LLawmakers pledged to keep close tabs on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program Thursday after government auditors released a long-awaited report recommending Congress restrict funding and slow production until further analysis and testing is complete.
The GAO report released Thursday cites concerns about the acquisition process for the LCS program, potential changes the Navy is considering to the ships’ designs, and snags with the mission-module packages for them. Paul Francis, managing director of acquisition and sourcing management at the GAO, recommended to a House panel that it and the Navy take several steps. They include restricting LCS funding in fiscal year 2014 until the Navy completes technical and design studies and slowing production in a FY ’16 block buy until operational testing is complete. The Navy pushed back on slowing the purchase of the vessels, which would drive up costs because of lost efficiencies.
(1)(1).jpg)
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, said he believes “criticism of the LCS program is warranted.”
At a hearing Thursday with Francis and Navy officials, Forbes noted other recent reports critical of the LCS program–including one commissioned by the vice chief of naval operations that in early 2012 criticized of the program’s concepts and implementation. The Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation also has raised concerns about the first littoral ship’s survivability in combat.
“But let me emphasize that none of these reports disputes the necessity to rapidly field the capabilities proposed by the Littoral Combat Ship,” Forbes said. “I look forward to doing my part to make sure that we methodically and expeditiously field the right LCS capability to the fleet in the years ahead.”
Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition, told the Seapower subcommittee that the GAO’s recommendation to restrict FY ’14 LCS funding, pending the service’s submission of information to Congress, would negatively impact the fleet, the LCS industrial base, and the shipbuilding program’s cost.
“Any delay in any shipbuilding program is going to have a cost impact,” Stackely said. He maintained the ships’ seaframe production is “very stable,” and noted officials are using off-the-shelf technologies to fill gaps in the development of the mission modules. Delaying the FY ’14 ships–which would be delivered three to four years later–“is going in the absolute wrong direction,” Stackley maintained.
He said the LCS program–which he acknowledged had “critical flaws” in its beginning–is now “following the best practices in acquisition,” has costs under control, and has well-managed risk.
“Now is not the time to slow the program and add cost,” he said. “We have decisions to make before we proceed in FY ‘16 beyond the current block buy. We will take a fully informed business and warfighting-based approach to these decisions, and we are committed to working with Congress to provide transparency as we formulate these decisions.”
Francis said he agrees with Stackley about the production of the ships and cost being under control. Yet he noted “significant testing” still has to be done, and the Navy is considering future design changes that GAO is concerned about. The mission modules, the GAO official noted, have had a rocky time in testing. And the concept of operations is the “long pole in the tent right now,” he said.
“So at this point I think one can be hopeful but not yet confident that the ship is going to deliver on its full capability,” Francis said.
He described the GAO report’s recommendations as “rather modest.” It advises lawmakers put strings on the FY ’14 LCS funding until the Navy reports to them on anticipated design changes with the ship. The report also wants the Navy to describe to Congress the “relative advantages and disadvantages of each ship as they go on each mission,” he said.
Francis said he believes it should be easy for the Navy to deliver that information. The agency makes additional recommendations with longer-term implications, including that the Navy minimize the production of littoral ships during an anticipated block buy in 2016 until operational testing is done. It advises keeping mission-module production at a minimum production rate as well.
Stackley pledged to work closely with Congress on the LCS program. He said the Navy has three primary efforts underway to assess and monitor the LCS program. They relate to correcting “deficiencies,” garnering greater “commonality” between the two LCS variants and with fleet standard systems, and improving the mission modules with off-the-shelf technology and new technologies in development.
Francis said he “would be surprised and disappointed” if the GAO’s recommendation to restrict FY ’14 funding impacted the LCS program, because he expects the Navy to share the requested information with Congress. The GAO official, though, said he is concerned about what will happen later on with the FY ’16 LCS block buy. If the Navy makes design changes for that purchase, it could impact the service’s learning curve with the program and maybe change prices, he said. Congress likely will consider funding for the 2016 block buy in the spring of 2015.
“You have some leverage between now and the spring of 2015,” Francis told the House panel. “Use it.”