Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

strehl said:

Exactly.

I mentioned how DOTE can define test criteria that is totally ridiculous and then they get to generate headlines exactly as you quoted.

For example, say that a system has to be booted up with a complex operating software and steps have to be performed in sequence while monitoring how systems respond before pressing ahead with the next step. In other words, raw soldiers pulled off say a unit that does dog training can be brought in and given 5 minutes to read a manual and then watched to see how they do.

...

Click to expand...

so here you go, your dog handlers were set up LOL and DOTE set up the MCM module manufacturers and testers, despite their claims:

• August 21, 2013 (yes, two years ago):

  “That was highly successful, the reliability issues are really behind us,” Lose said.

  Click to expand...

  (Lose is somebody from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), and NAVSEA

  now states that reliability numbers for RMMV has grown to more than 200 hours.

  Click to expand...

  source:
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

• The RMMV meets or exceeds all key performance parameters and is
  available today.

  Click to expand...

  in Lockheed brochure (yes, the current brochure):
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

• It is the most advanced and capable mine warfare sensor system, fully integrated with and effectively operated from the RMMV, now successfully deployed from the LCS 2.

  Click to expand...

  in Raytheon brochure (yes, the current brochure):
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and I could go on, of course

Jura said:

so here you go, your dog handlers were set up LOL and DOTE set up the MCM module manufacturers and testers, despite their claims:

• August 21, 2013 (yes, two years ago): (Lose is somebody from Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), and NAVSEA source:
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

• in Lockheed brochure (yes, the current brochure):
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

• in Raytheon brochure (yes, the current brochure):
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and I could go on, of course

Click to expand...

In the end it comes down to this. The end user who relies upon this hardware and will go into harm's way depending upon it is the US Navy. When I see them as concerned as you are, I will believe the DOTE. I would note, the DOTE has been advising congress to not listen to the US Navy when it comes to testimony on these systems. It is telling that the armed services have come to dismiss DOTE as just another bump in the road they have to pass over and DOTE knows it and is reacting accordingly.

strehl said:

In the end it comes down to this. The end user who relies upon this hardware and will go into harm's way depending upon it is the US Navy. When I see them as concerned as you are, I will believe the DOTE. I would note, the DOTE has been advising congress to not listen to the US Navy when it comes to testimony on these systems. It is telling that the armed services have come to dismiss DOTE as just another bump in the road they have to pass over and DOTE knows it and is reacting accordingly.

Click to expand...

I thought you would comment on the NAVSEA/Lockheed/Raytheon statements which require a willing suspension of disbelief:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-92#post-362430

Since you didn't, I'm leaving this topic until I happen to notice new data became publicly available, and you may have a last word here.

OK, well then I will let you have the last word ("willing suspension of disbelief") and will just add this:

From Program Executive Officer for LCS Rear Adm. Brian Antonio regarding the MCM IOTE (going on right now):

“I want to match the expectations of a successful test, and what a successful test really means, compared to people nitpicking, going ‘yeah but you weren’t able to recover that in 15 minutes, it took you 17 minutes.’ Or something to that effect,” he said.
“There are test requirements that we have to get through that show capability of the entire system from end to end. … There are individual systems that have their own specification requirements, and on any given day one might be having a bad day – the individual system itself may not do particularly well, but in terms of the bigger picture of the end-to-end capability” that one component failure might not matter much, he explained.

Overall, though, he was optimistic about achieving IOC by the end of September.

“We’ve proven that the systems work,” he said.
“Will we have issues every now and then? Yes we will. Some of these systems have been in development a long time, it’s time to bring them together and do the end-to-end run and prove them out.”

So lets just say I will take the Navy's word (and my personal experience) and you can take the word of DOTE and leave it at that.

strehl said:

...

So lets just say I will take the Navy's word (and my personal experience) and you can take the word of DOTE and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

thanks, but I don't take it (personally I don't believe anyone), so I suggest we just say: Let's wait and see.
strehl?

