Mr. Axe does a good job explaining the Superferry venture and how John Lehman made use of it with Austal, Atlantic Marine, and BAE Systems in the years since the Superferry's failure. Lehman only ended up doing well with it because of his perseverance. If it had been just the Superferry, it would have been a miserable failure. In comments below, Mr. Lehman is too hard on the Hawaii Supreme Court, the problem was in the construction of Act. 2 by the Hawaii Legislature. Maybe he has some purpose in blaming the Court rather than a Legislature he might need to deal with again in the future. Agree with Mr. Axe's closing point that "campaign talk of a massive naval buildup may fade as budget realities set in." Lastly, it's a little off topic for the article, but Lehman's position on the 9/11 Commission was a noteworthy responsibility that went unfinished and determining details unattended to as with the Superferry's business plan...
Source: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/big-business-romneys-navy/all/
Romney’s Big Navy Guru Made Millions From Building Ships
By David Axe October 23, 2012
...one of Romney’s most important advisers on Navy issues, a man who oversaw a massive naval expansion for Pres. Ronald Reagan, there’s more at stake than U.S. national security. John Lehman, an investment banker and former secretary of the Navy, has strong and complex personal financial ties to the naval shipbuilding industry...
Lehman invested in a government-backed “Superferry” in Hawaii — a business that ultimately failed, but not before boosting the standing of Austal USA, an Alabama shipbuilder that constructed the ferry service’s ships. Austal USA’s rising fortunes in turn benefited international defense giant BAE Systems, which then bought up shipyards owned by Lehman in order to work more closely with Austal USA.
...But Ryan Sibley — an editor at the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Sunlight Foundation who has closely tracked the former Navy Secretary’s investments — says that ”Lehman’s involvement with the Superferry shows that he is no stranger to using personal connections to influence costly decisions.”
...Lehman was the chairman of Hawaii Superferry, a transportation startup based in Honolulu that briefly provided passenger service between the Hawaiian islands of Oahu and Maui. It relied on a new type of fast catamaran ferry built by Austal USA, a shipbuilder in Alabama specializing in speedy aluminum vessels.
Founded in 2003, Hawaii Superferry secured a $136-million loan from the Maritime Administration, a federal agency that oversees sea transportation. Lehman’s own equity firm, the controlling private investor, put $85 million into company. Hawaii Superferry also benefited from $40 million in port enhancements paid for by the state of Hawaii.
The ferry company bought two ships from Austal USA, each more than 300 feet in length and capable of carrying hundreds of passengers plus their cars at speeds in excess of 30 knots. The vessels cost $105 million apiece.
The first ferry entered service in mid-2007. But with low ticket prices and soft demand, the service was a money-loser. The company was also mired in controversy over the environmental impact of its facilities. In 2009 Hawaii Superferry declared bankruptcy. Lehman reportedly lost his entire $85 million investment, and says his total losses were much, much greater than that.
“The two Hawaii Superferrys that we built — on time, and on budget — were operated in commercial service, with no government customers,” Lehman tells Danger Room. “We were put out of service by the chicanery of the State Supreme Court and we lost over $300 million.”
But in another regard, the ferry was a smashing success. Austal USA, which builds aluminum warships for the Navy, was angling to build military versions of the Hawaii ferries to meet a new Pentagon requirement for fast transports called Joint High-Speed Vessels, or JHSVs. “Building the Superferry was very helpful in demonstrating that we can build these ships,” said Bill Pfister, Austal USA’s vice president for external affairs.
Out of direct public view, Superferry officials touted their ship’s military potential. Superferry’s pitch to the Hawaiian Public Utilities Commission included a slide claiming the ferry could haul the Stryker vehicles belonging to a Hawaii-based brigade. The company paid a lobbying firm $70,000 to try to convince the Navy to add the ferry to a program that assigns military transportation jobs to civilian vessels.
In late 2008, the Navy tapped Austal USA to build 10 military versions of the Hawaii ferry for $1.6 billion. Some critics have questioned whether Superferry was intended all along to serve as a proof-of-concept — admittedly, a money-losing one — for a much more valuable military program. “The fact that the Superferry was already in the water, proving its seaworthiness while the JHSV contract was being considered, suggests that it may have always been intended as a prototype or demo model for the larger deal,” Koohan Paik and Jerry Mander, who penned a book about the ferry controversy, wrote in The Nation.
