Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cyber Vulnerabilities Found In Navy's Newest Warship

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the scuttle-the-ship's-computer dept.

The Military 162

An anonymous reader writes with some potentially troubling news about some security issues with the Navy's newest class of coastal warships."A Navy team of computer hacking experts found some deficiencies when assigned to try to penetrate the network of the USS Freedom, the lead vessel in the $37 billion Littoral Combat Ship program, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Freedom arrived in Singapore last week for an eight-month stay, which its builder, Lockheed Martin Corp., hopes will stimulate Asian demand for the fast, agile and stealthy ships. 'We do these types of inspections across the fleet to find individual vulnerabilities, as well as fleet-wide trends,' said the official."

cancel ×

162 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fighting for Womyns' Rights. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43574753)

The $37 billion Clittoral Combat Ship.

SITTING DUCK (5, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43574955)

The software and network vulnerability issues are the least of the problems for this Water Turkey.

The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment [usni.org]
From the Congressional Research Service: "The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment as evidenced by the limited shock hardened design and results of full scale testing of representative hull structures completed in December 2006."

"So, we have a warship design that is not expected to fight and survive in the very environment in which it was produced to do so. Poorly-armed, poorly-protected, with an over-abundance of speed that will eat through a fuel supply in half a day."

This New $350 Million Combat Ship Has Nearly Two Equipment Failures For Every Million Bucks [businessinsider.com]

"The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) researches Pentagon weapons procurement and has published its April 23 letter to members of the House Armed Services Committee, who have themselves 'repeatedly questioned the utility and effectiveness of the Littoral Combat Ship program' in the past.... From the time the Navy accepted LCS-1 from Lockheed Martin on September 18, 2008, until the ship went into dry dock in the summer of 2011 - not even 1,000 days later - there were 640 chargeable equipment failures on the ship. On average then, something on the ship failed on two out of every three days."

Hello US Navy! Thanks for accelerating climate-change, while subverting your mission and betraying the tax payer. I guess your next job, at Lockheed or General Dynamics will be worth all the criminal fraud and needless deaths.

Re:SITTING DUCK (3, Interesting)

teslabox (2790587) | about a year ago | (#43575079)

Hello US Navy! Thanks for accelerating climate-change, while subverting your mission and betraying the tax payer. I guess your next job, at Lockheed or General Dynamics will be worth all the criminal fraud and needless deaths.

It seems to me that the U.S. military is 30% vocational-training program for people who are failed by k-12 education, 30% make-work (manning missile silos in Montana and maintaining the nuclear arsenal, for example) to sop up human capital that was freed up by the industrialization of agriculture, and 30% wealth-transfer program. I'll give "defense" 10%.

Realignment of the U.S. military's budget should consider what's important (vocational training, tech R&D), and what's not.

Re:SITTING DUCK (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575109)

: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Re:SITTING DUCK (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43575177)

And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.

Wouldn't you then prefer that the guns actually work?

Re:SITTING DUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575675)

Lawyered!

Re:SITTING DUCK (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575219)

You mean the freedoms that keep getting stripped from us one by one in the name of national security?

Re:SITTING DUCK (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43575239)

Another DoD Astroturfer heard from. (Slow clap)

Re:SITTING DUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575361)

Isn't that from the Sky-Marshal's Propaganda course?

Re:SITTING DUCK (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575375)

Dumbass, that was a scene from "A Few Good Men", released in 1992.

Re:SITTING DUCK (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43575605)

Of course. Another CIA-sponsored, Regan-era, Hollywood propaganda piece, designed to legitimise US involvement in assassination, genocide and Imperial domination of Central and South America.

Puerile filth for murder apologists. "Let them eat napalm."

Re:SITTING DUCK (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575811)

"A Few Good Men" was released in 1992, so it was a Bush-Clinton era film, not Regan era. And the whole plot of the film was about uncovering corruption by the military brass and holding them accountable.

Re:SITTING DUCK (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43575835)

I somehow suspect you havent seen A Few Good Men.

Hint: It doesnt legitimize anything except the legal system.

Re:SITTING DUCK (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43576137)

No.

It legitimizes "Semper Fi" brainwashing - and the lie of military honour.

