Brumby
Major
According to the article, the Saudi's came to the same conclusion that an AEGIS LCS would be too expensive and dropped that idea.
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
According to the article, the Saudi's came to the same conclusion that an AEGIS LCS would be too expensive and dropped that idea.
Jura The idiot
General
... after I had posted about a possible replacement of the RMMV
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/littoral-combat-ships-lcs.t3993/page-91#post-362003
strehl threw in for example
and, ultimately,
But I just wanted to talk the RMMV and its possible replacements! If you want, it can be my English language skills what's failing here LOL but in a minute I'll anyway press here
Unwatch Thread
and put
strehl
on my Ignore List
Just out of curiosity, are there entrenched organizations (outside of defined political parties) that exist mainly to criticize and kill off defense projects in Australia (or any European country)? That would be the equivalent of say the DOTE and POGO (official/inside and external/private) here in the US? I know that the Collins class submarine encountered a lot of problems but were there serious press campaigns to denigrate and cancel the project via reports of test failures or costs (by ostensibly "nonpolitical" entities)? It is given that there would be political parties that would strive to do so but I do not seem to ever see the kind of prolonged campaigning I see in the US. For that matter, where are all the Youtube videos showing test results the way US companies and the DOD post them? I have seen few but not many. For US companies, these videos are posted not just as commercials but also as a way to respond. US weapons development programs are conducted under intense scrutiny with all the warts exposed. Where are the European warts or anyone else's? I am a professional engineer working in aerospace and have spent > 35 years putting up with a lot of crap which up until recently could never be countered. If you read that Air Force Magazine article on the AWACS you would see all the same actors minus the DOTE. If your country has such organizations, I would simply point out you should apply similar judgment in evaluating "news" stories when you see the sources behind them. Again. I'm not saying there aren't problems but you can't neglect the intent and source of the reporting. As for responding to the specific problems, I can clearly state that I have absolutely no recommendations since I have zero information on the detailed engineering involved. I have never seen any publicly released information that goes far enough into specific design layouts where you could actually note deficiencies.
Brumby
Major
I think the tension arising between us (including with Jura) is primarily driven by the fact that we are looking at this subject from completely different lenses. I have no doubt as you have pointed out there are political forces out to derail military programs be it in the US or in other States like in Australia. Having said that, our primary interest in the LCS is simply that of any enthusiast. We follow the news on the subject and we post them accordingly be it negative or positive. If it is of interest within this community, we may end up having some discussions with the intended end point being some of the issues are clarified or that we end up (hopefully) more informed on the subject having taken on board differing points of view. It is not some political agenda to denigrate the program except in the case of the LCS, it is in my view a problematic program by a number of different measures and so tends to attract a fair share of negative news.
My personal philosophy in life is if one is passionate on a subject or worldview then the recourse is to defend that view vigorously with reasons, facts and or sustainable arguments. A robust defence against scrutiny is the only testament to validate your own worldview. As such, I normally like to directly take on the issues and hence that was the general nature of my earlier post to you. Yourself being a professional engineer would in my view share that same sentiment because the nature of your profession are primarily issues and problem solving driven.
The DOTE has pointed out very specific issues with the MCM program. Primarily in my view there is a product reliability issue as the MTBF is way below operational threshold requirements. A product that cannot be relied upon to perform within operating standards to hunt or clear mines is a disservice to the those whose lives are put on the line in the service of its nation. Attacking the DOTE's integrity without addressing very specific problems highlighted by it is not a sustainable manner to defend a program.
Unfortunately using the AWACS story is a straw man approach in my view. If I try hard enough, I probably can find another program that would fit my narrative contrary to the end result of the AWACS program. Each program must stand on its own merits even if the paths, and form may appear similar.
There is an interesting article on the MCM program and the DOTE report in Information dissemination which paints a different story on it and its take on a path forward. Its main premise is the whole MCM program is under resourced by the USN and why it is where it is today. Nevertheless if true, it is still a failure of leadership and program management because accountability demands performance and in making it happen. If it is under resourced then the time lines need to scale back or more funding to put it back on track.
OK, fine. I can go with that. I would just point out your fellow countryman Carlo Kopp might say the same thing about the F-35.
I see nobody is interested in my question on why there is lack of corresponding scrutiny into the development problems experienced by anyone other than the US. A subject which should be of equal enthusiasm.
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention? To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. The dog did nothing in the night-time. Hey, how 'bout them Mets?"
Cranky yes. But not without reason.
We see the newest LCS builds going through actual naming ceremonies now...but all of the names have been announced before. We have all of the first twenty-four vessels (which accounts for both outstanding orders to each team) now named and their schedules are coming into focus.
If the schedule holds, then the last 20 ships (the second order of ten each) will be commissioned in a six year period. Pretty good at over three per year.
I don't think I actually have a lack of interest in that topic, the (embarrasing?) truth is that I actually haven't really thought about it in the past and as such wasn't ready to answer right away. And probably am still not really now.
Since I only really understand german and english, and a lot of those details aren't translated out of the respective countries' languages, I can't really comment on anything outside GER, the US and UK I guess.
In Germany there is an equivallent to the "Government Accountability Office". They give out criticism on programs, but most of the time it's about how a program is handled / managed, I feel they don't really do in detail technical analysis and critique.
Then there are agencies within the DoD that manage programs and do technical evaluation of concepts, progress, end products. But there is, for all I know, no specific agency tasked with playing "the devil's advocate" on defence programs. If that is what you describe the DOTE to be.
From my point, and that is totally subjective, it appears that these discussions are indeed "louder" in the US than in other places. Maybe because of political culture or perhaps there's just a lot more money involved in the US then anywhere else.
Finally, the topic of defence, in Germany, is much less visible in the public domain then in many other countries I believe. Most people have a general idea of if they want military commitment in certain places or some kind of capabilities available to the armed forces.
But when in comes to technical details, even politicians / officials concered with the topic may not really be in the know; perhaps simply because there's not much to gain in GER by being technicly adept in defence topics ...
I don't know if that really helps you or if it is what you are looking for. I honestly cannot do better right now as I really haven't thought about this properly.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It basically confirms what I surmised. Things truly are "louder" here. At least with the internet everyone now can "buy ink by the barrellful" so it is not just a one way narrative.