Slashdot Mirror
German Navy Experiences 'LCS Syndrome' In Spades As New Frigate Fails Sea Trials (arstechnica.com)
schwit1 shares a report from Ars Technica, highlighting the problems the Germany Navy is facing right now. It has no working submarines due to a chronic repair parts shortage, and its newest ships face problems so severe that the first of the class failed its sea trials and was returned to the shipbuilders in December. From the report: The Baden-Wurttemberg class frigates were ordered to replace the 1980s-era Bremen class ships, all but two of which have been retired already. At 149 meters (488 feet) long with a displacement of 7,200 metric tons (about 7,900 U.S. tons), the Baden-Wurttembergs are about the size of destroyers and are intended to reduce the size of the crew required to operate them. Like the Zumwalt, the frigates are intended to have improved land attack capabilities -- a mission capability largely missing from the Deutsche Marine's other post-unification ships. The new frigate was supposed to be a master of all trades -- carrying Marines to deploy to fight ashore, providing gunfire support, hunting enemy ships and submarines, and capable of being deployed on far-flung missions for up to two years away from a home port. As with the U.S. Navy's LCS ships, the German Navy planned to alternate crews -- sending a fresh crew to meet the ship on deployment to relieve the standing crew.
Instead, the Baden-Wurttemberg now bears the undesirable distinction of being the first ship the German Navy has ever refused to accept after delivery. In fact, the future of the whole class of German frigates is now in doubt because of the huge number of problems experienced with the first ship during sea trials. So the Baden-Wurttemberg won't be shooting its guns at anything for the foreseeable future (and neither will the Zumwalt for the moment, since the U.S. Navy cancelled orders for their $800,000-per-shot projectiles). System integration issues are a major chunk of the Baden-Wurrenberg's problems. About 90 percent of the ship's systems are so new that they've never been deployed on a warship in fact -- they've never been tested together as part of what the U.S. Navy would call "a system of systems." And all of that new hardware and software have not played well together -- particularly with the ship's command and control computer system, the Atlas Naval Combat System (ANCS). schwit1 adds: "Perhaps most inexcusable, the ship doesn't even float right. It has a permanent list to starboard."
Instead, the Baden-Wurttemberg now bears the undesirable distinction of being the first ship the German Navy has ever refused to accept after delivery. In fact, the future of the whole class of German frigates is now in doubt because of the huge number of problems experienced with the first ship during sea trials. So the Baden-Wurttemberg won't be shooting its guns at anything for the foreseeable future (and neither will the Zumwalt for the moment, since the U.S. Navy cancelled orders for their $800,000-per-shot projectiles). System integration issues are a major chunk of the Baden-Wurrenberg's problems. About 90 percent of the ship's systems are so new that they've never been deployed on a warship in fact -- they've never been tested together as part of what the U.S. Navy would call "a system of systems." And all of that new hardware and software have not played well together -- particularly with the ship's command and control computer system, the Atlas Naval Combat System (ANCS). schwit1 adds: "Perhaps most inexcusable, the ship doesn't even float right. It has a permanent list to starboard."
what they need is AI to fix all the issues, or maybe some sort of apps. if all else fails try hostfiles.
Ist nicht so gut.
Perhaps most inexcusable, the ship doesn't even float right. It has a permanent list to starboard.
Seems to me it's floating right.
Can't afford it. We've got a massive parade to put on.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's the integration and fielding that's difficult.
I've always thought that the really hard part of any complex system deployment was the integration work. It's often overlooked and under planned in the original project plan and when it is planned, the inevitable sliding to the right of the schedule causes integration to get squeezed into impossible schedules. I've worked integration efforts where the original unlikely to succeed 6 month schedule got compressed into two weeks.
I'm guessing the schedule slipped to far right, management wanted their bonus so it got fielded before it was going to work, so failure came as no surprise to the system integrators. Of course it failed acceptance, it failed our tests too.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The new frigate was supposed to be a master of all trades...
Gotcha, nobody who has ever seen combat spec'd the thing. Politicians are the used car salesmen of military hardware.
Sounds like the F35 to me... Jack of all trades, master of none and a nightmare of last second engineering changes because more doesn't work than does the first time out.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In case anyone wonders what LCS stands for, it's "Littoral Combat Ship". Not that everyone knows what that means either, but it boils down to a jack-of-all-trades ship that's intended for close-to-shore operations, and not the deep seas.
And yeah, they're the F-135s of the ocean. Overpriced, delayed, problems doing some expected things, and loved by those who love Swiss army knives, entertainment systems and all-you-can-eat buffets.
It has a permanent list to starboard
Yeah, most guys can sympathize.
They German Navy testers forgot to turn on the "generate fake data" mode during the acceptance testing. Soon it will be corrected and all the data will match the expected data so very perfectly. Just watch.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Going into World War 1, just about every power had at least some major equipment that was horrendously inadequate or impractical in some way. And/or just plain outdated. If we're as close to World War 3 starting as many people think we are, that's the situation now, between the new equipment like these faulty ships, the F-35, etc.
At least they get something in the water. Canada issued contracts for new ships years ago and the shipyards still haven't started welding metal yet. It's another case of trying to keep the yards in business over building the proper ships for the Navy. We should have had the basic ship (hull, structures, engines, etc) built in a country that specializes in ship building such as South Korea and then brought them back to kit them out with all of the specialized equipment (RADAR, SONAR, weapons, communications, etc). We could have had ships in service by now.
Or the space shuttle.
On a "power point" style presentation, it sounds really good to pay a premium to get one great craft that can do 3-4 things well, instead of the weird mix of old fashioned kit that does one and a half things well. This will save money, right?
But it is really easy to set the details of the requirements wrong and achieve something that is bad at everything for a high price.
Yet the space shuttle operation over the program's entire lifetime cost less than the F-35 and actually worked for the most part.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
They may have cost less than a totally unrelated piece of hardware, but they cost far more than simpler rockets that could do the same thing. The 'reusable' promise wasn't really delivered: the cost of refitting the space shuttle after each mission was more than the cost of building an entirely new rocket. The complexity from being able to collect a satellite and bring it back from orbit was hugely expensive, for a mission profile that was never used. The space shuttle is a big part of the reason that the Russians were able to massively undercut NASA for launch costs: they built cheap rockets that did one thing well, NASA built an expensive shuttle that did a load of things badly.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Same reason the USA had an Iowa class Battleship?
Or the Cleveland class cruiser?
Or the Atlanta class cruiser?
Or the Fargo class cruiser?
Or...Yeah, I could go on for a while....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The first purpose-built American aircraft carriers, the Lexington and Saratoga, had the same lean-to-the-side issue. They were laid down during WW I as battle cruisers, which were the size of battleships with less armor and higher speed. They were designed as scouts.
When the hulls were converted to carriers in the 1920s they were designed to be part of the scouting force that screened the main fleet. So they carried
8 x 8" guns (the same battery as a heavy cruiser) near the superstructure on the right (starboard) side of the ship plus, if I remember correctly, the superstructure was partly armored. Adding 2,000 tons to one side made them tilt so the fuel tanks on the left side of the ship were basically ballast, only usable in an emergency.
The complexity from being able to collect a satellite and bring it back from orbit was hugely expensive, for a mission profile that was never used.
Never used? Here is one example.
I'm sure there are more and who knows what happened on the secret military missions.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
The shuttle did do one thing well: it was iconic and served as an inspiration for youth to take an interest in science and technology and space exploration. I know I was one of them. For right or wrong reasons it was also a source of national pride.
Sure it was expensive and inefficient, but its value isn't as quantifiable as military hardware or even rockets.