Cyber Vulnerabilities Found In Navy's Newest Warship

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cyber Vulnerabilities Found In Navy's Newest Warship

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday April 28, 2013 @04:55AM from the scuttle-the-ship's-computer dept.

An anonymous reader writes with some potentially troubling news about some security issues with the Navy's newest class of coastal warships."A Navy team of computer hacking experts found some deficiencies when assigned to try to penetrate the network of the USS Freedom, the lead vessel in the $37 billion Littoral Combat Ship program, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Freedom arrived in Singapore last week for an eight-month stay, which its builder, Lockheed Martin Corp., hopes will stimulate Asian demand for the fast, agile and stealthy ships. 'We do these types of inspections across the fleet to find individual vulnerabilities, as well as fleet-wide trends,' said the official."

162 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

sitting afk for 8 months by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 05:03 · Score: 1

"The Freedom arrived in Singapore last week for an eight-month stay, which its builder, Lockheed Martin Corp., hopes will stimulate Asian demand for the fast, agile and stealthy ships"
we paid for it so they can advertise?
1. Re:sitting afk for 8 months by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  Are you really surprised?
  Oh don't worry, the MIC will justify it by saying sales of LCS mean bigger production run which lowers costs, increased interoperability with allied navies due to commonality of equipment (that seems to work pretty well when flogging the F-35 fighter.
  At the other end of the spectrum you have the French defense major - DCNS - which designs, manufactures and gives away for free a modern corvette to the navy to operate for three years. They hope positive word of mouth would influence a lot of other navies to buy it.
2. Re:sitting afk for 8 months by waddgodd · 2013-04-28 05:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Surprisingly, much of the US Navy's job is to advertise, cf the Great White Fleet and various other show the flag exercises, it's just this time the shipbuilder foolishly thinks that the advertising being done is "buy our stuff" and not "do you REALLY want to mess with us?" I'd not be surprised if the Freedom hasn't already got orders for the North China Sea to "advertise" to the DPRK and is just taking Liberty Call to replenish and resupply before they go.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
3. Re:sitting afk for 8 months by hairyfeet · 2013-04-28 05:27 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  They are trying to sell it because it is a Vista sized bomb, its underpowered, undergunned, its a billion dollar piece of shit. Which shouldn't be surprising as the only thing our military industrial complex has been able to do since the 90s is pad the expense account but there ya go, yet another billion dollar boondoggle that won't do what we need and is good for nothing more than target practice.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
4. Re:sitting afk for 8 months by interval1066 · 2013-04-28 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  we paid for it so they can advertise?
  You'd rather the ship stayed in port forever just so Lockheed -Martin doesn't get the free advertising?
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Some Things Never Change by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-04-28 05:05 · Score: 5, Informative

USS Yorktown circa 1997

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
1. Re:Some Things Never Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  USS Yorktown circa 1997
  Not exactly the same thing. On the Yorktown a crew member entered a zero into a database field using the MSSQL management console, causing a divide by zero error. This occurred during system testing and was later fixed.
  Quite different from an exploitable security vulnerability.
2. Re:Some Things Never Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Fixed? You call running your propulsion control and maneuvering systems on windows nt fixed? This is simply laughable.
  Such systems should only be run on a completely independent tactical network and run only on bulletproof RTOS's.
3. Re:Some Things Never Change by maxwell+demon · 2013-04-28 06:25 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  USS Yorktown circa 1997
  Interesting quote from there:
  “Because of politics, some things are being forced on us that without political pressure we might not do, like Windows NT. If it were up to me I probably would not have used Windows NT in this particular application ... Refining that is an ongoing process ... Unix is a better system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that resulted from NT.”
  —Ron Redman
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:Some Things Never Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Someone covering their ass isn't that interesting. He blames Windows NT rather than flaws in the client software, which was designed under his supervision, and the likes of you gulp it down without question.
5. Re:Some Things Never Change by PPH · 2013-04-28 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Client software shouldn't be able to bring down an O/S. Never mind an entire network.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
6. Re:Some Things Never Change by PPH · 2013-04-28 06:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Its been a few decades since we lost any military assets to a zero.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
7. Re:Some Things Never Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Client software shouldn't be able to bring down an O/S. Never mind an entire network.
  Indeed, but that's not what happened on the Yorktown. There were no infamous BSOD errors.
8. Re:Some Things Never Change by PPH · 2013-04-28 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  There were no infamous BSOD errors.
  In the infamous USS Yorktown incident, the entire network was taken down. Blue screen or not, that just should never happen.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
9. Re:Some Things Never Change by turgid · 2013-04-28 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, but that's not what happened on the Yorktown. There were no infamous BSOD errors.
  Not until the ship's cook tried to print off 100 copies of the day's menu from Word for Windows 6.0 on the NT 4.0 system in the galley.
  
  --
  Stick Men
10. Re:Some Things Never Change by CanEHdian · 2013-04-28 08:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Such systems should only be run on a completely independent tactical network and run only on bulletproof RTOS's.
  Plus you need an emergency backup that is independent of the network so you can run everything "locally" and have commands transferred from the bridge the old way.
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
11. Re:Some Things Never Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 14:19 · Score: 0
  
