Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Bloomberg.com
March 17, 2008 By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News
Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp have made disappointing progress building what was envisioned as a low-cost warship for supporting troops close to shore, the Pentagon's No. 2 official said.
Cost growth with the first two vessels of as much as 150 percent have raised questions about whether the Navy's long-range budgets can afford to increase its fleet to 313 vessels over 30 years from 280 today, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said in an interview.
The Navy wants to buy 55 Littoral Combat Ships, or LCS, and operate them at cheaply so it can afford other high-cost vessels such as destroyers and aircraft carriers. The expense prompted the Navy to cancel two of the four ships under contract and cut to two from six the number it planned to buy in fiscal 2009. The Navy reduced its planned purchase through 2013 to 21 from 32.
“I'm disappointed” and the Navy is now behind in its goal to expand the fleet, England said. “I thought we would be much further along with that ship than we are today. They need to get those problems behind them and buy those ships in volume so you can afford a 313-ship Navy.”
Construction costs for the first ship built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin increased to $531 million from $212.5 million, according to Navy budget documents. The second, built by Falls Church, Virginia-based General Dynamics, has seen its construction costs rise to $507 million from $256 million.
Lockheed Martin spokesman Craig Quigley said the company had no comment on England's remarks or the latest cost figures. General Dynamics spokesman Kendell Pease said “it would be inappropriate to discuss our numbers” because the company is still competing with Lockheed.
The Navy is seeking a blend of low-cost vessels and more expensive, more capable ships such as the DDG-1000 destroyer and new Gerald Ford-class aircraft carrier, England said.
“The nation cannot afford 313 ships -- all very expensive,” England said. “It can't be just a mix of destroyers and aircraft carriers. With the right mix, it's affordable to go to 313. So far we haven't gotten there. “
“I do not know of an alternative,” England said. “You have to stay the course and make it work.”
The Littoral Combat Ship is designed to have a draft of no more than 20 feet and be able to operate close to coasts such as those in the Persian Gulf and Korean peninsula, with missions from mine sweeping and submarine hunting to humanitarian relief.
Representative Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat and shipbuilding supporter who chairs the House Armed Services Committee seapower subcommittee, called the Navy's shipbuilding plan “pure fantasy,” considering the rising cost of the combat ship. The panel's ranking Republican, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, said he completely agreed with Taylor's statement.
The price jump on the first two LCS vessels is the biggest experienced on the initial vessels of the Navy's last 10 classes of ships, Robert Work, a naval analyst for the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said in an email.
Navy Deputy Assistant Secretary for Ship Programs Allison Stiller rejected Taylor's remarks, telling reporters after the hearing “we believe we have put together a balanced plan” that takes into account Navy shipbuilding needs and other programs.
The Navy wants to increase its shipbuilding budget to $17.8 billion by 2013 from $12.4 billion in fiscal 2009. Questions about the Littoral Combat Ship program are part of larger debate about whether the Pentagon's weapons buying budget projected through 2013 can sustain all the systems planned.
The planned weapons purchase budget is slated to increase 11 percent above inflation, according to defense analysts. The systems also include increased purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter, the Army Future Combat Systems program, communications satellites, aerial refueling tankers and possibly more F-22 fighters and C-17 transports.
“No matter how large the budget, there is more always wanted,” England said. “This approach is not affordable or sustainable. Defense is a needed insurance policy, but no family, no company, no nation can purchase every item they have on their wish list.”
The public also may have less appetite for big jumps in defense spending, a new Gallup Poll found. The poll released March 7 found that 44 percent of Americans said the U.S. is spending too much on defense, up from 43 percent last year and 19 percent when President George W. Bush came into office.
Lockheed Martin's Maritime Systems & Sensors unit of Moorestown, New Jersey, is managing its Littoral Ship design and construction, along with designer Gibbs & Cox Inc., Marinette Marine of Marinette, Wisconsin, and Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, Louisiana. The company said today it had a successful initial startup of the ship's four diesel generators and 3- megawatt electrical power plants.
The General Dynamics design is based on one from Australia- based Austal Ltd. General Dynamics is supervising construction of the first ship at an Austal shipyard in Mobile, Alabama.
