Northrop Navy Ships `Not Survivable' in Combat, Official Says

[unhappycamper]

A $1.68 billion dollar miss. We The People already own $8.4 billion dollars (5) of these things.


Northrop Navy Ships `Not Survivable' in Combat, Official Says
By Tony Capaccio - Thu Oct 28 12:21:50 GMT 2010

Northrop Grumman Corp.’s $1.68 billion amphibious warship, designed to transport Marines close to shore, wouldn’t be effective in combat and couldn’t operate reliably after being hit by enemy fire, according to the Department of Defense’s top testing official.

The San Antonio-class vessel’s critical systems, such as electrical distribution, ship-wide fiber optics and voice- communications networks, aren’t reliable, according to Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation. The ship’s armaments can’t effectively defend against the most modern anti-ship weapons, Gilmore said.

The ship is capable of operating “in a benign environment,” Gilmore said in an e-mail to Bloomberg News outlining the unclassified summary of a classified report sent to Congress in June. The vessel is “not effective, suitable and not survivable in a combat situation,” he said.

The craft’s capabilities are being questioned as at least four private-equity firms are exploring bids to buy Los Angeles- based Northrop’s shipbuilding unit.

Northrop Chief Executive Officer Wes Bush announced in July the possible sale or spinoff of the unit that operates three shipyards in Louisiana, Mississippi and Virginia. Northrop is the biggest maker of U.S. Navy vessels.

[Bonhomme Richard]

1. How does this happen? I know for a fact that......

specifications have to be met with anything electronic shipboard. That includes blast resistance and reliability under the most destructive circumstances. Where they given some sort of waiver? I don't get it.

[Octafish]

2. ''...capable of operating 'in a benign environment.' ''

Gawsh, $8.4 billion would build a whole lot of schools and hospitals and roadways and who knows what else...

[DCKit]

3. Ah, but would hospitals, schools, etc... survive an attack by Al Qaeda's formidable Navy?

I think not.

[Octafish]

4. LOL! Libera's got a LEGO camp we may soon all be in...

I love LEGO!



Zbigniew Libera is a genius. Going by your work, I see you are, too, DCKit.

[toddwv]

7. The entire program is funded for $18.5 billion...

but this is America and as long as you slap a "Defense" sticker on it, massive waste is perfectly acceptable.

[Ganja Ninja]

5. Not Survivable in Combat?

Neither were the Yamato or Bismark. What's the point?

[Bigmack]

8. Both of those ships...

survived for an amazingly long time and suffered enormous damage before sinking.

These things are death-trap crackerboxes suitable for transport only.

That's a lot of money for ships that could be replaced by the usual, cheaply-built stinking troop ships of old.

[msongs]

6. the primary function of the US military is to fleece the taxpayers nt

[JBoy]

9. Symptomatic of the out-of-control defense industry.

Northrop Grumman is just doing what's in the interests of their shareholders, and are playing the game.

One of two things happened here:

a. Northrop managed to negotiate a contract that allowed delivery, and required acceptance, of a shitty product; or
b. Once problems started cropping up on the program, lobbyists and politicians convinced the Navy to accept a shitty product, despite it not meeting contractual requirements.

Likely it was some combination of both.

Outside of the Defense industry, if a contractor doesn't do what's in a contract, they either don't get paid or they get sued. If a contractor screws a customer, they don't get any more business from them.