  Grey slop, charcoal and frozen peas again.
12. Re:Some Things Never Change by Tough+Love · 2013-04-28 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  NT is a better system for the transfer of information and data
  I wonder where he got that idea?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
13. Re:Some Things Never Change by drnb · 2013-04-28 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  Fixed? You call running your propulsion control and maneuvering systems on windows nt fixed? This is simply laughable. Such systems should only be run on a completely independent tactical network and run only on bulletproof RTOS's.
  While I prefer a more traditional embedded environment with a RTOS, blaming the problem on Windows NT is perpetuating an urban myth. The divide by zero was in an application not the operating system. If this application had been running under Linux or Mac OS X or a RTOS it would not have mattered, the problem was internal to the application. Well at least according the the developers of the software and the Navy officers and chiefs on board the ship at the time.
14. Re:Some Things Never Change by drnb · 2013-04-28 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  There were no infamous BSOD errors.
  In the infamous USS Yorktown incident, the entire network was taken down. Blue screen or not, that just should never happen.
  Your own citation says otherwise. Devices connected to the network went down, not the network itself. In other words the devices that received the erroneous zero over the network had their application software crash. Unfortunately these applications controlled the engine. Windows NT, Linux, Mac OS X or RTOS would not have made a difference. It was the application controlling the equipment and it was the application that failed.
15. Re:Some Things Never Change by rtb61 · 2013-04-28 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  The infamous, manual override. There is of course one serious problem with manual over ride in today's corporate run crazy ass world, you need skilled people (paid high wages) to do it and there just ain't no bloody corporate profit in that, hence no manual over ride. Obviously if you are fully capable of manual over ride, why bother with the automation, except for simple monitoring and reporting.
  It needs to be extremely complicated, repairable and upgradeable only at base by private contractors at enormous cost and the users and operates need to be as ill-informed and ill-equipped as possible to ensure plenty of contracted out base repairs and upgrades occur as possible to keep those profits flowing.
  Reality is, to truly minimise cost, private contractors need to be kept out as much as possible otherwise guaranteed every single time they will create work, they will design in failure, they will ensure only they can repair it and upgrade will be required. 'Keep It Simple Stupid' especially for mission critical systems.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
16. Re:Some Things Never Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  how did you go from government to corporate?
  plus you don't put a manual override in if the risks are considered acceptable.
  are you 12 years old?
17. Re:Some Things Never Change by PPH · 2013-04-29 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  The ships network supported a number of machines and applications, including "monitoring condition assessment, damage control, machinery control and fuel control, monitoring the engines and navigating the ship". The divide by zero error brought all the connected "machines" down. Not applications, "machines".
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
18. Re:Some Things Never Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but unless one of the "machines" brought down was a switch or router, then the network itself was unaffected.
  This goes back to the old adage - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. You put bad data into a system and the system will react accordingly based on it's inputs unless specifically bounded. A network will behave as programmed.
19. Re:Some Things Never Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  I particularly enjoy how you're mindlessly ignoring the quote where the designer mentioned all of the problems they had with NT prior to the problem. It sounds like he was railroaded into NT, and then had to use subpar developers who don't realize numbers cannot be divided by 0 instead of developers who never would have architected it in that manner to begin with.
20. Re:Some Things Never Change by PPH · 2013-04-29 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  "The network" also includes each machines network drivers and interface. If a client on a remote host can shut down all systems' network interfaces, then "the network" is down.
  
  You put bad data into a system and the system will react accordingly
  Evidently Microsoft hasn't learned the role of a proper O/S yet. Bringing a client process down with bad data is one thing. But a true O/S will prevent a client error from propagating to other clients or hosts.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
21. Re:Some Things Never Change by drnb · 2013-04-29 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  The ships network supported a number of machines and applications, including "monitoring condition assessment, damage control, machinery control and fuel control, monitoring the engines and navigating the ship". The divide by zero error brought all the connected "machines" down. Not applications, "machines".
  No. LAN terminals crashed, that is it. The software that failed was *application* level software, not operating system level, not driver level. The *application* level software running on these terminals controlled ship's machinery.
22. Re:Some Things Never Change by drnb · 2013-04-29 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  I particularly enjoy how you're mindlessly ignoring the quote where the designer mentioned all of the problems they had with NT prior to the problem.
  Really? The wiki article where the quote is found begins with a disclaimer stating that Windows NT had no role in this particular failure.
  
  It sounds like he was railroaded into NT, and then had to use subpar developers who don't realize numbers cannot be divided by 0 instead of developers who never would have architected it in that manner to begin with.
  No. The production version of the software, which was available at the time, had safeguards that handled the zero and would have prevented the problem. They were running a special development version that let people hand tweak values and permit those values into the system.
It's an.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 05:16 · Score: 0

Trap!
Think about it. Some official comes out and talks about how vulnerable a ship is that just entered "that" area.
That is like an official coming out and saying that some new Drone over in Iraq that can be taking control over by yelling your name and location into radio ch-4.
1. Re:It's an.... by nametaken · 2013-04-28 07:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That is like an official coming out and saying that some new Drone over in Iraq that can be taking control over by yelling your name and location into radio ch-4.
  No. We have no reason to think it's anything like that.
  The important takeaway is that the Navy is actually checking their shit. The deficiencies in network security were found by Navy pen testers, determined to be "not severe enough to prevent the deployment", the results are classified, and they're working on improving them.
  That's how things get done. Test and improve, all the time, because no part of any complex system is, or ever will be, perfect.
I can't imagine... by The+Real+Dr+John · 2013-04-28 05:23 · Score: 4, Informative

I can't imagine spending $37 billion dollars of taxpayers money on anything better for the the taxpayers than some more naval vessels. Why waste it on schools, or roads or infrastructure, when you can have... um, well, some nice new ships for the Navy to sail around in?

--
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
1. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  I once heard an interview where that same rationale was used for healthcare in UK... it went something like ``if we can afford to spend $X on killing people, we can afford less than that to heal them''. (that interview had a lot of ww2 sentiment in it, but the basic idea is that military spending is way overboard compared to things-that-trully-help-people).
2. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  that's more than a thousand dollar per american. have the republicans protested against it ?
3. Re:I can't imagine... by Seumas · 2013-04-28 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Or, you know, give the money back to the tax-payers and stop fucking spending it - period. Still, I'd rather you pay for your children's education. That's not something that requires the collective effort of the entire nation to accomplish. Defense, however, is. So if it came between subsidizing the education/daycare of your snot-nosed rug-rats versus a navy ship, I'll take the ship.
  However, I'd rather they just but that $37b, period.
4. Re:I can't imagine... by Solandri · 2013-04-28 06:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  U.S. spending per student on education is among the highest in the world. Of all the problems which plague our education system, funding is definitely not one of them.
  
  One can argue defense spending needs to be reduced. But proposing it should be spent on schools instead is just shifting money from one bloated program to another.
5. Re:I can't imagine... by sconeu · 2013-04-28 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  And there's the proof that the money needs to be spent on schools. Try $100, not $1000.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
6. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  It's OK, they're threatening us with personnel cuts too. Because the budget doesn't allow them to cut programs such as their $37 billion dollar ship. You can always RIF a few soldiers, airmen, and marines however.
  The military has a hard time accepting that the good times are over.
7. Re:I can't imagine... by sconeu · 2013-04-28 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Stupid comment filters. I was assuming GP was talking about the $37 billion.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
8. Re:I can't imagine... by Sulphur · 2013-04-28 06:43 · Score: 2
  
  Or, you know, give the money back to the tax-payers and stop fucking spending it - period. Still, I'd rather you pay for your children's education. That's not something that requires the collective effort of the entire nation to accomplish. Defense, however, is. So if it came between subsidizing the education/daycare of your snot-nosed rug-rats versus a navy ship, I'll take the ship.
  However, I'd rather they just but that $37b, period.
  It takes a village to train a village idiot.
9. Re:I can't imagine... by magarity · 2013-04-28 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Schools are paid for by local governments, not the federal government. Roads and "infrastructure" are frequently paid by a combination of federal and local governments with local governments paying almost all ongoing maintenance.
  The navy meanwhile is a 100% federal responsibility.
10. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  the basic idea is that military spending is way overboard compared to things-that-trully-help-people).
  I'd give more credence to that view if it weren't for the fact that the US, which is one of the bigger defense spenders, didn't spend more than three times as much on health care as on defense. Britain spends less on health care as a percentage of GDP and still spends more than three times as much on health care as on defense.
  Health care (15.2%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
  Defense (4.7%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
  Britain health care (9.6%): http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country
  Britain defense (2.5%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
11. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  The "$37 beelion" is the total estimated lifetime cost of all 56 ships of the class that the navy wants to buy, not the individual cost per ship, which is around $0.5 billion, depending on who you ask.
  The neat thing about weapons procurement is that there are so many different ways to calculate costs that you can throw out whatever number you want, depending on whether you're for the program or against it. I've seen figures for the cost of an F-22 Raptor that vary between $120 million per and $600 million per, and none of them were "lying" per se.
12. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 12:14 · Score: 0
  
  You're quite right. It's not as if there is any benefit to society from an educated populace. Except maybe with that whole voting thing. Tell you what! Let's get rid of the vote, then we won't need to educate anyone at all! Is that it? Because I can't believe you're seriously endorsing leaving education to those born into wealth?
  You'd make an excellent serf young man.
13. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  $37b period?
  Man, I thought my wife was cranky.
  Period.
14. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  How much of that is spent on teaching and how much on security?
15. Re:I can't imagine... by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 21:56 · Score: 2
  
  I find it bizarre that the US spends a higher percentage of GDP on "healthcare" than Britain, even though we have a National Health Service. Clearly, someone is making a lot of money out of health in America. But the fact that you let insurance companies make money out of providing a natural right means that you are in effect creating insurance jobs rather than looking after people's actual health.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
16. Re:I can't imagine... by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Or, you know, give the money back to the tax-payers and stop fucking spending it - period. Still, I'd rather you pay for your children's education. That's not something that requires the collective effort of the entire nation to accomplish. Defense, however, is. So if it came between subsidizing the education/daycare of your snot-nosed rug-rats versus a navy ship, I'll take the ship.
  However, I'd rather they just but that $37b, period.
  You're one of those dicks who needs the word "shared infrastructure" explained to them in words of one syllable, via the clue bat.
  But you keep your John Galt libertarian-wank fantasies if you want.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
17. Re:I can't imagine... by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  You're quite right. It's not as if there is any benefit to society from an educated populace. Except maybe with that whole voting thing. Tell you what! Let's get rid of the vote, then we won't need to educate anyone at all! Is that it? Because I can't believe you're seriously endorsing leaving education to those born into wealth?
  You'd make an excellent serf young man.
  Ah yes, but GP would OF COURSE be one of the rich elite. He's like those past-life fantasists who were always Queen Cleopatra, not a fucking slave building the pyramids.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
18. Re:I can't imagine... by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  U.S. spending per student on education is among the highest in the world. Of all the problems which plague our education system, funding is definitely not one of them.
  So how come you have people with such large student debts?
  Because, in my book, having universities that charge $100K for a degree course doesn't mean that you've spendt $100K on education, it just means you're funnelling money towards wealthy private educational institutions that should, self-evidently, all be nationalised and owned/run by the people.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
19. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  The short form is that every government advised organization to 'lower the cost of healthcare in the US' has had the opposite result. When you compound that with the number of people paying for rare and specialized treatments that the UK dismisses as an unacceptable expense, it starts to make sense.
20. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps because the link refers to K-12 spending, not college?
21. Re:I can't imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  You make it sound like people not dying is more important than the financial industry making money. You are not from America, are you?
Windows for Warships 2012 now with more touch cont by Joe_Dragon · 2013-04-28 05:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Windows for Warships 2012 now with more touch controls.
To fire swipe the screen.
SITTING DUCK by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-04-28 05:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

The software and network vulnerability issues are the least of the problems for this Water Turkey.
The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment
From the Congressional Research Service: "The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment as evidenced by the limited shock hardened design and results of full scale testing of representative hull structures completed in December 2006."
"So, we have a warship design that is not expected to fight and survive in the very environment in which it was produced to do so. Poorly-armed, poorly-protected, with an over-abundance of speed that will eat through a fuel supply in half a day."
This New $350 Million Combat Ship Has Nearly Two Equipment Failures For Every Million Bucks
"The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) researches Pentagon weapons procurement and has published its April 23 letter to members of the House Armed Services Committee, who have themselves 'repeatedly questioned the utility and effectiveness of the Littoral Combat Ship program' in the past.... From the time the Navy accepted LCS-1 from Lockheed Martin on September 18, 2008, until the ship went into dry dock in the summer of 2011 - not even 1,000 days later - there were 640 chargeable equipment failures on the ship. On average then, something on the ship failed on two out of every three days."
Hello US Navy! Thanks for accelerating climate-change, while subverting your mission and betraying the tax payer. I guess your next job, at Lockheed or General Dynamics will be worth all the criminal fraud and needless deaths.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1. Re:SITTING DUCK by teslabox · 2013-04-28 05:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Hello US Navy! Thanks for accelerating climate-change, while subverting your mission and betraying the tax payer. I guess your next job, at Lockheed or General Dynamics will be worth all the criminal fraud and needless deaths.
  It seems to me that the U.S. military is 30% vocational-training program for people who are failed by k-12 education, 30% make-work (manning missile silos in Montana and maintaining the nuclear arsenal, for example) to sop up human capital that was freed up by the industrialization of agriculture, and 30% wealth-transfer program. I'll give "defense" 10%.
  Realignment of the U.S. military's budget should consider what's important (vocational training, tech R&D), and what's not.
2. Re:SITTING DUCK by ColdWetDog · 2013-04-28 06:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  While the articles are pretty inflammatory and don't really have any details (including the issue with cracks - that's not unexpected in prototypes of high performance watercraft, they can usually be fixed), the core issue is this:
  
  This harsh analysis comes just days after the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report concluding the Defense Department has a problem with committing to expensive new weapons systems before development is complete.
  This makes no sense whatsoever except as a lucrative cash cow (even a spherical one) for the contractors.
  If you want cutting edge, create a skunk works (maybe the marine equivalent would be slime eel works?). Let them work out the bugs. Your PRODUCTION ships are well defined technology, as kept as simple as possible. Designed for real mission work - not fantasy battles with aliens. Less sizzle, more steak.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:SITTING DUCK by maxwell+demon · 2013-04-28 06:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
  Wouldn't you then prefer that the guns actually work?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the freedoms that keep getting stripped from us one by one in the name of national security?
5. Re:SITTING DUCK by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-04-28 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Another DoD Astroturfer heard from. (Slow clap)
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
6. Re:SITTING DUCK by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-04-28 06:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why don't we save the country...
  By slashing Military spending to just double the closest US rival - from 500%?
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
7. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  the core issue is this:
  
  This harsh analysis comes just days after the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report concluding the Defense Department has a problem with committing to expensive new weapons systems before development is complete.
  This makes no sense whatsoever except as a lucrative cash cow (even a spherical one) for the contractors.
  Would you have better understood that statement if it had been phrased as: "the Defense Department tried to reduce schedule overruns by adopting the Agile development model to replace the out-dated Waterfall methods but has been unsuccessful in applying the Agile methods"?
  There's nothing inherent in Agile methodology that limits its use to software development. Unfortunately the same mistakes that can be made by a software-only project trying to go Agile can also happen to hardware+software projects that try to use Agile. It is far more likely that the problems they've encountered were from PHB misunderstanding of the latest buzzwords than out of a boondoggle intent.
8. Re:SITTING DUCK by quonsar · 2013-04-28 06:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "So, we have a warship design that is not expected to fight and survive in the very environment in which it was produced to do so. Poorly-armed, poorly-protected, with an over-abundance of speed that will eat through a fuel supply in half a day."
  Clearly, it was designed to turn tail and run. And by God, it performs that mission to perfection.
  
  --
  
  Sacred cows make the best burgers.
9. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that from the Sky-Marshal's Propaganda course?
10. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Dumbass, that was a scene from "A Few Good Men", released in 1992.
11. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  I was just wondering. $37 Billion dollars. That is a lot of money to just kill people. On a human level, it does not matter if they are socialists, communists, anarchists, believe in Marx, or any other political system or political thought. On a purely rational focused thought, why would any country spend so much money to produce a weapon of war regardless of the fact that it does not work. Seems that $37 Billion made some military industrialists lots of money and diverted funds that could have been used for bridges, K-12 education, aid for seniors who need health care or their prescriptions, our secondary, tertiary as well as primary city concerns dealing with crime, housing and of course education.
  These kinds of stories trouble me since as Americans we have been forced to become policeman of the world. I don't remember being asked in an election being confronted with a referendum to fund a worldwide police force. Since most of the problems in the world are created by industrialists looking for cheap raw materials in third world countries. So in effect US, Russian, British, French and Chinese corporations are influencing world politics.
  I don't know about you but I love apple pie, the American way, hot rods, drive-in movies, hot dogs, pretty girls, football games, basketball games, chili, great music, The Star Spangled Banner, New York and central Iowa, Nevada and every other state in the Union I have had the privilege to travel too, hamburgers, beer, and whatever I forgot being I am just like you.
  Ask yourself why the guys who create these expenditures, who vote in Congress to invade another country, who later get busted for something they did wrong, who make the insane expenditures happen; why if these guys believe in their cause so much, why aren't they standing in line to volunteer first? Why is it our young men and women are asked to do what they would not? What they would only propose or make grand justifications for.
  Seems to me $37 Billion dollars is enough money to create peaceful weapons. Yes, peaceful weapons that would feed people, make them smart, make them independent thinkers, creators that make life better for everyone on the planet. Isn't that the idea? That if everyone had plenty there would be no war except for greedy people who could make money on the idea and execution of war? Isn't it time to take care of us all instead of creating nuclear stockpiles that would send us into a nuclear winter and kill off civilization? Really, how many bombs, ships that don't work, big guns that do not work in city fighting, big fighter jets that don't have another country who can afford them to fight with?
  Isn't it time to have these military corporations start turning their product from swords into plowshares? Isn't it time to realize all people of the world the same thing?
  Anyone who is fed, educated and an independent thinker would not be into radical Islam, would not be into aggressive acts of war.
  When will we realize that the US is terrible when it comes to business?
  How many in Congress ever have a real job that needed them to be frugal? With a deficit and sequestration isn't frugal a keen buzzword?
  I applaud the scientists who created the:
  -Billboard that creates water.
  http://foodbeast.com/content/2013/03/29/billboard-creates-water-out-of-air-produces-9450-liters-of-clean-drinking-water/
  -Viruses that create electricity
  http://io9.com/5910682/a-virus-that-creates-electricity
  -Wind power [Even though GE is a military vendor they are to be applauded for their efforts in human solutions.]
  http://dailyfusion.net/2013/03/general-electric-builds-worlds-most-efficient-wind-turbine-4532/
  There are many more. We need solutions that make the planet and it's people whole, happy and not in want and
  not stupid. Period.
  Isn't it time to feed and educate instead of starve and blow-up.
12. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Lawyered!
13. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  "A Few Good Men" was released in 1992, so it was a Bush-Clinton era film, not Regan era. And the whole plot of the film was about uncovering corruption by the military brass and holding them accountable.
14. Re:SITTING DUCK by LordLimecat · 2013-04-28 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I somehow suspect you havent seen A Few Good Men.
  Hint: It doesnt legitimize anything except the legal system.
15. Re:SITTING DUCK by ColdWetDog · 2013-04-28 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think your hosts file got corrupted and you replied to the wrong comment.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
16. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Since defense spending hovers around 4% of the GDP I don't think reducing the amount to 2% is worth all the trouble. As far as our "rivals" go if we ever have to really use the military to protect something really important like say the US continental borders I would rather not give any potential "rivals" even a sporting chance. War isn't about fair, combatants versus non-combatants, or proportional responses. It is about killing people and blowing shit up. PERIOD
17. Re:SITTING DUCK by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-04-28 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why don't we save the country...
  By slashing Military spending to just double the closest US rival - from 500%?
  And how would that "save the country"?
  If the US Military budget were reduced that amount, we'd still be running deficits in the $500B range (which, admittedly, is lower than Obama has managed, but generally higher than Bush Jr managed - it's still too damn high).
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
18. Re:SITTING DUCK by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-04-28 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  WAR!
  What is is good for?
  Ask that of the survivors of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, among others.
  We might also mention the American Civil War and the American Revolution.
  Taking down Napoleon might count too.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
19. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  If you take the military spending figures that the PRC releases as truth, you're more gullible than the hosts files guy that you keep making fun of. Let me guess, you probably thought they really were buying that aircraft carrier from the Russians to turn into a floating casino, like they said, right?
20. Re:SITTING DUCK by the_other_chewey · 2013-04-28 09:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You must have seen another movie than the rest of us.
  