Re:SITTING DUCK (3, Informative)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about a year ago | (#43576333)

You must have seen another movie than the rest of us.

In our version, the guy giving the "you can't handle the truth"
speech is not one of the good guys...

Re:SITTING DUCK (3, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43577293)

Hes actually court marshalled, and the guys "just following orders" get dishonorably discharged for "conduct unbecoming a US marine".

Re:SITTING DUCK (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43577299)

*martialled

Re:SITTING DUCK (4, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43575161)

While the articles are pretty inflammatory and don't really have any details (including the issue with cracks - that's not unexpected in prototypes of high performance watercraft, they can usually be fixed), the core issue is this:

This harsh analysis comes just days after the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report concluding the Defense Department has a problem with committing to expensive new weapons systems before development is complete.

This makes no sense whatsoever except as a lucrative cash cow (even a spherical one) for the contractors.

If you want cutting edge, create a skunk works (maybe the marine equivalent would be slime eel works?). Let them work out the bugs. Your PRODUCTION ships are well defined technology, as kept as simple as possible. Designed for real mission work - not fantasy battles with aliens. Less sizzle, more steak.

Re:SITTING DUCK (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43575255)

Why don't we save the country...

By slashing Military spending to just double the closest US rival - from 500%?

Re:SITTING DUCK (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43575879)

I think your hosts file got corrupted and you replied to the wrong comment.

Re:SITTING DUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575889)

Since defense spending hovers around 4% of the GDP I don't think reducing the amount to 2% is worth all the trouble. As far as our "rivals" go if we ever have to really use the military to protect something really important like say the US continental borders I would rather not give any potential "rivals" even a sporting chance. War isn't about fair, combatants versus non-combatants, or proportional responses. It is about killing people and blowing shit up. PERIOD

Re:SITTING DUCK (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#43575949)

Why don't we save the country...

By slashing Military spending to just double the closest US rival - from 500%?

And how would that "save the country"?

If the US Military budget were reduced that amount, we'd still be running deficits in the $500B range (which, admittedly, is lower than Obama has managed, but generally higher than Bush Jr managed - it's still too damn high).

Re:SITTING DUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43576301)

If you take the military spending figures that the PRC releases as truth, you're more gullible than the hosts files guy that you keep making fun of. Let me guess, you probably thought they really were buying that aircraft carrier from the Russians to turn into a floating casino, like they said, right?

Re:SITTING DUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575297)

the core issue is this:

This harsh analysis comes just days after the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report concluding the Defense Department has a problem with committing to expensive new weapons systems before development is complete.

This makes no sense whatsoever except as a lucrative cash cow (even a spherical one) for the contractors.

Would you have better understood that statement if it had been phrased as: "the Defense Department tried to reduce schedule overruns by adopting the Agile development model to replace the out-dated Waterfall methods but has been unsuccessful in applying the Agile methods"?

There's nothing inherent in Agile methodology that limits its use to software development. Unfortunately the same mistakes that can be made by a software-only project trying to go Agile can also happen to hardware+software projects that try to use Agile. It is far more likely that the problems they've encountered were from PHB misunderstanding of the latest buzzwords than out of a boondoggle intent.

Re:SITTING DUCK (3, Insightful)

quonsar (61695) | about a year ago | (#43575319)

"So, we have a warship design that is not expected to fight and survive in the very environment in which it was produced to do so. Poorly-armed, poorly-protected, with an over-abundance of speed that will eat through a fuel supply in half a day."

Clearly, it was designed to turn tail and run. And by God, it performs that mission to perfection.

Re:SITTING DUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575399)

I was just wondering. $37 Billion dollars. That is a lot of money to just kill people. On a human level, it does not matter if they are socialists, communists, anarchists, believe in Marx, or any other political system or political thought. On a purely rational focused thought, why would any country spend so much money to produce a weapon of war regardless of the fact that it does not work. Seems that $37 Billion made some military industrialists lots of money and diverted funds that could have been used for bridges, K-12 education, aid for seniors who need health care or their prescriptions, our secondary, tertiary as well as primary city concerns dealing with crime, housing and of course education.

