Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Navy reasserting control of shipbuilding ($3 billion apiece for the first two)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:00 PM
Original message
Navy reasserting control of shipbuilding ($3 billion apiece for the first two)

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8Q8VBD00.htm

Navy reasserting control of shipbuilding

By DAVID SHARP

BATH, Maine

Stung by cost overruns, the Navy is looking to return to a past when it controlled the shipbuilding process from beginning to end. The change follows a period when the Navy told shipyards what it wanted the ships to do and then let them deliver rather than getting mired in design details.

But that approach failed to control costs in construction of the speedy Littoral Combat Ship for close-to-shore operations and in the design of the stealthy DDG-1000 destroyer, the successor to the mainstay Arleigh Burke destroyers built at Bath Iron Works and at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi.

The growing cost of warships in recent years has led the Navy to reduce its orders, and the resulting loss of economies of scale has driven costs of individual warships even higher. That spiral has left everyone unhappy, including the Navy, members of Congress, defense contractors -- and shipbuilders who fear for their jobs.

The Navy recently took the unusual step of punishing Lockheed Martin for cost overruns on the smaller vessel -- the Littoral Combat Ship -- by canceling the second of its two ships. Lockheed's first ship had grown from $275 million to between $350 million and $375 million. Lockheed, which accepted responsibility, isn't expected to take a big financial hit. In April, the company reported it earned $690 million in the first quarter, beating Wall Street's expectations, and raised its full-year financial forecast.

Construction hasn't begun on the new destroyer, but its cost already has ballooned from early estimates of about $2 billion for the lead ship to more than $3 billion apiece for the first two, according to Ron O'Rourke of the Congressional Research Service. As the ship has grown bigger, more complicated and more expensive, the Navy scaled back the number to be built to just seven.

The Navy's fleet, meanwhile, has shrunk to 276 ships, down from nearly 600 during President Reagan's defense buildup. The Navy, which blames the cost of ships in part for the low orders that cut back the fleet, has a goal of 313 ships.

"The Navy obviously needs to do something. The plan we've been on has resulted in a shrinking, aging Navy," said Winslow Wheeler, military analyst for the Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based think tank.

FULL story at link.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Never happen.
The DOD exists to keep defense contractors in business - and to a much lesser degree, defend the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Any procurement officer
who didn't shovel money at the Military-Industrial complex would ruin his chances for a good gig after retirement. Gee, the revolving door wouldn't work at all well...

You're right === Ain't gonna happen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. And they need all these ships, why???
As I remember my Navy days it's so there's room for more Admirals at the top...

Certainly there's no practical use for this shit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. We don't need more ships for more admirals.
There's more admirals today than there were in 1945.
Heck, there are more admirals today than there were in 1987.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. One of the reasons, I am sure, why they are in Mississippi is one,
because of Trent Lott and two, because the northern shipyards are all Union and so supposedly cost more to produce...

How's that working for ya, DOD....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. It has more to do with Trent Lott and Democratic Senators in
Maine.
As in, T.L. trying to prevent Democratic Senators from getting any navy pork.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-10-07 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. It was the shipyards in Mass....
And the Unions...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. There was a time...
when the Navy OWNED it's own shipyards, and built at least some of its own warships.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. Education, Healthcare, Elder care, etc - we don't have money for those things! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-09-07 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. Good job shutting down the shipyards a few years ago.
Idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 27th 2024, 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC