U. S. Navy

  • 603 Respostas
  • 174411 Visualizações
*

nelson38899

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4175
  • Recebeu: 264 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 267 vez(es)
  • +54/-14
(sem assunto)
« Responder #105 em: Agosto 02, 2008, 01:07:58 am »
Navy: No Need to Add DDG 1000s After All
By philip ewing
Published: 1 Aug 08:18 EDT (12:18 GMT)
Print  Print  |  Print  Email

Top Navy acquisition officials dramatically reversed course during a congressional hearing July 31, saying the service needed to purchase more Arleigh Burke-class DDG 51 destroyers, and no longer needs the next-generation destroyer it has been pushing for over the past 13 years.

This, after years of vigorously claiming the service needed to move beyond the 1980s technology in the Burkes and leap ahead with the new ship, the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class. Now, they're saying the Zumwalts just won't cut it, citing the planned ship's inability to fire advanced versions of the Standard Missile, contradicting previous industry claims.
Related Topics



They also said there was a new "classified threat" for which the Burkes are better suited but would not go into specifics. Speaking for the Navy were Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of resources and capabilities; and Allison Stiller, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for ship programs.

"Now, we're turning on a dime," mused Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., a former Navy vice admiral, after hearing their testimony.

In earlier congressional and public discussions, the sticking point for the DDG 1000 had been its cost, which is now estimated to be $3.2 billion per copy. Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the House Armed Service's Seapower subcommittee earlier this year struck the third Zumwalt from the Navy's budget request because he said ballooning costs for the advanced warships would bankrupt the Navy's acquisitions budget.

Navy leaders confirmed last week that they would end the ship class at two hulls, nixing earlier plans to build seven ships. Before that, the Navy had called for 32 hulls.

At the hearing, Taylor maintained his stance that cost was the biggest problem with the program. But the Navy's stated position July 31 wasn't that officials couldn't control the costs for its future ships but that the world threat picture had changed in such a way that it now makes more sense to build at least eight more Burkes. Precise details were still unclear for when the ships would be built and how they'd be outfitted.

"Why not go with the Zumwalt if you don't care about affordability?" Sestak asked.

Taylor, interjecting, said affordability may not have been a consideration for Navy planners, but it remained important to the subcommittee.

But McCullough maintained that more Burkes are needed to counter: a bigger threat from ballistic missiles; sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles; and quiet diesel-electric submarines.

They also told subcommittee members that the Marine Corps no longer needs the long-range fire support from the Zumwalts' 155mm Advanced Gun System, because such fire support could be provided by Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles and precision airstrikes. McCullough said the Marine Corps agreed, although a spokesman for Headquarters Marine Corps, Capt. Carl Redding, said he could not immediately confirm there had been a new accord with the Navy.

A second panel of congressional Navy experts, including Ron O'Rourke of the Congressional Research Service and Eric Labs of the Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers they hadn't heard before McCullough mentioned it July 31 that the Marine Corps had withdrawn its requirement for long-range fire support from offshore naval guns.

Reporters weren't able to ask McCullough or Stiller for details about the acquisition plan for the new Burkes or the Marine Corps fire support issue. Surrounded by a phalanx of aides, McCullough and Stiller jogged from the hearing room and out the door of the Rayburn House Office Building into a waiting motorcade, ignoring shouted questions from journalists. It was a departure from previous hearings, where it's not out of the ordinary for witnesses to stop and answer reporters' questions after giving testimony.

Earlier in the hearing, many subcommittee members appeared incredulous that the Navy could have conducted such a sweeping re-evaluation of the world threat picture in just a few weeks, after spending some 13 years and $10 billion on the surface ship program known as DD 21, then DD(X) and finally, DDG 1000. That figure does not include the money spent for the two hulls.

Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., noted that in March, McCullough told Congress that DDG 1000 was critical the Navy's future missions. Did he still stand by his testimony?

McCullough and Stiller said they still thought the ship would be highly capable, but more Burkes would be better for today's asymmetrical threats. McCullough cited the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah's anti-ship missile attack on an Israeli patrol boat in 2006.

Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., asked why the Navy had made such an about-face after it had already asked for a third DDG 1000 in this year's budget request. Had the Navy done an analysis of alternatives, or consulted with other military commanders, before deciding to stop building DDG 1000 after two ships?

No, McCullough said, adding that when Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead started his job last October, the new Navy leader pointed out an "asymmetric mismatch" in what the Navy would need and the types of ships it was building. The service had "excess capacity in fire support," so it didn't need more of the new ships it has been planning, in various stages, since 1995. McCullough and Stiller added that Roughead still has not given his final approval on eliminating the five ships beyond the two the Navy has already ordered.

In the second panel, Paul Francis, an acquisitions expert with the Government Accountability Office, said the fire support issue came as a "surprise" to him.

Sestak said he was worried about what he called the recent "sea change" the Navy had apparently undergone in the threats it perceived over the next few years.

"My issue today is one of credibility. Not of an individual but of a process. I don't know what the strategic sense of the Navy is today," he said. "Whither the Navy of the future?"

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=TOP
"Que todo o mundo seja «Portugal», isto é, que no mundo toda a gente se comporte como têm comportado os portugueses na história"
Agostinho da Silva
 

*

nelson38899

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4175
  • Recebeu: 264 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 267 vez(es)
  • +54/-14
(sem assunto)
« Responder #106 em: Setembro 25, 2008, 12:12:43 pm »
Citar
U.S. House, Senate Agree To Add 3rd DDG 1000

Other shipbuilding details in the compromise bill included $920 million for two littoral combat ships - which eliminates a ship Congress authorized last year, taking away the Navy's ability to issue contracts for a total of three more. Lawmakers "remain concerned that the Navy has not taken sufficient actions to control costs for follow-on vessels," according to a joint House and Senate statement. As such, the bill announced Tuesday requires the Navy to submit a long-term acquisition strategy for LCS with next year's budget request, and delays the $460 million cost cap for each ship until next year.

The bill also:

■ Includes $600 million for advance procurement on two San Antonio-class amphibious transport ships - one more than the Navy had asked for

■ Authorizes one Virginia-class submarine, adds $300 million to advance procurement for another, and authorizes the Navy to begin building two a year.

■ Authorizes two Lewis and Clark-class T-AKE cargo ships

■ Authorizes two Joint High Speed Vehicles for the Navy and the Army.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=SEA
"Que todo o mundo seja «Portugal», isto é, que no mundo toda a gente se comporte como têm comportado os portugueses na história"
Agostinho da Silva
 

*

nelson38899

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4175
  • Recebeu: 264 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 267 vez(es)
  • +54/-14
(sem assunto)
« Responder #107 em: Outubro 21, 2008, 12:27:33 pm »
"Que todo o mundo seja «Portugal», isto é, que no mundo toda a gente se comporte como têm comportado os portugueses na história"
Agostinho da Silva
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7761
  • Recebeu: 361 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 632 vez(es)
  • +246/-235
(sem assunto)
« Responder #108 em: Novembro 21, 2008, 09:40:24 am »
Citar
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2008
The Navy's Floating Fiasco

By Mark Thompson / Washington

The maiden voyage of the taxpayers' newest nearly $2 billion warship stalled for two days in August. That's when the stern gate of the U.S.S. San Antonio — needed to roll vehicles onto and off the nearly 700-ft. vessel — wouldn't work. The Navy eventually got the gate fixed in time for the ship to leave Norfolk and sail to the Persian Gulf, where its mission is to hunt down smugglers. But now the San Antonio has been forced into port in Bahrain for at least two weeks of repairs to leaks in the hefty pipes feeding fuel to two of its four engines. Hinting at the seriousness of the problem, the Navy has just dispatched a team of 40 workers — including engineers, pipe fitters and welders — to Bahrain to make the San Antonio shipshape. "Forty technicians — that's ludicrous," says Norman Polmar, an independent naval expert. "It means the problems are major, because the ship has mechanics, metal smiths and other people on board as part of the crew, and they're supposed to take care of minor problems." And you thought McHale's Navy was canceled back in 1966.