These kinds of stories trouble me since as Americans we have been forced to become policeman of the world. I don't remember being asked in an election being confronted with a referendum to fund a worldwide police force. Since most of the problems in the world are created by industrialists looking for cheap raw materials in third world countries. So in effect US, Russian, British, French and Chinese corporations are influencing world politics.

I don't know about you but I love apple pie, the American way, hot rods, drive-in movies, hot dogs, pretty girls, football games, basketball games, chili, great music, The Star Spangled Banner, New York and central Iowa, Nevada and every other state in the Union I have had the privilege to travel too, hamburgers, beer, and whatever I forgot being I am just like you.

Ask yourself why the guys who create these expenditures, who vote in Congress to invade another country, who later get busted for something they did wrong, who make the insane expenditures happen; why if these guys believe in their cause so much, why aren't they standing in line to volunteer first? Why is it our young men and women are asked to do what they would not? What they would only propose or make grand justifications for.

Seems to me $37 Billion dollars is enough money to create peaceful weapons. Yes, peaceful weapons that would feed people, make them smart, make them independent thinkers, creators that make life better for everyone on the planet. Isn't that the idea? That if everyone had plenty there would be no war except for greedy people who could make money on the idea and execution of war? Isn't it time to take care of us all instead of creating nuclear stockpiles that would send us into a nuclear winter and kill off civilization? Really, how many bombs, ships that don't work, big guns that do not work in city fighting, big fighter jets that don't have another country who can afford them to fight with?

Isn't it time to have these military corporations start turning their product from swords into plowshares? Isn't it time to realize all people of the world the same thing?
Anyone who is fed, educated and an independent thinker would not be into radical Islam, would not be into aggressive acts of war.
When will we realize that the US is terrible when it comes to business?

How many in Congress ever have a real job that needed them to be frugal? With a deficit and sequestration isn't frugal a keen buzzword?
I applaud the scientists who created the:
-Billboard that creates water.
http://foodbeast.com/content/2013/03/29/billboard-creates-water-out-of-air-produces-9450-liters-of-clean-drinking-water/

-Viruses that create electricity
http://io9.com/5910682/a-virus-that-creates-electricity

-Wind power [Even though GE is a military vendor they are to be applauded for their efforts in human solutions.]
http://dailyfusion.net/2013/03/general-electric-builds-worlds-most-efficient-wind-turbine-4532/

There are many more. We need solutions that make the planet and it's people whole, happy and not in want and
not stupid. Period.

Isn't it time to feed and educate instead of starve and blow-up.

Re:SITTING DUCK (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43575587)

WAR!

What is is good for?

Absolutely NOTHING!

Re:SITTING DUCK (5, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year ago | (#43575999)

WAR!

What is is good for?

Ask that of the survivors of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, among others.

We might also mention the American Civil War and the American Revolution.

Taking down Napoleon might count too.

Re:SITTING DUCK (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43576937)

All the "grand causes" you cite as fixed by wars, were casused by wars.

Re:SITTING DUCK (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year ago | (#43577021)

Say it, say it, say it again!

sitting afk for 8 months (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43574789)

"The Freedom arrived in Singapore last week for an eight-month stay, which its builder, Lockheed Martin Corp., hopes will stimulate Asian demand for the fast, agile and stealthy ships"

we paid for it so they can advertise?

Re:sitting afk for 8 months (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43574867)

Are you really surprised?

Oh don't worry, the MIC will justify it by saying sales of LCS mean bigger production run which lowers costs, increased interoperability with allied navies due to commonality of equipment (that seems to work pretty well when flogging the F-35 fighter.

At the other end of the spectrum you have the French defense major - DCNS - which designs, manufactures and gives away for free a modern corvette to the navy to operate for three years. They hope positive word of mouth would influence a lot of other navies to buy it.

Re:sitting afk for 8 months (1, Insightful)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year ago | (#43574895)

Surprisingly, much of the US Navy's job is to advertise, cf the Great White Fleet and various other show the flag exercises, it's just this time the shipbuilder foolishly thinks that the advertising being done is "buy our stuff" and not "do you REALLY want to mess with us?" I'd not be surprised if the Freedom hasn't already got orders for the North China Sea to "advertise" to the DPRK and is just taking Liberty Call to replenish and resupply before they go.

