beyond that of this commentary.
However viewed, we need more thinkers and proponents like the versatile Member from Maryland.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
var digg_skin='compact';
var digg_bgcolor = '#dad4c6';
Representative Bartlett also has become an authority on national defense. By sheer, if irrelevant, coincidence, his two predecessors from the 6th Maryland Congressional District also developed some military expertise. (The 6th comprises bits of Baltimore and Montgomery Counties and all of more rural and small-town Western Maryland; hence, it amalgamates a touch of suburban Baltimore and Washington.)
If coincidences are interesting, consider the following. Bartlett’s immediate predecessor was Beverly Butcher Byron (served 14 years, 1979 - 1993), who, from lovely wife and mother, in her widowhood was elected to succeed her husband, Goodloe Edgar Byron (1971 - 1978), who had died only in his forties. (Goodloe and I were in law school together, graduated from The Infantry Officers School and The Army Judge Advocate General’s School together.) Goodloe and Beverly were conservative Democrats. Yet another coincidence: Goodloe’s father (1939 - 1941) and widowed mother (1939 - 1941) held the seat. J. Glenn Beall (1943 - 1953) and his son, J. Glenn Beall, Jr. (1969 - 1971), held the seat, each later elected United States Senator.
So much for familial and other coincidence.
Now Ranking Minority Member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, Representative Bartlett has developed an exceptional military and defense-needs knowledge. Not surprisingly, he is among the (unfortunately, too few) Members of Congress who advocate greater submarine construction.
The House of Representatives, if belatedly, has moved in the submarine-construction direction, the so-called “Virginia-Class” submarine. However, apparently only about one Virginia-Class submarine is to be launched each year - down from four or more of the then ultramodern “Los Angeles-Class” submarines during the 1980s. To amateurs the exact statistics are immaterial. The point is that we are becoming - probably already have become - deficient in submarine capability.
China, perhaps not unexpectedly, is reported to be building submarines faster than we are. However, one need not hypothesize about likely future military problems with China. Rather, one can think about dire possibilities closer to home. Whether the source or a source would be China is irrelevant.
At best the situation is unclear, and not especially reassuring, as to the state of our defense against offshore missiles. It doesn’t take much imagination, and no knowledge of ballistics, to realize that a powerful, modern submarine, undetected offshore, could launch devastating missiles against civilian targets along our Atlantic, Caribbean and Pacific Coasts - cities, towns, roads, bridges, so forth.
If we are to defend ourselves against offshore missiles, nuclear and otherwise, launched by offshore submarines, we obviously need our own submarines to pinpoint and disable or destroy those terrorist submarines lurking in the sea. We also need submarines to assist the United States Coast Guard in monitoring of commercial shipping and private vessels which may launch offshore missiles. The Coast Guard also needs substantially more Congressional appropriations but that is a subject beyond that of this commentary.
However viewed, we need more thinkers and proponents like the versatile Member from Maryland.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
var digg_skin='compact';
var digg_bgcolor = '#dad4c6';
Navy Technologies
NEWPORT NEWS - Some of the new technologies planned for the shipyard's next aircraft carrier are encountering development difficulties, and there's little margin for error if the ship is to finish within its budget, a report from the Government Accountability Office says.The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, said delays on a new aircraft launching system, a new arresting gear system to catch the planes, and a new radar system could increase costs on the Gerald R. Ford carrier. "Such delays could impede completion of the ship's design and interfere with construction of the ship," the report said.The Ford now carries an estimated price tag of $13.7 billion. That includes $8.1 billion in construction costs and $5.6 billion in design and development work that will also be used for later ships of the same class.