Superferry president Thomas Fargo, also a J.F. Lehman & Co. board member, denied the claim. “We always get the question, ‘Was this designed as a military operation?’” he told The New York Times. “That’s absolutely not true.”
Regardless, the Hawaii ferries themselves did become military assets. In 2010 the Maritime Administration sued to take over the two ships in order to recoup some of its $150 million investment. The administration later sold both ferries to the U.S. Navy for a total of $70 million.
At first glance it’s not clear how Lehman could have benefited from his money-losing investment in Hawaii Superferry. The answer lies in another of the former Navy secretary’s investments: the Atlantic Marine family of shipyards. In 2006, Lehman purchased the shipyards in Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Boston and Philadelphia for a reported $170 million. In 2009, the federal government awarded three of the yards $2.7 million in stimulus grants for improvements.
In 2010 international defense giant BAE Systems, which handles ship repairs among other specialties, acquired the Florida, Mississippi and Alabama yards for $352 million — ringing up an estimated $180 million profit for Lehman that more than makes up for his “failed” investment in Hawaii Superferry. Lehman held onto the remaining two yards in Philadelphia and Boston. Recently both have received lucrative ship-repair contracts from the Navy. They could receive even more such contracts if the sailing branch were to grow at a faster pace, as Lehman intends.
Today the Alabama yard, which is adjacent to Austal USA’s own facilities, plays a critical role in military programs on which Austal USA and BAE Systems collaborate. “We launch both their JHSV and [Littoral Combat Ship] vessels with our dry docks; we also support Austal with warranty repairs, if requested,” BAE Systems spokesperson Stephanie Moncada tells Danger Room. Austal USA did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment on the company’s relationship with BAE.
In addition, Austal USA does work on aluminum structures as part of BAE Systems’ ship-repair contracts with the Navy. Being in such close proximity to each other makes BAE Systems and Austal USA’s collaboration possible, or at least more efficient.
Even before the acquisition of the Alabama yard, BAE Systems enjoyed close ties with Austal USA, namely in providing guns and radios for the Littoral Combat Ships Austal USA builds for the Navy. That made BAE Systems an obvious prospective buyer for Lehman’s yards — the Alabama one in particular.
But Lehman’s investments in the partially taxpayer-funded Hawaii Superferry reportedly helped Austal score the military transport deal, thus improving the business case for a closer partnership between Austal USA and BAE Systems. That partnership is being facilitated by BAE Systems’ Alabama shipyard, purchased at a 100-percent markup from Lehman.
To put it plainly, Lehman’s investment in the failed, government-backed Superferry boosted Austal USA, whose rising fortunes also benefited BAE Systems, which in turn bought up Lehman’s shipyards — improved by stimulus funds — in order to work more closely with Austal USA. That roundtrip deal helped earn Lehman’s firm a reported $180 million profit. In that sense, Lehman in fact more than doubled his $85 million investment in Hawaii Superferry, with a big assist from the taxpayers.
“While I don’t know how typical Lehman’s conduct is, his involvement with the Hawaii Superferry suggests his expertise lays in the strategic deployment of taxpayer resources for personal gain,” Sibley, the watchdog, tells Danger Room.
Lehman calls the allegation “kind of amusing. We have never owned a shipyard that builds Navy ships. We have owned four shipyards that repair, not build commercial ships and Navy ships. The Navy business made up about 15 to 20% of the repairs. We still own two of those four, having sold the other two to BAE.”
Ultimately BAE Systems, whose shipyard purchases added significantly to Lehman’s already substantial personal worth, stands to earn potentially tens if not hundreds of millions from the ships specified in Lehman’s naval buildup scheme. Each LCS costs around $500 million; the Navy plans to acquire at least 55 of the ships. As Romney’s naval adviser, Lehman specifically promised to continue the program, and mentioned possibly adding more combat gear to the vessels — gear that could be built by BAE Systems.
