Four readers penned letters to the editor for the Feb. 16 issue of Navy Times. Have thoughts you'd like to share on Navy Times stories or letters? Send them to navylet@navytimes.com. Include your name, address, phone number and rank. Submissions may be published in print and online.

* * *

LCS NAME CHANGE MEANS ZILCH

Calling either version of the littoral combat ship a frigate cannot change the reality ["SECNAV unveils new name for LCS: the 'fast frigate,' " Jan. 26]. These ill-conceived, overpriced, overlarge, limited capability corvettes — which is what they really are — cannot be effectively employed as escorts, the wartime role long assigned to frigates.

Nothing can be done to change their inherent flaws: poor seakeeping, limited operational endurance, and lack of anti-submarine warfare or anti-air warfare capability. They cannot be modified to significantly increase their operational endurance without somehow replacing their waterjet propulsors with more flexible and efficient propellers and/or vastly increasing their fuel oil load. Replacing either would require a fundamental redesign of each ship, as would improving seakeeping or providing ASW or AAW capability.

Upgrading the LCS with a meaningful gun mount would require increased hull volume and weight.

Increasing the complement to crewing levels consistent with Navy practices would compromise habitability to 1950s standards and require substantial adjustments to all personnel-related support systems. Providing adequate potable water and storage for gray and black water would likely prove impossible.

The LCS designs are neither shock-protected nor signature-reduced. Anyone who thinks these features can be added without a comprehensive redesign and an increase in cost does not understand ship design and construction.

As to survivability, it is impossible to protect small, fast ships against state-of-the-art, high-speed semi-armor-piercing high-explosive ammunition or any high-explosive, anti-tank warheads. Limited protection might be possible against low-caliber small arms or fragments, but only at the cost of a significant increase in displacement and reduction in stability.

The LCS is to naval warfare what the F-35 is to aerial warfare.

The Navy has knowingly procured a shallow V monohull with limited draft, [the Freedom-class], that will slam when operated at moderate sea states. Worse, it is also procuring an aluminum trimaran, [the Independence-class] that can capsize when operating in aft-quartering seas, and which, when operated in typical open-ocean sea states, will have a short service life due to hull fatigue.

It is a folly to procure weapon systems on the assumption that the user will determine their usefulness after delivery. Mission requirements must be rigorously traded off versus affordability long before procurement. I know no such trade-off studies were conducted prior to the generation of the initial LCS requirements.

It is a sad commentary on U.S. naval ship design that the Israeli navy rejected both the LCS and the national security cutter, which they could have procured at zero cost to them using foreign military sales funding.

Kenneth S. Brower

Feasibility design naval architect

Delray Beach, Fla.

* * *

DROP THE HAMMER IN BRIBERY SCANDAL

In reading some of the background on the story of Capt. Daniel Dusek's wrong, illicit, illegal and unethical behavior and actions, I am left to wonder about the consequences he should face ["Bribery probe far from over, despite key figure's plea," Jan. 26].

Dusek pleaded guilty to several charges, including "providing classified information" to Glen Defense Marine Asia Ltd. and may face "up to five years in prison." What?!

That Dusek, who has held a high operational position with the 7th Fleet and has commanded two different ships, may get to spend only five years in prison for his crimes seems to be a miscarriage of justice. He may even end up in the same place we send crooked politicians and other well-heeled civilians, a jail-type luxury hotel.

I think an example must be set for those contemplating similar criminal activity.

It makes little difference who gave the orders and who followed the orders. They committed crimes that were wrong, illicit, illegal and unethical. Here is a list of low-end punishments that may be appropriate for Navy personnel involved in this crime spree:

* Capt. Dusek, who put Navy personnel and mission at risk: dishonorable discharge; 20-25 years in a regular prison; loss of all benefits and rights from his time in the Navy.

* Cmdr. Jose Luis Sanchez: dishonorable discharge; 20-25 years in a regular prison; loss of all benefits and rights from his time in the Navy.

* Logistics Specialist 1st Class Dan Layug: dishonorable discharge; 15-20 years in a regular prison; loss of all benefits and rights from his time in the Navy.

* Cmdr. Michael Vannak Khem Misiewicz, if found guilty: dishonorable discharge; 20-25 years in a regular prison; loss of all benefits and rights from his time in the Navy.

Officers in the chain of command above Dusek should be investigated to determine why Dusek was able to conduct his criminal activity for so long without being caught. If it is determined that those in command above him did not provide reviews and proper and timely oversight, they should be charged and prosecuted as well. Punishment should be appropriate. The higher the responsibility, the higher the rank. The higher the rank, the more accountability. The more accountability, the greater the punishment.

None of these four sailors can be trusted. The loss of trust among fellow sailors does not deserve much latitude. If a sailor cannot trust another sailor, a breakdown in the command structure of an organization will be next. This breakdown can put a whole command in jeopardy.

Lt. Cmdr. Ignacio Castro Jr. (ret.)

Edmonds, Wash.

* * *

Regarding the bribery probe: All those involved should be court-martialed, and those found guilty reduced to seaman apprentice and ceremoniously — our backs turned to them — drummed out with a dishonorable discharge. No retirement benefits or serving in a lesser position!

Chief Engineman (SS) Ronald Baptista (ret.)

Mountain View, Hawaii

* * *

CULPRIT MISIDENTIFIED

The editorial about a proposed 1 percent pay boost aims at the wrong culpit ["Misguided priorities," Jan. 12].

Senior military leadership wanted an all-volunteer force. A looming lack of public (read: congressional) understanding of service needs can be expected.

In my generation, most young males served in the military at least for a few years. Today, you almost need an associate's degree to enlist. Bad news for the country. And, I fear it will only get worse.

Former Lt. Dave Banner

West River, Md.

Share:
In Other News
Load More