littoral combat ship another weapons system disaster

[Anonymous]

One Navy secretary and his allies in Congress fought to build more littoral combat ships even as they broke down at sea and their weapons systems failed. The Navy wound up with more ships than it wanted, at an estimated lifetime cost that could reach $100 billion or more.

The Navy’s haste to deliver ships took precedence over combat ability. Without functioning weapons systems the vessels are like a “box floating in the ocean,” one former officer said.

Sailors and officers complained they spent more time fixing the ships than sailing them. The stress led many to seek mental health care.

Top Navy commanders placed pressure on subordinates to sail the ships even when the crews and vessels were not fully prepared to go to sea.

Several major breakdowns in 2016 exposed the limits of the ships and their crews, each adding fresh embarrassment to a program meant to propel the Navy into a more technologically advanced future.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship

I guess we should strap this little ship on an F-35? Maybe it would improve performance of both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One Navy secretary and his allies in Congress fought to build more littoral combat ships even as they broke down at sea and their weapons systems failed. The Navy wound up with more ships than it wanted, at an estimated lifetime cost that could reach $100 billion or more.

The Navy’s haste to deliver ships took precedence over combat ability. Without functioning weapons systems the vessels are like a “box floating in the ocean,” one former officer said.

Sailors and officers complained they spent more time fixing the ships than sailing them. The stress led many to seek mental health care.

Top Navy commanders placed pressure on subordinates to sail the ships even when the crews and vessels were not fully prepared to go to sea.

Several major breakdowns in 2016 exposed the limits of the ships and their crews, each adding fresh embarrassment to a program meant to propel the Navy into a more technologically advanced future.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship

I guess we should strap this little ship on an F-35? Maybe it would improve performance of both?

LCS’ problems have been known for years. Are you new to this?

[Anonymous]

Give Elon Musk OceanX company. Maybe have James Cameron on board of directors- way better than anything the tier 1 contractors could come up with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One Navy secretary and his allies in Congress fought to build more littoral combat ships even as they broke down at sea and their weapons systems failed. The Navy wound up with more ships than it wanted, at an estimated lifetime cost that could reach $100 billion or more.

The Navy’s haste to deliver ships took precedence over combat ability. Without functioning weapons systems the vessels are like a “box floating in the ocean,” one former officer said.

Sailors and officers complained they spent more time fixing the ships than sailing them. The stress led many to seek mental health care.

Top Navy commanders placed pressure on subordinates to sail the ships even when the crews and vessels were not fully prepared to go to sea.

Several major breakdowns in 2016 exposed the limits of the ships and their crews, each adding fresh embarrassment to a program meant to propel the Navy into a more technologically advanced future.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship

I guess we should strap this little ship on an F-35? Maybe it would improve performance of both?

LCS’ problems have been known for years. Are you new to this?

ProPublica just restirring a really old moldy stew.

The real problem is, as the Chinese threat gets serious, we're missing 30 years of ships due to LCS and Zumwalts and we don't have shipyard capacity to recover from those debacles.

[Anonymous]

The military and the pentagon should take a lesson...

4 Ways to Tell If Your Company Is Too Big to Manage

Inc. Magazine, February 2014

It's one thing to aspire to run a big company, it's another to fall victim to your own success.

In recent years, we’ve heard much about “too big to fail,” but one of the nightmares of organizational life is “too big to manage.”

At a certain point, yesterday’s entrepreneurial, agile organization known for innovation and creativity can often morph into a clunky, behemoth not even Rube Goldberg could keep up with.

The trouble is, growing organizations can easily become overwhelmed by bureaucracies and torn apart by turf. As you aspire to grow your business, two critical questions you must ask yourself are: At what point does an organization become too big to manage? And what, if anything, can you do to prevent helming such a company?

For starters, it'll help to know a hulking, unmanageable company when you see one. Here are four signs that an organization is in danger of succumbing to its own weight:

1. The core mission statement has become diffuse. When an organization is vital, its mission statement is clear and provides a rallying cry not only for tactics and strategy, but also delineates everything from sales strategy to research and development. In a vibrant, growing firm, the mission statement is a touchstone that legitimizes all activities. Clunky organizations, on the other hand, either cling to an antiquated vision statement or stand behind one that is too broad or too ambiguous.