...Perhaps none of this will have an influence on a Romney Pentagon. Perhaps the campaign’s talk of a massive naval buildup will fade as budget realities set in. But if a Romney administration does embark in such an enormous increase in military shipbuilding, it’s worth noting that one of the brains behind the expansion has profited rather handsomely by encouraging the Navy to build.
Showing posts with label LCS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LCS. Show all posts
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Goal: LCS Update
Source: http://www.coltoncompany.com/
Four More LCSs Contracted Bypassing the DoD's DefenseLink system, the Navy announced yesterday the exercise of options on its contracts with the two LCS contractors covering the next four ships, LCS 9 through 12. Read the announcement here. The table below shows the current status of the program. March 17, 2012.
|
Monday, May 31, 2010
What's that "Giant Sucking Sound"?
From: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/political_skinny_2.html
Giant sucking sound
Don't look for shipbuilding executive Richard McCreary to book any summer vacation plans along the Alabama Gulf Coast.
McCreary is president of Wisconsin's Marinette Marine, which is competing with Mobile's Austal USA for a lucrative contract to build Littoral Combat Ships for the U.S. Navy.
McCreary told a business luncheon in Madison, Wis., last week that the contract could bring thousands of jobs to northeast Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
"If we win this contract, the giant sucking sound you hear will be people (who work in shipyards) leaving the Gulf Coast to come up here," said McCreary, according to WISBusiness.com.
Giant sucking sound
Don't look for shipbuilding executive Richard McCreary to book any summer vacation plans along the Alabama Gulf Coast.
McCreary is president of Wisconsin's Marinette Marine, which is competing with Mobile's Austal USA for a lucrative contract to build Littoral Combat Ships for the U.S. Navy.
McCreary told a business luncheon in Madison, Wis., last week that the contract could bring thousands of jobs to northeast Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
"If we win this contract, the giant sucking sound you hear will be people (who work in shipyards) leaving the Gulf Coast to come up here," said McCreary, according to WISBusiness.com.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
LCS-2 is Done...Kaput...It's Over...That's a Wrap
Amazing, the Alabama Senators with their CBO report request cinched the decision away from LCS-2 in favor of LCS-1...
From: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4603087&c=AME&s=SEA
"Report: Fuel Factors Less Than Price For LCS"
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS Defense News
Published: Apr. 28, 2010
Fuel costs for the U.S. Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are calculated by a new Congressional report to be about 11 percent of total life-cycle costs - far less than the 64 percent figure represented by the price to buy the ship.
The relative insignificance of the fuel figure to the purchase price is at odds with claims by Alabama's Senate delegation that the Navy should give more weight to fuel efficiency in its pending choice of which LCS to buy. Navy officials have repeatedly said that the selection, expected sometime this summer, will be based largely on purchase price rather than lifecycle costs.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to study the effect of fuel costs and other factors on lifecycle costs. Sessions is supporting the aluminum-hulled trimaran LCS design built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. That ship is competing with a Lockheed Martin LCS built in Wisconsin.
Sessions and his Senate colleague, Richard Shelby, R-Ala., have repeatedly said the Austal USA ship is more fuel-efficient than the Lockheed ship, particularly at higher speeds...
The study, sent to Sessions on April 28...
CBO concluded that, as a percentage of life-cycle costs, fuel costs made up 8 percent of the low-fuel ship, 11 percent for the moderate-fuel ship, and 18 percent of the high-fuel ship.
Comparatively, procurement cost for the low-fuel ship made up 66 percent of the life-cycle cost, 64 percent for the moderate-fuel ship and 58 percent of the high-fuel ship...
>>>Rest of Article>>>
Austal can forget about LCS. They're lucky to get any JHSV's. Tough bloody luck, blokes.
From: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4603087&c=AME&s=SEA
"Report: Fuel Factors Less Than Price For LCS"
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS Defense News
Published: Apr. 28, 2010
Fuel costs for the U.S. Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are calculated by a new Congressional report to be about 11 percent of total life-cycle costs - far less than the 64 percent figure represented by the price to buy the ship.
