This article link from Forbes states that the 123 foot patrol boat (WPB) project not only had problems with structural integrity but also Lockheed-provided electronics, or as the call it C4ISR. It states that there are concerns that the same C4ISR problems may exist on other Deepwater assets. I guess that means the National Security Cutter. Though the recent spate of bad news for Lockheed, its stock has gained $1.48 to $100.85 this Monday. I think back in late 2000 the stock was around $18 a share or so, I believe.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/06/ap3992187.html

WASHINGTON -

The discovery of faulty communications and navigation equipment on eight Coast Guard ships built by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman signal a potentially wider problem for the agency's $24 billion fleet modernization.

The agency sent a letter to the companies - from whom it seeks multimillion-dollar refunds - outlining dozens of components on these ships that were problematic.

Lockheed previously said it would not be financially affected by the government's refund request because the faulty ships had structural, not equipment, problems - meaning only Northrop was to blame.

But the Coast Guard's June 5 letter, a copy of which was viewed by The Associated Press, questions that assessment.

Lockheed is willing to resolve the issues "for which we are responsible," company spokesman Troy Scully said Monday. "We are willing to negotiate with the Coast Guard."

Coast Guard spokesman George Kardulias declined to provide details about the agency's communication with the company.

The Coast Guard on May 17 revoked its acceptance of eight 123-foot patrol boats due to hull buckling. Then, in the June 5 letter sent to Integrated Coast Guard Systems, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin Corp. (nyse: LMT - news - people ) and Northrop Grumman Corp. (nyse: NOC - news - people ), the agency said its revocation was partly based on equipment and systems that failed to meet contract requirements, including "class wide issues ... which remain unresolved."

The agency's letter also said it was forced to fix an electronic engine problem and make a software upgrade at its own expense after the contractors failed to do so.

"That's a warning sign," said Jim Krouse, vice president of sales strategy at Government Sales Force LLC, which consults businesses in the federal technology market. "It's distinctly possible" the same equipment issues could arise on other ships being built as part of the Coast Guard's Deepwater modernization program, he added.

The eight faulty ships were removed from the waters off Florida late last year and permanently decommissioned in April. Some of the electronics problems were first identified in 2003, a year after the joint venture was awarded the contract.

Among the problems identified in the Coast Guard's letter were: a radio direction finder used for navigation that did not meet accuracy requirements, emergency power system deficiencies, and data lines that failed to transmit video back to shore.

Scully said the equipment referred to in the Coast Guard's letter all worked before the eight ships were decommissioned. The Coast Guard appeared to agree earlier this year.

In April testimony before a House transportation committee, Rear Adm. Gary Blore said the decision to suspend operation of the boats "was in no way related to ... topside equipment issues."

"The decision was based entirely on ongoing structural problems," Blore said.

Northrop spokesman Bill Glenn on Monday reiterated the company's stance from last month that it is working to determine the cause of the hull problems before "accountability and corrective action" can be taken. Northrop will share its findings with the Coast Guard when its analysis is complete.

In a June 27 letter, the Lockheed-Northrop joint venture said the Coast Guard's request for a refund was not "supported as a matter of fact or law."

The Coast Guard has said it lost up to $60 million on the eight cutters, but hasn't specified the amount of damages it will seek.

The first two National Security Cutters, which are the cornerstone of the Deepwater program and expected to cost about $750 million each, are on schedule. The first one is expected to begin sea trials in October, Kardulias said, adding that its final cost would be available by this weekend. Construction of the remaining six will start after the two sides agree on any necessary changes.

The Coast Guard in June extended its contract with the joint venture for 43 months despite internal and congressional scrutiny of the 25-year program. The deal does not guarantee the award of any future task orders and its value will be determined by further negotiations as work proposals are submitted.

The Justice Department is investigating the Deepwater contract. The agency told Lockheed, Northrop and other contractors not to destroy certain documents, and the companies have said they are cooperating with the investigation.

Shares of Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed gained $1.48 to $100.85 on Monday, while Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman added $1.38 to $79.41.

Yes KeepingUpWithJones, these were all documented problems which were brought to the attention of certain officials that were repeatedly ignored.

Google a man by the name of Michael Dekort for starters and you'll see what I'm getting at and that just is in regard to C4I.

I urge you to keep reseaching this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Yes KeepingUpWithJones, these were all documented problems which were brought to the attention of certain officials that were repeatedly ignored.

Google a man by the name of Michael Dekort for starters and you'll see what I'm getting at and that just is in regard to C4I.

I urge you to keep reseaching this issue.

1110, I don't know what good it will do me to research what already it out there and what has been spotlighted. I saw a few of the articles over the last 5 months or so. It seems like this issue has been covered quite a bit by the media, especially the case in regards to the 123 foot patrol boats not having secure communications. I think Lockheed may have dug itself a hole, but for them to be exposed then the Coast Guard would have to admit that they allowed Lockheed to provide faulty systems on the National Security Cutter. I imagine a lot of the problems with the Lockheed-provided electronics may be handled in a very discreet manner, without the media or perhaps a watchdog group finding this out. I would think the Coast Guard doesn't want to look like it allowed Lockheed to repeat the same electronic problems on the National Security Cutter.

