NORFOLK
The Navy will review maintenance and training across the surface fleet after a recent inspection found the Norfolk-based destroyer Stout unfit for sustained combat, a top admiral said Friday.
Three months after the ship returned from a deployment to the Horn of Africa, inspectors found inoperable missile and close-in weapon systems, an unsafe flight deck and widespread corrosion.
Rear Adm. Kevin Quinn, commander of the naval surface force, said the surface fleet will investigate whether the problems are widespread across all ship classes or limited to individual ships.
A second ship, the Hawaii-based cruiser Chosin, also failed inspection.
Jan van Tol, a retired Navy captain, said he was struck by the scope of the problems found on both ships. He said he came away from the reports wondering if "we've started to lose the ability to collectively assess ourselves."
Van Tol, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, served as skipper of three surface ships. He took command of the big deck amphibious ship Essex in August 2003, and he said he found many of the same kinds of problems detailed in the Chosin and Stout reports.
He wonders if the Navy is paying a price for a decision some years back to eliminate an advanced "Senior Officer Ship Maintenance and Repair Course."
The course focused on nuts-and-bolts engineering in more depth than other schools for future commanders. Without that intense training, there's a question of "how future COs learn how to do self-inspections," he suggested.
Norman Polmar, a naval analyst and author, said reduced crew sizes could lead to maintenance problems in the fleet. An Arleigh Burke destroyer has a crew of about 300 sailors. The next generation of the warship, called the DDX, is expected to have fewer than half that number.
"We're reaching a point where we can't maintain the systems we have with the policies and structures we have," he said.
Quinn said the Navy will review the training sailors receive to identify and conduct preventive maintenance. The so-called "self-assessment" programs are designed to teach sailors to better evaluate the condition of their ship.
The Stout and the Chosin failed inspections performed by the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey board, known as InSurv. The results were first reported by Navy Times.
The inspectors, supervised by a Navy captain, conduct lengthy tests and reviews of every system aboard a ship, from weapons to engines to food service. Each system is assigned a grade: satisfactory, degraded or unsatisfactory.
Ships typically undergo the scrutiny every five years. Last year, Navy inspectors visited 56 ships, and four received failing grades.
Navy inspectors visited the Stout from March 10-14 at Norfolk Naval Station. Just three months removed from deployment, inspectors found the ship lacking key systems - weapons, safety equipment and propulsion - needed for a sustained combat deployment.
The Stout was unable to reach top speed in its sea testing. Most of its missiles could not be fired because of a fuel leak. The sophisticated Aegis weapons systems, designed to protect ships from hostile missile attacks, was hobbled by faulty radar.
The inspection report recommended the destroyer suspend flight operations until the flight deck nets, hardware and lights were repaired. The other flaws spotted included missing safety gear, a broken close-in weapons system, widespread lube leaks and corrosion.
In a private meeting Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, the ranking member of the House military readiness subcommittee, discussed the reports with Quinn and several other Navy officials.
Forbes said the members were told the Navy does not believe that problems on these ships were result of weaknesses in their leadership. "There was no indication that it was the commanders' fault," he said.
The briefer indicated that many of the problems could not have been detected "unless they had this kind of high-intensity inspection," he said. Navy leaders also told the panel the issues did not result from a lack of funding.
Quinn said he was surprised by the results of the Stout inspection. The ship had returned from a successful deployment to the Horn of Africa in December, and the strike group had no complaints about the ship's performance, he said.
The crew had identified many of the problems before the InSurv, Quinn said. Some repairs may have been delayed - and put the ship in a poor position for a comprehensive review - because the crew knew they were headed to the shipyard, he said.
The Navy has not determined whether to take any disciplinary action, he said.
The Stout is in local shipyard BAE for three months on a previously scheduled repair availability. The crew had identified $3 million in work. Items identified in the report will add another $500,000 to the total.
The Stout was built by Ingalls Shipbuilding in Mississippi and commissioned in 1994.
Quinn said the repairs will not alter deployment schedules for other surface ships.
Louis Hansen, (757) 446-2322, louis.hansen@pilotonline.com
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Upload Your Video
iTunes Podcast
Video Feeds
Watch The Dot
To show the rest of the problem.
The US Navy is now doing IAs as though they are part of the US Army. The US Marines are now doing the part that the US Army is normally to do. The US Air Force is even doing IAs. It is time to put our military back in order. The Navy belongs on ships and the Navy training should be on how to maintain and operate ships. You can't continue down the path that all military personnel are soldiers, a sailor is a sailor and should be trained and treated as a sailor. A soldier can't run a ship and a sailor can't run a tank. If we continue to expect a member of the military to be a jack of all trades, that's exactly what we'll end up with. Sailors should be ship experts and know their ship and how to operate and maintain it. This can't happen when the sailors are on land and being told to act like and try to do the job soldiers. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
The problem is deeper than reported.