The relative insignificance of the fuel figure to the purchase price is at odds with claims by Alabama's Senate delegation that the Navy should give more weight to fuel efficiency in its pending choice of which LCS to buy. Navy officials have repeatedly said that the selection, expected sometime this summer, will be based largely on purchase price rather than lifecycle costs.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to study the effect of fuel costs and other factors on lifecycle costs. Sessions is supporting the aluminum-hulled trimaran LCS design built by Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. That ship is competing with a Lockheed Martin LCS built in Wisconsin.
Sessions and his Senate colleague, Richard Shelby, R-Ala., have repeatedly said the Austal USA ship is more fuel-efficient than the Lockheed ship, particularly at higher speeds...
The study, sent to Sessions on April 28...
CBO concluded that, as a percentage of life-cycle costs, fuel costs made up 8 percent of the low-fuel ship, 11 percent for the moderate-fuel ship, and 18 percent of the high-fuel ship.
Comparatively, procurement cost for the low-fuel ship made up 66 percent of the life-cycle cost, 64 percent for the moderate-fuel ship and 58 percent of the high-fuel ship...
>>>Rest of Article>>>
Austal can forget about LCS. They're lucky to get any JHSV's. Tough bloody luck, blokes.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Lockheed, Austal submit bids for LCS
Lockheed, Austal submit bids for US Navy warships
Reuters
Lockheed Martin and Australia's Austal Ltd submitted bids on Monday for a deal valued at well over $5 billion to build more Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)...
2 contractors submit bids for up to 10 US warships
AP - Forbes
Officials from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA confirmed their bids were submitted on Monday...
Reuters
Lockheed Martin and Australia's Austal Ltd submitted bids on Monday for a deal valued at well over $5 billion to build more Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)...
2 contractors submit bids for up to 10 US warships
AP - Forbes
Officials from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA confirmed their bids were submitted on Monday...
Sunday, April 4, 2010
GAO's Most Recent Report on JHSV and LCS
Some nuggets from the most recent GAO report on JHSV:
From: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10388sp.pdf
The JHSV is a joint Army and Navy program to acquire a high-speed, shallow-draft vessel for rapid intratheater transport of combat-ready units. The ship will be capable of operating without reliance on shore based infrastructure. The program awarded a detail design and construction contract with options for nine additional ships to Austal USA in November 2008, and DOD authorized construction of the first ship in December 2009...
Design and Production Maturity
In December 2009, DOD authorized the shipbuilder to start JHSV lead ship construction with 65 percent of the ship’s 3D product model complete. According to program officials, the product modeling is complete for some of the JHSV’s most complex modules, including the machinery, water jet, and generator rooms. The decision to authorize construction is not consistent with GAO recommended shipbuilding best practices, which call for achieving a complete and stable 3D product model before construction begins. The program office believes that the completion of the model prior to construction start is less critical for its program because the JHSV is not as complex as other Navy ships, such as the DDG 1000 or the T-AKE. The Navy also demonstrated JHSV design maturity by tracking the number of critical drawings approved by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). As of December 2009, ABS has approved 99 percent, or 319 out of 321, of JHSV’s critical design drawings used to build the 3D product model. Program officials estimate that 70 percent of the JHSV design is the same as the commercial Hawaii Superferry produced by the JHSV shipbuilder. However, the differences, which include the firefighting system, hotel services, aviation accessibility, and the addition of a limited self-defense capability, affect a large area of the JHSV...
In order to achieve the necessary production rate, the shipbuilder built a modular manufacturing facility, which marks a change in production strategy for the yard. Prior to using this facility to build the JHSV, the shipbuilder built components of the Littoral Combat Ship in the facility. In addition, it built a pilot JHSV module in the facility prior to lead-ship construction start. While modular manufacturing decreases the number of workers needed, the contractor experienced hiring issues and program officials anticipate that the shipyard will be challenged to hire a sufficient number of workers with critical skills as its workload increases...
And the LCS nuggets:
The Navy’s LCS is designed to perform mine countermeasures, antisubmarine warfare, and
surface warfare missions. It consists of the ship itself, or seaframe, and the mission package it
deploys. The Navy plans to construct the first four seaframes in two unique designs, then select one design for the remainder of the class. The first seaframe (LCS 1) was delivered in September 2008 with the second seaframe (LCS 2) following in December 2009. We assessed both seaframes. See pages 97-98 for an assessment of LCS mission packages...