  In our version, the guy giving the "you can't handle the truth"
  speech is not one of the good guys...
21. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  All the "grand causes" you cite as fixed by wars, were casused by wars.
22. Re:SITTING DUCK by gmhowell · 2013-04-28 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Say it, say it, say it again!
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
23. Re:SITTING DUCK by LordLimecat · 2013-04-28 12:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Hes actually court marshalled, and the guys "just following orders" get dishonorably discharged for "conduct unbecoming a US marine".
24. Re:SITTING DUCK by LordLimecat · 2013-04-28 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  *martialled
25. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 15:03 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Ask that of the survivors of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, among others.
  Without Germany's war of expansion, the victims of these would have been limited to "undesirables" in the domestic population only, rather than including those of Germany's neighbours.
  Napoleon wouldn't have been a problem if not for the wars he started, either.
  Basically, if you had a magic button that would prevent all war, everywhere, pressing it would be a net positive. Unfortunately, we don't have that - all we have is control over whether *we* go to war.
26. Re:SITTING DUCK by cold+fjord · 2013-04-28 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  As a repeat spam poster I'm not sure you are a qualified judge of honor.
  What makes that doubly sad is that I remember a post of yours a number of years ago in which you claimed to only post under your own name and take the consequences. What happened to you, have you had an episode? It is certainly sad.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
27. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  The Civil War was bad. Putting people in jail from fear that their state MAY leave the US (who needs habeas corpus?) and pointing canons into the City saying that you will mortar Baltimore; does not make you the good guys.
28. Re:SITTING DUCK by mjwx · 2013-04-28 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  WAR!
  What is is good for?
  Ask that of the survivors of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, among others.
  Try asking an Iraqi or Afghani what war bought them.
  
  Sorry if this dulls your giant hard on for violence, but war caused more human misery than it has ever solved. Ask the dead if they accomplished anything, silence is the answer.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
29. Re:SITTING DUCK by Gogo0 · 2013-04-28 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  but then how would soldiers all be eligible to receive free college educations??
30. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 18:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There are actually two LCS classes in service: the Independence class and the Freedom class. The non-survivable LCS is the Freedom class, which is overweight, under-prepared to withstand hostile fire without external buoyancy aids, sucks at shooting anything due to poor weaps design, and its helicopter can't do minesweeping because it's too weak. The Independence class has some corrosion problems, but seems to be a better and more stable design overall.
  They've both had serious operational problems; USS Coronado (LCS4, Independence Class) just made the news with a very minor fire breaking out on board due to some insulation burning, while USS Freedom (LCS1) has had flooding in 2012 and lost its engines in 2013, leaving it adrift at sea.
  Neither LCS is the kind of ship you expect from the world's naval superpower, even as a workhorse non-combat ship. It's a bastard offspring of the Zumwalt class destroyer, which is retooling of the failed DDG1000. All over cost projections, all underwhelming. Too many people trying to get one ship (in each case) to do too many things at the bleeding edge, while we keep WW2-era battleships in museums in good condition with an eye to calling them back into service when we need naval firepower. It's quite a disappointment that the world's naval superpower has such Little Crappy Ships under development, when the Dutch can field the Holland class and other nations are developing small, fast, useful ships.
31. Re:SITTING DUCK by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 21:31 · Score: 2
  
  I really like Team America: World Police too. Oh, wait...
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
32. Re:SITTING DUCK by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  Dumbass, that was a scene from "A Few Good Men", released in 1992.
  Thank you, Lt. Obvious.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
33. Re:SITTING DUCK by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 21:35 · Score: 0
  
  You must have seen another movie than the rest of us. In our version, the guy giving the "you can't handle the truth" speech is not one of the good guys...
  No, you seem to have missed the point that the notional "good guys" are in fact pretty feeble compared with Jack Nicholson's character. It's a bit like Satan in Paradise Lost, a classic case of deconstructing/undermining the ostensible moral authority of the nominal goodies.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
34. Re:SITTING DUCK by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the only thing anyone remembers from what is a pretty mediocre film is Jack Nicholson's "you can't handle the truth" speech.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
35. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  Boy, where do you think they get the oil for your SUV and the daily 40km drive ? Where do you think they get all the alloys for your high-performance engine, the ball bearing, the high-performance battery.
  From that observation, would YOU be willing to ride a bus and a train ? 90% of Americans are NOT, it seems.
  But hell, yeah, instead of sending soldiers into foreign lands "protecting" oil and ore production, you could have these officers protecting American trains and buses and helping the odd old lady.
  Until you don't ride the bus, just shut up.
36. Re:SITTING DUCK by vawwyakr · 2013-04-29 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  4% of GDP, interesting measure. Saying it this way artificially makes it seem small, GDP is everything our entire country collectively spends together. Take it a different way and say it is ~25% of all Government spending or around 50% of all non-mandatory Government spending.
37. Re:SITTING DUCK by Lord+Lemur · 2013-04-29 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Oh he was a Lt. in 92. Now it's LtCol Obvious.
38. Re:SITTING DUCK by Bacon+Bits · 2013-04-29 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  I always thought it was telling that we remember this speech, but not what happens next.
  Col. Jessup confesses to ordering the murder of one of his subordinates. He is then immediately told he need say nothing more and that "the witness has rights". He is arrested, and removed from his "post" at the "wall". This is because we should and do question the manner in which we are provided security. In a country where the rule of law is used to provide protection of rights against those who would abuse or usurp them, honor, code, and loyalty are subordinate to rights, duty, and law.
  If Col. Jessup's speech was right, he would've gotten away with his action. Instead, he was removed and court martialed. Col. Jessup put himself, his command, and the Marine Corp ahead of his country, his people, and his men. LCpl Dawson understood this after being dishonorably discharged when he said, "We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie."
  At least, that's the ideal. I'm sure cynics and pessimists eat that for breakfast. Idealism is fairly anachronistic these days.
  
