Has the US Navy gone barking mad?

#1
Extended Range Guided Munitions program cancelled

WASHINGTON - After more than a decade of research and $600 million spent, the Navy said yesterday it will cut off funding for a long-range naval weapon designed by Raytheon Co. that has repeatedly failed to perform as advertised in field tests, according to Navy and company officials.

The Waltham-based defense giant has long struggled to develop the Extended-Range Guided Munition, a high-tech projectile designed to be fired from Navy destroyers up to 50 miles offshore in support of ground troops. Most recently, in February, the guidance system, the rocket motor, and tail fins all flunked demonstration tests at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

A Navy official said yesterday that it has decided that the expected costs to save the effort - designated as a top military acquisition program in 2006 - are simply too high to justify going forward.

"Additional funds are not going to be applied to the contract," a Navy spokesman, Lieutenant John Schofield, told the Globe in a prepared statement, adding that the "Department leadership is being notified" of the decision.

Raytheon's Missile Systems Division, in Tucson, responded in a statement of its own yesterday that "we are suspending work" on the munition program.

"Raytheon is waiting for official notification from the US Navy about the future of the program," the statement added.

The Navy awarded the original contract for the weapon in 1996 to Dallas- based Texas Instruments. In 1997, Raytheon bought TI's defense electronics component and acquired the contract to build 5-inch precision munitions.

Two years later, Raytheon moved the program to Arizona, home of its Missile Systems Division, where the company experienced workforce delays, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.

The problems only continued. The weapons' Global Positioning System satellite guidance system failed to survive the thrust of being shot out of a shipboard gun. Ultimately, the target date for reaching "initial operational capability" was extended by a decade, from 2001 to 2011.

In the meantime, the estimated cost of the program also skyrocketed. By 2005, the GAO had estimated that the project had cost nearly $600 million, a more than 50 percent increase from the 1997 estimate. Each projectile, meanwhile, was estimated to have grown in price from $45,000 to $191,000.

The Navy considers "surface fire support" to be a critical mission but is now able to strike enemy ground forces with artillery shells launched from ships only about a dozen miles offshore, a far shorter distance than the Navy's stated requirement
They spent $600 million on a system that can put out 5 inch rounds with about 50 pounds of explosive at a rate of 10-16 rpm. Each round costs nearly $200k.

Meanwhile they decommissioned all the Iowa class ships that can throw 34,000 pounds of ordinance per minute 28 miles at a similar degree of accuracy. They also had plenty of ordinance in storage.

The US Navy has gone barking mad.
 
#2
Looks like they have been taking procurement lessons off the British.
 
#3
DavidBOC said:
Extended Range Guided Munitions program cancelled

WASHINGTON - After more than a decade of research and $600 million spent, the Navy said yesterday it will cut off funding for a long-range naval weapon designed by Raytheon Co. that has repeatedly failed to perform as advertised in field tests, according to Navy and company officials.

The Waltham-based defense giant has long struggled to develop the Extended-Range Guided Munition, a high-tech projectile designed to be fired from Navy destroyers up to 50 miles offshore in support of ground troops. Most recently, in February, the guidance system, the rocket motor, and tail fins all flunked demonstration tests at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

A Navy official said yesterday that it has decided that the expected costs to save the effort - designated as a top military acquisition program in 2006 - are simply too high to justify going forward.

"Additional funds are not going to be applied to the contract," a Navy spokesman, Lieutenant John Schofield, told the Globe in a prepared statement, adding that the "Department leadership is being notified" of the decision.

Raytheon's Missile Systems Division, in Tucson, responded in a statement of its own yesterday that "we are suspending work" on the munition program.

"Raytheon is waiting for official notification from the US Navy about the future of the program," the statement added.

The Navy awarded the original contract for the weapon in 1996 to Dallas- based Texas Instruments. In 1997, Raytheon bought TI's defense electronics component and acquired the contract to build 5-inch precision munitions.

Two years later, Raytheon moved the program to Arizona, home of its Missile Systems Division, where the company experienced workforce delays, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.

The problems only continued. The weapons' Global Positioning System satellite guidance system failed to survive the thrust of being shot out of a shipboard gun. Ultimately, the target date for reaching "initial operational capability" was extended by a decade, from 2001 to 2011.

In the meantime, the estimated cost of the program also skyrocketed. By 2005, the GAO had estimated that the project had cost nearly $600 million, a more than 50 percent increase from the 1997 estimate. Each projectile, meanwhile, was estimated to have grown in price from $45,000 to $191,000.

