Uh Oh: Coast Guard Refuses to Sign Dotted Line

28.02.08

Categorie: Accountability, Naval |

nsc1.jpgA little birdie told me that the Coast Guard has refused to sign the DD-250 forms for the first of its flagship, $400-million National Security Cutters. DD-250s are for formal acceptance of defense items.

If it’s true, why’d they decline to sign? Well, the Coast Guard’s official blog hints that, as I’ve reported all along, the cutters have leaky networks that expose them to enemy hacking:

[Navy] SPAWAR [electronics experts] identified discrepancies that will be added to the list of [Information Assurance] remediation actions that need to be completed prior to final onboard testing. Full instrumented TEMPEST [info security] surveys along with IA scans of the Bertholf’s networks and systems will be performed after Acceptance Trials (AT) with TEMPEST and IA status highlighted and documented on our acceptance agreement with the shipbuilder (DD-250). Up to this point all tests and inspections have been preliminary in order to properly identify and manage risk.

While there is some risk to Bertholf’s delivery schedule posed by resolution of these remediation actions; the government and industry are working collaboratively and proactively to aggressively address this risk.

And here’s the excellent “Unofficial Coast Guard Blog” with more:

It’s been suggested to me that the Bertholf has failed “virtually every critical communications TEMPEST test” and that the “fixes required are extensive including the potential redesign of interior spaces of the ship.”

It’s just further evidence that the Coast Guard’s $25-billion Deepwater modernization scheme is in, ahem, deep water.

|

4 Responses to “Uh Oh: Coast Guard Refuses to Sign Dotted Line”

  1. v says:

    I liked how the Navy Times called the Coast Guard and Lockheed out for covering these problems up. But I guess coverups, lies and wasting of tens of millions of dollars is not newsworthy for the likes of the NY Times or Washington Post.

    Quote from Navy Times article: “Spokespeople for the Coast Guard and contractor Lockheed Martin had separately denied to Navy Times that there would be problems with the C4ISR systems on the ship.”

  2. [...] See, the military industrial complex is very skilled at getting whatever it wants—expensive airplanes of dubious use, pre-broken ships, lavishly funded commands with no definable purpose, and so on. Thanks to a generation of guilt over how atrociously soldiers were treated during and after the Vietnam War, it is easy as pie to silence or discredit a political opponent through charges of troop-hating or sheer ignorance. Sometimes these charges have had merit, but the majority of the time—and in particular during the early phases of the war in Iraq—they have not. Opposing a war because you think its aims are impossible dreams of utopia is neither wishing for defeat nor ideologically hating soldiers; it is, however, coming to a reasoned conclusion about what, exactly, we as a country are capable of but even more importantly: what we are not. [...]

  3. [...] As if the Coast Guard didn’t have enough PR problems, what with the billions of dollars it’s wasting on the disastrous Deepwater modernization scheme. It seems Coasties have been behaving badly around civilian sailors during boarding and search operations. The situation has gotten so bad that Commandant Thad Allen had to address it directly in one of his email messages to the service: The awesome Unofficial Coast Guard blog — officially my favorite new military blog — points to an editorial describing such an incident: [...]

  4. [...] What’s he talking about? This, this and this, I suppose. Never mind that my article is based on no fewer than a dozen interviews, plus government reports and leaked documents and emails. [...]

Leave a Reply