CAN AN LCS BE A WMEC? According to an article in "Inside the Navy", the Navy and the Coast Guard are talking about merging the Navy's LCS program with the Coast Guard's Offshore Patrol Cutter (WMEC replacement) program. Now there's a good idea. Given that the much maligned LCS, even at its new price, still costs much less than Northrop Grumman's National Security Cutter (WHEC replacement), this could lead to substantial cost savings. The two ships are supposed to be interoperable, so why not? All kinds of commonality advantages, not to mention quantity savings. Assuming that the OPCs are built by the LCS contractors, that is, and not the other way around. Now if they could just find a way to get ABS out of the naval shipbuilding business, we'd really be making progress. September 10, 2007.
From what I have read doesn't the LCS Program have a myriad of problems similar to Deepwater? Isn't LMSS part of the LCS dilemma too? Permanent Cutterman and proud of it wants to know!
Ed, utilizing the same hull design has worked well in the past. The TICONDEROGA (CG-47) class cruisers shared the same hull as a SPRUANCE (DD-963) class for instance.
There should be economies of scale to be gained if the USCG and USN could use a common hull.
It is interesting that the USCG’s first NSC was damaged by Hurricane Katrina while under construction and the USN’s USS Freedom was damaged by fire while under construction.
Yes indeed my friend and fellow USCG supporter NYC_Coastie. Not only will the taxpayer benefit through cost savings achieved through economy of scale, but also keep the Navy's shipbuilding programs (i.e., the yards at Bath and Pasagoula) going strong while the USCG benefits through newer assets.
As I recall the Navy funded many of the Island class WPB's and the USCGC HEALY (WAGB 20) out of their budget as well, so there is precedent for this.
As I recall the Navy funded many of the Island class WPB's and the USCGC HEALY (WAGB 20) out of their budget as well, so there is precedent for this.
1110, I think if you look closely you will see a lot of Navy Shipbuilding Funding in all Coast Guard Cutters. Some quirk of the law I believe, but I think all Coast Guard Cutters are built with appropriated funds that are somehow tied to the Navy.
What is interesting is the US Navy has a serious shipyard fire onboard their first Littoral Combat Ship when construction is 80% complete and it receives very little PRESS.
I could just imagine the PRESS if the USCG had such an event onboard their first NSC.
It is this holding of the USCG to a much higher standard than other Federal Organizations that is troubling. Should attempts be made to eliminate waste? Of course but much of the waste has its origins in over 100 years of protectionist shipbuilding regulations imposed by Congress.
Ed, before ships are accepted by the government, they belong to the builder and they are the ones responsible for the safety and security of the (PRECOM) ship. It would be no more the Navy's fault for a fire onboard the new construction LCS they had not yet accepted than it would be the USCG's fault for a fire onboard the new construction NSC they had not yet accepted.
IMO, any "bad press" the USCG itself has received from the DHS, Congress and the media with regard to Deepwater was because of the extensive control they gave the contractors as Deepwater Systems Integrator. The structural defects of the NSC, as well as the problems that the Coast Guard has experienced with the contractor's design of the Fast Response Cutters and the 123-Cutters are examples IMO of what happens when you don't "trust but verify". The USCG Commandant has taken steps to correct this though and that is a good thing - the key is to hold those accountable for producing what they say they will produce IAW the contract.
I see a double standard in play here and I am likely not the only one.
How many people reading this thread have just learned for the first time about a serious fire on the US Navy's first 80% complete Littoral Combat Ship even though this event happened Wednesday April 25, 2007? This fire damage sadly adding to the already serious Littoral Combat Ship cost overrun problems.
Don’t get me wrong I am interested in the design of both Littoral Combat Ships. I am also interested to see how they do when tested.
Again, what would the PRESS say if such an event had happened on the NSC?
Ed
This message has been edited. Last edited by: NYC_Coastie,
And again Ed, it would not be the Coast Guard's problem to explain away to the press as they would not be the ones responsible. If you are an advocate for the USCG, I'm not sure why you would care about the contractors getting bad press.
My guess is that if there was a fire on the NSC that delayed delivery for six months or more there would be a media frenzy that would involve the USCG.
The Navy had such an event on April 25, 2007 with their Littoral Combat Ship and there was little PRESS coverage.
Well Ed, since the premise of your above post relies on guesses and hypotheticals instead of facts, perhaps you can consider the possibility that maybe if the USCG hadn't relied on the atruism of contractors to represent their best interests and conduct their own "self-certifications" the situation wouldn't have rose to the level of DHS IG reports, Department of Justice investigations and Congressional Hearings? And since that additional attention was never received, the USCG having kept a sharp eye on the contractors throughout the process ensuring all terms of the contract were met, there would be no media frenzy either?
The fact is the USN is having much more severe cost overrun problems with their ships than the USCG and the Press gave them a pass on the LCS fire. That seems to be a double standard to me.
Cost overruns are also not the primary reason of why the Deepwater program is under close scrutiny. If you actually read the IG reports and Congressional Hearings instead of making up things to support your guesses you'd know this.
You don't pay very close attention to what people write; as I stated before (and politely reminded you), the Navy (or USCG for that matter) would not responsible for a fire at a civilian shipyard on a ship they have not taken delivery of; no "pass" is needed as any criticism of the services is unwarranted in that situation.
Remember this thread was started by a puff piece about the LCS that downplayed LCS cost overruns and failed to mention a LCS six month or more delivery delay caused by a serious LCS fire.
The Navy is also under scrutiny by GAO because of poorly defined contracts and poorly written incomplete specifications.
A low cost $220 million dollar LCS in certain configurations may now cost up to $800K or more and according to publically available information may not be able to survive a missile attack.
As I recall, the CG 327's shared a common hull design with the Navy's Erie-class gunboats. I believe the machinery installations were similar too. The superstructures were different.
Interesting. I served on the Taney and had never heard that. In looking at photos of both though it appears the shape of the bow and stern are different between the two ships.
