GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmaker pressures Navy to use unwanted catamaran

• 26159
  

  Did anyone else notice the "Related Stories" listed on the right side of this page?

  The headline for February 16, 2007 states, "Navy wants more ships, aircraft than budgeted".

  Then, on March 28, 2007, there is a headline stating, "Navy resists offers of more ships, submarines for 2008".

  Am I the only one who finds this apparent change of opinion by Navy leaders more than a little confusing? Talk about contradictions!

  Confused Posted June 20, 2007 2:42 PM
• 25948
  

  Another waste of money from our elected officials. How much did Hunter get in campaign contributions to push this project that the navy has no use for?

  Derek Elevier Posted June 18, 2007 6:00 PM
• 25934
  

  Let's put the money towards ships that the Navy REALLY needs and has uses for, instead of this experimental white elephant. Given the devastating information provided by Mr. Weber, who helped to build this vessel, there is no other course of action to take, despite Congressman Hunter's influence.

  DHS Posted June 18, 2007 3:01 PM
• 25922
  

  I helped build this ship at Nichols Brothers Boat Builders,I was a shipfitter there.We all knew this ship was a waste of taxpayers money, the shipyard had many Navy veterans working there,includung me.We all said this ship was to big to be used as a S.E.A.L. command ship and to small for anything else.It has a flightdeck for two helicopters and yet has no hanger bay or any other shelter for the aircraft.A 22.caliber bullet can rip right through it's very thin skin,the very hot exhaust is directed out to the side and up towards the flightdeck to make landings very hazardous.Everyone in the shipyard knew this was just a pet project for Duncan Hunter,oh by the way,did you know that Duncan Hunter's son was assigned to this ship. Hmmmn.,I wonder how that happened? There are so many flaw's in this design that the Navy should just mothball this 60 million dollar disaster.

  Eugene Weber Posted June 18, 2007 12:27 PM
• 25915
  

  The navy brass have a long history of short-sighted strategic thinking. In the 1920s and 30's, naval leadership refused to believe that frail aircraft could add a third dimension to warfare (air power), until Billy Mitchell's demonstration of sinking a captured German battleship with a few aircraft. Did the navy brass respond by rethinking their warfare strategies and embracing the new technology? No. Instead, they derided Mitchell, reduced his rank for refusing to go along with their out-moded naval strategies, and finally court martialed him, drumming him out of their elitist military club. He died a broken man at the age of 57, but never gave up on his vision of the third dimension of warfare. Fortunately, President Franklin Roosevelt remembered Billy Mitchell's heretical, though prophetic, insights into modern warfare and adopted his air power strategies. The brass were not happy when Roosevelt demanded they exponentially increase aircraft production. I am always suspicious of the "not-invented-here" attitude of the military, especially with so many rice bowls to protect. With few exceptions, new ideas are slow to be adopted by military leadership unless pressed upon them, as Roosevelt did.

  Dan B. Posted June 18, 2007 11:18 AM
• 25855
  

  There are many questions that need to be answered regarding this Sea Fighter. Is it less expensive to procure and maintain than the what the Navy wants? Will it do the job? The armed forces seem to have one agenda in common when it comes to new weapons systems. They want the most expensive one even if they don't really need it.

  Also, is this a question of the right ship for the job or is it about potential windfalls for Duncan Hunter vs some navy Admiral who is padding his nest for work after retirement?

  It would be nice, for a change, if we could believe that there are no hidden agendas involved. Not very likely is it?

  Robert M. Posted June 18, 2007 6:36 AM