Because Deepwater is Years Behind Schedule
My Michael DeKort
As reported in the Navy Times
Why is this happening? Because Deepwater is years behind schedule. In the original baseline plan it was supposed to have the following in the fleet by now. (Not under contract, being built or in trials but in service)
123 – 46
NSC – 4 (In the fleet not under contract, being built or in trials)
FRC- 0
Had they stayed on the schedule they committed to after the RAND study completed (A 5 year acceleration – not even the 10 year it preferred in it’s post 9/11 study)
123 – 34
FRC – 11
NSC – 5
Had either of these schedules been met many of the current ships in need of decommissioning would be replaced. (In fairness the Coast Guard did fund the MEP program to keep the 110s going until the very late FRC program gets back on track. Keep in mind most of the 110s were supposed to be gone by now and the Coast Guard paid extra for this work as the Deepwater subcontractors refuse to pay the $96M refund the Coast Guard asked for for the 123s they ruined)
The RAND study can be found here.
Yawn.
Will it be boring to you when a crew is hurt, a ship is lost or a critical mission fails because of this?
Well Mike most critical National Security Missions are handled by the Navy and the Coast Guard is just a bit-player in that world. Being a former Navy man yourself you should know this. On this issue you are full of shit.
Umm, why are the 123s included as evidence that the Coast Guard can’t keep Deepwater on schedule? That got killed years ago because it clearly wasn’t going to be successful.
And isn’t it the same program your whole lawsuit revolves around? Are you saying that for the sake of a schedule proposed in a Rand study the Coast Guard should’ve kept it going?
Mike wants HIS money. Nothing else matters.
I am not sure the 123 program should have kept going. Maybe it should have. Given the MEP program demonstrates the 110s can be made whole again the problem comes down to the addition of the 13ft. Either the 110s could be designed with 13 extra feet or they couldn’t. If it was possible to do that right they should have kept going (while fixing all the C4ISR issues). As I understand it the 110s did not get the 123s C4ISR suite. That part is a shame. The 13ft had no bearing on the C4ISR system. (I assume the interior and mast mods required prohibited this upgrade due to cost/schedule reasons)
Is drug interdiction a national security issue? Is providing rescue services for the other services a national security issue? Are the CG ops in the gulf and other areas outside of the normal patrol area a national security issue? Is protecting and patrolling our ports a national security issue? I would argue that on a day to day basis, especially as a relative percentage, the CG is involved with just as much or more national security work as the Navy. And if you factor in the potential threats and for someone in the CG to be harmed the CG has more of a national security impact and more of an involvement than the US Navy on a day to day basis. What percentage of people in the Navy actually face the potential for being harmed on the average day compared to that of the CG on a daily basis, both relative to national security and not?
How do you figure my positions here favorably impact any ability I may have to make any money?
But it didn’t, so the part about the 123s not being on schedule is moot because there is no schedule. And I don’t read minds but I think you probably can see some wisdom in that decision. Why keep going when there are major structural problems, right?
But those structural problems were from a poor design and even if they weren’t why not do the rest? Meaning why not add the entire C4ISR suite and most of the other changes that were not dependent on 13ft being added? (Of course those need to be designed and installed right) Why not make super 110s?
Aren’t you suing over claims that the C4ISR was all screwed up on the 123s and is all screwed up for the NSC too? Seems odd that you think they should continue the effort.
Just my guess, but it probably makes more sense from a money standpoint to work on the FRCs and getting the replacements for medium and high endurance cutter classes going than giving 110s fancy C4ISR.
Yes I am suing on those grounds and others. But the suit was never the primary goal and still isn’t. The goal was to get the assets and program right. The suit was just the next very unfortunate step.
You could be right about the FRCs.
I am not saying we should have continued. My comment was asset and mission focused. If continuing the 123 effort made sense then so be it. If that were the case then obviously someone other than LM/NG should be doing the work. As such one can still sue to recover damages and to prosecute fraud while wanting the project to continue under a different set of contractors – if that decision was in the best interest of the Coast Guard.
The problems with the 123s and Deepwater were caused by the contractors and their ignorance, arrogance, incompetence and lack of ethics. They were not caused because any of it was rocket science or undoable. And the problems were certainly not caused due to abuse of the 110s as the contractors maintain the Coast Guard did.