See the Lockheed press release below. It looks like the recent Deepwater agreement addresses C4ISR electronics concerns that were raised by Congressional investigators.

*************************

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NETH10609082007-1.htm

MOORESTOWN, N.J., Aug. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Coast Guard and Lockheed Martin today completed a consolidated contract action (CCA) regarding the shipboard command and control systems for the first three National Security Cutters as part of the Coast Guard's Deepwater fleet modernization program. The Lockheed Martin portion of a $592 million contract awarded to Integrated Coast Guard Systems is valued at $82.7 million.

"The consolidated contract action agreement announced today marks the culmination of more than a year's worth of painstaking work to put the Coast Guard's fleet modernization program on the right track," said Coast Guard commandant Adm. Thad Allen in a Coast Guard statement. "It clearly reflects my commitment to getting this program right as we address those concerns expressed by the Congress, the Government Accountability Office and the DHS Inspector General."

The National Security Cutters are built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in Pascagoula, MS. Lockheed Martin is building and integrating the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities onboard the cutters.

The C4ISR system aboard the NSC is critical to assuring the crew can see vessels in distress or targets of interest; collaborate with other Coast Guard assets at sea, in the air and ashore; and take action on the most current and pertinent information available. The interoperability provided by the C4ISR system also helps assure the cutter can work with 117 agencies and organizations in achieving robust homeland security.

The CCA closes out a $12.1 million request for equitable adjustment from Lockheed Martin for post 9/11 changes to NSC 1 and NSC 2. The government- required changes include enhanced interior voice communications, added C4ISR systems and equipment associated with classified information handling and messaging, and updated C4ISR system performance specifications as well as modifications associated with government furnished weapons systems.

"Ultimately, this agreement will improve accountability and help control costs as we work toward building and modernizing the Coast Guard's entire fleet of offshore cutters, aircraft, and command and control systems," said Adm. Allen.

The CCA also converts the NSC 2 contract from firm fixed price to cost plus incentive fee and awards full funding for NSC 3 C4ISR.

"The contract award for the third National Security Cutter is a significant milestone for the Coast Guard," said Rear Adm. Gary T. Blore, Assistant Commandant for Acquisition, in a Coast Guard statement. "This agreement ensures that the NSC will meet our demanding, post-9/11 operational requirements. We are very pleased that the negotiating teams from the Coast Guard and our industry suppliers were able to derive best value for the American taxpayer, to bring these vital platforms to the fleet."

"We remain fully committed to our Coast Guard customer to deliver comprehensive command and control capabilities aboard its fleet of new National Security Cutters," said Leo Mackay, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Coast Guard Systems. "This third cutter promises to join Bertholf and Waesche as the most capable surface vessels in the history of the Coast Guard."

Development of the NSC command and control system is 90 percent complete. Shipboard integration and test is well underway on the first National Security Cutter, USCGC Bertholf, leading up to third-party acceptance trials at the end of the calendar year. Equipment for NSC 2, USCGC Waesche, is now available and being delivered to the shipyard for installation.

The crew of the Bertholf has completed initial C4ISR operations training at the Coast Guard's training center in Petaluma, CA, and is preparing for live shipboard training.

Integrated Coast Guard Systems, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, was awarded the Deepwater contract in June 2002 and has been renewed through January 2011.

Thank-you for sharing this information KeepingUpWithJones. Two things stick out to me though...

"The CCA closes out a $12.1 million request for equitable adjustment from Lockheed Martin for post 9/11 changes to NSC 1 and NSC 2. The government- required changes include enhanced interior voice communications, added C4ISR systems and equipment associated with classified information handling and messaging, and updated C4ISR system performance specifications as well as modifications associated with government furnished weapons systems."

and...

"Development of the NSC command and control system is 90 percent complete. Shipboard integration and test is well underway on the first National Security Cutter, USCGC Bertholf, leading up to third-party acceptance trials at the end of the calendar year."

It appears that the same C4I issues brought up by Michael Dekort which were initially ignored very well could have existed on this NSC. Will we see any public apologies from anyone in LM-NG for dragging his name through the mud or the USCG for ignoring him?

Who is this "third party" to conduct the acceptance trials? Surface Force wonders out loud.

1110, very good points you made. Perhaps the Coast Guard and Lockheed were able to privately work out the issues that Dekort brought up. I wonder if the exact detailed arrangements of this agreement will be available to the public, or at least to Congress and the investigators. I would think that this private arrangement is a way to fix the problems without Lockheed admitting that Dekort was right in the first place.

A. J.

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:
I would think that this private arrangement is a way to fix the problems without Lockheed admitting that Dekort was right in the first place.

That would sure take the steam out of his lawsuit and also be a mitigating factor in the DOJ investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:
I would think that this private arrangement is a way to fix the problems without Lockheed admitting that Dekort was right in the first place.

That would sure take the steam out of his lawsuit and also be a mitigating factor in the DOJ investigation.

Good point. So then what happens? The Coast Guard then will appear to to cover (again) for Lockheed. Perhaps there won't be any physical evidence (i.e., discrepancy reports from the Navy) of any sort given that any problems will be resolved before they are formally documented and publicly released. I suspect the best way to approach this is for DOJ to interview the Coast Guard NSC inspectors who know the details of the discrepancies as well as all the work that occurs on the NSC.

AJ, where are the NSC inspectors coming from though?

For the 123 project it was the contractors themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
AJ, where are the NSC inspectors coming from though?

For the 123 project it was the contractors themselves.