...The Navy identified watercraft launch and recovery as a major risk for both designs...
...Challenges for LCS 2 include completing required endurance testing of the main propulsion diesel engines and addressing pitting and corrosion in the waterjets...
Technology Maturity
Seventeen of 19 critical technologies for both LCS designs are mature. For LCS 2, the trimaran hull and aluminum structure are nearing maturity. The Navy identified watercraft launch and recovery—essential to complete the LCS antisubmarine warfare and mine countermeasures missions—as a major risk to both seaframe designs. Watercraft launch and recovery systems have not been fully demonstrated for either seaframe...For LCS 2, factory testing of the twin boom extensible crane revealed performance and reliability concerns that were not fully addressed prior to installation. In addition, program officials report the LCS 2 main propulsion diesel engines have not completed a required endurance test, in part due to corrosion in each engine’s intake valves. As an interim solution, the Navy has installed new intake valves, which enabled the ship to complete acceptance trials. LCS 2 has also experienced pitting and corrosion in its waterjet tunnels. The Navy has temporarily fixed the issue and plans to make weld repairs to pitted areas during a future dry dock availability.
...At fabrication start for each ship, approximately 69 percent (LCS 3) and 57 percent (LCS 4) of basic and functional drawings were complete. Starting construction before drawings are complete could result in costly out-of-sequence work and rework to incorporate new design attributes...
...For LCS 3, the contractor has incorporated a design change to extend the transom by four meters to improve stability...
...Navy officials report that the earned value management systems (EVMS) in each of the LCS shipyards do not yet meet Defense Contract Management Agency requirements. Under the terms of the LCS 3 and LCS 4 contracts, the shipyards must achieve EVMS certification within 28 months from the date of the award. Until those requirements are met, cost and schedule data reported by the prime contractors cannot be considered fully reliable.
...The Navy stated that LCS 1 now meets the damage stability requirement with the addition of external tanks on the rear of the ship...
...To address corrosion of the waterjet tunnels, the Navy stated that electrical isolation of propulsion shafts from the waterjets is being incorporated and a plan is in place to renew the corroded metal in the waterjet intake tunnels.
There you have it.
From: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10388sp.pdf
The JHSV is a joint Army and Navy program to acquire a high-speed, shallow-draft vessel for rapid intratheater transport of combat-ready units. The ship will be capable of operating without reliance on shore based infrastructure. The program awarded a detail design and construction contract with options for nine additional ships to Austal USA in November 2008, and DOD authorized construction of the first ship in December 2009...
Design and Production Maturity
In December 2009, DOD authorized the shipbuilder to start JHSV lead ship construction with 65 percent of the ship’s 3D product model complete. According to program officials, the product modeling is complete for some of the JHSV’s most complex modules, including the machinery, water jet, and generator rooms. The decision to authorize construction is not consistent with GAO recommended shipbuilding best practices, which call for achieving a complete and stable 3D product model before construction begins. The program office believes that the completion of the model prior to construction start is less critical for its program because the JHSV is not as complex as other Navy ships, such as the DDG 1000 or the T-AKE. The Navy also demonstrated JHSV design maturity by tracking the number of critical drawings approved by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). As of December 2009, ABS has approved 99 percent, or 319 out of 321, of JHSV’s critical design drawings used to build the 3D product model. Program officials estimate that 70 percent of the JHSV design is the same as the commercial Hawaii Superferry produced by the JHSV shipbuilder. However, the differences, which include the firefighting system, hotel services, aviation accessibility, and the addition of a limited self-defense capability, affect a large area of the JHSV...
In order to achieve the necessary production rate, the shipbuilder built a modular manufacturing facility, which marks a change in production strategy for the yard. Prior to using this facility to build the JHSV, the shipbuilder built components of the Littoral Combat Ship in the facility. In addition, it built a pilot JHSV module in the facility prior to lead-ship construction start. While modular manufacturing decreases the number of workers needed, the contractor experienced hiring issues and program officials anticipate that the shipyard will be challenged to hire a sufficient number of workers with critical skills as its workload increases...