The San Antonio is the first in a new class of amphibious ships — blue-water buses — each of which carries 350 sailors and is responsible for ferrying 700 Marines and their gear to global hot spots. And the ship's sad plight represents in miniature all that is wrong with the way the Pentagon buys its weapons. The pattern of haste and waste accelerated in the Cold War's wake and simply exploded following 9/11. It highlights the challenge facing President-elect Barack Obama as he contemplates retooling an Industrial Age military — primed for state-on-state warfare — into the more agile force better suited for 21st century conflicts of the type now being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Navy inspections of the San Antonio have found a raft of problems so baked into its design that many Navy officials fear it can never be made right, despite its price tag's having risen from $644 million to $1.8 billion. "Some significant fraction of the welds in that ship were flawed and had to be redone," John Young, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, told Congress in June. "I shouldn't be forced to pay on behalf of taxpayers any price for any level of deficient performance." Still, that's just what the Navy did, forking over an additional $100 million to make it seaworthy after the Navy had taken delivery of the vessel from its builder, Northrop Grumman, in 2006. The service said it needed the new ship to replace an older one it was retiring and could finish the work more cheaply in its own shipyard. The Navy has blamed Northrop Grumman for poor work; the company has blamed the Navy for a constantly changing design, as well as Hurricane Katrina, which hit the Gulf yards in which the ship was built.

Navy officials have said the San Antonio has so many problems because it is the first ship in its class, a claim Polmar dismisses. "We've been building these kinds of ships since 1943," he says. "It has no big missiles, no advanced radar and no nuclear propulsion." The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said last year that the San Antonio's woes began because the Navy relied on "immature" computer blueprints that infected its entire construction. That led to delays that cost up to five times what it would have if the work had been done in proper sequence. The GAO found that the ship had been "delivered to the war fighter incomplete and with numerous mechanical failures," including "safety concerns related to personnel, equipment, ammunition, navigation and flight activities." Navy officials say the leaking oil that forced the San Antonio into port in Bahrain poses no safety threat to its crew — a claim viewed dubiously by some sailors.

Navy inspectors also recently criticized the U.S.S. New Orleans, the second vessel in the San Antonio's class. It "cannot support embarked troops, cargo or landing craft" — its primary mission — according to a report obtained by the independent Navy Times. Navy officials say the third and fourth vessels are performing much better. The rush to produce the fleet might make military sense if they were needed, but the last time Marines stormed ashore — the key reason the taxpayers are spending $14 billion on the San Antonio and at least eight more ships just like it — was nearly 60 years ago, at Inchon during the Korean War.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 49,00.html
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

emarques

  • Especialista
  • ****
  • 1178
  • +1/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #109 em: Novembro 21, 2008, 01:16:54 pm »
Ai a US Navy também tem NPOs?  :twisted:
Ai que eco que há aqui!
Que eco é?
É o eco que há cá.
Há cá eco, é?!
Há cá eco, há.
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7761
  • Recebeu: 361 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 632 vez(es)
  • +246/-235
(sem assunto)
« Responder #110 em: Novembro 21, 2008, 01:20:26 pm »
Citação de: "emarques"
Ai a US Navy também tem NPOs?  :Esmagar:
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

PereiraMarques

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 6820
  • Recebeu: 346 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 213 vez(es)
  • +216/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #111 em: Dezembro 08, 2008, 10:36:37 pm »
Como nos EUA os F/A-18 são operados pela US Navy ou pelo USMC...

Citar
08 Dezembro 2008 - 20h51

Califórnia
'F-18' cai em San Diego
Um caça norte-americano ‘F-18’ despenhou-se numa área residencial em San Diego, na Califórnia, quando se preparava para aterrar na base naval de Miramar.