March 17, 2008 By Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg News
Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp have made disappointing progress building what was envisioned as a low-cost warship for supporting troops close to shore, the Pentagon's No. 2 official said.
Cost growth with the first two vessels of as much as 150 percent have raised questions about whether the Navy's long-range budgets can afford to increase its fleet to 313 vessels over 30 years from 280 today, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said in an interview.
The Navy wants to buy 55 Littoral Combat Ships, or LCS, and operate them at cheaply so it can afford other high-cost vessels such as destroyers and aircraft carriers. The expense prompted the Navy to cancel two of the four ships under contract and cut to two from six the number it planned to buy in fiscal 2009. The Navy reduced its planned purchase through 2013 to 21 from 32.
“I'm disappointed” and the Navy is now behind in its goal to expand the fleet, England said. “I thought we would be much further along with that ship than we are today. They need to get those problems behind them and buy those ships in volume so you can afford a 313-ship Navy.”
Construction costs for the first ship built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin increased to $531 million from $212.5 million, according to Navy budget documents. The second, built by Falls Church, Virginia-based General Dynamics, has seen its construction costs rise to $507 million from $256 million.
Lockheed Martin spokesman Craig Quigley said the company had no comment on England's remarks or the latest cost figures. General Dynamics spokesman Kendell Pease said “it would be inappropriate to discuss our numbers” because the company is still competing with Lockheed.
The Navy is seeking a blend of low-cost vessels and more expensive, more capable ships such as the DDG-1000 destroyer and new Gerald Ford-class aircraft carrier, England said.
“The nation cannot afford 313 ships -- all very expensive,” England said. “It can't be just a mix of destroyers and aircraft carriers. With the right mix, it's affordable to go to 313. So far we haven't gotten there. “
“I do not know of an alternative,” England said. “You have to stay the course and make it work.”
The Littoral Combat Ship is designed to have a draft of no more than 20 feet and be able to operate close to coasts such as those in the Persian Gulf and Korean peninsula, with missions from mine sweeping and submarine hunting to humanitarian relief.
Representative Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat and shipbuilding supporter who chairs the House Armed Services Committee seapower subcommittee, called the Navy's shipbuilding plan “pure fantasy,” considering the rising cost of the combat ship. The panel's ranking Republican, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, said he completely agreed with Taylor's statement.
The price jump on the first two LCS vessels is the biggest experienced on the initial vessels of the Navy's last 10 classes of ships, Robert Work, a naval analyst for the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said in an email.
Navy Deputy Assistant Secretary for Ship Programs Allison Stiller rejected Taylor's remarks, telling reporters after the hearing “we believe we have put together a balanced plan” that takes into account Navy shipbuilding needs and other programs.
The Navy wants to increase its shipbuilding budget to $17.8 billion by 2013 from $12.4 billion in fiscal 2009. Questions about the Littoral Combat Ship program are part of larger debate about whether the Pentagon's weapons buying budget projected through 2013 can sustain all the systems planned.
The planned weapons purchase budget is slated to increase 11 percent above inflation, according to defense analysts. The systems also include increased purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter, the Army Future Combat Systems program, communications satellites, aerial refueling tankers and possibly more F-22 fighters and C-17 transports.
“No matter how large the budget, there is more always wanted,” England said. “This approach is not affordable or sustainable. Defense is a needed insurance policy, but no family, no company, no nation can purchase every item they have on their wish list.”
The public also may have less appetite for big jumps in defense spending, a new Gallup Poll found. The poll released March 7 found that 44 percent of Americans said the U.S. is spending too much on defense, up from 43 percent last year and 19 percent when President George W. Bush came into office.
Lockheed Martin's Maritime Systems & Sensors unit of Moorestown, New Jersey, is managing its Littoral Ship design and construction, along with designer Gibbs & Cox Inc., Marinette Marine of Marinette, Wisconsin, and Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, Louisiana. The company said today it had a successful initial startup of the ship's four diesel generators and 3- megawatt electrical power plants.
The General Dynamics design is based on one from Australia- based Austal Ltd. General Dynamics is supervising construction of the first ship at an Austal shipyard in Mobile, Alabama.