  --
  The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
39. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Kindly stick it up your arse. The US military is filled with patriotic, extremely competent people. There are a few dullards, no doubt, but you'll get that in any organization of millions of people.
  And they're out there all-day, every day defending your lame, conceited, pencil-necked, holier-than-thou, dumb ass, so show a little respect.
40. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  No they're not. They out-smart the Nicholson character in the end.
  This is classic story-telling. Introduce a gruff, powerful, ostensibly evil character and then some weak-looking (on the surface!) good characters. Have the evil character beat the shit out of the good characters for a good, long while. In the end, the good characters triumph, not from brute strength, but because they out-smarted Mr. Evil.
  See Star Wars, movies one to three (or IV-VI if you want to be pedantic).
41. Re:SITTING DUCK by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, from a ship design and combat systems perspective, as well as a mission requirement perspective, the LCS class has NOTHING to do with the DDG-1000 program, which is the Zumwalt-class, which is itself a retooling of the DD(X) program. These ships fulfill a VERY different mission profile that's more akin to the Navy's Guided Missile Fast Frigates (FFGs), as well as the Frigates and Corvettes of many other world Navies. The difference is the way mission packages can be integrated. LCS-1 doesn't need its helo to perform the minesweeping mission, it has a remotely operated underwater vehicle that is equipped to do that. But, just so you know, the MH-60/SH-60 Seahawk helo that the LCS carries is the exact same variant that the Tico and Burke combatants carry, and those are equipped for minesweeping as well as submarine detection and anti-submarine warfare.
  As for the battleships, they will NEVER be pressed into service again. They're 70 years old, require far too much fuel, far too many people, and don't have the capabilities to support the missions that the Navy needs them for. It would be great to have them available for the Naval Gunfire Support mission, but they require more than 2000 sailors to man them, have no accommodation for female sailors, use extremely antiquated fire control computers, and can't support guided missile operations, with the exception of Tomahawk. Hell, the Iowa only has two functioning turrets.
  Source: I'm the guy that built the original operating environment on the LCS-3 (not the one that was hacked - it's a different system, altogether).
create demand? by reynolds_john · 2013-04-28 05:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

It should give pause to anyone joining the military that our citizens, and our own government would seek to arm the rest of the world, potentially to be used against us. better to stay in school, join the military industrial complex and create the weapons, rather than be paid a pittance and die prematurely on the battlefield. Take a page from our congressional leaders.
Wrong Name Is Wrong by Freshly+Exhumed · 2013-04-28 05:42 · Score: 0

The first mistake was to call it the "Littoral Combat Ship", which makes people confused about the intended mission specs. I mean, literally who the hell uses the word "littoral"? "Almighty Almighty, this is Littoral Combat Ship Street Gang. Radio check, over!" Yuck.
They should have called it the "Riparian Combat Ship". Ya, that's the ticket.

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
1. Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  With all the touch controls, maybe it should have been the Clittoral Combat Ship.
2. Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  They should have named it Clittoral Combat Ship since it will be easily penetrated.
3. Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong by ColdWetDog · 2013-04-28 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  "Littoral" sounds meaner than "Shallow water".
  Shallow water combat sounds like your mom won't let you into the deep end of the pool.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
4. Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  I read it as "clitoral combat." Two amorous young ladies embracing, kissing passionately, exploring each others breasts and nipples with the light touch of their fingertips and their dripping wet vaginas rubbing together in a frenzy of passion.
5. Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  Fapping to /.? Weird.
6. Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong by styrotech · 2013-04-28 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  They should have named it Clittoral Combat Ship since it will be easily penetrated.
  Hmmm someone needs an anatomy lesson or an actual girlfriend (probably both).
7. Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 14:00 · Score: 0
  
  People pierce them.
Designed by by GeneralTurgidson · 2013-04-28 05:53 · Score: 3

Dr. Gaius Baltar
1. Re:Designed by by Seumas · 2013-04-28 05:59 · Score: 2
  
  That was my thought, exactly. "Didn't we already learn not to network our ships in BSG?"
2. Re:Designed by by jmcvetta · 2013-04-28 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  We learned, yes. The people actually building our military systems, apparently not so much.
3. Re:Designed by by DerekLyons · 2013-04-28 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  We (the US Navy) has been networking it's ships since it was born... first with flags and lights forming a sneakernet, then with telegraphy and voice radio in the same role, and finally with direct data and control links since the 1950's. Internal networks have followed the same arc. (The original practice of both stretches back into antiquity.)
  Seriously, don't try and extrapolate technology lessons from TV or other fiction. It just makes you look like a fool.
4. Re:Designed by by F.Ultra · 2013-04-28 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  So it's better to claim that something is good just becasue you have used it for a length of time?
5. Re:Designed by by DerekLyons · 2013-04-29 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Had I made such a claim, you'd have a point.
6. Re:Designed by by F.Ultra · 2013-04-29 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  In that case you hid it very well. How else are we supposed to read your comment when you write that the Navy have used networking since it was born in a reply to a post about Networking ships beeing bad?
Nonstory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 05:56 · Score: 0

Without even a vague idea of what the threat scenarios utilized in this assessment are, there is essentially no information available in the linked story.
Surprising no one.
What a name. by Stormwatch · 2013-04-28 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

USS Freedom.
What a name, just like something out of a satirical comic book. Seriously, you 'murricans seem to have a fetish for the word, but the more you use it, the more you seem to forget its actual meaning.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.
1. Re:What a name. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, we have a fetish for the word, and we're ok with that.
  Also, for your enjoyment, the alternative design... the USS Independence.
2. Re:What a name. by TerranFury · 2013-04-28 08:13 · Score: 2
  Agreed.
  Good Ship Names:
  
  U.S.S. Dauntless
  U.S.S. Enterprise
  H.M.S. Indefatigable
  H.M.S. Indomitable
  H.M.S. Implacable
  U.S.S. Intrepid
  Bad Ship Names:
  
  U.S.S. Freedom
  U.S.S. George H. W. Bush
  H.M.S. Unicorn
  Ship Names Too Excellent to Use:
  
  G.S.V. Eschatologist
3. Re:What a name. by radarskiy · 2013-04-28 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it bad when Americans name a naval ship "Freedom" but not when the British have done so?
4. Re:What a name. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that the British have ever had a warship called Freedom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_names_of_the_Royal_Navy_%28D%E2%80%93F%29
5. Re:What a name. by NekSnappa · 2013-04-28 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Although no fan of George the First, I see nothing wrong with naming an aircraft carrier after a president who was a naval aviator. Now the USS Ronald Regan, that's another story.
  
