Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sl8

(16,275 posts)
Fri Jun 14, 2024, 05:44 AM Jun 2024

Analysts warn House's 100% ship design policy goes a step too far

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/06/analysts-warn-houses-100-ship-design-policy-goes-a-step-too-far/

Analysts warn House’s 100% ship design policy goes a step too far

The policy, spearheaded by the House, will require agreement from the Senate before it stands a chance at becoming law.

By JUSTIN KATZ
on June 12, 2024 at 12:12 PM

WASHINGTON — When the House Armed Services Committee released its markup of the annual defense policy bill, it included a surprising provision: one dictating the Navy should complete a ship’s design “100 percent” before starting lead ship construction.

On its face, the rule seemingly has the potential to delay the already infamously long shipbuilding process, or lead to ships launching into the water with obsolescent technology. But one key advocate for such language says the term “100 percent” would actually reinforce a several-year-old legislative requirement.

This week will mark an important milestone for the language, as the Senate Armed Services Committee is poised to release its own version of the National Defense Authorization Act. Should the SASC back the plan, it may well cruise into law; should they buck their House colleagues’ ideas, it will be a potential sticking point in conference negotiations later this summer.

However, Marine engineers, former Navy officials and defense analysts that spoke to Breaking Defense all expressed skepticism about the value of trying to govern the Pentagon’s shipbuilding process with such a blanket policy.

[...]



==========

I wasn't familiar with this source, so I checked with Media Bias/ Fact Check:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breaking-defense/


[...]

Overall, we rate Breaking Defense Right-Center Biased based on editorial positions that favor a more right-leaning authoritarian military approach. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.

Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY


[...]




2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

brush

(58,042 posts)
1. Seems Breaking Defense is right on this. Ships launched with already obsolete technology is not a good thing.
Fri Jun 14, 2024, 06:05 AM
Jun 2024

Smells like House magatry at work. Imagine know nothings sticking their nose into matters they have no knowledge of.

dutch777

(3,585 posts)
2. Makes sense on the main structural components-- frame and hull, but not after that. Those are most expensive to change.
Fri Jun 14, 2024, 07:29 AM
Jun 2024

Nav, weaponry, radar, comms all evolve so fast. Give them a weight and space allowance but don't require 100% details. To degree possible ships need to become more modular like aircraft and tanks where you can keep the base structure but plug and play with new weapons, radars engine systems and so on over time.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»National Security & Defense»Analysts warn House's 100...