Click for Abeking Click for Llebroc Click for Walker Click for YFYS Click for Abeking

Our Navy's Stupid Mistakes

Discussion in 'YachtForums Yacht Club' started by brian eiland, Apr 14, 2020.

  1. Capt Ralph

    Capt Ralph Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    11,017
    Location:
    Satsuma, FL
    https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...ed-after-less-than-9-years-of-active-service/

    The first two LCS, Freedom and Independence, have already been mothballed, and the third LCS, Fort Worth, is also slated for the chopping block.

    Navy brass are trying to divest themselves of as many LCS as possible in order to free up funding for other priorities, a tacit acknowledgement that the LCS fleet has not done what it was originally envisioned to do.
  2. bayoubud

    bayoubud Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Florida
    This mismanaged Navy LCS program is a good example of why our military spends more than the rest of the next top 10 highest spending countries combined.
  3. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,889
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    It just might be a good time to look around and consider the size and expense of individual weapons that are proving very effective in Ukraine,...against the mighty Russian army.
  4. bayoubud

    bayoubud Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Florida
    That's good point. It appears the weapons we provided are very effective. Also, that Russian ships are easy targets.
  5. captholli

    captholli Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,149
    Location:
    In The Bilge
    It'll be interesting to see how our "Ghost Navy" or unmanned vessels pan out in the future. I've been reading what's out there so far and it seems the Navy brass is going all in on this one.
  6. bayoubud

    bayoubud Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Florida
    Heck yes, Captain sits in a comfortable chair in a safe place with an array of screens, a crew of robots on board.
    How much smaller and less expensive would a Drone Carrier be compared to the USS Gerald R Ford?
    We might laugh about this but are definitely headed that way in the future.
  7. Capt Ralph

    Capt Ralph Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    11,017
    Location:
    Satsuma, FL
    I was reading where Iran keeps trying to steal our spy drones.
  8. DOCKMASTER

    DOCKMASTER Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,112
    Location:
    Ketchikan, Alaska
    Yes, by all means, let's put a bunch of unmanned ships out there with full weapons systems all remote controlled. Because we all know, our computers are all hack proof so there is no chance of an enemy somehow taking control of them. Let alone what happens if an enemy somehow manages to get aboard. And then there is the issue of repair and damage control. If there is nobody aboard, who will fix the valve when it leaks, the electrical connection when it comes loose, etc, etc.
    rocdiver, T.T., brian eiland and 2 others like this.
  9. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,889
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    Most of our military industrial complex is addicted to the old ideas that they MUST spend at least, if not more, than they did the year before,...or loose some of that future buying power. I think this practice ends up having them spend copious amounts of money on some foolish unproven/unjustifiable systems, particularly in a race with other contractors vying for those funds.

    Who would have thought that the MIGHTY russian tank army was so venerable! One of the original reasons NATO was formed was to act as a defense against the mighty Russian tank force.

    And I keep thinking about these ever increasing, super fighter aircraft we keep building. They are getting SO EXPENSE we can't even afford to stock that many, and just like what happened years ago in the balkens the military became very concerned with sending them into battle, for fear of losing these very expensive items. In a conflict with China we are going to need 'numbers' more than sophistication.
  10. bayoubud

    bayoubud Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Florida
    It is well known military bases spend any excess money (on whatever) at the end of each fiscal year, to ask for an increase in funds for the coming years budget. Congress is aware but never has the backbone to stop the waste.
  11. leeky

    leeky Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Florida
    Yoiu haven't explained why military bases, and most military programs for that matter, would have any money left at the end of each fiscal year. Why don't they just budget and spend the money as the year progresses? Why do they usually have some extra money that they have to get rid of at the end of the fiscal year? There is a legitimate reason for this occurrence.
  12. bayoubud

    bayoubud Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Florida
    Apparently, they pad their budgets and have excess money left over the end of each fiscal year, September 30th. I've been told they will use it up on whatever they can rather than show it as excess because the budget next year might get cut. Replacing carpet that is in good condition, appliances, and a variety of items that many local contractors and business's bid on knowing what is going on. This has been SOP for decades.
  13. leeky

    leeky Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Florida
    The military does "pad" their budgets, but not so they can buy new carpet and appliances at the end of the fiscal year. The money used for new carpet and appliances is chump change when compared to the total budget for a fiscal year.

