http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0238639320070702

NG brings up an interesting legal point: How can the USCG retract their legal acceptance of the 123 project?

If the USCG had employed the same established procedure and rigorous standards that the US Navy uses for acceptance of new construction ships would they have actually ever accepted the 123s in the first place?

How will the acceptance trials of the National Security Cutter be conducted?

Of course, LM-NG offered to "fix" the 123's too when the structural problems that were predicted by the USCG's own ELC (and ignored by IDS leadership) came to light didn't they?

Kind of hard for the USCG to retract their previous acceptance of a project that their own Naval Architects said wouldn't meet specs isn't it?

Meanwhile in Congress a move earlier last week in the house has NG-LM keeping the contract for at least another four years.

Actually, the Coast Guard contracted the people who accepted the 123s, and those contractors were working under the LM-NG umbrella. No leverage could be asserted by the Coast Guard because of the way the Deepwater contract was written. In Captain Jarvis' words, we gave the fox the keys to the henhouse.

quote:

Originally posted by edgykatid:
Actually, the Coast Guard contracted the people who accepted the 123s, and those contractors were working under the LM-NG umbrella. No leverage could be asserted by the Coast Guard because of the way the Deepwater contract was written. In Captain Jarvis' words, we gave the fox the keys to the henhouse.

Well said, edgykatid. Of course no leverage could be brought by the USCG when they abdicated their oversight and acceptance obligations of the project to the contractors (and bypassing their own Naval Architects and NAVSEA) could they?

What would cause the PEO to roll over and sign such an agreement so slighted against the USCG's own best interests and favoring NG-LM?

Many good questions are there not?

Aye, good questions indeed, and I don't have the answers...I wonder who does...

quote:

Originally posted by edgykatid:
Aye, good questions indeed, and I don't have the answers...I wonder who does...

Edgykatid, I can think of two who retired or were reassigned out of Deepwater just prior to Thad Allen becoming Commandant of the USCG.

This new Congress doesn't seem to be rolling over so easily:

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2007/07/deepwater-gover.html

quote:

This new Congress doesn't seem to be rolling over so easily

I doubt it's a "new" congress. Same old faces are in power. They roll over very easily when their constituents are affected.

quote:

Originally posted by JoeJester:

quote:

This new Congress doesn't seem to be rolling over so easily

I doubt it's a "new" congress. Same old faces are in power. They roll over very easily when their constituents are affected.

Amen to that. There are a few programs which are coming under increased congressional scrutiny, however-- including the DD(X) program, Deepwater (both the NSC aspect and the FRC aspect), the new LCS program from the Navy, and the San Antonio-class amphib... all of which are overbudget, behind schedule, and not meeting the requirements of their respective programs.

There are many different reasons why Congress is paying more attention (of course the Democratic members have 2008 in mind), but the fact remains that these programs are not nearly as effective as they're supposed to be. I'm glad someone is asking why... regardless of the motivations behind those acts.

Hopefully this is not just empty saber-rattling that will be forgotten right after Election Day-- these programs are directly tied to our national security, and as a result, there's a big impetus to get things right.

quote:

Hopefully this is not just empty saber-rattling that will be forgotten right after Election Day

Time will tell.

We could revisit this in a year to see if the sabers are all rattled out or there has been some changes.

If I had to bet, it would be saber rattlin' and posturing. The enternal optimist in my hopes I'm wrong.

quote:

Edgykatid, I can think of two who retired or were reassigned out of Deepwater just prior to Thad Allen becoming Commandant of the USCG.

1110 ---> who would that be?

I'm impressed, for a Navy guy, or so says your profile, you are certainly up on the Coast Guard and this Deepwater stuff......

Wray...

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:

quote:

Edgykatid, I can think of two who retired or were reassigned out of Deepwater just prior to Thad Allen becoming Commandant of the USCG.

1110 ---> who would that be?

I'm impressed, for a Navy guy, or so says your profile, you are certainly up on the Coast Guard and this Deepwater stuff......

Wray...

Well Boats, that is a large leap or assumption you make. I get lots of emails from Navy and Coast Guard contact(s) and we all share information accordingly.

Consider this a service for me to be on the USCG board in order to enlighten you regarding the Deepwater truths.

You just go have another drink of Captain Parrot and keep right on guessing.

1110...

quote:

You just go have another drink of Captain Parrot and keep right on guessing.

You bet I will.. at least have that drink.. as for guessing.. no big deal... I'll let you and your buddy TB keep the world informed about Deepwater...

If you try hard enough you may get some others to join your cause... but,... I doubt it.. haven't even seen any interest from Keko....

I'll just read about it in the Navy Times, or on the news...

Cheers...

Wray...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Wray,

1110,

quote:

Well Boats, that is a large leap or assumption you make.

As a JO you should know better than to call a Master Chief Boats. Now if you call Wray, Wray that would be acceptable as this is not a military board. However, I find it very disrespectful for someone who should know better to make such a statement. Now I know Wray does not need me to stick up for him but nonetheless your statement solves the mystery of why JOs are often looked at with wonder.

Off the subject (well kind of), how does a person get to be a "prior service/veteran" O-2? No aparent enlisted service, so it seems like someone profile speaks volumes about what a distinguished career they had.......

Phil, I wasn't going to bring that up, but.... since you did... good question.. I believe most of can figure out why an 0-2 gets out... Of course we don't know how much of his profile is factual... He does have 2 CG awards on it....

Wray...

come on Wray you know me, I was just asking an innocent question - of course I didn;t mean anything!

MC FIGHT, MC FIGHT...

Wray, I think Phil just wants his 2000th post.

I betcha he get it tomorrow....

Wray...

quote:

:
how does a person get to be a "prior service/veteran" O-2? No aparent enlisted service, so it seems like someone profile speaks volumes about what a distinguished career they had.......

Do you suppose he just might be a King’s Point graduate who sailed active military for a short time toward fulfilling his obligation? Sometimes things are not as they first appear..

There is no telling what type of story he can, will, or may come up with... I really don't care.... If people are that afraid of the truth I have no need for them.....

Wray...