UPDATE 1-Northrop warship gets failing combat grade from U.S.

Reuters ^ | 10/29/2010 | Jim Wolf

[sukhoi-30mki]

[pingman]

So, we spent $1 Bazilliion just to find this out?

[Turbo Pig]

The Marines have not conducted a large-scale amphibious assault since the 1950-53 Korean War.

This statement is misleading; because amphibious invasion is still an option. The US managed to hold several Iraqi divisions in place in Kuwait in 1991, just with the threat of a sea borne invasion. This left a relatively small Marine Task Force free to operate in a vigorous and destructive manner along the Kuwait/Saudi border.

It is still a viable tactic in today's world.

[ComputerGuy]

The US managed to hold several Iraqi divisions in place in Kuwait in 1991, just with the threat of a sea borne invasion.

Roger that.

[NonValueAdded]

The ship, designed to carry Marines and landing craft, was found to be capable of conducting amphibious operations in a "benign environment," she said.

Sounds like a sequel to Pentagon Wars is in order. It can feature battle testing using Somali Pirate ammunition.

[WellyP]

Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in Avondale, La., I think if BIW had been given the contract we would be seeing a different outcome!

[Robert A Cook PE]

We have not faced an opposed landing since D-Day and Anzio, (Inchon was close, but little close-in warfare on the beach).

So, the Navy hasn’t had to face real losses.

The result? Same-old, same-old solutions. And the LPD-17 is about the same as before. Just more expensive. More enviro. More as the writer pointed out, more “humanitarian relief.”

[Dumpster Baby]

Two personal opinions:

No ship is "survivable"

The money saved on this program will prop up existing carrier and submarine operations, so that's why it's cut.

[rahbert]

What about Iwo Jima ?

[Captain Rhino]

Not much money to be saved: the nine funded ships have either been commissioned or are in advanced stages of completion now.

Based on its curious title, “Combined Operational and Live Fire Test and Evaluation,” (they are normally reported seperately) and the classified nature of the report, my sense is that this is an integrated decoy, weapons, and sensor suite performance problem, not a shortcoming in the ship’s ability to do basic amphibious operations (i.e., sustain embarked troops and conduct well deck and flight deck operations).

As for “not effective, not suitable, and not combat survivable” rating, my only question is: “As compared to what?”

[TXnMA]

Is this the same version?

[Captain Rhino]

Here is a link to a much better report on the situation:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-28/northrop-navy-ships-not-survivable-in-combat-u-s-defense-official-says.html

[Non-Sequitur]

It found they would stand up better under enemy fire than its four classes of predecessor ships but ultimately lacked survivability, Irwin said.

None of the amphibious ships in commission, or previously in commission, are designed to survive in an environment where the U.S. does not hold air and sea superiority.

[jmax]

Northrop Grumman screwed up when they bought out the Avondale yard and then gave them the Coast Guard Cutter and LPD jobs. The Pascagoula yard has put out some great ships; ie, DD’s, CG-47’s, DDG’s, LHD’s.

[CodeToad]

So, who in the DoD screwup and let this thing get to that point?

[mbynack]

Thanks for the link. It was good info. One thing to remember is that the ships take years to design and build and the enemy capabilities are constantly evolving. It's hard to design a ship today that will survive threats that won't even exist for five or ten years.

The Navy is forced to design ships that can fight with much smaller crews. They use a lot of computers and automation, but when the computers fail they have problems reacting because they have a small crew. If they're hit with a missile or bomb, they need a large portion of the crew to fight fires and take care of battle damage. That doesn't leave enough to take care of the mission and do the jobs manually that the computers have been doing.

[mbynack]

So, who in the DoD screwup and let this thing get to that point?

There are a lot of places to point fingers. There are a lot of politics involved in these decisions. Congressman want the ships built in their district. They agree to have subsystems built in other districts in order to get votes. There are probably 30 or 40 different contractors involved in fielding the ship and its systems. It's designed, built, and managed by a committee.

A lot of these projects were pushed to get them accepted before Bush left office because they knew that they were susceptible to budget cuts if the Dems got in office.

The systems they're replacing are already being phased out, so there's a big push to get the replacements on line whether they're ready or not.

SecDef Gates has announced that the military needs to be cut, so there's probably a push from the DoD to find some kind of faults with major weapons systems to justify cutting them.

The ships take so long to design and build that they're being redesigned as they're under construction.

Last but not least - It's designed for the Marines and they always get shafted.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Right: WWII.

[El Sordo]

I remember that. My brother was out there sitting on the Raleigh as part of the 3rd MEB at the time.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Robert A. Cook, PE.

Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's top weapons tester, assessed the LPD-17 amphibious warfare ship as being "not effective, not suitable, and not survivable in a combat situation," a Defense Department spokeswoman said.