GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: FEATURES Off Course

• 79036
  

  None of these issues should be news to the Navy. As Secretary Stiller points out, these same issues have always plagued the shipbuilding process. If the design isn?t set, you might as well open up the checkbook right away, because each of those adjustments has implications, not only in the building of the vessel, but the support of it for the 30 to 50 years it is expected to operate (and that is where the REAL price is paid, BTW). Of course we shouldn?t expect the shipbuilder to assume all of the risk and to pay for changes, but neither should the Navy allow the design to be a moving target. I would also ascribe some of the increases in acquisition to the de-staffing of Project Office personnel and the decimation of standards. The government, in its efforts to pass along as much work as possible to the private sector, has left too few public servants to properly oversee the work being done, or to ensure the contract is properly administered, and standards adhered to. Perhaps there was a time when specifications and standards were too exacting, but after a period of 25 to 30 years of eliminating them, that is not usually the case. There is a reason such documents were created, and it wasn?t just to raise the cost of an item. They were developed to ensure a minimum quality, and to clarify requirements for everyone. There is certainly enough blame to pass around, but the key is to pay attention to these experiences, and go back to the fundamentals. Change is fine, but it costs money. Be sure contracts and invoked standards are being overseen by adequate personnel. And the real way to save money is to build multiples instead of ?one-ofs.?

  Lyle Posted June 2, 2009 11:05 AM
• 78885
  

  The devolution of the Navy since the 1990s has been watched with frustration with those of us who are concerned with the health of the seagoing services such as the Navy League. Manpower has been stripped from all ranks in a ruthless downsizing and the fleet has declined precipitously. Then we were sent to war.

  New ship construction is a mess and must be based on another costing method than cost plus where there is no incentive to strive for efficiency. This way of doing business must finally come to an end.

  The navy over site operation has been denuded through layoffs and attrition until it is incapable of effectively do its job. We need to rebuild the in house infrastructure to ensure the over site necessary to see that the needed ships are constructed in a timely and cost effective manner.

  The Navy needs men first then ships. Congress needs to increase the quotas for all the services. This will increase the efficiency as men will do the jobs for which they are trained.

  This Individual Augmentation atrocity must come to an end. To take a skilled person out of his specialty and stick him on the ground in one of our wars and hand him a gun is a stupid loose, loose situation. Historically was only used in desperate situations like the Battle of the Bulge. Is the situation that desperate over there? Congress increase the manpower. How can the Navy be expected to do an effective job when there are more sailors on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan than on our ships. Yhis continuous dislocation must stop for in time even these dedicated people are going to have had enough and the situation will worsen.

  We need to rebuild the acquisition and engineering teams to ensure private industry does the job they bid at the agreed price. This means the Navy will need to be reasonable and hold changes to a minimum during construction to keep costs in line. An open construction system for easy upgrades is essential. More serious preplanning will have to be done. Then we can seriously pursue a ship building tailored to the 21st Century.

  The submarine forces seem to have ship building program under better control giving a shining example that the job can be done.

  The article paints a gloomy picture but it is not too late to correct it if congress sincerely wants to create an effective navy to ensure our commitments are met around the world.

  Robert Hein Posted May 31, 2009 10:00 AM