From Navy Times

 

LCS manager fired

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jan 29, 2007 22:30:00 EST

 

The manager of the U.S. Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship program has been relieved of his duties in the aftermath of higher-than-expected cost increases on the ships.

 

Capt. Donald Babcock, the Navy’s LCS program manager, was relieved of his duties Jan. 29 by his boss, Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton – who also is being reassigned.

 

Hamilton relieved Babcock due to “loss of confidence in his ability to command,” according to a Navy source, who added that Babcock would be reassigned to “administrative duties.”

 

Hamilton himself will be reassigned in February from his job as Program Executive Officer for Ships at the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington. Hamilton will work in the office that handles Foreign Military Sales until he is expected to retire in October. He will be replaced by Rear Adm. Charles H. Goddard, NAVSEA’s vice commander and the former program manager of the DD(X)/DDG 1000 destroyer program.

 

Costs of the LCS – originally projected at $220 million per hull without the mission modules essential to the ships’ ability to complete their missions – have risen considerably since construction of the first ship, the USS Freedom, began in 2004. Navy Secretary Donald Winter on Jan. 12 put a stop-work order on construction of the third ship after several cost studies showed a price range of about $331 million to $410 million for the Freedom, first of the Lockheed Martin variant of the design.

 

General Dynamics is building a competing version of the LCS, and a similar cost review of the GD program now is under way.

 

Four LCS ships – two of each type –currently are under construction. The Navy plans to build a total of 55.

 

[LCS critics and blog aficionados might like to point to the current cost problems as evidence of underlying problems with the LCS itself, but I have yet to see that any of this has anything to do with the ship's design or intended role. Seems it might have more to do with mismanagement. Nothing new here].

From Navy Times

 

Congress: Fixing LCS woes key to more ships

 

Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer

Posted : Wednesday Feb 14, 2007 7:08:24 EST

 

House appropriators took their opportunity Tuesday to question the U.S. Navy’s top leaders about extensive cost overruns on the first Littoral Combat Ship, with one key legislator tying reforms to the Congressional efforts to add ships to the FY 2008 budget request.

 

“If you want us to help you build more ships you have to be more honest,” Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, told Navy Secretary Donald Winter and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen.

 

Winter and Mullen pledged to fix the LCS problems. As part of the solution, Winter said the Navy “is reassessing its responsibilities and not relying as much on contractors.”

 

The Navy’s leadership is embroiled in dealing with cost overruns on the USS Freedom, first of a planned 56 LCS ships. Although initially budgeted at $220 million, the ship – which is scheduled to be delivered in September by Lockheed Martin – could cost up to $411 million. On Jan. 12, Winter placed a 90-day stop-work order on Lockheed’s second ship while Navy and industry analysts try and figure just how the cost went so high – and why Navy leaders didn’t realize the full extent of the cost overruns until early this year.

 

Top service leaders, Mullen said, have spent much of the previous five weeks looking closely at the LCS problem. “There is plenty of blame to go around,” he said.

 

“I’m embarrassed,” he told the subcommittee. “I said [in last year’s testimony] we need to control costs.”

 

Revelation of the LCS cost growth has come at an ironic point for the Navy and for its Congressional supporters. Murtha, House Seapower subcommittee chairman Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., want to add five ships to the Navy’s seven-ship 2008 request. In addition, Murtha said, he’s like to add “about a hundred aircraft” to the budget request, split between the services.

 

But although the makeup of the possible added ships hasn’t been decided, the Navy would be expected to eagerly take up more LCS ships, a new type of combatant the service says it needs to carry out warfare missions in waters close to shore. The service got two LCS ships in 2007 and is asking for more in 2008.

 

But Winter acknowledged after the hearings that LCS acquisition might go slower until the cost problems are fully understood.

 

Mullen, who reiterated his support strong support for the need for LCS, said the service was “working a new acquisition strategy,” adding that it might be “two to three weeks before we understand that.”

 

Murtha told the leaders adding ships would be “hard to do with a 100 percent cost overrun,” on LCS.

 

Nevertheless, Murtha, speaking after the hearing, said he is working with the Navy’s leadership to determine what kinds of ships could be added to the budget request. He and Taylor would like to see another submarine added to the single ship the Navy is asking for this year, and add a couple ships the Navy says it doesn’t want – two more DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Production of the class is set to end in 2011 with the delivery of the 62nd and last DDG 51.

 

Taylor, speaking last week, intimated the ships would be intended for General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, which shares construction of the ships with Northrop Grumman. Bath will be left with sharing work on the seven planned DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers after the DDG 51 run ends, while Northrop also builds amphibious ships and Coast Guard cutters.

 

Mullen told reporters after the hearing he remains opposed to any more Burke-class destroyers. “I have enough DDG 51s,” he said.

 

[Can you imagine a Harpoon player saying "no thanks" to more Burke destroyers. Ah, the gulf between fact and fantasy is wide, huh. ]

From Navy Times

 

Congress: Fixing LCS woes key to more ships

 

[Can you imagine a Harpoon player saying "no thanks" to more Burke destroyers. Ah, the gulf between fact and fantasy is wide, huh.  ]

Until there are CG-1000 a plenty around (or heck even those little stealthy Chinese missile boats if US would buy a score or two) keep cranking out Burke's for me! Hmm, I assume we Harpooners speak in the facts and the Washington folk living in a fantasy world? Hard for me to say that though, Adm. Mullen seems to be a stand-up Navy guy US and Global interests at the forefront.

From Aviation Week

 

LCS Issue May Change Shipbuilding Contracting

Mar 2, 2007

By Michael Bruno/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

 

Dramatic cost growths with Littoral Combat Ship hulls appear likely to spur "significant" changes in how the U.S. Navy contracts for its shipbuilding, according to top service officials.

 

Navy Secretary Donald Winter told the House Armed Services Committee on March 1 that he was looking to move from cost-reimbursable contracting to fixed-price incentive agreements and to boost the Navy's oversight, as well as to get a handle on contractors' "overoptimism." He also said he will look for greater maturation in requirements before the service approves construction.

 

Although the reform effort entails longstanding recommendations from analysts, acquisition experts and critics, changes appear likely after the seemingly overnight cost growths triggered a wave of criticism on Capitol Hill from defense lawmakers in both parties since January. Leading House Democratic defense authorizers and appropriators have talked about boosting the Navy's fiscal 2008 shipbuilding request by five boats to combat a decline in the fleet, but they remain flabbergasted with endless bad news about shipbuilding problems.

 

"The most frustrating part of this problem is that it seems like we identify the same deficiencies on nearly every program that runs into trouble, whether it's requirements creep, failure of the contractor to perform or unrealistic schedules," said Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), the ranking HASC Republican, in a statement read aloud by Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.).

 

"I feel like a bit of a broken record," echoed HASC Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.).

 

Nevertheless, Winter and Adm. Mike Mullen, chief of naval operations, maintained their support for the LCS, which makes up 20 percent of the Navy's long-term shipbuilding and force structure plan. "We have no choice but to improve our capabilities," the secretary said.

 

He also scaled back comments made the day before by the Navy's acquisition chief over new estimated price tags for the respective first LCS hulls from Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics (DAILY, March 1). The Lockheed Martin hull, 75 percent done, could cost $350-375 million, according to Winter. And while the General Dynamics hull, 40 percent done, also has experienced cost growths, it is expected to be "significantly" less due to better material costs and greater design-construction separation.

 

Meantime, Winter said he would be interested in moving up dual production of Virginia-class submarines to FY '10 if Congress provides additional funding over President Bush's request. Both he and the CNO stressed, though, that production of two subs annually should be continued annually thereafter.