The FY2022 INSURV report has some interesting tidbits. The report lacks any specifics but does offer
a nice view of general trends.
Among other types of inspections, INSURV conducts various
types of trials as listed below:[1,p.5]
In 2022, INSURV conducted 23 trials: 12 ATs, 2 CTs, 3 FCTs,
1 GMI, 3 RTs, and 2 STs. The trials involved
9 surface ships, 2 submarines, 2 combatant craft, and 5 service craft.
Here are some specific trial results:
USS Ford
USS
Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) completed AT [acceptance trial] in May 2017. The ship
was unfinished and had significant deficiencies affecting many
mission-critical systems.[1, p.9]
The
Type Commander presented the ship for a comprehensive ST [special trial] in
June 2022. The ship's material
readiness was poor with one unsatisfactory and 13 degraded scores among
18 functional areas. There were one unsatisfactory and three degraded scores
among the eight major demonstrations. Seven
starred deficiencies that were CNO-waived for
delivery were either uncorrected or not assessed during the ST.[1,
p.10]
We see from this report that waivers were used in order to
authorize a flawed and inappropriate delivery and were never corrected! The Navy is knowingly and voluntarily
accepting incomplete and damaged ships and it is the CNO who is personally
responsible for this.
Independence LCS
INSURV conducted two acceptance trials (LCS-30,
LCS-32). According to the INSURV report,
“both ships had starred deficiencies and below-average IFOM scores”.[1]
JOHN LEWIS Fleet
Replenishment Oiler (T-AO) Program
INSURV conducted an acceptance trial on John Lewis (T-AO
205), the class lead ship. According to
the INSURV report, “The lead ship has four starred deficiencies, a number of other
significant deficiencies, and a relatively low IFOM score.”[1]
Overall
The INSURV report also presented inspection results of
functional areas for various types of ships.
The FY2022 results were compared to the 6-year average score to
determine whether overall ship readiness was increasing or decreasing.
Surface ships had 21 functional areas evaluated and in 2022,
11 areas were worse, 3 were unchanged, and 7 were improved.
This demonstrates that the condition of our fleet is
steadily declining.
Conclusion
Of special note is the fact that no ship deliveries were
rejected by the Navy despite many serious problems being noted and many ships
were accepted with known deficiencies and incomplete work! What is the point of conducting trials and
inspections if we’ll never reject a ship, no matter how incomplete or damaged
it is? We could simply eliminate the
entire INSURV function, save the money, and achieve the exact same result of
accepting everything!
Waivers are one of the root causes of the fleet’s
problems. The existence, and use, of
waivers has made it easier to skip over problems than to do the hard work of
producing acceptable products. Waivers
are destroying the fleet.
The common saying is that the rot starts at the top,
right? Well, this is absolutely the
case, here. The CNO is personally
authorizing waivers in order to accept flawed ships. He, and he alone, is damaging the Navy and
costing taxpayers money. This is
dereliction of duty and he should be court-martialed.
______________________________
- Acceptance Trials (AT) - verify the readiness of ships, craft, and submarines for preliminary acceptance by the Navy
- Combined Trials (CT) - verify the readiness of ships, craft, and submarines for preliminary acceptance by the Navy
- Integrated Trials (IT) - verify the readiness of ships, craft, and submarines for preliminary acceptance by the Navy
- Final Contract Trials (FCT) - for surface ships to determine if additional deficiencies have developed since AT, to validate correction of significant AT “stared” deficiencies, and to provide an assessment of readiness for “Fleet Introduction”
- Guarantee Material Inspections (GMI) - for submarines to determine if additional deficiencies have developed since AT, to validate correction of significant AT “stared” deficiencies, and to provide an assessmentof readiness for “Fleet Introduction”
- Special Trials (ST) - when significant ship systems or capabilities remain incomplete until after Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA)
- Retrials (RT) - address specific deficiencies for previous unsuccessful trial events
"Of special note is the fact that no ship deliveries were rejected by the Navy despite many serious problems being noted and many ships were accepted with known deficiencies and incomplete work!"
ReplyDeleteThere is only one thing that is worse than not having a resource (i.e. ship) when you need it. That's thinking that you do have it and making plans that require the resource. An even bigger question is does planning take into account the lack of availabiity/ useability of these vessels?