    One of the reasons the military pads their budgets is because they are self-insured. If one of their weapons is damaged or totaled, they have to pay to have it fixed or replaced. So, they guess what amount to budget for their "insurance" claims. If they have fewer claims than budgeted for, they will use the excess money for something that was budgeted in future years.

    Another reason for padding budgets is unanticipated operations, which then puts unexpected maintenance requirements on equipment. If there is money left over because of fewer unexpected operations, that money might be used for upgrades scheduled for future budgets.

    Most people don't realize that the money allocated to the military has an expiration date on it. If the military doesn't use it in time, it goes back to the treasury; the military can't save it to use later. And Congress, with their infinite "wisdom" (sarcasm), will see that return of money as a reason to cut next year's military budget. So, the military loses twice.

    So, you're right, bayoubud, the military padding their budget has been SOP for decades, but it's not because they are living high on the hog as a result. The military lives within the system dictated by Congress.
  14. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,889
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    Are you really buying into this old BS?
  15. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,889
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    How about this weapon,...wonder what it cost compared to some of the BS our military finds appealing?

    HIMAR weapon systems
    bayoubud likes this.
  16. bayoubud

    bayoubud Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,115
    Location:
    Florida
    You clarified my point. That chump change is taxpayer money being spent unnecessarily that has no benefit, just using up funds to zero the account to get more in the next budget year to do the same thing again. Not a good way to run any operation. The blame is on Congress not the military but a system that both know the rules and allow to continue year after year.
    brian eiland likes this.
  17. leeky

    leeky Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Florida
    If you are referring to my posts, it's not BS. I was a Submarine Sonar Technician in the U.S. Navy for 10 years, and an analyst supporting the Naval Sea Systems Command and the Naval Air Systems Command for almost 25 years.

    Unfortunately, it's the people with zero experience either in the military or with the military that are their most ardent critics; the epitome of arm-chair quarterbacking. You've never done it, but you can do it better.
  18. leeky

    leeky Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Florida
    Since you want to stay focused on the chump change: New carpet, new microwaves, and other non-essentials are morale boosters, but aren't the major focus of the budgeting and spending processes. Every cent the military spends is done with the idea of benefiting the military. Since the military is always underfunded, every expenditure can be justified.

    I can assure you that those who are managing the military's money are not focused on buying new carpet, office appliances, and other non-essentials during the last quarter of the fiscal year. They are trying to get the most from the bucks that they have left to spend that will benefit the military. And they will try to spend every penny that is available to them, because more requirements are put on the military than are funded. And next year more requirements will be put on the military than will be funded. That's been going on for decades, too.
    bobhorn likes this.
  19. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,889
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    EXACTLY CORRECT
  20. brian eiland

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,889
    Location:
    St Augustine, Fl and Thailand
    And as an analyst you were likely task with supporting this 'system' of funding. Did you ever find objectionable matters THAT YOU COULD EXPRESS in your analysis?? I rather doubt that was allowed!

    I did spend some time in this defense contracting business including 6 years with torpedo evaluations aboard nuclear subs,..and some of the problems involved with convincing some military and politicians that there were existing problems. The I went off into the pleasure boat market based out of Annapolis, while monitoring some of the stupid mistakes our defense industry was making....ie how about that whole EXTRA aircraft carrier they built (HUGE expense when you consider all of the required support ships), largely based on one congressman's politic clout. Even the NAVY itself said it did not need it.

    And this littoral ship issue that I started this subject thread with. It morphed from an excellent, somewhat inexpensive defensive missile semi-submersible that could be stationed off a nations shore to catch their missiles at launch rather than trying to shoot then down as they reentered (like trying to hit a bullet head on with another bullet).

    And how about that tri-hulled littoral ship,...much more agile, speedy, shallow water capable that the one proposed by Lockheed Martin. BUT Lockheed has political clout to remain in the bidding. Now both projects are TRASH.
    bayoubud likes this.