In simple laymans terms, if the cabling and equipment were wrong or faulty, those could be fixed...that by itself wouldn't prevent the cutter from sailing..theoretically anyway. But, the hull buckling..THAT by itself is a show stopper, and for that the CG did the right thing by pulling those boats out of service. Just wish the folks who had to make that decision were the ones involved in Deepwater before the fiasco went down, maybe then we could still be looking at having some operational boats instead of barnacle-collecting rotting hulls in the Baltimore Yards.

Yes it seems.

Perhaps the hole was the result of contractors specifically being allowed by USCG Deepwater officials to conduct their own QA?

Perhaps the hole was the result of deliberate removal of the Navy's expertise in acquisition and independent verification of engineering design?

Will a full-scope Final Contract Trial (FCT) or as the USCG refers to them "acceptance trials" be conducted utilizing subject matter experts in Naval Engineering, C4I and Combat Systems or will the trials just be billed as a "success" the same way the 123 project initially was until the public scrutiny became unbearable?

Many questions, yes indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by wpbsailor2009:
In simple laymans terms, if the cabling and equipment were wrong or faulty, those could be fixed...that by itself wouldn't prevent the cutter from sailing..theoretically anyway. But, the hull buckling..THAT by itself is a show stopper, and for that the CG did the right thing by pulling those boats out of service. Just wish the folks who had to make that decision were the ones involved in Deepwater before the fiasco went down, maybe then we could still be looking at having some operational boats instead of barnacle-collecting rotting hulls in the Baltimore Yards.

It appears that the fairest thing to do is to deduct the cost of faulty systems and gear including a faulty hull structure and faulty electronic systems. So that means it would be fair to shine light on any faulty electronic systems provided by Lockheed.

The decision makers appear to have left before all this went down. From all the posts I've read and also articles I read online, these decision makers had the following fate below. I am not to judge their decisions, as hind sight is 20-20. I imagine they did the best they could do given the info they had at the time.

Admiral Stillman, former Program Manager
He retired with a major award for his performance on Deepwater; he retired right before or just after Admiral Allen became Commandant

Greg Giddens, former deputy Program Manager for Deepwater
He was promoted from Deepwater to be in charge of the Secure Border Initiative within the Department of Homeland Security. He left Deepwater just before Admiral Allen became Commandant. The Secure Border Initiative has been covered in the press for its cost over-runs, schedule delays and technical difficulties.

Admiral Collins
He retired as Commandant about 6 months before Deepwater started to be a major news topic

Admiral James Loy
He left the Department of Homeland Security as the Deputy Secretary before the media started to extensively focus on Deepater. He is currently a member of the Lockheed Board of Directors. He also works as a principal to the Cohen Group, which is a consulting firm whose clients are Lockheed Martin, Northrop, Boeing, and other major defense contractors.

KeepingUpWithJones, you may also note that the current Commandant of the USCG, Admiral T. Allen stated before a Congressional Committee something to the extent that those who had made the decisions now being investigated with regard to Deepwater had retired, and thus could no longer be held accountable.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
KeepingUpWithJones, you may also note that the current Commandant of the USCG, Admiral T. Allen stated before a Congressional Committee something to the extent that those who had made the decisions with regard to Deepwater had retired, and thus could no longer be held accountable.

I imagine Congress wants a few heads to roll. They probably asked Admiral Allen for a few names to publicly display that they are holding some accountable for these Deepwater errors.

To my knowledge, no names have ever been named Mr. Jones other than in the media.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
To my knowledge, no names have ever been named Mr. Jones other than in the media.

That is true. From the articles I've see, the Washington Post seemed to focus on the names of the decision makers.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
KeepingUpWithJones, you may also note that the current Commandant of the USCG, Admiral T. Allen stated before a Congressional Committee something to the extent that those who had made the decisions now being investigated with regard to Deepwater had retired, and thus could no longer be held accountable.

What a crock of pooh....

reading from the online intergrated deepwater system: the intergrated deepwaters systems contract was awarded on june 25, 2002 to intergrated coast guard systems, a joint venture of equal partnership established by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. since then the estimated $17 billion, 20 years IDS program has made considerable progress in converting the vision into reality.

quote:

Originally posted by LISAJACKSON:
reading from the online intergrated deepwater system: the intergrated deepwaters systems contract was awarded on june 25, 2002 to intergrated coast guard systems, a joint venture of equal partnership established by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. since then the estimated $17 billion, 20 years IDS program has made considerable progress in converting the vision into reality.

Yes Lisa, they "SUCCESSFULLY" converted a $270 million National Security Cutter into a $500 million cutter.

Yes Lisa, they "SUCCESSFULLY" converted the 110 WPB into decomissioned assets that are sitting at the Yard for only the price tag of $100 million or so.

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LISAJACKSON:
reading from the online intergrated deepwater system: the intergrated deepwaters systems contract was awarded on june 25, 2002 to intergrated coast guard systems, a joint venture of equal partnership established by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. since then the estimated $17 billion, 20 years IDS program has made considerable progress in converting the vision into reality.

Yes Lisa, they "SUCCESSFULLY" converted a $270 million National Security Cutter into a $500 million cutter.

Yes Lisa, they "SUCCESSFULLY" converted the 110 WPB into decomissioned assets that are sitting at the Yard for only the price tag of $100 million or so.