Though it's not funny, I couldn't help but chuckle over the part where he said "when they throw off the mooring lines, it will sink right there". I sure would hate to be the commissioning crew (beta testers).
Well tc1uscg, in addition to vindicating the whistleblower's claims, it also blatently contradicts the public statements and Congressional testimony of certain contractors with cold, hard facts.
In other news, RDML Blore, USCG has came out as the first USCG official to publicly confirm Mike De Kort's claims regarding the significnt C4I discrepancies on the 123 project in the following article:
Originally posted by LMuldowney: ow much longer are we going to beat that dead horse. That program is dead. Find something new to harp about. Larry
No Mr. Larry, Integrated Coast Guard Systems is the horse that is now dead.
Direct from RDML Blore:
"Deepwater is not the system that we are looking at," Blore said. "The Coast Guard is the system we are looking at."
"I don't see ICGS in the long-term," Blore said. "We don't need ICGS. We can do it on our own."
If this is such a "dead" issue why are USCG Admirals acknowledging the significant C4I discrepancies that the whistleblowers have brought to light and making statements regarding ICGS' failure to deliver? Why has the USCG called the contractors out for C4I discrepancies on the NSC that mirror the 123 project? Why is ICGS being fired by the USCG if all is so well with their job performance?
Originally posted by LMuldowney: ow much longer are we going to beat that dead horse. That program is dead. Find something new to harp about. Larry
I would think as long as it's still making news.. It's far from dead.. but that's just my take on the matter. And, if I'm not mistaken, the focus has moved to the flag ship of the program having some issues too.
