5 ms·

This small matter of corrosion seems to be the least of the problems with this ship. This article implies Austal are the primary contractors, they are the prim

This small matter of corrosion seems to be the least of the problems with this ship. This article implies Austal are the primary contractors, they are the primary sub-contractor. The program for the 'LTS' ships is split between Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, Austal are partnered up with General Dynamics building a very different design of ship to what the other guys at Lockheed Martin are doing. This particular ship was supposed to cost $220 million dollars, it is now costing more than $700 million. That is a lot of money. The program as a whole is costing something like $80 billion, that really is a lot of money. What I find amusing is that a contract for $300 million has been awarded for some company to create the training materials for the LTS ships. That is one very expensive operators manual. Incidentally the Lockheed Martin LCS ships crack when going at speed, well, that has been the problem so far. So you have half the fleet corroding and the other half just cracking. Sure the concept of the ships is new (interchangeable modules) but the programme as a whole has been rushed into without proper testing. Now there are tens of thousands of jobs depending on it in 43 states. It is 'too big to fail' yet it is doing a good job of failing as far as stated objectives are concerned. It is always the way with military projects. Well, not quite always. On September 12 2001 contracts went out for the rebuilding of the Pentagon, as damaged a day earlier. That project was delivered a month early with no cost overrun.

eliteraspberrie 13y ago
I wouldn't worry about the cost. Those billions go to maintaining the capacity to produce ships in the future -- the engineering talent, the shipyards, the metallurgy, and other related industries. In Canada, we worried about cost in the past couple decades, and are now reduced to buying second-hand rust buckets, or trying and failing to make up for the lost capabilities. Our supply ships cost three times more than your combat ships! http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-supply-ships-1-5b-over-budget-watchdog-says-1.1320633 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-supply-ships-1-5b-o...
mjn 13y ago
> It is always the way with military projects. Well, not quite always. There were a few generations of military projects that, while very expensive and subject to many of the same distributed-construction politics, did seem to turn out well in the end. More recent ones (meaning the last 10-20 years) seem not to be doing as well. The F-16 program, for example, was led by the U.S. but pulled in several NATO allies from Europe as part of the program, and as part of that deal the construction was also split up between the partners. But all the partners were generally happy with the end result, and the F-16 is well regarded. Something vaguely similar was tried with the Joint Strike Fighter, but that one doesn't seem to be going as well, and a lot of the non-U.S. partners are now starting to regret having signed up for it. I don't know enough to explain why the F-16 process worked, though.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  I'm nowhere near old enough to remember the F-16's development, but it sure looks like recent programs have suffered a great deal from bikeshedding and trying to be everything to everyone. Look at some of the F-16's rough contemporaries: The F-14, F-15, F/A-18, A-6, and A-10. Despite a fair bit of flexibility and overlap in mission capabilities, especially after post-debut tweaking, these are all different planes designed with different goals in mind. Now think about the F-35/JSF. It's one program that's basically trying to replace everything leftover from the cold war. That seems like a big red flag. It seems like something similar is going on in the LCS program. They're explicitly supposed to be "flexible" and "modular" -- aka "be ALL THE THINGS!" -- and "replace" a variety of more special-purpose ships. Swiss army knives are handy, but I'm not going to try building a house with one.

eliteraspberrie 13y ago

I wouldn't worry about the cost. Those billions go to maintaining the capacity to produce ships in the future -- the engineering talent, the shipyards, the metallurgy, and other related industries. In Canada, we worried about cost in the past couple decades, and are now reduced to buying second-hand rust buckets, or trying and failing to make up for the lost capabilities. Our supply ships cost three times more than your combat ships! http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-supply-ships-1-5b-over-budget-watchdog-says-1.1320633 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-supply-ships-1-5b-o...

mjn 13y ago

> It is always the way with military projects. Well, not quite always. There were a few generations of military projects that, while very expensive and subject to many of the same distributed-construction politics, did seem to turn out well in the end. More recent ones (meaning the last 10-20 years) seem not to be doing as well. The F-16 program, for example, was led by the U.S. but pulled in several NATO allies from Europe as part of the program, and as part of that deal the construction was also split up between the partners. But all the partners were generally happy with the end result, and the F-16 is well regarded. Something vaguely similar was tried with the Joint Strike Fighter, but that one doesn't seem to be going as well, and a lot of the non-U.S. partners are now starting to regret having signed up for it. I don't know enough to explain why the F-16 process worked, though.

nknighthb 13y ago
I'm nowhere near old enough to remember the F-16's development, but it sure looks like recent programs have suffered a great deal from bikeshedding and trying to be everything to everyone. Look at some of the F-16's rough contemporaries: The F-14, F-15, F/A-18, A-6, and A-10. Despite a fair bit of flexibility and overlap in mission capabilities, especially after post-debut tweaking, these are all different planes designed with different goals in mind. Now think about the F-35/JSF. It's one program that's basically trying to replace everything leftover from the cold war. That seems like a big red flag. It seems like something similar is going on in the LCS program. They're explicitly supposed to be "flexible" and "modular" -- aka "be ALL THE THINGS!" -- and "replace" a variety of more special-purpose ships. Swiss army knives are handy, but I'm not going to try building a house with one.