EDIT
I found the link for your most recent quotes LOL

Well, Admiral Brian Antonio is a stand up and honorable guy. If he says this regarding the LCS:

“I want to match the expectations of a successful test, and what a successful test really means, compared to people nitpicking, going ‘yeah but you weren’t able to recover that in 15 minutes, it took you 17 minutes.’ Or something to that effect.

“There are test requirements that we have to get through that show capability of the entire system from end to end. There are individual systems that have their own specification requirements, and on any given day one might be having a bad day – the individual system itself may not do particularly well, but in terms of the bigger picture of the end-to-end capability” that one component failure might not matter much.

“We’ve proven that the systems work.

“Will we have issues every now and then?

"Yes we will. Some of these systems have been in development a long time, it’s time to bring them together and do the end-to-end run and prove them out.”

I will take that to the bank.

We will see what happens, and I am sure the Admrial will let us know, when they, "do the end-to-end run and prove them out."

Strehl, who from his posts seems to have I real world experience in these matters (and I have similar experience of my own), has given us a good insight into what happens when separate test bureaucracies get politicized.

LCS 4 SeaRAM test. The thing about Phalanx/SeaRAM is that the system just bolts to the deck and doesn't penetrate below it and it also has a low weight loading. Somewhat like a CROWS system bolted on top of a HUMVEE. That makes it cheap and easy which is "a quality of its' own" to twist a quote from J. Stalin. SeaRAM is actually getting pretty good and I think the latest version has been able to intercept supersonic cruise missile targets.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Naval Today said:

In a U.S. Navy field test, Northrop Grumman Corporation’s AQS-24B mine hunting system successfully demonstrated the ability to perform synthetic aperture sonar processing at 18 knots in real time.

The AQS-24B was developed at Northrop Grumman’s Undersea Systems campus in Annapolis. The field testing took place at the U.S. Navy Central Command in Bahrain, May 19-28. The AQS-24B finished 12 for 12 in successfully executing missions during the test exercise. During separate Tactics Development trials in Panama City, Florida, the AQS-24B achieved a record long single sortie tow duration of 16.25 hours from a surface ship.

The AQS-24B has significantly improved image resolution, as well as the speed of real-time sonar processing.

Vice president of Undersea Systems business unit, Northrop Grumman, Alan Lytle said:

The AQS-24B represents a significant advancement of the U.S. Navy’s mine hunting capability, on both the MH-53E helicopters as well as the Mine Hunting Unmanned Surface Vessels (MHUs).

The U.S. Navy can detect, classify and localize modern-day mine threats through the AQS-24B’s enhanced mine hunting sonar.

Click to expand...

The test shown was performed aboard an Independence Class Littoral Combat Ship.

Jeff Head said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...​

The test shown was performed aboard an Independence Class Littoral Combat Ship.

Click to expand...

was this some "renewed" test? I'm asking as I know about this (dated October 6, 2014):
AQS-24A Mine Detecting Sensor System Demonstrated for US Naval Forces Central Command


and the link I recently posted

even says "The already has four MHUs in service."

EDIT
using google, I now found the story by Jane's, dated 14 October 2014:
USN, Northrop Grumman to deploy more mine-hunting USVs to the Gulf


... and about some company looking for an analyst to work out this stuff in Bahrain:

The successful candidate for the Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV)/Mine Hunting Unit (MHU) Mission Analyst / Tactician position will integrate into and lead a small team charged with operations and maintenance of deployed USVs in support of US Navy mine countermeasures (MCM) missions in the U.S. Fifth Fleet Area of Responsibility. The USV integrated with an AQS 24 sonar will form the Mine Hunting Unit (MHU).

Click to expand...

Jura said:

was this some "renewed" test? I'm asking as I know about this (dated October 6, 2014):
AQS-24A Mine Detecting Sensor System Demonstrated for US Naval Forces Central Command

Click to expand...

As indicated in your post, last year's test was the AQS-24"A" system last year.

The test I posted, as marked is the newer AQS-24"B" System. Last year they tested the "Alpha" version. This year it is the newer "Bravo" version.

Newer version of the system my friend.