Take a look at a new ship, San Antonio, problems are being built into the new ships due to lack of actual government oversite. Prime Contractors are acting as the governments Quality Assurance over the Sub-contractors that work for the Prime. Or it could be that the QA of one sub-contractors work is being doing by another sub-contractor hired by the same prime. What you have then is a sub that is in fear of writing up another sub because it would harm the prime. In other words, "fox guarding the hen house". The governments QA oversite needs to be done by actual government agents, employed directly by the government, who do not fear repercussions from the prime contractor. The lack of government oversite started as a result of the DoD Civilian cut backs of during the Clinton years and have been damaged further since then with more cutbacks. As it is now there are contractors writing the contracts to be awarded to their own company. Naval ships should be built and repaired by DoD and NAVSEA standards not by the lesser standards of the contractor. Oversite of the prime and sub contractors should be done by a government agent not another contractor.
What's the issue?
The Navy is assessing the operational capabilities of it's ships. I wouldn't expect 100% to be perfect. This just shows the system is working. I would like to associate myself with some of the previous comments that the Chief Petty Officers need to get off their rears and start kicking some butt.
Where Are They???
Where are the Chief Petty Officers on this ship??
Tisk Tisk (Part One)
(3-part reply, so hang on…)WOW... Lot's of people ready to burn people at the stake...yes, the CO is ultimately responsible for the ship, no matter. BUT, let's think about some things...(1)SEASWAP-TERRIBLE IDEA-never will have ownership (equals low maint. return). (2) CSMP-was it accurate? Did anyone populate it with good data/do a weekly/bi-weekly review? Did the PE know of issues? Was it "just going to get fixed in the avail, because of "no money" (probably)...just because "the crew knew", doesn't mean those that can fix it knew...(not likely, but possible) (3) INSURV Scheduling-poorly done-most of the time.
Extremely Good Authority?
Perhaps the CO and the former CO are married to Admirals DAUGHTERS.
Smaller is not always better.
The Navy is so focused on this smaller Navy but they fell to realize that the outcome will be felt down the road. Ships are deploying more than ever, the turn around time after a deployment is soon as 30 days. That is not enough time for a ship to revive and the proper maintenance to be conducted on a ship that has been sailing for 6 or more months. The crew is exhausted because the manpower is smaller and on top of the that, the Navy expect all proper maintenance to be conducted on your rest time. Sailors are strong individuals but are not machines!
The rest time that you do have being a sailor is based on a come as you go bases. If you are standing watches top side or in the engine room, rest is important so that you can function properly to be alert on watch. Believe me, the Navy is not trying to hear about you falling asleep on watch because you was up late conducting preventive maintenance! So the Navy need to maintain a above average of manpower, quit cutting repair cost and grant enough repair time for a ship that has returned from deployment.
Good...
It's about time these ships start geting the attention they need. It's no different than the airlines having to ground their planes for maintenance. These ships aren't any good to our national security if they're not in tip-top shape.
Place blame where it belongs
Does anyone ever wonder if there are instances where a CO may have spoken up and asked that his or her ship receive the repairs necessary to continue on with the mission and perhaps that CO was told NO? I refuse to believe that there are that many COs out there who believe their career worth so little that they'd throw it away by not mentioning to the higher command that his or her ship is in dire need of repairs. Just doesn't ring right.
Looking for blame?
Those who are quick to blame the CO of the Stout need to ask how long he has been aboard. When you find that the crew KNEW there were problems with the ships equipment, how long does it take to FIX those problems? Not overnight I can tell you.
I have it on extremely good athourity the CO had been assisgned to the ship back in late October, just in time to bring it back to the states from it's duty overseas.
Those who are quick to point the finger at the CO should consider that the ship ALREADY had those problems when he came on board. Now he gets the blame to clean up someone elses mess.
Can you say ATG? Self Assessment is good business but....
First of all, the public should understand that all ships must be able to self assess to be able to operate just like a consumer needs to be able to self assess when his car or his house needs greater than routine maintenance. This article makes it sound like the COs are on their own to do whatever they want. Much to the contrary. Outside assessments and oversite is built into inspections, both material and operational. The fact that the INSURV inspection occurred following a full deployment and preceded a shipyard availability was almost a setup for failure. Not many ships come back from a full deployment without material problems. The sea swap arrangement was an issue with this ships outcome since during the sea swap trial, Sailors did not really take full ownership but "held down the fort" so to speak until the next crew showed up over and over again. That is why it failed This article makes it sound like Stout is nothing more than a rickity old tin can from WWII. 3.5 million dollars from now, she will be a 1st rate DDG ready to make the US proud.
