Revised standards adopted for the vessel intended to operate in shallow coastal waters “continue to accept the risk the crew would need to abandon ship under circumstances that would not necessitate that action” on other vessels, Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational testing and evaluation, said in a letter to Senator John McCain.
Gilmore, rebutting the Navy’s contention that he’s misstating the ship’s requirements, said they are “significantly different” from those for other ships that may face enemy forces. His stance adds to previous questions about the future of the vessel being built in two versions by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Austal Ltd. (ASB)
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in February that he was limiting purchases to 32 vessels, instead of the 52 originally planned, until the Navy developed alternatives for a more survivable ship. He has called for a more “capable and lethal” option that could include an upgraded Littoral Combat Ship or a different design. Recommendations from defense contractors are due by the end of this month.
Read Full Story
Related Topic Tags
Related Defense, Military & Aerospace Forum Discussions
- The Arsenal Ship Revisited. Again.
- Iraq war/unrest/fighting
- Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
- Indonesian Aero News
- Compact Fusion Reactor
- Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Russian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Russian Air Force News & Discussion
- Ukranian Crisis
- New Zealand Army Organisation
- F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC)
- Singapore Army Pictures - 2014 Onwards
- Remote Weapon Station Project ( project mentor needed)