Re:sitting afk for 8 months (-1, Flamebait)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43575035)

Surprisingly, much of the US Navy's job is to advertise, ... it's just this time the shipbuilder foolishly thinks that the advertising being done is "buy our stuff" ... I'd not be surprised if the Freedom hasn't already got orders for the North China Sea to "advertise" to the DPRK ...

"They try shoot OUS! What re do?!"
"Juss ack natro, it only a advertisement. Do note look at camrah."

Re:sitting afk for 8 months (1, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43574927)

They are trying to sell it because it is a Vista sized bomb, its underpowered, undergunned, its a billion dollar piece of shit. Which shouldn't be surprising as the only thing our military industrial complex has been able to do since the 90s is pad the expense account but there ya go, yet another billion dollar boondoggle that won't do what we need and is good for nothing more than target practice.

Re:sitting afk for 8 months (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43575043)

we paid for it so they can advertise?

You'd rather the ship stayed in port forever just so Lockheed -Martin doesn't get the free advertising?

Some Things Never Change (5, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43574799)

USS Yorktown circa 1997 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Some Things Never Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43574953)

USS Yorktown circa 1997 [wikipedia.org]

Not exactly the same thing. On the Yorktown a crew member entered a zero into a database field using the MSSQL management console, causing a divide by zero error. This occurred during system testing and was later fixed.

Quite different from an exploitable security vulnerability.

Re:Some Things Never Change (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575055)

Fixed? You call running your propulsion control and maneuvering systems on windows nt fixed? This is simply laughable.

Such systems should only be run on a completely independent tactical network and run only on bulletproof RTOS's.

Re:Some Things Never Change (3, Informative)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year ago | (#43576117)

Such systems should only be run on a completely independent tactical network and run only on bulletproof RTOS's.

Plus you need an emergency backup that is independent of the network so you can run everything "locally" and have commands transferred from the bridge the old way.

Re:Some Things Never Change (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43575387)

Its been a few decades since we lost any military assets to a zero [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Some Things Never Change (5, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43575211)

USS Yorktown circa 1997 [wikipedia.org]

Interesting quote from there:

“Because of politics, some things are being forced on us that without political pressure we might not do, like Windows NT. If it were up to me I probably would not have used Windows NT in this particular application ... Refining that is an ongoing process ... Unix is a better system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that resulted from NT.”

—Ron Redman

Re:Some Things Never Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575347)

Someone covering their ass isn't that interesting. He blames Windows NT rather than flaws in the client software, which was designed under his supervision, and the likes of you gulp it down without question.

Re:Some Things Never Change (3, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43575369)

Client software shouldn't be able to bring down an O/S. Never mind an entire network.

Re:Some Things Never Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575481)

Client software shouldn't be able to bring down an O/S. Never mind an entire network.

Indeed, but that's not what happened on the Yorktown. There were no infamous BSOD errors.

Re:Some Things Never Change (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43575575)

There were no infamous BSOD errors.

In the infamous USS Yorktown [wikipedia.org] incident, the entire network was taken down. Blue screen or not, that just should never happen.

Re:Some Things Never Change (1)

turgid (580780) | about a year ago | (#43575717)

Indeed, but that's not what happened on the Yorktown. There were no infamous BSOD errors.

Not until the ship's cook tried to print off 100 copies of the day's menu from Word for Windows 6.0 on the NT 4.0 system in the galley.

Re:Some Things Never Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43577755)

Grey slop, charcoal and frozen peas again.

It's an.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43574879)

Trap!
Think about it. Some official comes out and talks about how vulnerable a ship is that just entered "that" area.
That is like an official coming out and saying that some new Drone over in Iraq that can be taking control over by yelling your name and location into radio ch-4.

Re:It's an.... (3, Informative)

nametaken (610866) | about a year ago | (#43575653)

That is like an official coming out and saying that some new Drone over in Iraq that can be taking control over by yelling your name and location into radio ch-4.

No. We have no reason to think it's anything like that.

The important takeaway is that the Navy is actually checking their shit. The deficiencies in network security were found by Navy pen testers, determined to be "not severe enough to prevent the deployment", the results are classified, and they're working on improving them.

That's how things get done. Test and improve, all the time, because no part of any complex system is, or ever will be, perfect.