 O piloto conseguiu ejectar-se do avião. Imagens da TV mostravam grossas nuvens de fumo da área residencial, não havendo ainda informações sobre vítimas.


 :arrow: http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.aspx ... 0000000021
 

*

HaDeS

  • 223
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #112 em: Dezembro 14, 2008, 10:23:46 pm »
 

*

alphaiate

  • Membro
  • *
  • 196
  • Recebeu: 21 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 3 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #113 em: Dezembro 15, 2008, 01:20:08 am »
que monstro!!!
 

*

Instrutor

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1310
  • Recebeu: 3 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #114 em: Dezembro 15, 2008, 11:01:31 pm »
MK48 o Torpedo mais poderoso e sofisticado de sempre.
O ministro da Defesa da Austrália, Joel Fitzgibbon, parabenizou nesta quinta-feira (24Julho) os militares do submarino que testou com sucesso um novo torpedo, desenvolvido em colaboração com os Estados Unidos.

Uma operação conjunta das marinhas americana e australiana testou o torpedo MK-48 Mod. 7, entre junho e julho, na costa do Havaí.

O submarino HMAS Waller, Classe Collins, "acertou em cheio" um navio americano desativado, afundando a embarcação imediatamente.

A nova arma tem um sistema de sonar avançado que, segundo os militares australianos, aumenta a eficácia do torpedo em águas rasas e em operações de contra-ataque.





Otimizado para operações em águas rasas, o MK 48 Mod 7 CBASS é o melhor torpedo lançado de submarinos

Os melhoramentos do sonar tornam o torpedo eficaz em águas rasas e permitem que o mesmo derrote todos os tipos de contramedidas em todos os ambientes


WASHINGTON – Os primeiros torpedos pesados Warshot MK 48 Mod 7 Advanced Capability(ADCAP) Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System(CBASS) foram entregues à frota e alocados a bordo do USS Pasadena(SSN 752) em Pearl Harbor, no dia 7 de Dezembro.

O torpedo Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS é o produto de um projeto de engenharia, desenvolvimento, fabricação e suporte conjuntos entre os Estados Unidos e a Austrália, e será a arma principal abordo dos submarinos da marinha.

“O forte relacionamento entre a Marinha dos Estados Unidos e a Real Marinha da Austrália(RAN) levou ao design, desenvolvimento e agora a introdução à frota da mais eficaz arma anti-navio litorânea do mundo”, disse o oficial executivo do programa para submarinos, Almirante William Hilarides. “A interoperabilidade que o CBASS dá é um multiplicador de forças para ambas as nossas nações e um fator crítico na iniciativa de parceria marítima global.”

“Através de nossa parceria com a RAN, nós incorporamos a experiência operacional deles com a nossa, fazendo o MK 48 CBASS uma arma substancialmente melhor que os seus competidores mais próximos”, acrescentou Hilarides.

Otimizado para operações em águas rasas, o MK 48 Mod 7 CBASS é o melhor torpedo lançado de submarinos. Acoplado ao sistema de Controle de combate AN/BYG-1, também desenvolvido cooperativamente entre a marinha americana e a RAN, o CBASS é uma arma anti-superfície e anti-submarina com excesso de potência. Os melhoramentos do sonar tornam o torpedo eficaz em águas rasas e permitem que o mesmo derrote todos os tipos de contramedidas em todos os ambientes.

O MK 48 Mod 7, usando tecnologias saídas da prateleira comercial em um ambiente computacional de arquitetura aberta, é capaz de permanecer no topo da capacidade tecnológica através de upgrades regulares de hardware e software.

“A Austrália está orgulhosa de fazer parte dos programas MK 48 CBASS e AN/BYG-1” disse o diretor geral de submarinos da RAN, Comodoro Boyd Robinson. “Com o desenvolvimento espiral deles, nossas armas e sistemas de controle de combate serão virtualmente a prova de obsolência.”

A Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems(Raytheon IDS – Sistemas Integrados de Defesa Raytheon) é a principal fornecedora de torpedos leves e pesados, incluindo o MK 49 Mod 7 CBASS. A Raytheon IDS também é a principal fabricante e integradora do sistema de monitoramento de combate AN/BYG-1 tanto para a marinha Americana quanto a RAN, dando sinergia e interoperabilidade na entrega desta capacidade avançada à frota.

“Juntamente com as marinhas dos Estados Unidos e Austrália, a Raytheon está orgulhosa de celebrar este marco de nossa parceria global industrial e governamental” disse Dan Smith, presidente da Raytheon IDS. “O sucesso desta parceria total é evidente no desenvolvimento e entrega dos sistemas de armas mais avançados, confiáveis e efetivos, para atender às necessidades dos Estados Unidos e forças navais aliadas ao redor do mundo.”

Segue a informação da Marinha:


Tendo que selecionar um novo torpedo. em face do cancelamento do contrato de aquisição do Sistema Torpédico de Armas SAAB T2OOO (sueco), a Marinha para evitar situações semelhantes, estabeleceu que, para concorrer à seleção os torpedos, além de serem tecnologicamente atuais e atenderem às características operacionais requeridas, deveriam estar em uso corrente nas Marinhas dos países que os produzissem. Qualquer torpedo que ainda. fosse mero projeto estaria liminarmente descartado, posto que não interessava à MB participar, com os parcos recursos do seu orçamento, do financiamento de tais desenvolvimentos, com todas as incertezas que os cercam. À época (2003), e ainda hoje -, somente dois torpedos satistaziam tais condições: o Mk-48 Mod 6AT, americano, e o SEA HAKE DM2 A4, alemão.

A MB mantém negociações paralelas, tanto com a Marinha dos Estados Unidos, detentora do MK-48, como com a. ATLAS ELEKTRONIK, fàbricante do DM2 A4, Até o momento, não houve decisão, porquanto a seleção do torpedo está vinculada à seleção do sistema de combate a ser adquirido pala a modernização dos submarinos Classe Tupi e, no devido tempo, do submarino Tikuna, Dependendo das circunstâncias, poderão ser de origem alemã ou americana; as negociações ainda estão em curso. A intenção da MB é a de obter torpedos e sistemas de combate naturalmente integrados, de modo a evitar problemas resultantes das restrições impostas, por todos os países, no que se refere à cessão de dados para a integração de seus produtos com os de outros fabricantes.

Concorrente ítalo-francês, o BLACK SHARK (DCN / Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei -Wass), ainda não foi adquirido pelas Marinhas da França nem pela da Itália, países que o fabricam, em razão do que. não atende ao parâmetro estabelecido pela MB.

Além disso, dos países da OTAN, o único que encomendou o Black Shark, até o momento foi Portugal, que ainda não os recebeu, Somente o Chile possui esse torpedo. Assim, a MB não pode considerá-lo um armamento homologado.

Por outro lado, o Mk-48 é empregado por diversas Marinhas, a começar pela dos Estados Unidosl e o DM2 A4 e empregado pelas Marinhas da Alemanha, que o homologou, de Israel, Noruega, Turquia, Grécia. (em aquisicão) e Espanha.

www.adrenaline.com.br/forum/papo-cabeca ... -video.htm
"Aqui na Lusitanea existe um povo que não se governa nem se deixa governar" voz corrente entre os Romanos do Séc. I a.C
 

*

nelson38899

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4175
  • Recebeu: 264 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 267 vez(es)
  • +54/-14
(sem assunto)
« Responder #115 em: Dezembro 27, 2008, 01:00:20 am »
Citar
The manufacturer is offering the U.S. Navy more F-18Es for a bargain price of $50 million each. This proposal is intended as a stopgap to keep fighter strength up as older F-18As are retired, and the introduction of the new F-35 is delayed. With a max weight of 29 tons, an F-18E can carry up to eight tons of bombs. Combat range is 720 kilometers, and the aircraft was designed as a fighter.

