By Emelie Rutherford
The Navy’s top officer said yesterday he is “encouraged” with steps the two Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) builders have taken to control the price of their second vessels, and will monitor closely the ships’ costs amid congressional concerns.
The service last Friday awarded General Dynamics [GD] a fixed-price contract of an unspecified amount for its second littoral ship: the USS Coronado, LCS-4 (Defense Daily, May 4). The Navy in March awarded rival LCS shipbuilder Lockheed Martin [LMT] a similar contract for its No. 2 littoral ship: the USS Fort Worth, LCS-3 (Defense Daily, March 24).
After well-publicized cost and schedule problems with each company’s shore-hugging littoral ships, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told reporters yesterday he is “encouraged by some of the steps that have been taken on both (LCS-)3 and (LCS-)4.”
House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) has considered legislative language directing the Navy to open the LCS program to increased competition if costs cannot be controlled (Defense Daily, March 20). Critics note this move would not necessarily solve cost and schedule problems that plague Navy ship programs.
Asked about Taylor’s idea to increase LCS competition, Roughead said that Navy will “continue to drive to bring those costs down” with LCS-3 and LCS-4 and welcomes Taylor’s oversight.
“Clearly Congress in its oversight role will be watching that very carefully and closely, and I thank Gene Taylor for everything he does to work shipbuilding issues and make sure that we’re getting the most bang for the buck,” Roughead said after the sea service chiefs addressed the Navy League’s Sea Air Space Exposition in National Harbor, Md.
Roughead spoke favorably about steps General Dynamics took, before last Friday’s LCS-4 contract award, to begin fabrication for that follow-on ship.
“They actually started building some things in anticipation of (LCS-)4 coming along, (and) what was shared with me and what I was able to see is being able to complete similar steps on (LCS-)4 that were done on (LCS-)2 in less time with less money,” he said.
Roughead said “the most recent experience” he had was with General Dynamics, but that he’s “also encouraged by some of the things” he’s hearing about Lockheed Martin’s littoral ships.
At both companies’ shipyards, Roughead said he’s “very encouraged by the facility and investments that both companies are putting in place so that they can get good production runs going, that they can get more efficient manufacturing techniques in place, that they can do it in a way is not dependent on environmentals.”
Roughead said that while he is encouraged with the companies’ transitions from building their first to second littoral hulls, “that doesn’t mean to say that the pressure should not be kept on, that the pressure will not be kept on.”
“We’re going to continue to press hard to bring cost down, not compromise on quality, and get the numbers out there that we need,” he said.
The Navy in 2007 canceled previous contacts with both shipbuilders for second LCSs after the sides couldn’t agree to contract terms that service sought to control costs. Cost overruns with the initial littoral ships have been attributed in large part to the Navy’s changing of requirements and standards.
The service plans to buy 55 of the ships. Roughead said last week the service is not looking to increase that number.