Related Links
Gerald R. Ford Photo
The design, now taking place at Northrop Grumman Newport News, is more than 70 percent complete. The carrier, a replacement for the USS Enterprise, is scheduled to start construction at the shipyard next year, with completion in 2015.But the Navy, the GAO said, may be underestimating the labor hours needed to build the ship - earmarking fewer hours than on past ships "even though it is a lead ship that includes cutting edge technologies and a new design."The Navy, asked for comment Wednesday about its price tag for the ship, stood by its cost estimates."The Navy believes the current budget is appropriate to buy the CVN-78," Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Kevin Sykes said. "The risks in the program related to development of new technologies are clearly defined and being managed ... and new design and construction processes are meeting expectations for cost performance."The GAO reported no problems with what are arguably the two biggest changes on the ship: a new nuclear power plant and a new electric generation system. But there are potential issues, the report said, with some of the other planned systems.The Ford carrier's plane launching system - used to catapult planes from the flight deck - is to use electromagnetic technology rather than steam-driven mechanics used on past ships.Earlier this year, a shipyard engineering manager said the development of the system, called Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), was on track, adding that it uses the same basic physics as amusement park roller coasters.But the GAO said that the system, being made by San Diego-based General Atomics, "encountered technical difficulties developing the prototype generator and meeting detailed technical requirements, which led to increased program costs and an over 15-month schedule delay."The system, which crosses many design zones on the ship, "will be manufactured in a new facility inexperienced with production," the GAO report said. Any more problems, it said, could delay delivery of the system to the shipyard and cause work to have to be done "out of their expected sequence."Likewise, designs for a new aircraft carrier arresting gear system, also being built by General Atomics, were late in being sent to the Navy, leading to a six-month delay in production, with the piece now likely having to be put in "after the flight deck has been laid," the report said. "The shipbuilder will expend additional labor to lower the system into place through a hole in the flight deck."The GAO also said a new radar system planned for the ship won't complete its testing until 2012. "This leaves little to no time to make any necessary changes" before the radar's scheduled delivery to the yard that same year, the report said.For its part, Northrop Grumman Newport News still says it plans to deliver an affordable ship to the Navy."We have been working from the beginning of this design-build effort to provide the Navy with a ship they can afford," said shipyard spokeswoman Jennifer Dellapenta. "We are incorporating a range of cost-reduction initiatives, including facilities investments, simplified design features and shipbuilding process improvements, while meeting the more demanding key performance parameters applicable to this class of carrier."She said "there are always challenges maturing any new technology," but that the shipyard was still confident that General Atomics, the Navy and the shipyard would be successful in getting them into the carrier."These are matters of normal design, and Northrop Grumman and General Atomics are working their way through these design issues," added Tony Kopacz, a chief operating officer at General Atomics who oversees the new launching system.There's a big inherent advantage in the way the Ford is being designed that may hold down costs. That is, the entire ship - as opposed to just certain sections on previous carriers - is being done in a 3-D product model. That should lead problems to be caught earlier, reducing the need for rework.But the demographics of the yard's future work force - with more than half the workers on the Ford scheduled to have less than five years of experience - has the potential to lead to cost increases on the new carrier. The GAO report said the Navy has to improve its cost estimating on shipbuilding programs. "The Navy tends to underestimate the costs needed to construct ships - resulting in unrealistic budgets," the report said.The report recommended that the Navy improve its "confidence level" of its estimates, complete ship designs before awarding construction contracts, use fixed price contracts even on early ships of a class, and "strengthen oversight of shipyard cost performance," such as requiring more - and better - cost reports.
Related Links
Gerald R. Ford Photo
The design, now taking place at Northrop Grumman Newport News, is more than 70 percent complete. The carrier, a replacement for the USS Enterprise, is scheduled to start construction at the shipyard next year, with completion in 2015.But the Navy, the GAO said, may be underestimating the labor hours needed to build the ship - earmarking fewer hours than on past ships "even though it is a lead ship that includes cutting edge technologies and a new design."The Navy, asked for comment Wednesday about its price tag for the ship, stood by its cost estimates."The Navy believes the current budget is appropriate to buy the CVN-78," Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Kevin Sykes said. "The risks in the program related to development of new technologies are clearly defined and being managed ... and new design and construction processes are meeting expectations for cost performance."The GAO reported no problems with what are arguably the two biggest changes on the ship: a new nuclear power plant and a new electric generation system. But there are potential issues, the report said, with some of the other planned systems.The Ford carrier's plane launching system - used to catapult planes from the flight deck - is to use electromagnetic technology rather than steam-driven mechanics used on past ships.Earlier this year, a shipyard engineering manager said the development of the system, called Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS), was on track, adding that it uses the same basic physics as amusement park roller coasters.But the GAO said that the system, being made by San Diego-based General Atomics, "encountered technical difficulties developing the prototype generator and meeting detailed technical requirements, which led to increased program costs and an over 15-month schedule delay."The system, which crosses many design zones on the ship, "will be manufactured in a new facility inexperienced with production," the GAO report said. Any more problems, it said, could delay delivery of the system to the shipyard and cause work