And the LCS nuggets:
The Navy’s LCS is designed to perform mine countermeasures, antisubmarine warfare, and
surface warfare missions. It consists of the ship itself, or seaframe, and the mission package it
deploys. The Navy plans to construct the first four seaframes in two unique designs, then select one design for the remainder of the class. The first seaframe (LCS 1) was delivered in September 2008 with the second seaframe (LCS 2) following in December 2009. We assessed both seaframes. See pages 97-98 for an assessment of LCS mission packages...
...The Navy identified watercraft launch and recovery as a major risk for both designs...
...Challenges for LCS 2 include completing required endurance testing of the main propulsion diesel engines and addressing pitting and corrosion in the waterjets...
Technology Maturity
Seventeen of 19 critical technologies for both LCS designs are mature. For LCS 2, the trimaran hull and aluminum structure are nearing maturity. The Navy identified watercraft launch and recovery—essential to complete the LCS antisubmarine warfare and mine countermeasures missions—as a major risk to both seaframe designs. Watercraft launch and recovery systems have not been fully demonstrated for either seaframe...For LCS 2, factory testing of the twin boom extensible crane revealed performance and reliability concerns that were not fully addressed prior to installation. In addition, program officials report the LCS 2 main propulsion diesel engines have not completed a required endurance test, in part due to corrosion in each engine’s intake valves. As an interim solution, the Navy has installed new intake valves, which enabled the ship to complete acceptance trials. LCS 2 has also experienced pitting and corrosion in its waterjet tunnels. The Navy has temporarily fixed the issue and plans to make weld repairs to pitted areas during a future dry dock availability.
...At fabrication start for each ship, approximately 69 percent (LCS 3) and 57 percent (LCS 4) of basic and functional drawings were complete. Starting construction before drawings are complete could result in costly out-of-sequence work and rework to incorporate new design attributes...
...For LCS 3, the contractor has incorporated a design change to extend the transom by four meters to improve stability...
...Navy officials report that the earned value management systems (EVMS) in each of the LCS shipyards do not yet meet Defense Contract Management Agency requirements. Under the terms of the LCS 3 and LCS 4 contracts, the shipyards must achieve EVMS certification within 28 months from the date of the award. Until those requirements are met, cost and schedule data reported by the prime contractors cannot be considered fully reliable.
...The Navy stated that LCS 1 now meets the damage stability requirement with the addition of external tanks on the rear of the ship...
...To address corrosion of the waterjet tunnels, the Navy stated that electrical isolation of propulsion shafts from the waterjets is being incorporated and a plan is in place to renew the corroded metal in the waterjet intake tunnels.
There you have it.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Reuters covers LCS design problems...and the losers plan their appeal
| Problems revealed with both LCS designs: Congressional report cites problems with LCS ships Reuters General Dynamics won a contract for LCS-4, based on an aluminum trimarin design by Austal (ASB.AX) on May 1, 2009, or 10 months ago... |
| And the losers are already planning their appeal: Editorial: LCS award won't be endgame Press-Register - al.com Defense industry analysts say that both sides, Austal USA in Mobile and Lockheed Martin ... Whether Austal wins or loses the order for up to 10 new ships... |
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Poor Losers...Handwriting is on the Wall
From: http://blog.al.com/live/2010/03/analysts_lcs_contract_decision.html
"Analysts: LCS contract decision could be contested"
by Sean Reilly March 28, 2010
WASHINGTON -- By the Navy's calendar, a winner-take-all order for up to 10 new littoral combat ships is supposed to be awarded this summer, with Mobile-based Austal USA's future prospects heavily staked to the outcome.
But that award may not be the end of the story, according to outside analysts...
"It's just too important a program for both sides," said Jay Korman, a principal at The Avascent Group, a Washington, D.C., consulting firm...
Bids are due April 12, with a decision to follow in June or July, according to Sean Stackley, the Navy's top weapons buyer.
Representatives of both Austal and Lockheed declined to say what they would do in the event of defeat.
Either, however, could lodge a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office, the federal agency charged with handling contract appeals. The GAO gives itself just over three months to decide a protest, although a request to reconsider its initial ruling can add more time...
