Michael,
Here’s the problem, you are taking real mistakes from the 123’s and extrapolating them to the NSC’s. I was outside of the program during the entire 123 project and only walked into the aftermath. The first I ever heard of the issue was actually from you on You Tube. In my opinion there are two reasons why the 123 debacle happened:
1) NO CG cutter had ever gone through instrumented TEMPEST testing. In fact, to date the only cutters in service that have gone through anything other than visual testing are the NSC’s. This can be best illustrated by the fact the the SPEC for the NSC had no mention of TEMPEST requirements (written by ICGS).
2) During the beginning of the NSC program and throughout the entire 123 conversion, the CG really had no say in the program and there was a really big fear with interfering with NG/LM. Hell look at where the CG is now, Reject the cutters, fire the contractor, and sue them and they have the gaul to sue the CG.
The TEMPEST issues really came to light a bit too late for BERTHOLF. For the first year more than 30 server racks were replaced on the ship to actually pass TEMPEST and miles of cable were replaced. Now look at WAESCHE, its a non issue now.
Now WRT the SCIF, I have no desire to go down the road of why it was an ECP instead of part of the original contract but when you include the its entire install time and all associated testing, the RFO period for BERTHOLF (first in class) is shorter than the period for the DDG’s that are more than 60 hulls deep in the class.
I’m never going to change your mind on some of these issues. I would suggest you file a FOIA request for the instrumented TEMPEST report and do the same following the instrumented tests for the SCIF. Unfortunately you are never going to be able to see anything on how well the SCIF works due to its high level classification. Please keep in mind though that SPAWAR is the contractor for the install and not LM.
I’d recommend you provide some background on this trial because while it sounds interesting, I don’t think most readers have much background.
To respond to the question on why I comment anonymously all I can say is there is no benefit for me to give my name. I don’t know if it would hurt my career but a little caution never hurt anyone. I have no illusions about the faults of senior leadership now and in the past. You also won’t find me saying anything positive on modernization. I’m at a supported unit and all I can say is that the support suck before and it sucks no more or less now. I’m also not very surprised because senior leadership loves to tell the field that they will provide you some % of the solution and leave the rest for us to figure out. So I don’t buy the company line, I simply report what I’m seeing and living on a daily basis.
Recent Comments