Was there a defect cover up on the Virginia Class submarine?

A Sept. 26 whistleblower complaint accuses shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls of falsifying quality tests on the stealth coating of Virginia Class attack submarines, thus “knowingly and/or recklessly” putting “American lives at risk.”

 

This anechoic coating, which reduces the submarine’s sonar signature, is called Special Hull Treatment in U.S. Navy parlance. In layperson’s terms these coatings are usually rubber tiles glued on to the outside of the steel hull. The process of attaching them and final finish varies by country and is a very sensitive topic which, understandably, isn’t talked about. If the coating falls off, the submarine can be detected more easily.

 

… The problem of the stealth coating falling off submarines is not new, and it is not unique to the U.S. Navy.

That was HI Sutton at Forbes, “U.S. Navy Submarines May Have Stealth Problems, But They’re Not Alone.” A couple of considerations. First, the Virginia-Class has been operational for well over a decade. If the government didn’t catch the problem in operational test & evaluation, then the defect must have been causing higher-than-expected maintenance costs. Perhaps fidelity of the cost data wasn’t adequate for that insight.

Second, the bigger issue seems to be the cover up (if true) as opposed to the defect. The author makes it appear like the coating falling off was a long standing problem. Certainly the Navy would have worked with the contractor, and even paid it to correct the defect, particularly when it was in a cost-plus development contract. So why the cover up? A rush to make production? What would be the model of incentives creating such an outcome?