| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Report paints USS San Antonio as lemon |
| 2005-07-23 |
| A Navy inspection report describes the USS San Antonio as having "great potential for future useful service to the fleet." Operative word: potential. After years of work, the vessel billed as a stealth ship is infested with corrosion, badly wired, poorly built, and deemed so unsafe that Navy inspectors warned its crew shouldn't take it to sea. Inspectors examining the San Antonio from June 27-July 5 found safety deficiencies throughout the ship. Construction and craftsmanship standards, they said, were "poor." Workers left a "snarled, over-packed, poorly assembled and virtually uncorrectable electrical/electronic cable plant." Watertight integrity was compromised throughout the ship by multiple cable lines. The inspectors predicted the San Antonio "will be plagued by electrical/electronic cable plant installation deficiencies throughout its entire service life" if corrective work isn't done. Though those actions are on the drawing board, they warned the ship shouldn't take on its crew until "significant" damage control and firefighting systems are put into operation. But the Navy and shipbuilder Northrop Grumman Ship Systems say the San Antonio, the first amphibious transport ship in its class, actually has encountered fewer problems than other vessels like it in recent years. "It is the first of class, and every first of class has significant challenges," Northrop Grumman Ship Systems spokesman Brian Cullin said Thursday. The first U.S. warship named for the Alamo City was handed to the Navy this week with little fanfare. It passed inspection after winning "satisfactory" scores in seven performance areas of the Builders Sea Trial and Acceptance Trial conducted by the shipbuilder. San Antonio, though, was deemed "an incomplete ship," missing everything from deck drains to berthing compartment sprinkler systems and fire extinguishers, the Navy Board of Inspection and Survey said. Design changes driven by shrinking defense budgets have robbed the ship of some of its stealth characteristics — one of its marquee features. The ship's specifications included significant radar cross-section reduction technology. As construction ensued, the report stated, "design reduction decisions were made because of constrained funding. RCS effectiveness is now reduced." Examples of problems in reducing the ship's radar signature include life raft RCS covers, which weren't funded and catwalks and platforms that didn't have shrouds or covers. However, the Navy has hailed the San Antonio, which is designed to take Marines into dangerous locales, as a ship of firsts. It's the Navy's first stealth ship, using fewer angles from protruding pieces of steel and a pair of eight-sided twin masts that reduce its radar signature. It's the fleet's first "gender-neutral" ship, with living quarters and showers for women. Designed entirely on computer, the San Antonio was to be the first of 12 amphibious transport dock ships built under a $16 billion program. Today, cost overruns have chewed into the Navy's budget, reducing the number of San Antonio-class ships to nine. The ship's cost has soared from $830 million to a projected $1.85 billion. Northrop Grumman's Cullin said costs increased in part because the ship still was being designed two years into its construction. High-tech systems installed in the ship also were a factor. "I can understand why the Navy and Northrop Grumman are defensive about this," said retired Rear Adm. Steve Pietropaoli, a former top Navy spokesman. "But the fact is we're not getting the product we need to support Marines in the future." San Antonio's production woes and rising price are typical of Pentagon weapons systems. Cost has emerged as a big issue both in the Defense Department and on Capitol Hill. Navy Secretary Gordon England has launched a study into the matter in his capacity as acting deputy secretary of defense, a job previously held by Paul Wolfowitz. Pietropaoli hadn't seen the inspection report and declined to speculate about the severity of the San Antonio's problems. But former Assistant Defense Secretary Lawrence Korb said the problems cited in the Navy report seemed worse than usual. Both Northrop Grumman's Cullin and Cmdr. Herman Phillips, a spokesman with the Naval Sea Systems Command, said the ship hasn't been put into commission. The Navy and the company had identified the San Antonio's problems, they said, and would fix them. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #4 Shipman, I concur with Ricky. Litton Pascagula has been known for shoddy work that slides by on first glance since the 80s, and maybe before. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-07-23 21:50 |
| #3 Yur saying this isn't a new thing Ricky? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-23 18:38 |
| #2 You gotta problem with the Way Tren Loot's voters build a boat? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-07-23 17:49 |
| #1 Jeebus...almost $2B for a gator freighter? And the damn thing doesn't even work?!? Thought that kind of cash would buy a Burke-class Aegis DDG. I did a little Googling on Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, and, considering the contents of this article, was not one little bit surprised to find out that NGSS was formerly known as Litton Industries, operators of a notoriously inept shipyard in Pascagoula, MS. I was stationed in Long Beach, CA in the late 1970's, when the USS Tarawa (LHA-1) came to the LB naval shipyard for what was supposed to be a "post-shakedown availability" of apx. 2 months. It essentially turned into a full-blown overhaul of more than a year's duration - the guys in her crew echoed many of the same criticisms seen in the Navy's report about the USS San Antonio. The "LHA" in the Tarawa's designation officially stood for "Landing Helicopter Assault", but the crew always said it stood for "Litton's Huge Abortion". You'd have thought the Navy would have learned something over thirty freaking years & had Bath Ironworks or Newport News build these damn things - I didn't think anyone was even LISTENING to Trent Lott (MS Senator) anymore! |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2005-07-23 17:47 |