This was forwarded several times by email before it reached me. Anyhow, I thought it might be of interest in regards to how Coast Guard and Navy ships are being built and the emphasis on C4ISR electronics.

according to this article, the 3rd national security cutter was funded for $337 million to ICGS.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NETH10409082007-1.htm

according to this northrop press release, northrop got $285.5 million for the 3rd national security cutter
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2007/08/06/daily38.html

hence, that means lockheed received $337 million minus $285.5 million, that is $51.5 million or 15% for the 3rd NSC contract. this does not include the millions of dollars awarded to lockheed for the c4isr electronics development contract as well as the systems engineering and integration contract, all contracts which have work related to the national security cutter c4isr development. so realistically, 25% of the total cost for each national security cutter may go to lockheed for c4isr electronics.

according to coast guard estimates, the modern Coast Guard icebreaker mackinaw (built by marinette marine) spent approximately 10% of its funding on c4isr electronics. also, according to navy estimates, the navy spent about 8% of its design and construction funding for a nuclear powered Nimitz class carrier on C4ISR.

quote:

according to coast guard estimates, the modern Coast Guard icebreaker mackinaw (built by marinette marine) spent approximately 10% of its funding on c4isr electronics. also, according to navy estimates, the navy spent about 8% of its design and construction funding for a nuclear powered Nimitz class carrier on C4ISR.

I don't think these are valid comparisons to the WMSL. The mission of Mackinaw would not require as much in the way of C4ISR. I imagine most of that 10% went toward command and control of the ship's machinery rather than intel, surveillance and communication).

As for the Nimitz class, think of the enormous cost of the engineering plant for example. Of course the C4ISR would represent a smaller percent of the total cost because so much money is spent on the rest of the ship.

It would be interesting to see some "navy estimates" on the percentage spent on C4ISR for the DD-21 Zumwalt class and flight IIA Arleigh Burkes.

92 guru,

The Coast Guard icebreaker Mackinaw's C4ISR costs (11% of the total) includes all C4ISR (i.e. SIPRNET, etc.) as well as the machinery control system, according to my sources.

Also, from my sources, Lockheed's 25% of the total cost of the NSC does not even include the machinery control system.

From what I've read online, a Flight II Arleigh Burke's C4ISR systems cost about 15% of its acquisition cost.

quote:

Originally posted by NYC_Coastie:
Besides differences in the way U.S. Navy ships and USCG ships operate and are built there is a very key reason why it is difficult to compare the cost of frigate size ships built by the U.S. Navy and USCG.

The Navy frigate size fleet is usually around 50 to 60 ships (such as the FFG-7) and in fact 60 ships is the target for the LCS.

On the other hand the USCG is planning only 8 NSCs. At only 8 ships you will never be able to realize the economies of scale that a 60 ship U.S. Navy production run will yield.

Ed

Ed, that is true to some extent, however wouldn't it be relative? the % of costs due to c4isr would remain the same since economies of scale would be realized for other non-C4ISR systems such as the auxiliary systems. Hence, C4ISR electronics would still account for 25% of the total costs for a lot of 8 or a lot of 16 ships. From what I've read, it seems the Coast Guard is putting a lot of money in C4ISR electronics at the expense of other systems such as propulsion and auxiliary. Perhaps the Coast Guard would be able to buy more cutters if it spent less on C4ISR electronics. Then that starts the debate over how much C4ISR is needed?

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:
The Coast Guard icebreaker Mackinaw's C4ISR costs (11% of the total) includes all C4ISR (i.e. SIPRNET, etc.) as well as the machinery control system, according to my sources.

Also, from my sources, Lockheed's 25% of the total cost of the NSC does not even include the machinery control system.

Perhaps I erred in considering machinery control as part of the Command and Control portion of C4ISR. The point is that a Great Lakes icebreaker does not need an ESM system. It may have SIPRNET, I don't know, but it certainly does not need anywhere near the communications suite that a WMSL needs.

quote:

From what I've read online, a Flight II Arleigh Burke's C4ISR systems cost about 15% of its acquisition cost.

If you read it online, thanks in advance for posting the link so I can read it online too.

92Guru,

I will look for that post again on C4ISR costs as a % of acquisition cost.

Yes, Mackinaw may not have SCIF, or a CIC, like the WMSL will have.

A.J.

Now that a certain individual has brought numerous known (and previously ignored) discepancies surrounding Deepwater C4I issues to the attention of the media, Congress and the DHS IG's office, I wonder how much of these costs are due to the contractors quickly retrofitting things such as low smoke cable that (perhaps) were not initially installed as required per their contractual obligations?

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Now that a certain individual has brought numerous known (and previously ignored) discepancies surrounding Deepwater C4I issues to the attention of the media, Congress and the DHS IG's office, I wonder how much of these costs are due to the contractors quickly retrofitting things such as low smoke cable that (perhaps) were not initially installed as required per their contractual obligations?

