Different Anonymous
Anon PA is correct on the fact that it is a Cost Plus contract. The intention was NSC1 was to be cost plus. NSC2 and after were to be fixed cost. That changed after they acknowledged there will be structural mods. NSC2 is/was still fixed, but NSC3 is Cost Plus as well. Jury is still out on NSC4 and beyond.
Does that mean the CG pays for the TEMPEST changes of C4ISR system – that I’m unsure. You would hope that you wouldn’t have to pay extra to make the system right…. but let’s reach way back in CG history here. When the 378’s were going through their midlife extension (known as FRAM) it was proven that shipyard personnel were installing equipment incorrectly, told to redo it by CG inspectors, and then charged the CG twice – once to do it wrong, once to do it right. I don’t think there is anything that nefarious going on at LM… but it has happened before.
Now as for the numerous decisions that go into accepting a ship… I will revise my statement – I believe that it was 90% political. I believe that the commissioning date and the port call in Baltimore were significant factors. There is something to be said about getting the crew on, making it a CG asset, and having the contractors play by CG rules. At the same time, the same emphasis is not being placed on accepting WAESCHE. Now, who knows, maybe the crew will drive out a perfect cutter when it’s said and done – but there will also be a large portion that will rotate having never set sail on the WAESCHE.
One clarification I would like to make… there was TEMPEST testing done on the NSC prior to acceptance, but nothing passed. The visual re-testing has occurred post-acceptance/rebuild, and that passed.
Now all of that aside – I’d like to talk about social media and the role it’s played in the Deepwater program. I guess the first place I would start, is what if this whole scenario played out 20 years earlier. If YouTube hadn’t existed, how would you have gotten the story about the 123’s out? Yes, every now and then whistleblowers got in the news, but to get national attention, the story would have to be about dumping chemicals in a river and causing kids to get cancer.
That’s the era that most of CG senior leadership grew up on. I believe the Coast Guard Academy didn’t start issuing computers to cadets until the early 90’s. Mid-level officers are comfortable with using computers, junior officers grew up with computers, and senior officers used typewriters.
Your YouTube video broke right around the time everyone started getting comfortable with using YouTube. It got a lot of visibility, and attracted media attention. On top of that, open forums like Military.com and now this blog are a way that similar people can talk about topics from across the country. You can’t just post a media statement on a blog. Anyone can google and find a conflicting statement – even if they have no inside knowledge on the topic.
CG tiptoed into the blogging waters – only to get smacked hard several times. They didn’t seem to understand the blogging world can get mean and bloggers don’t just buy everything hook, line, and sinker. I think this comes back to my thought that the CG needs to speak plainer. I hope that this is where the CG is going eventually. When I hear that PAs are told not to post on certain blogs, it certainly is upsetting. I understand that not everything is for public consumption for security reasons. I hope the CG becomes more transparent in an official manner and soon – it appears the new President is going to demand nothing less.
I think that this is truly a convergence of two big entities at once which has resulted in an unexpected result: a flawed program and the introduction of social media. Would any of this have been brought to such great attention if YouTube and blogging hadn’t existed?
Recent Comments