I can't imagine... (4, Informative)

The Real Dr John (716876) | about a year ago | (#43574913)

I can't imagine spending $37 billion dollars of taxpayers money on anything better for the the taxpayers than some more naval vessels. Why waste it on schools, or roads or infrastructure, when you can have... um, well, some nice new ships for the Navy to sail around in?

Re:I can't imagine... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43574965)

I once heard an interview where that same rationale was used for healthcare in UK... it went something like ``if we can afford to spend $X on killing people, we can afford less than that to heal them''. (that interview had a lot of ww2 sentiment in it, but the basic idea is that military spending is way overboard compared to things-that-trully-help-people).

Re:I can't imagine... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575697)

the basic idea is that military spending is way overboard compared to things-that-trully-help-people).

I'd give more credence to that view if it weren't for the fact that the US, which is one of the bigger defense spenders, didn't spend more than three times as much on health care as on defense. Britain spends less on health care as a percentage of GDP and still spends more than three times as much on health care as on defense.

Health care (15.2%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Defense (4.7%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Britain health care (9.6%): http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country [guardian.co.uk]
Britain defense (2.5%): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures [wikipedia.org]

Re:I can't imagine... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43574973)

that's more than a thousand dollar per american. have the republicans protested against it ?

Re:I can't imagine... (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#43575233)

And there's the proof that the money needs to be spent on schools. Try $100, not $1000.

Re:I can't imagine... (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#43575259)

Stupid comment filters. I was assuming GP was talking about the $37 billion.

Re:I can't imagine... (0)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43575089)

Or, you know, give the money back to the tax-payers and stop fucking spending it - period. Still, I'd rather you pay for your children's education. That's not something that requires the collective effort of the entire nation to accomplish. Defense, however, is. So if it came between subsidizing the education/daycare of your snot-nosed rug-rats versus a navy ship, I'll take the ship.

However, I'd rather they just but that $37b, period.

Re:I can't imagine... (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year ago | (#43575341)

Or, you know, give the money back to the tax-payers and stop fucking spending it - period. Still, I'd rather you pay for your children's education. That's not something that requires the collective effort of the entire nation to accomplish. Defense, however, is. So if it came between subsidizing the education/daycare of your snot-nosed rug-rats versus a navy ship, I'll take the ship.

However, I'd rather they just but that $37b, period.

It takes a village to train a village idiot.

Re:I can't imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43577161)

You're quite right. It's not as if there is any benefit to society from an educated populace. Except maybe with that whole voting thing. Tell you what! Let's get rid of the vote, then we won't need to educate anyone at all! Is that it? Because I can't believe you're seriously endorsing leaving education to those born into wealth?

You'd make an excellent serf young man.

Re:I can't imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43577479)

$37b period?

Man, I thought my wife was cranky.

Period.

Re:I can't imagine... (3, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#43575209)

U.S. spending per student on education is among the highest in the world [mercatus.org] . Of all the problems which plague our education system, funding is definitely not one of them.

One can argue defense spending needs to be reduced. But proposing it should be spent on schools instead is just shifting money from one bloated program to another.

Re:I can't imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43577575)

How much of that is spent on teaching and how much on security?

Re:I can't imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575249)

It's OK, they're threatening us with personnel cuts too. Because the budget doesn't allow them to cut programs such as their $37 billion dollar ship. You can always RIF a few soldiers, airmen, and marines however.

The military has a hard time accepting that the good times are over.

Re:I can't imagine... (1)

magarity (164372) | about a year ago | (#43575593)

Schools are paid for by local governments, not the federal government. Roads and "infrastructure" are frequently paid by a combination of federal and local governments with local governments paying almost all ongoing maintenance.
The navy meanwhile is a 100% federal responsibility.

Re:I can't imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43576315)

The "$37 beelion" is the total estimated lifetime cost of all 56 ships of the class that the navy wants to buy, not the individual cost per ship, which is around $0.5 billion, depending on who you ask.

The neat thing about weapons procurement is that there are so many different ways to calculate costs that you can throw out whatever number you want, depending on whether you're for the program or against it. I've seen figures for the cost of an F-22 Raptor that vary between $120 million per and $600 million per, and none of them were "lying" per se.