U.S. Air Force simulations and studies have shown the new F-35 to be four times as effective against any current fighter (the best of them known as "fourth generation" aircraft.) The major advantages of the F-35 are engine power (it's one engine generates more power than the two engines used in the Eurofighter or F-18), stealth and the fact that it can fight "clean" (without any pods or missiles hung from its wings, and interfering with maximum maneuverability).

The 27 ton F-35 is armed with an internal 25mm cannon and four internal air-to-air missiles (or two missiles and two smart bombs). Plus four external smart bombs and two missiles. All sensors are carried internally, and max weapon load is 6.8 tons. The aircraft is very stealthy when just carrying internal weapons. The first F-35s will be delivered in two years, but it will be five years before they are available in quantity. Given the prospect of a smaller defense budget, the navy is expected to decline the offer of budget F-18s (which can cost nearly $100 million when fully tricked out.)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 81224.aspx
"Que todo o mundo seja «Portugal», isto é, que no mundo toda a gente se comporte como têm comportado os portugueses na história"
Agostinho da Silva
 

*

luis filipe silva

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 2051
  • Recebeu: 4 vez(es)
  • +1/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #116 em: Janeiro 12, 2009, 12:15:37 am »
Citar
SHIPS THAT WON'T SAIL



"No more amphib excuses" reads the headline of a recent editorial in Navy Times newspaper. The editorial went on to enumerate some of the problems being encountered by the Navy's new amphibious ships of the San Antonio (LPD 17) class.

After a construction period that lasted twice as long as planned, and cost twice as much as originally budgeted, the San Antonio was belatedly placed in commission on 14 January 2006.

But the ship was not ready for service and, after two and a half years of being "fixed," the San Antonio was to deploy with an amphibious group. But on the eve of her August sailing it was discovered that there were problems with the stern gate to her docking well, where LCU landing craft and AAV amphibian assault vehicles are carried and discharged.

After additional work was performed the ship was able to deploy two days later.

Still, the San Antonio probably goes down in Navy history as having taken the longest time on record from being placed in commission to first deployment. This is amazing when one considers that the LPDs are basically "transport ships" with docking wells and helicopter decks. The Navy has been building docking well ships since the early 1940s, with the first, the USS Ashland (LSD 1), completed in 1943.

The new LPDs have relatively simple and basic systems -- no high-tech radars, no sonar, no advanced missiles, no nuclear propulsion, no advanced electronic warfare systems. Okay. As the Navy Times editorial of 8 September pointed out, the Navy and industry spokesmen "repeatedly have given the same excuse: You will always have issues with the first ship of a class."

That is not a true statement -- look at the intervals between being placed in commission and the first deployment of the first U.S. nuclear-propelled submarine, the Nautilus (SSN 571); the first Polaris submarine, the George Washington (SSBN 598); the first nuclear surface warship, the Long Beach (CGN 9); the first Aegis warship, the Ticonderoga (CG 47); and many other high-tech lead ships.

Now the second ship of the San Antonio class, the USS New Orleans (LPD 18), has been found to suffer from a long list of problems. That ship, also behind schedule and far over cost, was commissioned on 5 March 2007 -- a year and a half ago. The recent report of a Navy inspection team concludes that the ship "cannot support embarked troops, cargo or landing craft," and was deemed "degraded in her ability to conduct sustained combat operations."

These ships were built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems at Avondale, Louisiana. An additional ship, the Mesa Verde (LPD 19), was commissioned on 15 December 2007, and several more are under construction at the yard.

By accepting these ships the Navy has taken responsibility away from the shipbuilder to pay for fixing these massive problems. Beyond these issues, the basic design of the LPD 17 must also be questioned. Compared to the Navy's previous LPD class of 12 ships completed from 1965 to 1971, the San Antonio class is one-third larger (24,900 tons compared to 16,585 tons), but has minimal improvements in troop, vehicle, and landing craft capacities, with a slight increase in speed.

