Is there some reason that you post my name and my user name?

Your theory, seems to be to want to swing someone from a yardyarm.

Although I am very astute and intelligent, it is hard for me to understand your "bad day at the office" comment 1110, I don't work in an office...and since your profile is incomplete, and what is posted is probably false anyway, I guess I can speculate about it; that is my point...

Are you going to answer my questiona about the Navy Programs I mentioned and why you are so interested in the coast guard?

Office? That's rich, half the day, I am in a glass booth and the other half I am at a counter, processing visitors wishing to enter the US...

quote:

Are you going to answer my questiona about the Navy Programs I mentioned and why you are so interested in the coast guard?

Ask him why he was passed over for O-3 and was forced to resign his commission. The answer, I suppose, will be facinating.

quote:

Originally posted by M_Wood51:

quote:

Are you going to answer my questiona about the Navy Programs I mentioned and why you are so interested in the coast guard?

Ask him why he was passed over for O-3 and was forced to resign his commission. The answer, I suppose, will be facinating.

M Wood, perhaps because he is not as much as a kiss a$$ as you are M Wood

I think you should stick to your pro-Ted Kennedy innuendos instead of commenting about the careers of other posters.

Nobodyaskemebut, I am already well aware that you consider yourself to be "astute and intelligent" to the point of being intellectually superior to those who may disagree with you, especially those from other military services. I consider that sort of mentality to be elitist and disagree.

The "office" comment is called an analogy, you can look that up.

I've answered your and the poster NYC_Coastie's questions regarding the Navy programs (none of which that I am aware have spurred a DOJ criminal investigation of the contractors ala Deepwater) in this thread and others where I outlined the differences at how the Navy conducts it's QA and oversight vs. the USCG Deepwater method. I also addressed the issue of accountablity before where I've stated that I fail to see where issues with other DOD projects exonerate the contractors to fulfill their obligations which they were paid for with respect to Deepwater projects. You've choosen to ignore my responses except for a bunch of non-sequitors about my profile. Intentionally or unintentionally, I'm not certain.

If you don't like the ROE for posting on military.com in accordance with the TOS, I'd suggest discussing with the Forums Administrator, but without the unfounded accusations and insults which you've framed your posts with here.

KeepingUpWithJones, don't mind M A Wood, he never defends any of his posts anyway.

It will be interesting to see the results of the Deepwater investigations.

However, my concern is that USCG modernization continues and is hopefully accelerated.

The 123’ WPB program is history because you can’t operate ships with hulls that crack, buckle and can’t hold shaft alignment.

The NSC program is proceeding and the third NSC has just been ordered and that is a pretty good indication that the program is under control albeit with increased scrutiny.

One of the luxuries a company like Boeing has is they can build an actual wing and then perform destructive testing by loading a wing to the point of failure to make sure the engineering calculations for wing loading are correct.

Unfortunately a ship the size of the NSC is too big to build and then test by performing destructive testing so engineers rely on assumptions/calculations to determine the strength of a hull. Is the NSC hull fine as it is or does it need structural strengthening? Reading publicly available information there seems to be an engineering debate on this issue to this day.

Ed

UFF DA

The saga continues...

NYC Coastie,

It costs a bunch of money to fabricate aircraft frames and wings, plus the test jig, so I guess then size, vs. cost is the limiter for life cycle testing a vessel?

Every once and awhile they run a TV program on the development of the Boeing 777. To test the wing Boeing built a 777 wing and placed all kinds of sensors on the wing and test equipment using a process called instrumentation. They then gradually added load to the wing until it catastrophically failed. The test was successful and the wing performed better than required.

Unfortunately the NSC’s hull is too big and expensive to test in that manner so engineers build mathematical computer models to simulate things such as the strength/fatigue of a hull over years of use. It seems with the NSC hull different models were used by different engineers and the results interpreted differently. Some engineers believe the original design is OK and some believe the hull needs to be strengthened.

The USCG believes that it is prudent to strengthen the hulls but it is not uncommon for engineers to argue over specifications. This is particularly true with designs that can’t be verified by using destructive testing techniques.