Windows for Warships 2012 now with more touch cont (5, Funny)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43574949)

Windows for Warships 2012 now with more touch controls.

To fire swipe the screen.

Re:Windows for Warships 2012 now with more touch c (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575643)

And each time you fire something, pay a fee to Apple, as they have a patent swiping.

BSOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575797)

Initiate Machine Gun Rage!

Re:Windows for Warships 2012 now with more touch c (4, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#43576135)

It looks like you're trying to return fire. Would you like help with this?

0 find hostile ships in the area using cloud services (recommended)
0 check online help for rules of engagement.
0 I don't need help. I can return fire by myself.

create demand? (1, Insightful)

reynolds_john (242657) | about a year ago | (#43574961)

It should give pause to anyone joining the military that our citizens, and our own government would seek to arm the rest of the world, potentially to be used against us. better to stay in school, join the military industrial complex and create the weapons, rather than be paid a pittance and die prematurely on the battlefield. Take a page from our congressional leaders.

Wrong Name Is Wrong (0)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#43574999)

The first mistake was to call it the "Littoral Combat Ship", which makes people confused about the intended mission specs. I mean, literally who the hell uses the word "littoral"? "Almighty Almighty, this is Littoral Combat Ship Street Gang. Radio check, over!" Yuck.

They should have called it the "Riparian Combat Ship". Ya, that's the ticket.

Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575113)

With all the touch controls, maybe it should have been the Clittoral Combat Ship.

Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575133)

They should have named it Clittoral Combat Ship since it will be easily penetrated.

Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43575185)

"Littoral" sounds meaner than "Shallow water".

Shallow water combat sounds like your mom won't let you into the deep end of the pool.

Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575765)

I read it as "clitoral combat." Two amorous young ladies embracing, kissing passionately, exploring each others breasts and nipples with the light touch of their fingertips and their dripping wet vaginas rubbing together in a frenzy of passion.

Re:Wrong Name Is Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43577071)

Fapping to /.? Weird.

Designed by (3)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | about a year ago | (#43575059)

Dr. Gaius Baltar

Re:Designed by (2)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43575095)

That was my thought, exactly. "Didn't we already learn not to network our ships in BSG?"

Re:Designed by (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | about a year ago | (#43576277)

We learned, yes. The people actually building our military systems, apparently not so much.

Nonstory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575075)

Without even a vague idea of what the threat scenarios utilized in this assessment are, there is essentially no information available in the linked story.

Surprising no one.

What a name. (5, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | about a year ago | (#43575207)

USS Freedom.

What a name, just like something out of a satirical comic book. Seriously, you 'murricans seem to have a fetish for the word, but the more you use it, the more you seem to forget its actual meaning.

Re:What a name. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575711)

Yes, we have a fetish for the word, and we're ok with that.

Also, for your enjoyment, the alternative design... the USS Independence [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What a name. (2)

TerranFury (726743) | about a year ago | (#43575849)

Agreed.

Good Ship Names:

  • U.S.S. Dauntless
  • U.S.S. Enterprise
  • H.M.S. Indefatigable
  • H.M.S. Indomitable
  • H.M.S. Implacable
  • U.S.S. Intrepid

Bad Ship Names:

  1. U.S.S. Freedom
  2. U.S.S. George H. W. Bush
  3. H.M.S. Unicorn

Ship Names Too Excellent to Use:

  1. G.S.V. Eschatologist

Re:What a name. (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | about a year ago | (#43576919)

Although no fan of George the First, I see nothing wrong with naming an aircraft carrier after a president who was a naval aviator. Now the USS Ronald Regan, that's another story.

Re:What a name. (1)

pesho (843750) | about a year ago | (#43577239)

G.S.V. Eschatologist

My personal favorite:

R.O.U. Xenophobe

Re:What a name. (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about a year ago | (#43576201)

Why is it bad when Americans name a naval ship "Freedom" but not when the British have done so?

Re:What a name. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43576431)

I don't think that the British have ever had a warship called Freedom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ship_names_of_the_Royal_Navy_%28D%E2%80%93F%29

Re:What a name. (2)

MiniMike (234881) | about a year ago | (#43577533)

I noticed on that list the H.M.S. Flambeau. Isn't that just asking for trouble? Hope it had a good fire suppression system...