to have to be done "out of their expected sequence."Likewise, designs for a new aircraft carrier arresting gear system, also being built by General Atomics, were late in being sent to the Navy, leading to a six-month delay in production, with the piece now likely having to be put in "after the flight deck has been laid," the report said. "The shipbuilder will expend additional labor to lower the system into place through a hole in the flight deck."The GAO also said a new radar system planned for the ship won't complete its testing until 2012. "This leaves little to no time to make any necessary changes" before the radar's scheduled delivery to the yard that same year, the report said.For its part, Northrop Grumman Newport News still says it plans to deliver an affordable ship to the Navy."We have been working from the beginning of this design-build effort to provide the Navy with a ship they can afford," said shipyard spokeswoman Jennifer Dellapenta. "We are incorporating a range of cost-reduction initiatives, including facilities investments, simplified design features and shipbuilding process improvements, while meeting the more demanding key performance parameters applicable to this class of carrier."She said "there are always challenges maturing any new technology," but that the shipyard was still confident that General Atomics, the Navy and the shipyard would be successful in getting them into the carrier."These are matters of normal design, and Northrop Grumman and General Atomics are working their way through these design issues," added Tony Kopacz, a chief operating officer at General Atomics who oversees the new launching system.There's a big inherent advantage in the way the Ford is being designed that may hold down costs. That is, the entire ship - as opposed to just certain sections on previous carriers - is being done in a 3-D product model. That should lead problems to be caught earlier, reducing the need for rework.But the demographics of the yard's future work force - with more than half the workers on the Ford scheduled to have less than five years of experience - has the potential to lead to cost increases on the new carrier. The GAO report said the Navy has to improve its cost estimating on shipbuilding programs. "The Navy tends to underestimate the costs needed to construct ships - resulting in unrealistic budgets," the report said.The report recommended that the Navy improve its "confidence level" of its estimates, complete ship designs before awarding construction contracts, use fixed price contracts even on early ships of a class, and "strengthen oversight of shipyard cost performance," such as requiring more - and better - cost reports.
People Problems In The Navy
People Problems in the U.S. NavyJuly 26, 2007: The U.S. Navy is going to war with the firms that build its warships. Poor quality, delays and inflated prices are the cause. For decades, there have been growing problems with "low balling." This is where the shipbuilder gives the navy a very low estimate of what a proposed ship is going to cost. Then, when construction is under way, costs creep up, often resulting in the ship costing more than twice the original estimate. When this practice began, after World War II, it was with the cooperation of the navy, that wanted to have an easier time convincing Congress to allow construction of new ships.
For the past decade, the navy has been saying, "no more", while the ship builders say, "OK." But the low balling continues. All current ship building projects over budget. The worst case is the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship), which was to be the poster boy for doing it right. Didn't work out that way. Three years ago, when building plans for the LCS were laid out, each one was to cost $223 million. Now the estimated price is $460 million, and the navy is confident that the ultimate price will be higher. Congress is outraged, and are demanding that the admirals do something.
One area where the navy will definitely save money with its new ship designs, is in payroll and personnel expense in general. That's because all the new navy ships will have much smaller crews and more automation. The main reason for this is to bring down operating costs. Currently, it costs $37 million a year to operate a Spruance class destroyer, $21 million for a Perry class frigate (similar in size to the LCS), and $38 million for a Ticonderoga class cruiser. The Spruance is expensive because it has proved to be an unreliable and high maintenance design. The new Zumwalt class of destroyer is aiming for $21 million a year to operate, while the next cruiser will be $29 million, and the LCS $15 million. Big savings will come from smaller crews. Instead of 300-400 sailors for current destroyers and cruisers, the navy is hoping to get by with fewer than a hundred per LCS. The next generation aircraft carrier will have its crew sized reduced by 3,000 sailors, saving nearly $400 million a year in operating costs. So while ship building costs continue out of control, the navy is laying off thousands of sailors to pay for it.
For the past decade, the navy has been saying, "no more", while the ship builders say, "OK." But the low balling continues. All current ship building projects over budget. The worst case is the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship), which was to be the poster boy for doing it right. Didn't work out that way. Three years ago, when building plans for the LCS were laid out, each one was to cost $223 million. Now the estimated price is $460 million, and the navy is confident that the ultimate price will be higher. Congress is outraged, and are demanding that the admirals do something.
One area where the navy will definitely save money with its new ship designs, is in payroll and personnel expense in general. That's because all the new navy ships will have much smaller crews and more automation. The main reason for this is to bring down operating costs. Currently, it costs $37 million a year to operate a Spruance class destroyer, $21 million for a Perry class frigate (similar in size to the LCS), and $38 million for a Ticonderoga class cruiser. The Spruance is expensive because it has proved to be an unreliable and high maintenance design. The new Zumwalt class of destroyer is aiming for $21 million a year to operate, while the next cruiser will be $29 million, and the LCS $15 million. Big savings will come from smaller crews. Instead of 300-400 sailors for current destroyers and cruisers, the navy is hoping to get by with fewer than a hundred per LCS. The next generation aircraft carrier will have its crew sized reduced by 3,000 sailors, saving nearly $400 million a year in operating costs. So while ship building costs continue out of control, the navy is laying off thousands of sailors to pay for it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