Ed

Well Mr Ed, as you can tell the Coast Guard engineers were ignored and the IG and GAO both said that the Coast Guard engineers concerns were not addressed.

“We should have paid more attention to our engineers,” said Admiral Blore
reference: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/07/gns_coastguarddeepwater_070714/

The Admiral is right.

When it comes to the 123’ WPB project everybody involved should have paid more attention to the 123' project. When they started working on the first WPB and found it to be a rust bucket the USCG, Deepwater Management and Bollinger should have agreed that this was a bad idea. My guess is that they wanted to take a look at a few more hulls to see if there was a way to salvage the project. No one wants to give up a project where there is a backlog of material on order and you have a workforce dedicated to the project. Who wants to face the possibility of a layoff of shipyard workers when a project like the 123’ WPB project fails?

However, the project was stopped after only 16% of the fleet was converted from 110 feet to 123 feet so at least the project was stopped fairly early.

The 123’ WPB project is now ended and we can’t go back in time and fix the 123’ WPB project. Lessons have been learned and management of Deepwater is being improved.

As far as the NSC unfortunately it is not uncommon in the USA for the cost of delivered military ships, boats, aircraft and other military assets to cost much more than originally forecasted. The USA has always paid more than we had to for many of our military assets going back to the days of George Washington.

It is also important not to confuse the NSC project with the 123’ WPB project. Unlike the 123’ WPB project the NSC is new construction and it is being built with very high quality components. There has been an engineering debate on the service life of the hull. A plan has been developed to address these engineering concerns and presented to Congress by the USCG. A third NSC has just been ordered and that is good news!

While it is interesting to talk about the past problems it is also important to acknowledge that management of Deepwater has been strengthened and we are going to have a great fleet of much needed Deepwater assets coming on line.

As far as the investigations into what went wrong with early Deepwater management there are qualified members of our Government looking into the matter. However, that is the past and while the investigations of the past continue I am interested in the getting the future Deepwater fleet built ASAP. Our Country and our fine members of the USCG deserve to get the modern equipment they need to do their job sooner rather than later.

Ed

quote:

Ask him why he was passed over for O-3 and was forced to resign his commission. The answer, I suppose, will be facinating.

Mark, I think if he were to answer that it would belong in the "Soapbox" .. probably under the 'jokes' thread.. certainly it would make us laugh... don't ya think?

Wray...

Wray, I think it is more entertaining to read posts from drunk retired masterchiefs.

Anyway, Mark Wood retired as a RM1. Woody's monologues and diatribes about 1110's career is like the pot calling the kettle black

A. Jones

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KeepingUpWithJones,

ALL:

Attack the message, NOT the messenger.

Stick to the thread topic, or I'll lock the thread.

First, last, and only warning.

quote:

Originally posted by JerryG:
ALL:

Attack the message, NOT the messenger.

Stick to the thread topic, or I'll lock the thread.

First, last, and only warning.

Thanks Jerry. Mark Wood's comment below about 1110 was uncalled for and irrelevant to the thread discussion:
"Ask him why he was passed over for O-3 and was forced to resign his commission. The answer, I suppose, will be facinating."

...and the beef goes on!

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:

quote:

Originally posted by JerryG:
ALL:

Attack the message, NOT the messenger.

Stick to the thread topic, or I'll lock the thread.

First, last, and only warning.

Thanks Jerry. Mark Wood's comment below about 1110 was uncalled for and irrelevant to the thread discussion:
"Ask him why he was passed over for O-3 and was forced to resign his commission. The answer, I suppose, will be facinating."

Don't thank me. It was your comment about "drunk retired master chief's" that got me involved.

Due to my being the only Active Duty moderator I tend not to get too involved, but the the line has been crossed.

With that said, keep havin' fun...

quote:

With that said, keep havin' fun...

I always have fun, and contrary to popular belief, I don't need an "Adult beverage" to do so...

Looks like some here believe everything they read on the internet

Wray...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wray,

Heck Wray, now you dispel the rumor of your constant intoxication...gosh talk about deflating my image of you...

All this time I kept reading about this drunken retired master chief...you mean it isn't you???