Censorship!
I have noticed of late that my posts are removed. Are the personal feelings, emotions and political viewpoints of Pilot staff interfering with the freedom of speech? Is this another example of the left being more guilty of what it accuse's the right of doing?
To Nikki M.
Nikki,
INSURV is a board of Naval Officers by the way. This board was created in the 1868, and it is made up of mostly prior enlisted, Limited Duty Officers with a combined experience of over 1000 years. They police the Navy, and they do a damned fine job at it.
Completely Ridiculous
This is further proof that the military cannot fulfill all of the missions that the current political leadership has asked it to perform. Force levels are too low and maintenance budgets are being sacrificed in order to support endless and ill-considered Middle East ground commitments.You bet there is a leadership problem. it starts with Stout's C.O. and goes all the way to 1600 Pensylvania Avenue.
The ship can't launch weap0ns or put them on the target and it is not the commander's fault? Who exactly is to blame, at least at the level of ship command?
Welcome to the PC / quota world!
Fine example of the results of PC and quotas. This is a fine example of the result of trying to get anything done with personnel who have no clue and are what they are to fill a quota. Also being hindered in the manner you may treat personnel fearing PC touchy feely backlash against ones self.
This mentality has already destroyed our industry and many companies and now it is hurting our military, I hope it ends before it is too late.
Example: An E-5 (RM2) was assigned to my repair locker. My job was to stage and route equipment needed to the scene of said incident. I told said RM2 ESWS (Enlisted surface warfare specialist) to take the Oxygen Analyzer to the scene "what is that" was the answer I received! I replied "you gotta be kidding me! E-5 ESWS and you do not know what it is" Long story short I was the one who got counseled on said incident. My life possibly on the line with fabricated personnel to fill a quota backing me up! I don't think so, I'll take the Honorable and walk!
Destroyer deemed unfit
It is the captain of the ship responsibility to see that all repairs are taking care for the safety of the ship and crew members.Why would a Naval Captain put his ship and crew in danger by putting out to sea unable to protect themselves.Put the blame where it belongs.
Sea Swap
STOUT was one of the East Coast sea swap ships that was called a success even though the crews hated it.
Additionally, repair/parts money has always been a problem for smaller ships while CVN's and other large decks seem to have a limitless amount.
Where it was built
Speaks volumnes loud and clear. That and if doctors, lawyers and professionals can't be trusted (and we all know they can't) to police themselves, what person in their right mind thinks the military can be trusted to police itself, especially when the military (and the government) is so full of yes men and bootlickers.
It's not my fault, honest, we want to fix it. but but but
The Commanding Officer is not at fault? A weopon cannot fire? RADARs do not work? Helos cannot land? Ship cannot get to speed? Did anyone take OWNERSHIP of these systems? Guess not. The CO is not taking ownership, why should anyone else.
If the CO is not accountable, then someone up the chain is accepting that, in the time of war, ships under him do not properly work. The buck stops with someone. Who?
We have a crew of our sons and daughters on a war ship that cannot see the target, fire at a target if they get lucky and see it, defend itself, or even run away. If the ship does take damage and people get hurt, we cannot safely get them off that ship. To the Navy, no one is accountable for this? Navy, this is not a problem?
This is what you get
when you reduce the number of "unnecessary" inspections and you let the crews "self-evaluate" (when it's convenient for the Navy to meet deployment requirements). When the bean counters impose minimum manning (when it's convenient for the Navy to meet manning limitations). When you stretch to the maximum number of duty sections (we want to be "people oriented"). We've been through this cycle of "cutting back on inspections" before, time and time again. This is all part of today's so-called "enlightened leadership" in the Navy. And then you excuse anyone from accountability by declaring, ""There was no indication that it was the commanders' fault." Oh? Whose fault was it? Were all these discrepancies invisible to the CO and the crew? Were they supposed to fix themselves? Maybe it's time to crank up the "unnecessary" inspections again.
contradictory statements
"Forbes said the members were told the Navy does not believe that problems on these ships were result of weaknesses in their leadership. "There was no indication that it was the commanders' fault," he said."
"The Navy has not determined whether to take any disciplinary action, he said."
Those two statements do not jibe.
No Disciplinary Action?
Why the Hell Not????????????????