One Down - 81 to go...

[Minimalist]

http://social.fool.com/blog/43986270146?...LnkdPostIM

According to recent media reports, the U.S. Navy has just floated a plan to grow its battle fleet from the current 273 warships to 355 -- an increase of 82 ships. So file this story under "one down, 81 to go."

On Monday, the Pentagon issued its regularly scheduled daily digest of contracts awarded to defense contractors. Topping the list was a $1.46 billion award to Huntington Ingalls (NYSE: HII) to proceed with construction of USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28).

So what do we get for a mere $1.46 billion?

Described as an "amphibious transport dock," Fort Lauderdale belongs to a class of warships designated LPD (for "landing platform dock"), and that is sometimes referred to as the "LPD 17-class" (so named because the lead ship of the class was LPD 17), and other times as a "San Antonio-class ship" (because LPD 17 is named the USS San Antonio). Its purpose is to carry hovercraft, amphibious tanks, helicopters, and tilt-rotor aircraft filled with Marines to assault hostile beachheads.

That's all well and good except for the fact that the Marines have not conducted a major assault on a "hostile beachhead" since Inchon in 1950.  We are building support ships for an anachronism.  This is hardly news.  The issue has been raised before.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2...Last-Fight

In 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates made waves when he ordered the Pentagon to take a hard look at the Marines to determine what, if any role they would play in the future of warfare.

“All of the military services have been challenged to find the right balance between preserving what is unique and valuable in their traditions, while at the same time making the changes necessary to win the wars we are in and prepare for the likely future threats in the years and decades to come,” he said. “Looking ahead, I do think it is proper to ask whether large-scale amphibious landings along the lines of Inchon [the Marine’s invasion of the Korea peninsula in 1950] are feasible.”

Once again, jobs seem to be primary driver of our defense choices whether we need them or not.

[vorlon13]

And with Trumps laser focus on the bottom line, future wars are going to be let out to the lowest bidder from now on. Our official military will become more ceremonial, and the actual troops on the ground will be independent contractors.

[Jackalope]

Once again, jobs seem to be primary driver of our defense choices whether we need them or not.

Oink.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why am I now thinking of Animal Farm, lol.

Great book and movie.

[Minimalist]

Obviously because you have marvelous taste in literature.

[GUBU]

Why am I now thinking of Animal Farm, lol.

Great book and movie.

I'm thinking more Nineteen Eighty-Four myself.

[vorlon13]

I'm not springing to Trump's defense here, (in fact the opposite) but it's clear he does not understand something VERY fundamental about government programs such as the F-35, the presidential 747, and most all the rest in the military world:

the specifications and requirements from the government/DOD continually change during development, prototyping, and production. Frequently, such changes are either mutually exclusive amongst each other, and/or the original development plan APPROVED by the government/DOD, and/or can involve literally starting the entire project over with a clean sheet of paper and gives the contractor(s) carte blanche to honk them on prices because THEY DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING ONCE THEY GET APPROVED TO START.

Additionally, slowing down a running program DRASTICALLY increases program overhead costs, Management gets paid the same evert year whether 1 plane or a hundred get produced in that year.

More overhead bloat occurs when programs need to distribute work among as many congressional districts as possible to garner approval, regardless of the impact on cost.

Something else not widely appreciated, when a request for proposal/quotation goes out, the government/DOD LOVES to see their new widget can be made with OFF THE SHELF TECHNOLOGY, whether or not that claim si even remotely believable. If the government requests bids from industry for building a submarine that can also fly through the air, and receives 2 bids, and one bid is for building 100 of them with off the shelf technology for $10 billion dollars, and the other is for building 10 of them with all new technology for $10 billion dollars, the government/DOD will pick the first bid EVERYTIME, even though there is NO SUCH THING AS OFF THE SHELF TECHNOLOGY FOR MAKING FLYING SUBMARINES. It is real easy to see that bid turning into a ROYAL CLUSTER FUCK, and that is without the inevitable change request 5 years into the program asking for the flying submarine to now also have a negative carbon footprint.


Trump REALLY needs to get up to speed on this . . . .

[Minimalist]

How many years will his complete ignorance of how things are done be used as an excuse?

[vorlon13]

The DOD procurement and contract management systems need to be put in a vat of radioactive iguana pus and drowned.

And it might be an interesting pissing contest to see Team Trump try.

Also interesting would be deciding who to root for.

They both won't win, yet it's possible both might lose . . . .

[Minimalist]

Did you ever see The Pentagon Wars?

Great fucking movie.