Coupled with the delays and major cost increases in the Navy's littoral combat ship (LCS) program, and the Navy's continued confusion and changes in the DDG 1000 advanced destroyer program, the credibility of the Navy's shipbuilding efforts must be questioned. When addressed in the broad context of the shrinking size of the fleet and the expected reductions in shipbuilding budgets, the situation should be considered critical

-- Norman Polmar

September 19, 2008

LPD-17, THE FLOATING FIASCO"

Navy Secretary: Quality Inspections Need to Start a Process, Not Just Come at the End


(Source: Project On Government Oversight; published Nov. 18, 2008)



Government Executive [magazine] reports that Navy Secretary Donald Winter is echoing a criticism of defense procurement that we're hearing a lot: there's not enough of an emphasis on trying to control things early in the process to get the requirements right during the design stage.

"Every quality analysis that's ever been done...suggests that the hardest way to build quality is by inspecting at the end," said Winter to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "You've got to start at the beginning, you've got to design the right way, you've got to build the right way."

Most recently, the media has been shining a light on the many problems with the Navy's LPD-17 San Antonio. Time called it a floating fiasco, with design flaws so profound that they may never be able to be "made right." From the article:

“Navy inspections of the San Antonio have found a raft of problems so baked into its design that many Navy officials fear it can never be made right, despite its price tag's having risen from $644 million to $1.8 billion. ‘Some significant fraction of the welds in that ship were flawed and had to be redone,’ John Young, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, told Congress in June. ‘I shouldn't be forced to pay on behalf of taxpayers any price for any level of deficient performance.’ "

The Navy Times reports that some experts are even calling the workmanship on the ship criminal. For a disturbing slideshow of the lube oil leaking from failed welds in the ship's main machinery, go here.  http://www.militarytimes.com/static/pro ... ntonio.pdf

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also cited the LPD-17 as an example of how the Navy need to improve business cases to prevent San Antonio class cost overruns of $1.3 billion, an almost 77 percent increase above the initial budgets.

Winter has criticized warship builder Northrop Grumman Corp in the past for their mismanagement of the project, despite the fact that he used to be a corporate VP at the company. We've also questioned the company's management and performance concerning the Coast Guard Deepwater project.

And not surprisingly, Secretary Winter "continues to be unsatisfied" with the performance of the LPD-17, saying there needs to be a "culture of quality" for Navy acquisitions. We couldn't agree more.

And while we're at it, how about if we actually complete developmental and operational testing before going into production? (ends)




Citar
The Navy's Floating Fiasco (excerpt)


(Source: Time Magazine; published Nov. 12, 2008)



WASHINGTON --- The maiden voyage of the taxpayers' newest nearly $2 billion warship stalled for two days in August. That's when the stern gate of the U.S.S. San Antonio — needed to roll vehicles onto and off the nearly 700-ft. vessel — wouldn't work. The Navy eventually got the gate fixed in time for the ship to leave Norfolk and sail to the Persian Gulf, where its mission is to hunt down smugglers.

But now the San Antonio has been forced into port in Bahrain for at least two weeks of repairs to leaks in the hefty pipes feeding fuel to two of its four engines. Hinting at the seriousness of the problem, the Navy has just dispatched a team of 40 workers — including engineers, pipe fitters and welders — to Bahrain to make the San Antonio shipshape.

"Forty technicians — that's ludicrous," says Norman Polmar, an independent naval expert. "It means the problems are major, because the ship has mechanics, metal smiths and other people on board as part of the crew, and they're supposed to take care of minor problems." And you thought McHale's Navy was canceled back in 1966.

The San Antonio is the first in a new class of amphibious ships — blue-water buses — each of which carries 350 sailors and is responsible for ferrying 700 Marines and their gear to global hot spots. And the ship's sad plight represents in miniature all that is wrong with the way the Pentagon buys its weapons. The pattern of haste and waste accelerated in the Cold War's wake and simply exploded following 9/11.