2. The main business function fades. In their early stages, most startups have a highly focused business strategy, with a specific service or product they intend on delivering. As organizations become larger, they can lose sight of these core activities. Maybe they grow by mergers and acquisitions, adding product upon product, or service upon service, and scotch-taping the pieces together under the banner of “solution-driven not product-driven.”

This ad hoc philosophy can backfire when companies fail to integrate their component products and services into an integrated solutions approach, which can give them a focused business strategy. Steer clear of growth for the sake of growth, as it can lead to sprawling and, ultimately, inefficient businesses.

3. The watchwords are "organized anarchy." Even too big to manage organizations have structure. But don't mistake structure for a solid business. After all, a house of cards has plenty of structure on its surface. Inside, it is clear that sections are flimsy and tenuous.

In companies, business segments may not be integrated, functions and processes could be duplicated, and R&D may run parallel paths in numerous sectors. Accountability is diffuse, and the organization itself resembles a corporate serfdom. And in many arenas, the organization has lost control.

4. The organizational culture is schizophrenic. Successful organizations, at their best, not only know where they are going and how to get there, but the culture of the organization is clearly defined. Culture, as a key motivator of performance, in a company that lacks proper guidance, becomes ambiguous. Individuals are often told that they are valued members of the community, but are disproportionately driven by the bottom line.

On one hand, there is a sense of collective and unity, and on the other, there is desperate drive to succeed and achieve immediately. It is unclear what is valued and what isn't, and people can become alienated from the normative community that motivated them to contribute to the common mission when the organization was at its most successful.

A clunky company is, essentially, misaligned. The vision statement is diffuse, the focal business function is lost, anarchy reigns, and the organization culture does not motivate appropriately. In these companies, the critical alignment between values, culture, structure, and behavior is lost.

With the appropriate leadership, such unwieldy companies can reemerge and be reinvigorated. They usually have the resources to succeed, but what they need is the focused pragmatic leadership to take charge before they waste away.

https://www.inc.com/sam-bacharach/how-to-tell-if-your-company-is-too-big-too-manage.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One Navy secretary and his allies in Congress fought to build more littoral combat ships even as they broke down at sea and their weapons systems failed. The Navy wound up with more ships than it wanted, at an estimated lifetime cost that could reach $100 billion or more.

The Navy’s haste to deliver ships took precedence over combat ability. Without functioning weapons systems the vessels are like a “box floating in the ocean,” one former officer said.

Sailors and officers complained they spent more time fixing the ships than sailing them. The stress led many to seek mental health care.

Top Navy commanders placed pressure on subordinates to sail the ships even when the crews and vessels were not fully prepared to go to sea.

Several major breakdowns in 2016 exposed the limits of the ships and their crews, each adding fresh embarrassment to a program meant to propel the Navy into a more technologically advanced future.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship

I guess we should strap this little ship on an F-35? Maybe it would improve performance of both?

This is your routine reminder that the Pentagon has never passed an audit.

[Anonymous]

Weren’t they all cancelled after a couple were built?

[Anonymous]

So the role of an LCS is that of a frigate aka destroyer escort but it’s stealthy ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the role of an LCS is that of a frigate aka destroyer escort but it’s stealthy ?

It has neither of the capabilities of a FFG or DDG. The whole program was a hot mess and for more than a decade the Navy has said this.

[Anonymous]

The ships had problems with salt water corrosion with the engines. It’s everything from the weapons systems to basics like stuff like ocean going ships with engines that can not run in salt water. I guess they did not buy trucoat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the role of an LCS is that of a frigate aka destroyer escort but it’s stealthy ?

It has neither of the capabilities of a FFG or DDG. The whole program was a hot mess and for more than a decade the Navy has said this.

This. They don't even look like a military ship, one just looks like cruise liner. They were supposed to be cheap (they weren't) and useful (they aren't).

Lots of acquisition mistakes with LCS.

[Anonymous]

Once again, military aid to Ukraine is the best bargain in sight.

[Anonymous]

They should switch to steam like Trump wanted. That would solve everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should switch to steam like Trump wanted. That would solve everything.

Would have fixed the cats on the LCS...

[Anonymous]

The Navy is so disappointed in the LCS that rather than spend a decade developing our own replacement they will be unfortunately replaced by frigates from France and Italy. In the US they’ll be known as the Constellation class.