Builders of the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Pull Out All the Stops

National Defense Magazine ^ | 3/1/2010 | Grace V. Jean

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The stakes could not be higher. When the Navy later this year picks a winner to build its littoral combat ship, no matter which contractor is selected, the decision will be seen as a turning point for the troubled program.

For the Navy, it will be a chance to prove it can acquire relatively affordable ships. When LCS was first conceived earlier this decade, it was supposed to cost $220 million, but the price tag eventually more than doubled. Now, with a new acquisition strategy, Navy officials are hopeful that they can carry the program through, and procure 66 ships during the next three decades.

For the shipbuilding industry, LCS also will offer an opportunity for redemption. The sector has been under intense pressure to help cut costs so the Navy can avert a precipitous decline in the size of its fleet.

The littoral combat ship is a fast shallow-draft warship that is designed to ply the near-shore seas and coastal waterways through which the Navy’s larger surface combatants cannot sail. The Navy plans to spend more than $28 billion to build a 55-ship class of LCSs by 2035. A total of 66 will be procured in the next three decades to replace older hulls that will have retired from service during that time.

Two industry teams, one led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and the other by General Dynamics Corp., have each delivered to the Navy their versions of LCS. Lockheed Martin’s USS Freedom (LCS-1) class is based on a steel semi-planing monohull design, which was built by Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis. General Dynamics’ USS Independence (LCS-2) class is based on an aluminum trimaran design, built by Austal USA, in Mobile, Ala.

[freedumb2003]

>>hen LCS was first conceived earlier this decade, it was supposed to cost $220 million, but the price tag eventually more than doubled. <<

The definition of a camel is a mouse built to government specifications.

So long as the government is a willing accomplice in allowing foxed-bid contracts to magically change to time & materials contracts, we can figure on 3X, 4X and 5X multiples. If we are willing to pay more, why not take it?

True fixed bid contracts would save taxpayers’ money and limit the corruption that is so rampant in the halls of Congress.

[missnry]

USS Independence

[Captain Rhino]

bump

[joe fonebone]

"True fixed bid contracts would save taxpayers’ money and limit the corruption that is so rampant in the halls of Congress."
But, that would make too much sense....can't do it....I deal with contracts and such in my job...If we bid a job, and lose money, we lose money, period. If we pull off the job,we are off the bid list. This may be sound policy for the commoners like us, but the government personnel need their kickbacks....

[mbynack]

but the government personnel need their kickbacks....

That's a terrible thing to say and not true. They're not called kickbacks, they're called "campaign contributions."