>>>Rest of Article>>>
"Analysts: LCS contract decision could be contested"
by Sean Reilly March 28, 2010
WASHINGTON -- By the Navy's calendar, a winner-take-all order for up to 10 new littoral combat ships is supposed to be awarded this summer, with Mobile-based Austal USA's future prospects heavily staked to the outcome.
But that award may not be the end of the story, according to outside analysts...
"It's just too important a program for both sides," said Jay Korman, a principal at The Avascent Group, a Washington, D.C., consulting firm...
Bids are due April 12, with a decision to follow in June or July, according to Sean Stackley, the Navy's top weapons buyer.
Representatives of both Austal and Lockheed declined to say what they would do in the event of defeat.
Either, however, could lodge a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office, the federal agency charged with handling contract appeals. The GAO gives itself just over three months to decide a protest, although a request to reconsider its initial ruling can add more time...
>>>Rest of Article>>>
Friday, March 19, 2010
Tit for tat, gettin' nasty...'Bama LCS folks not happy about losing
Richard Shelby, Herb Kohl trade fire at Senate LCS hearing | al.com
By Sean Reilly
Herb Kohl, D-Wis., countered by labeling Austal's aluminum trimaran design "radical" and suggested that its version of the LCS would be more expensive to maintain than a traditional steel vessel. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa ... Breaking News from the Press-Register - http://blog.al.com/live/
By Sean Reilly
Herb Kohl, D-Wis., countered by labeling Austal's aluminum trimaran design "radical" and suggested that its version of the LCS would be more expensive to maintain than a traditional steel vessel. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa ... Breaking News from the Press-Register - http://blog.al.com/live/
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Marinette: "When we win the fiscal year 2010 ships for LCS"
"We're going to win (the LCS contract) on cost," Moosally said. "This is basically a price shootout."
From: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100313/GPG03/3130574/1247/Marinette-Marine-breaks-ground-on-large-ship-facility
"Marinette Marine breaks ground on large ship facility"
Fincantieri Marine Group plans $100 million investment in area operations
BY NATHAN PHELPS • March 13, 2010
MARINETTE — Marinette Marine Corp. broke ground Friday for the expansion of its large ship erection building.
Company leaders say this is part of a $100 million investment in Marinette Marine and other area operations aimed at securing contracts that will help stabilize the work force at the shipyard — such as the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship.
(The expansion) "is to improve our production efficiency and make us more productive and more competitive in the marketplace," said Fred Moosally, president and CEO of Fincantieri Marine Group, which includes Bay Shipbuilding Co. in Sturgeon Bay and ACE Marine in Green Bay. "When we win the fiscal year 2010 ships for LCS, that's a winner take all with 10 ships … and it will really stabilize the work force."...
"We're going to win (the LCS contract) on cost," Moosally said. "This is basically a price shootout." >>>Full Article>>>
From: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100313/GPG03/3130574/1247/Marinette-Marine-breaks-ground-on-large-ship-facility
"Marinette Marine breaks ground on large ship facility"
Fincantieri Marine Group plans $100 million investment in area operations
BY NATHAN PHELPS • March 13, 2010
MARINETTE — Marinette Marine Corp. broke ground Friday for the expansion of its large ship erection building.
Company leaders say this is part of a $100 million investment in Marinette Marine and other area operations aimed at securing contracts that will help stabilize the work force at the shipyard — such as the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship.
(The expansion) "is to improve our production efficiency and make us more productive and more competitive in the marketplace," said Fred Moosally, president and CEO of Fincantieri Marine Group, which includes Bay Shipbuilding Co. in Sturgeon Bay and ACE Marine in Green Bay. "When we win the fiscal year 2010 ships for LCS, that's a winner take all with 10 ships … and it will really stabilize the work force."...