  --
  I want to shoot the messenger!
6. Re:What a name. by pesho · 2013-04-28 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  G.S.V. Eschatologist
  
  My personal favorite:
  R.O.U. Xenophobe
7. Re:What a name. by MiniMike · 2013-04-28 13:29 · Score: 2
  
  I noticed on that list the H.M.S. Flambeau. Isn't that just asking for trouble? Hope it had a good fire suppression system...
  There was also a U.S.S. Flambeau
8. Re:What a name. by Solandri · 2013-04-28 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's a double-entendre. The Freedom is the lead ship in a new class of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), designed to operate in shallow waters close to shore. It replaces the frigate (smaller than destroyers, typically used as escorts). The Navy tries to keep its main line ships away from shore, out of range of land-based radar and gun and missile batteries. The Freedom class ships are big enough to replace frigates in escort duty in open water, but have the freedom to operate closer to shore.
  
  Previous ships which filled the near-shore role were much smaller (minesweepers and patrol boats) and typically needed frequent refueling to travel long distances. Hence the double-entendre in the name of the other class of LCS - the USS Independence.
9. Re:What a name. by Common+Joe · 2013-04-28 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  We have a saying here in America: "The beatings will continue until morale improves." You don't like our style of peace? We have a fully armed drone that'll fix that. We can easily send it your way. Don't you forget that! All you foreigners always complainin' 'bout the way we do things. Ha! You're just jealous because of the beat down we gave everyone after World War 2. Since then, we've preserved the peace in... uh... that middle eastern place. Or were there two? Or three? I lose count. But we also took care of that Vietnam thingy back in the 60's. Or was that the 70's? Don't matter none. What's important is that we give beat down around the world so you don't have to. We do the fightin' so you can live your lives in peace. That's what peace means. If you don't like us policing the world then make your own damn police force to do it. Just keep in mind we'll beat them down too. Can't have more than us givin' the beatings around here. That wouldn't be very peaceful.
  Peace!
10. Re:What a name. by clickclickdrone · 2013-04-28 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well I thought it was a good post, especially the GSV reference. if I had mod points you'd get some.
  
  --
  I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
11. Re:What a name. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 21:57 · Score: 0
  
  I like the cut of your gibberish.
12. Re:What a name. by strangeintp · 2013-04-29 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Love the Banks reference.
13. Re:What a name. by readingaccount · 2013-04-29 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget about the "Freedom Tower" (yeah OK it's officially going to be known as One World Trade Center, but Freedom Tower has become enough of a colloquialism to basically be what it'll be called everywhere else.)
This is another example of military spending by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:27 · Score: 0

They are buying telecom gear that goes straight to some storage closet and never taken out the box. They have to spend it or lose it, so the telco sales reps are happy, general is happy, and the tax payers are buying crap that have NO legitimate purpose to running our govt. This is in just 1 industry. Can you imagine all the money they're spending on stuff that winds up growing legs, or being sold off as "surplus"?
The Littoral Combat Ship should be cancelled by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:28 · Score: 0

The Littoral Combat Ship should have been cancelled a long time ago. It was originally supposed to be some cheap, expendable ship that would get up close and personal with enemies. Instead it grew into a big, overpriced ship. If the US Navy wants a good, small military ship. Buy one from Israel. If the US Navy wants a ship with modules, buy a ship from Denmark, the inventor to ships with modules.
1. Re:The Littoral Combat Ship should be cancelled by C0R1D4N · 2013-04-28 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  I love ships and have quite a few model kits of them, but quite frankly the navy as a whole is irrelevant today.
2. Re:The Littoral Combat Ship should be cancelled by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  zurely. Piracy is non-existent these days. Except at one of the busiest points of water transport, the horn of Africa.
Why is the navy doing marketing? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 06:39 · Score: 0

The Freedom arrived in Singapore last week for an eight-month stay, which its builder, Lockheed Martin Corp., hopes will stimulate Asian demand for the fast, agile and stealthy ships.
Why is the US Navy deploying a potentially flawed product at the behest of the company it paid to build the damn thing, when the sole reason to do so is that it can sell the same thing to other countries, as marketed by the Navy. WTF? That's either the most clever and expensive trojan horse ever, or one of the best examples of the military industrial complex ever.
Stop saying Cyber! by SuricouRaven · 2013-04-28 06:55 · Score: 1

That word is so overused, it's lost all meaning - and I don't even know what the meaning was in the first place any more.
1. Re:Stop saying Cyber! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Then you probably will cringe if you go here.
2. Re:Stop saying Cyber! by tehcyder · 2013-04-28 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  That word is so overused, it's lost all meaning - and I don't even know what the meaning was in the first place any more.
  Cyber: to have virtual sex with an overweight 48 year old virgin male sysadmin who is pretending to be a blonde 19 year old nymphomaniac cheerleader.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
3. Re:Stop saying Cyber! by SuricouRaven · 2013-04-29 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  It did. But even that use is now vague - if you do it by phone, it's now 'sexting.' Or does sexting mean sending images? I've seen it used both ways.
  People who actually do sexual roleplay online never refer to it as 'cybering' - they consider the term very vulgar and low-class.
Cyber vulnerabilities? by WD · 2013-04-28 06:57 · Score: 1

What the hell does that even mean? Perhaps you mean software vulnerabilities?
Re:Windows for Warships 2012 now with more touch c by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 07:45 · Score: 0

And each time you fire something, pay a fee to Apple, as they have a patent swiping.
BSOD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 08:05 · Score: 0

Initiate Machine Gun Rage!
Could mean anything by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 08:33 · Score: 0

A "cybersecurity vulnerability" discovered by these teams could cover a wide spectrum of possibilities - their reports will cite everything from a single client with an out-of-date virus definition file to weak password enforcement to unprotected Windows shares on their domain controllers. While there are no doubt a plethora of security issues across this and every other ship, what should be more concerning is that these so-called "team[s] of computer hacking experts" are comprised of people who are not adequately trained or experienced, and whose expertise is usually limited to things like knowing how to update a video driver or install a minecraft mod.
I asked one of these teams of 1337 4aX0rz how they went about looking for vulnerabilities, and their answer amounted to collecting executables and running a handful of virus scanners on them. When I asked how they verify the network routing tables with the hardware connected to the network, the said they didn't. When I asked them how they check for rootkits I got blank stares in response. Eventually one of them chimed in and asked, "What's a rootkit?"
Re:Windows for Warships 2012 now with more touch c by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2013-04-28 08:58 · Score: 4, Funny

It looks like you're trying to return fire. Would you like help with this?
0 find hostile ships in the area using cloud services (recommended)
0 check online help for rules of engagement.
0 I don't need help. I can return fire by myself.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
DID NOT SEINFELD DO THIS ALREADY ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 10:13 · Score: 0