There was also a U.S.S. Flambeau [wikipedia.org]

This is another example of military spending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575231)

They are buying telecom gear that goes straight to some storage closet and never taken out the box. They have to spend it or lose it, so the telco sales reps are happy, general is happy, and the tax payers are buying crap that have NO legitimate purpose to running our govt. This is in just 1 industry. Can you imagine all the money they're spending on stuff that winds up growing legs, or being sold off as "surplus"?

The Littoral Combat Ship should be cancelled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575247)

The Littoral Combat Ship should have been cancelled a long time ago. It was originally supposed to be some cheap, expendable ship that would get up close and personal with enemies. Instead it grew into a big, overpriced ship. If the US Navy wants a good, small military ship. Buy one from Israel. If the US Navy wants a ship with modules, buy a ship from Denmark, the inventor to ships with modules.

Re:The Littoral Combat Ship should be cancelled (0)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about a year ago | (#43575417)

I love ships and have quite a few model kits of them, but quite frankly the navy as a whole is irrelevant today.

Why is the navy doing marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575321)

The Freedom arrived in Singapore last week for an eight-month stay, which its builder, Lockheed Martin Corp., hopes will stimulate Asian demand for the fast, agile and stealthy ships.

Why is the US Navy deploying a potentially flawed product at the behest of the company it paid to build the damn thing, when the sole reason to do so is that it can sell the same thing to other countries, as marketed by the Navy. WTF? That's either the most clever and expensive trojan horse ever, or one of the best examples of the military industrial complex ever.

Stop saying Cyber! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#43575385)

That word is so overused, it's lost all meaning - and I don't even know what the meaning was in the first place any more.

Re:Stop saying Cyber! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43576039)

Then you probably will cringe if you go here [navy.mil] .

Cyber vulnerabilities? (1)

WD (96061) | about a year ago | (#43575393)

What the hell does that even mean? Perhaps you mean software vulnerabilities?

Fp maRe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43575953)

be on a wrong are She had taken GOf JOrdan Hubbard poor priorities, are there? Oh, WALL: *BSD FACES A Implementation to About half of the market share. Red

Could mean anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43576005)

A "cybersecurity vulnerability" discovered by these teams could cover a wide spectrum of possibilities - their reports will cite everything from a single client with an out-of-date virus definition file to weak password enforcement to unprotected Windows shares on their domain controllers. While there are no doubt a plethora of security issues across this and every other ship, what should be more concerning is that these so-called "team[s] of computer hacking experts" are comprised of people who are not adequately trained or experienced, and whose expertise is usually limited to things like knowing how to update a video driver or install a minecraft mod.

I asked one of these teams of 1337 4aX0rz how they went about looking for vulnerabilities, and their answer amounted to collecting executables and running a handful of virus scanners on them. When I asked how they verify the network routing tables with the hardware connected to the network, the said they didn't. When I asked them how they check for rootkits I got blank stares in response. Eventually one of them chimed in and asked, "What's a rootkit?"

DID NOT SEINFELD DO THIS ALREADY ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43576517)

Rhymes with a female body part !! Though last I heard, clitoris does not rhyme with Deloris !!

Littoral Rope A Dope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43576531)

There is little difference in design philosphy between a WWII Fletcher class destroyer and the Freedom class Littoral Combat Ship. Fast, shallow draft, thin skinned. Just because they aren't currently bristling with armament doesn't mean they can't be up armed. One of the major design considerations for the LCS class is its "plug-and-shoot" architecture. From what I've seen of the design it wouldn't be hard to up gun the Freedom class LCS with 3 5"/62 guns. That would give the LCS about as much firepower as a WWII heavy cruiser. The new generation of 5" gun is really_freaking_deadly.

The LCS has a couple of design advantages over its WWII predicessor: it has a wider beam and is therefore a better weapons platform and it has aviation capability. As in supersonic stealth in-your-face F35 aviation capability.

I dunno, LCS looks ok to me.

Littorally (1)

Anonymatt (1272506) | about a year ago | (#43576821)

Just some littoral stimulation for Asia. Haha.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>