"We're going to win (the LCS contract) on cost," Moosally said. "This is basically a price shootout." >>>Full Article>>>
Saturday, March 6, 2010
GD and Austal Split Up To Bid on LCS
Austal is trying to characterize this in a positive light for them, but thinking about it from a number of interations, this is mostly positive for GD and later bids in this process, and not so much for an unproven solo prime contractor building the significantly more expensive version of LCS. Three articles about it referenced below:
"GD and Austal Split Up To Bid on LCS"
By Jeff Amy March 05, 2010
MOBILE, Ala. -- Austal USA and General Dynamics Corp. said Thursday that they're parting ways in the competition to build littoral combat ships for the U.S. Navy, a move that could give both sides advantages as they seek future contracts... >>>Rest of Article>>>
"Maine, Alabama shipyards end teaming arrangement"
by (AP) March 5, 2010
BATH, Maine — Maine's Bath Iron Works and Alabama's Austal USA are ending their partnership, allowing Austal to compete on its own for the next contract to build fast and agile warships for the Navy.
...In 2012, the Navy plans to award another five-ship contract that must go to a different builder. By breaking up their team, Bath Iron Works would be able to bid on the second contract... >>>Rest of Article>>>
"GD and Austal Split Up To Bid on LCS"
By Christopher P. Cavas Mar. 4, 2010
Shipbuilding partners Austal USA and General Dynamics have agreed to revoke their teaming arrangement on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program - a move that positions Austal to bid as a prime contractor on this year's bid for 10 LCS ships for the U.S. Navy, and allows GD to go after another five ships to be awarded in 2012... >>>Rest of Article>>>
By Jeff Amy March 05, 2010
MOBILE, Ala. -- Austal USA and General Dynamics Corp. said Thursday that they're parting ways in the competition to build littoral combat ships for the U.S. Navy, a move that could give both sides advantages as they seek future contracts... >>>Rest of Article>>>
"Maine, Alabama shipyards end teaming arrangement"
by (AP) March 5, 2010
BATH, Maine — Maine's Bath Iron Works and Alabama's Austal USA are ending their partnership, allowing Austal to compete on its own for the next contract to build fast and agile warships for the Navy.
...In 2012, the Navy plans to award another five-ship contract that must go to a different builder. By breaking up their team, Bath Iron Works would be able to bid on the second contract... >>>Rest of Article>>>
Monday, February 15, 2010
What other bloggers are saying about these vessels
Interesting the knowledgeable comparisons that are made in the following two recent blog posts:
Mulling the LCS down-select: | USNI Blog
By Defense Springboard
If LCS-1 wins the initial down-select, the JHSV catamaran becomes a viable platform. (And given the minimum-cost focus of the LCS RfP–LCS-1 may well end up winning the LCS contract.) In that case, the JHSV gets a wide-open niche to go ...
USNI Blog - http://blog.usni.org/
Information Dissemination: JHSVs Are Not Coastal Patrol Vessels
By Galrahn
You'll see, for example, improvements at the low end because we've stabilized the LCS program and increased the Joint High Speed Vessel program quite significantly, to 23 vessels. There was a big debate within the department on patrol ...
Information Dissemination - http://www.informationdissemination.net/
The following were a couple of interesting articles from last week on the JHSV. Recommend reading the one from the 9th:
Mulling the LCS down-select: | USNI Blog
By Defense Springboard
If LCS-1 wins the initial down-select, the JHSV catamaran becomes a viable platform. (And given the minimum-cost focus of the LCS RfP–LCS-1 may well end up winning the LCS contract.) In that case, the JHSV gets a wide-open niche to go ...
USNI Blog - http://blog.usni.org/
Information Dissemination: JHSVs Are Not Coastal Patrol Vessels
By Galrahn
You'll see, for example, improvements at the low end because we've stabilized the LCS program and increased the Joint High Speed Vessel program quite significantly, to 23 vessels. There was a big debate within the department on patrol ...
Information Dissemination - http://www.informationdissemination.net/
The following were a couple of interesting articles from last week on the JHSV. Recommend reading the one from the 9th:
- Feb 9, 2010 | ... The Army said it plans to look at the environmental impact of basing up to three "joint high-speed vessels" in Pearl Harbor -- speedy craft capable of carrying large loads ...
- Feb 8, 2010 | ... The Army today said it plans to look at the environmental impact of basing up to three "joint high speed vessels" in Pearl Harbor -- a craft similar to the defunct ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