The Navy considers "surface fire support" to be a critical mission but is now able to strike enemy ground forces with artillery shells launched from ships only about a dozen miles offshore, a far shorter distance than the Navy's stated requirement
They spent $600 million on a system that can put out 5 inch rounds with about 50 pounds of explosive at a rate of 10-16 rpm. Each round costs nearly $200k.

Meanwhile they decommissioned all the Iowa class ships that can throw 34,000 pounds of ordinance per minute 28 miles at a similar degree of accuracy. They also had plenty of ordinance in storage.

The US Navy has gone barking mad.
I'm confused. Which part of the story is supposed to be barking mad? As faras I can tell, they've given up on sinking money into an idea which both they and the manufacturer have said doesn't work.

Sounds like someone has actually got an attack of common sense if you ask me.
 
#5
DavidBOC said:
Extended Range Guided Munitions program cancelled

WASHINGTON - After more than a decade of research and $600 million spent, the Navy said yesterday it will cut off funding for a long-range naval weapon designed by Raytheon Co. that has repeatedly failed to perform as advertised in field tests, according to Navy and company officials.

The Waltham-based defense giant has long struggled to develop the Extended-Range Guided Munition, a high-tech projectile designed to be fired from Navy destroyers up to 50 miles offshore in support of ground troops. Most recently, in February, the guidance system, the rocket motor, and tail fins all flunked demonstration tests at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

A Navy official said yesterday that it has decided that the expected costs to save the effort - designated as a top military acquisition program in 2006 - are simply too high to justify going forward.

"Additional funds are not going to be applied to the contract," a Navy spokesman, Lieutenant John Schofield, told the Globe in a prepared statement, adding that the "Department leadership is being notified" of the decision.

Raytheon's Missile Systems Division, in Tucson, responded in a statement of its own yesterday that "we are suspending work" on the munition program.

"Raytheon is waiting for official notification from the US Navy about the future of the program," the statement added.

The Navy awarded the original contract for the weapon in 1996 to Dallas- based Texas Instruments. In 1997, Raytheon bought TI's defense electronics component and acquired the contract to build 5-inch precision munitions.

Two years later, Raytheon moved the program to Arizona, home of its Missile Systems Division, where the company experienced workforce delays, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.

The problems only continued. The weapons' Global Positioning System satellite guidance system failed to survive the thrust of being shot out of a shipboard gun. Ultimately, the target date for reaching "initial operational capability" was extended by a decade, from 2001 to 2011.

In the meantime, the estimated cost of the program also skyrocketed. By 2005, the GAO had estimated that the project had cost nearly $600 million, a more than 50 percent increase from the 1997 estimate. Each projectile, meanwhile, was estimated to have grown in price from $45,000 to $191,000.

The Navy considers "surface fire support" to be a critical mission but is now able to strike enemy ground forces with artillery shells launched from ships only about a dozen miles offshore, a far shorter distance than the Navy's stated requirement
They spent $600 million on a system that can put out 5 inch rounds with about 50 pounds of explosive at a rate of 10-16 rpm. Each round costs nearly $200k.

Meanwhile they decommissioned all the Iowa class ships that can throw 34,000 pounds of ordinance per minute 28 miles at a similar degree of accuracy. They also had plenty of ordinance in storage.

The US Navy has gone barking mad.
Perhaps....

Or... they cut that program to pay for one we haven't heard of?
 
#6
Crabtastic:

Sorry to be confusing, what I meant is that $600mil on that progran that seemes to me to provide little bang for the buck and the progran started when they were decommisioning the Iowa's which were bought and paid for years before and provided a lot more firepower. I'm glad they stopped the program, just think they should not have started it.
After thought, the heading should have been "Formerly Barking Mad Navy finally comes to senses"
 
#8
Our Navy is no better, we scrapped the Sea Harrier a few years ago which means that we no have carreri based fighter until the CVF/JSF combo comes into play in several more years time!

But we are also scrapping the Type 42 destroyers years before their replacements are ready...

In comparison the USN is very wise.
 
#9
The four Iowa Class BBs were getting a bit expensive to run though weren't they?

They were old.

And then there was that one that got overrun by terrorists, at the end of her career.
 
#10
Also the USN has vast numbers of Tommahawk missiles and vast numbers of carrier based aircraft as well, whereas we have a few Tommahawks and a handful of 2nd rate carreri aircraft (with no air defence capability!!).
 

Latest Threads

Top