It highlights the challenge facing President-elect Barack Obama as he contemplates retooling an Industrial Age military — primed for state-on-state warfare — into the more agile force better suited for 21st century conflicts of the type now being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full story (HTML format) on the Time.com website.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 49,00.html

Isto refere-se apenas aos LPD. Quanto ao Freedom, creio que são apenas problemas de "dentição" de um tipo de navio com muitas inovações e caríssimo.
-----------------------------
saudações:
Luis Filipe Silva
 

*

bidas

  • 34
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #117 em: Janeiro 12, 2009, 01:02:55 am »
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7761
  • Recebeu: 361 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 632 vez(es)
  • +246/-235
(sem assunto)
« Responder #118 em: Janeiro 13, 2009, 11:44:09 am »
Citar
NAVY NEWS
USS GEORGE H. W. BUSH COMMISSIONED
A presidential welcome for USS George H.W. Bush
"What do you give a guy who has been
blessed and has just about everything
he has ever needed?" asked President
George W. Bush from aboard the Navy's
newest ship. "Well, an aircraft carrier."
The USS George H.W. Bush, a steelgray
vessel longer than three football
fields and built at a cost of $6.2 billion,
was commissioned Saturday with its
namesake, the 41st president, and other
members of the Bush family on hand for
the ceremonies at Naval Station Norfolk.
Adorned for the day with red, white and
blue bunting, the USS George H.W.
Bush is one of the Nimitz class of
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the
largest warships in the world.
"The ship that bears our dad's name is
more than 95,000 tons of aluminum and
steel," Bush said from a podium tucked under the flight deck. "She will carry nearly 6,000 of the finest sailors and
Marines in the world. She represents the craftsmanship of many skilled builders, and thousands of hours of
preparation."
Bush, who took his last scheduled flight aboard Air
Force One to get to Norfolk, added: "Laura and I are
thrilled to be here to help commission an awesome
ship and to honor an awesome man."
It was the ultimate honor for former President George
H.W. Bush, a decorated World War II pilot. The
former president recalled the day 65 years ago in
Philadelphia when he attended the commissioning of
the USS San Jacinto, a light carrier on which he
served during the war. It was during that trip, he
said, that he gave his fiancee, Barbara, an
engagement ring.
"I thought that the San Jac was by far the biggest
ship, or anything else, I'd ever seen," said the elder
Bush, comparing it to the massive aircraft carrier, spit
and polished for its unveiling. He marveled at its 4.5-acre landing field, a tower that reaches 20 stories above the
waterline and its 1,400 telephones. Speaking to the sailors preparing to serve on the new ship, his voice quavering at
times with emotion, the former president said: "I wish I was sitting right out there with you, ready to start the
adventures of my naval aviation career all over."


fonte:
DAILY COLLECTION OF MARITIME PRESS CLIPPINGS 2009 – 012
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

nelson38899

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4175
  • Recebeu: 264 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 267 vez(es)
  • +54/-14
(sem assunto)
« Responder #119 em: Fevereiro 22, 2009, 11:03:13 pm »
"Que todo o mundo seja «Portugal», isto é, que no mundo toda a gente se comporte como têm comportado os portugueses na história"
Agostinho da Silva
 

 

Royal Navy cancela um dos novos porta-aviões

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 21
Visualizações: 5747
Última mensagem Novembro 08, 2009, 04:11:33 pm
por Lightning
Royal Navy reduzida em 50% daqui a 20 anos?

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 5
Visualizações: 4093
Última mensagem Outubro 02, 2007, 07:47:21 pm
por JMM
FFG-14 no Naval Vessel Registration (NVR-US Navy)

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 0
Visualizações: 1568
Última mensagem Setembro 09, 2004, 01:56:12 pm
por P44
Marinha Grega (Hellenic Navy)

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 31
Visualizações: 13341
Última mensagem Julho 15, 2019, 04:15:08 pm
por NVF
Possiveis cortes na Royal Navy

Iniciado por pedro

Respostas: 37
Visualizações: 10721
Última mensagem Janeiro 10, 2007, 11:36:54 am
por João Oliveira Silva