Rhymes with a female body part !! Though last I heard, clitoris does not rhyme with Deloris !!
Littoral Rope A Dope by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 10:16 · Score: 1

There is little difference in design philosphy between a WWII Fletcher class destroyer and the Freedom class Littoral Combat Ship. Fast, shallow draft, thin skinned. Just because they aren't currently bristling with armament doesn't mean they can't be up armed. One of the major design considerations for the LCS class is its "plug-and-shoot" architecture. From what I've seen of the design it wouldn't be hard to up gun the Freedom class LCS with 3 5"/62 guns. That would give the LCS about as much firepower as a WWII heavy cruiser. The new generation of 5" gun is really_freaking_deadly.
The LCS has a couple of design advantages over its WWII predicessor: it has a wider beam and is therefore a better weapons platform and it has aviation capability. As in supersonic stealth in-your-face F35 aviation capability.
I dunno, LCS looks ok to me.
Littorally by Anonymatt · 2013-04-28 11:03 · Score: 1

Just some littoral stimulation for Asia. Haha.
WTF are Cyber vulnerabilities? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 19:19 · Score: 0

Are they any different from regular vulnerabilities?
1. Re:WTF are Cyber vulnerabilities? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  If you can take out that ship by using a Panzerfaust, that is a Meat-space vulnerability. If you can take it out from your bedroom 6000km away simply by means of your keyboard and PC, that is a "cyber vulnerability". And yeah, all of that is very real, as the quality of "COTS" software is really, really shitty. But hey, did I mention, COTS is CHEAAAPP!!!!!
2. Re:WTF are Cyber vulnerabilities? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  Hacking the ship by means of an adultered radar waveform which injects a virus into the radar processing software would also be considered a cyber attack, even though the Electronic Warfare people would be very jealous in this "border" case".
  Rumours have it that the double-trianglers did it this way to the Russkie SAMs when they took out that reactor building a few years ago.
3. Re:WTF are Cyber vulnerabilities? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Of course you can play this via any sensor, including the acoustic ones, which are connected to some complex piece of processing software.
  So at least in theory you could cyber-attack a naval vessel by means of an adultered acoustic "ping". If the designers of the vessel have been lazy enough, they have wired the sonar (software) system to the entire fire control system, have no proper firewalls in between and also have it wired to the propulsion system. Obviously, this is definitely a very scary threat, in theory.
  Is it a scary threat in reality ? Taking into accout the extremely shitty state of all sorts of electronic system, I would say, yes, in many cases.
  That's why the state of "software armour" must be improved dramatically or the big money will route around computer science quite soon (not just in warships but also in cars and aircraft, where the same structural issues exist).
  Here are some pointers for further research:
  -AppArmor
  -SE Linux
  -Sappeur Programming Language (http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/HEAD/tree/trunk/doc/SAPPEUR.pdf?format=raw)
  -Google NaCl
  -Sandboxie
  -Formal correctness Proof
LAN consoles crashed, not the network by drnb · 2013-04-28 19:39 · Score: 1

Client software shouldn't be able to bring down an O/S. Never mind an entire network.
It didn't. The network did not go down. LAN consoles crashed.
Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 20:02 · Score: 0

The "Littoral Combat Ships" are "targets" not "ships"
We used to call things this small and vulnerable "boats" but now that most of our tax dollars go to paying interest on the debt and paying geezers to nap in their recliners, the Navy needs to prepare for a smaller and smaller future... I see rowboats ahead...
When the Blue Screen of Death becomes real... by mendax · 2013-04-28 22:34 · Score: 1

I haven't read the article but I'll wager that they're using Windows. I remember an article posted here about ten years ago that reported on a Navy ship that was being run completely using Windows NT 4.0. It's kind of strange to depend upon such a wonky piece of software. But today with everything being so interconnected, using Windows today would seem to be a bad gamble. But then it might be interesting. When it was demonstrated that voting machines were using Windows it was seen to be an opportunity to figure out who the hackers wanted to be president. Now it can even more interesting given the state of cyberwarfare. Not only can we learn who the Chinese want to be president, we can learn who they want to have the Americans destroy.

--
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Cyber.. by GigaBurglar · 2013-04-28 22:41 · Score: 1

Cyber cyber..cyber....cyber.cybercyber..cybercybercyber... siber syberrrrrrr cibrasrdasnmb.. compewter hakka esperts..
I'm sorry - I don't care.
Just roll out Microsoft - it will be che-*snigger*-per.. pwahaha. You think 150 brazillion dollars would buy you a decent rig.. Old guys with cigars.
Countermeasures by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-28 23:33 · Score: 0

Memory-Safe languages could eliminate about 50% of exploits in the CVE database. This can be done while retaining most of the high-performance/high-efficiency features of C and C++ such as
+ synchronous Destructors, no GC required, at least soft-realtime capable
+ stack alloaction of almost everything
+ object aggreation without pointers (class A contains and instance of class B, which contains an instance of class C, etc)
+ value arrays as opposed to arrays of references, which have something like 24 byte overhead per entry
Here's an invention of mine, which delivers all of the above, plus memory safety even in case of multithreading:
http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/HEAD/tree/trunk/doc/SAPPEUR.pdf?format=raw
http://sourceforge.net/p/sappeurcompiler/code-0/HEAD/tree/trunk
And yeah, it is not a silver-bullet which will magically eliminate all security and reliability issues. But I consider it major progress if you can eliminate 50% of the exploit potential.
No worries by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-04-28 23:46 · Score: 1

It will probably corrode before it's hacked. They actually designed an ocean-going war vessel _without_ a cathodic corrosion protection system. I think they tacked one on later when real Navy men found out, but it's a damning insight into how this ship was 'designed' in the first place.
Is it just me... by DarthVain · 2013-04-29 03:13 · Score: 1

or does naming ships like "Freedom" sound a bit too dystopic.
Also perhaps I am the only one that thinks it is funny that eventually someone is going to get killed by Freedom... It is a Warship after all.
"Today Freedom killed thousands of people, truly a great day for Freedom!" LOL
USS FREEDOM by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-29 14:48 · Score: 0

gosgog:
I find it absolutely apalling that a U.S. Military Vehicle is based on utilizing MSN at all! Every Hacker in the world can attack and disable this crap with Viruses, Trojanhorses etc!
But then what can we expect from a Gov't that allows the CIA, continually to provide Hamid Kharzai in Afghanistan, suitcases full of U.S. Dollars to feed corruption, war lords & the Taliban! Then turn around and talk SEQUESTRATION and fuck with the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM for money!!!