What do you think are the underlying factors for this? Political pressure, poorly written contracts?
ReplyDeleteI recall reading once - I think the anecdote is originally from Hatcher, but I'm not dead sure - a story about John Cantius Garand at the Springfield Arsenal in the early weeks after the US entered World War II. He saw that a number of tolerances for parts had been opened up past what was specified in the design, and was told by some floor manager that "it's better for the soldier to have a rifle that jams occasionally than no rifle at all". Having not only designed the rifle but also the manufacturing process and even the production jigs, he was understandably apoplectic at this and used what pull he had in the Ordnance Department to straighten things out.
ReplyDeleteThis is merely to illustrate the point that there will be nigh-irresistible pressure during wartime to not only simplify designs but also to lower quality standards to facilitate the drastically increased production volume that will be required to support the war effort. You see this in everything from small arms and ammunition up to capital goods. Knowing this, establishing a peacetime baseline where ships are accepted with a number of defects is insane - the easily-foreseen wartime degradation of quality will lead us to accept hulls that sink during shakedown if this is our starting point!
The Navy could hire a trusted and independent third party to do inspections during assembly and fitting out, to survey trials, to verify that contractual obbligations are met and to verify that relevant rules and regulations are followed. Many navies already do it, and these reports are used to determine if payments are made or not.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not getting objective, accurate information on the condition of ships. INSURV is providing that as documented in their annual report. The issue is that the Navy doesn't care what the result are. They're going to accept the ships regardless. Having an outside agency tell them the condition of the ships just means they'll ignore an outside agency instead of an inside agency. The problem is that Navy leadership/CNO has no integrity or accountability and cares only about getting more budget money. The condition of the ships is immaterial. Rejecting ships might threaten the steady flow of budget money from Congress.
DeleteThe only possible correction is for Congress to get serious about exercising their oversight duties and firing Navy leaders and withholding budget funds until the Navy corrects their institutional problems. Admittedly, an extremely unlikely scenario.
"The only possible correction is for Congress to get serious "
DeleteDo you think perhaps that the right SECNAV could do it?
"Do you think perhaps that the right SECNAV could do it?"
DeleteTheoretically, yes, but SecNav is a political appointment so ... no.
The right SECNAV could do it. But what are the chances of getting the right SECNAV?
DeleteI've pretty much decided that if I ever got to be POTUS, I would fire every single flag and general officer and start over.
I kind of like the old Brit practice of lining them all up in front of the Pentagon and going around and cutting the buttons off their tunics.
DeleteDoes this mean we would see "CDR Chip" in the next presidential election? Let's vote then, what is your name on the ballot and I am sure we (or at least some of us) would love to vote for you!! And if so how would we find the this right SECNAV for the job? Background checks perhaps? Maybe someone older.. perhaps some legal reforms to the system?
DeleteBetter start crowdfunding your presidential campaign now "CDR Chip" here's a link to help you get started:
Delete"For local campaigns, crowdfunding can provide a jump-start to the initial fundraising process. It can help candidates who cannot afford to self-fund their own election campaign."
From below:
https://www.onlinecandidate.com/articles/crowdfunding-your-election-campaign
If someone was dead set on actually turning this around, I wonder what kind of power a SecNav, CNO, Fleet Commander etc actually has to do so... Wonder if theres equivalents to an Executive Order to make some sweeping reforms. Of course uniformed leaders could just write orders but...(??) I assume itd be the politics of doing so, rather than the actual legality of such orders thatd be the problem...
DeleteSo, they know the Fords don't work but at least they're ignoring the problem.
ReplyDeletePlease forgive this wander off-topic:
ReplyDelete"The Pentagon is planning an expensive upgrade to its problem-plagued Zumwalt-class destroyers. The Department of Defense is preparing to equip the USS Zumwalt with hypersonic missile launchers. The retrofitting is full of potential pitfalls, including the Pentagon is yet to develop hypersonic missiles for the destroyers, and the Zumwalt has struggled to make it into port to receive the upgraded gun."
That's old news. It was announced a year or so ago. Was there a particular aspect you wanted to discuss?
DeleteOnly that it reads like a draft Money Python sketch.
Delete