There has to be a Coast Guard representatives onsite at the shipyard or perhaps at the program office that oversee the electronics development and installation. So his is overseeing the contractor inspectors? I would imagine the answer is a small cadre of government employees, perhaps active duty personnel. I would imagine these government employees are fully tracking the electronics development and installation as well as testing.

One would hope, especially with the current publicity. But, what standards are being followed for QA?

For USN ships it is obvious and all out in the open conducted by NAVSEA (PMS 400 for DDG-51 class ships) and the Final Contract Trials conducted by INSURV. The USCG seems to want to keep it a closed process. I wonder why?

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
One would hope, especially with the current publicity. But, what standards are being followed for QA?

For USN ships it is obvious and all out in the open conducted by NAVSEA (PMS 400 for DDG-51 class ships) and the Final Contract Trials conducted by INSURV. The USCG seems to want to keep it a closed process. I wonder why?

Good point. I wonder if the crew of the first National Security Cutter have been instructed to keep their mouths shut if anybody 'on the outside' asks any questions. I would imagine if there are problems that a crewmember or two may leak that information. I would not doubt that the investigators from the government would create a way for these crewmembers to come forward anonymously or in a way so as to not get them in trouble.

Perhaps the US House Oversight and Investigations Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for instance?

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Perhaps the US House Oversight and Investigations Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for instance?

Who knows how much that Committee is that much plugged into the Deepwater program. Who knows if that Committee is able to get information that may be covered up.

Well Surface Force knows some people who know some people who indicated that some people on that particular House committee are very plugged into uncovering and finding out the Deepwater truths.

quote:

Originally posted by 1110:
Well Surface Force knows some people who know some people who indicated that some people on that particular House committee are very plugged into uncovering and finding out the Deepwater truths.

Well I heard from my sources who heard from their NSC sources that tell them that the NSC's trials have gotten further postponed because the C4ISR systems are not ready. My best guess is that Lockheed is doing thorough Quality Assurance to ensure successful acceptance trials.

Yeah, that old 3rd to 5th hand knowledge is always so accurate...

By the way, how are things up in Alexandria?

Wray..

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:
Yeah, that old 3rd to 5th hand knowledge is always so accurate...

By the way, how are things up in Alexandria?

Wray..

Wray,

Alexandria, Louisiana?

Well my information for my very reliable Deepwater sources have been right all the time.

A. J.

quote:

Alexandria, Louisiana?

Nice try, but we both know you are in VA...

Does the Fish Market still have that great clam chowder?

Wray...

Wray,

The Ray Giovannoni owned Fish Market? They also own on in Maryland. I met Ray when he sailed his Schooner AMERICA (a fullsized albeit modernized version of the original...) into Key West. Nice guy, nice boat great restaurants.

quote:

Originally posted by KeepingUpWithJones:

quote:

Originally posted by Wray:
Yeah, that old 3rd to 5th hand knowledge is always so accurate...

By the way, how are things up in Alexandria?

Wray..

Wray,

Alexandria, Louisiana?

Well my information for my very reliable Deepwater sources have been right all the time.

A. J.

When unable to engage the issue or dispute what you've posted, some engage in thinly disguised name calling instead. Don't pay attention Aaron Jones aka KeepingUpWithJones, posting the Deepwater truths is more important than pandering to the wishes of a few circle-jerkers.

quote:

When unable to engage the issue or dispute what you've posted, some engage in thinly disguised name calling. Don't pay attention Aaron Jones aka KeepingUpWithJones, posting the Deepwater truths is more important than pandering to the wishes of a few circle-jerkers.

It simply amazes me that an anonymous poster, who may or may not be who or what he claims to be would make any comment at all concerning thinly or open name calling. It is sort of the pot calling the kettle black.

Now, from my view, it seems that the Coast Guard is making every effort possible to bring Deepwater, the first ever of its kind government contract, back on track and focus on fixing what is wrong with it. And along comes two posters, 1110 and KeepingupwithJones, whose profiles are vague and probably false, who sometimes post as if the subject of Deepwater is their professional domain, and expect us to believe each and every word they type on the subject.

1110, I for one don't buy into your theories; I would really like to know who you are and why you have decided that the Coast Guard Deepwater Program should be your personal vendetta. If you are as you claim you are, a former Navy Line Officer, who claims to be a SWO, how much zeal and energy, and effort have you put forth to righting the Navy Contracting blunders? How is SEAWOLF coming along? V-22? How many have died in this nightmare hybred plane? Or even better - how about Lockheed Martin, the Navy, Congress, and the Littoral Combat Ship? Where the Navy cancelled #3 due to cost overruns?

What do you think 1110, is Deepwater the only government contract to have problems?

The biggest issue, seems to me to be, not having enough qualified bidding contractors to make competition possible thus allowing a substandard contractor to walk away with a substantial portion of Defense Contracts. Hmmm, maybe LM is the problem and the Coast Guard is victim as was the Navy...

Bad day at the office again I see. If what I post is so incorrect, why don't you try and show where the information I post is incorrect for a change instead of stating false theories and speculations of your own about my profile.

Deepwater affects at least 75% of the Coast Guard in regards to mission impact, equipment, etc. So it seems logical to me to discuss that in the USCG forums, not elsewhere on military.com.

As I've mentioned to you several times before Tim Hecht aka Nobodyaskedmebut, for someone who claims not to buy into my "theories" (which are merely what subject matter experts in the USCG, USN and independent sources have reported both in the DHS IG report and testified in Congressional Hearings) and does not consider me "credible" you sure seem to spend alot of time on me.

As I've asked you before, if you find my presence so offensive that I don't reveal my identity and that myself and the SME's I reference so uncredible, why do you keep responding to me at all?