It does not matter. Any physical evidence that would benefit Dekort's case will be virtually erased. Correct, any NSC C4ISR electronics problems identified by Dekort will be taken care of discreetly and without the knowledge of any Congressional authorities, the Inspector General, or any news outlet. It doesn't matter, Dekort's case was a flash in the pan.

KeepingUpWithJones, that was my point all along. Of course, since these issues have been brought to light they will be "taken care of" so as to stay one step in front of Congressional investigators.

Also, just to clarify Mike Dekort only worked on the 123 project; he wasn't involved in the NSC.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Also, just to clarify Mike Dekort only worked on the 123 project; he wasn't involved in the NSC.

Well, Dekort <and his lawyer?> must be grinning from ear to ear when he read the news report that the Coast Guard wants its money back for the 123 WPB for C4ISR electronic problems, which were identified by Dekort. Lockheed's jaw must have dropped given that it thought that the focus was only going to be on the 123 WPB structural problems :-)

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

Investors were not detered by the news. Stocks from both companies were up yesterday.

Since they are talking, Northrup Grummann & Lockhead must have better mouthpieces than CG.

quote:

Originally posted by RobinCrusse:
Investors were not detered by the news. Stocks from both companies were up yesterday.

Since they are talking, Northrup Grummann & Lockhead must have better mouthpieces than CG.

Well, we are talking $100 million to be reimbursed to the Coast Guard. Lockheed makes probably around $40 billion in 2006. They earned a gross profit of around $4 billion. So it is not that big of a hit on their bottomline, it only represents at most 3% of their profit. And remember, this doesn't include Northrop who is part of the reimbursement request.

Dekort (and his lawyer) may not get a dime from them. Because they'll hide behind their LLC called Integrated Coast Guard Systems.

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Also, just to clarify Mike Dekort only worked on the 123 project; he wasn't involved in the NSC.

Well, Dekort <and his lawyer?> must be grinning from ear to ear when he read the news report that the Coast Guard wants its money back for the 123 WPB for C4ISR electronic problems, which were identified by Dekort. Lockheed's jaw must have dropped given that it thought that the focus was only going to be on the 123 WPB structural problems :-)

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

It will be ironic if Mike ends up being a witness for LM-NG against the USCG.

I doubt that 1110. Does LM-NG want to go to court where it will look like they were unethical. Remember, in a court of law, there will be an argument though the Coast Guard accepted the equipment, does that still mean that Lockheed operated in an ethical and legal manner? Consider this with the context of the level of responsibility Lockheed was given as the "integrator". A jury will not necessarily buy off on the crap that comes from the Lockheed ethics officer.

Plus, Dekort will look like even more of a fool that he is if he is chosen to testify on behalf of his hapless former employee against the Coast Guard. "Yes indeed."

Yes indeed. My comments were a little tongue 'n cheek in case you didn't realize.

I predict that after the DOJ investigation is finished there will be a movement on LM-NG's part to offer him a settlement as a means of shutting him up.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Yes indeed. My comments were a little tongue 'n cheek in case you didn't realize.

I predict that after the DOJ investigation is finished there will be a movement on LM-NG's part to offer him a settlement as a means of shutting him up.

Okay, 1110. Thank you for clarifying the tone of your post. Yes indeed, the DOJ investigations is being controlled by an administration and congressional powers that are amicable to Defense industry. Remember Eisenhower's last speech as President (i.e., the defense industrial complex).

So I would hope that Dekort does not depend that DOJ will do the right thing, they could be covering for Lockheed. So expect DOJ to wait for the Deepwater dust to settle and emotions are subsided for them to annouce that their are no charges to be filled against any Deepwater contractor, etc. Expect this announcement to be made before a new administration takes over, especially if it is a Democrat administration.

I wonder if LM will throw Dekort and his lawyer a bone, say $2 million or so. I wonder if Dekort will throw part of that bone to anybody that has helped him with his case.

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:

I wonder if LM will throw Dekort and his lawyer a bone, say $2 million or so. I wonder if Dekort will throw part of that bone to anybody that has helped him with his case.

The first part of your post is highly likely. The next part is unlikely; Surface Force knows alot of people who know even more people who indicate Mike has pretty much been Lone Rangering it thus far.

Well it could be that the Lone Ranger Mike Dekort will be the only one sued by Lockheed for slander and libel. Lockheed will claim that all the claims made by Dekort over the last 18 months or so were warrantless based on the DOJ investigation findings.

A slightly different perspective. Remember the debacle called Grenada? Joint interoperability was a major factor in all the mistakes, the services could not effectively talk to each other.

I say, spend away on C4ISR as long as it works as advertised.