GovernmentExecutive.com

Chief of Naval Operations Michael Mullen said Tuesday he is "embarrassed" by hefty cost overruns on the Littoral Combat Ship, but said he expects to get the program back on track as early as next month.

There is "plenty of blame to go around" between the defense industry and Navy officials who failed to adequately oversee the program, Mullen told the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee during a hearing on the Navy and Marine Corps fiscal 2008 budget request.

The Navy "pressurized" the LCS production schedule and costs projections, setting ambitious goals for the program, Mullen added.

But the Navy's top officer stressed that he wished to "very strongly reaffirm the requirement and the capability" of the program, the first of the military's next generation of surface combatants.

The Navy stopped work on the third LCS ship Jan. 12, after learning that the price tag on the first ship would total roughly $410 million -- well above the $220 million the Navy expects to pay for future ships. The price of the third ship was expected to be much less than the first LCS, but still fall well over $300 million.

Lockheed Martin built the first and third ships, while General Dynamics is on contract to build the second and fourth ships.

The Navy has not determined how it will divvy up work for the 51 remaining Littoral Combat Ships the service intends to buy.

The Navy received funding to buy two LCSs this year, and has requested enough money to buy three of them next year. The service plans to purchase six of the ships each year between fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2012, and another five in fiscal 2013.

Navy Secretary Donald Winter said the service has conducted initial reviews of the program, and its next step is to have a firm understanding of "alternate courses of action," including making changes within the Navy and with the contract.

"All of us are embarrassed by the costs of this LCS," House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., said. "We can't have this happen. As the taxpayers' representative, [I say] you have to get this under control."

Murtha, a strong supporter of the defense industry, used the LCS cost increases as a launching pad to question the Navy on its inability to get many of its major shipbuilding costs under control.

Murtha and other shipbuilding enthusiasts would like the Navy to buy 12 ships in fiscal 2008 -- five more than are in the current budget request. But the Pennsylvania Democrat said he cannot do so until costs come down.

It would be "hard to recommend five more ships when we have this overrun," Murtha said.

Meanwhile, lawmakers also pressed Winter on the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, an amphibious vehicle produced by General Dynamics that has experienced severe problems, including leaks and frequent breakdowns.

Winter said the Navy is tweaking the design to fix the problems. However, he also indicated that the Navy might look for a second contractor to devise another design for the vehicle.

COMMENTS

• Our sailors are spending more and more time at sea, due to the fact that there are fewer ships available to carry out the missions assigned to the Navy. Remember that for every ship deployed, another one is in for overhaul or repairs and others are in training or en route to or from their stations. In other words, to maintain a certain number of ships on station, you need a fleet several times that number. As it is, ships aren't been maintained as well as they should, because of the pressures to get them back out to sea. Crews are being overtaxed on extended deployments away from their loved ones, leading to morale and retention issues. I agree that the military in general is in love with big-ticket, high tech items, but that doesn't mean that we also have to cut out everything else that is deemed necessary to defend this nation. It's not just North Korea and Iran that we have to be prepared for. Putin is flexing his muscles in Russia, China is building a modern fleet (you might ask what for?), piracy is still a major problem in Southeast Asia and Africa, as well as the ongoing threat from terrorists. I'd rather be prepared than be caught flat-footed when the next crisis erupts, as it inevitably will. America Firsters and isolationists like Charles Lindbergh said basically the same things while England was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany, and only changed their tunes after the sneak attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island. By then, it was too late, and we barely held on until we were able to mobilize and build new ships and planes to go on the offensive against Japan and Germany. Remember, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Sept. 11, 2001 was this generation's Pearl Harbor, although unfortunately, the War on Terror will last a lot longer, due to the nature of the enemy we are facing. GovExec.com reader Posted February 20, 2007 12:04 PM
• Concerned: What are you concerned about? I think our current Navy is very capable of fighting a war with N Korea, and Iran. Even if we fight them at the same time! One does not need to be a Navy expert to know that we do not need a bigger Navy! Also, one does not need to be a Naval expert to know that we do not need the new ships immediately but could wait several years for their delivery. I agree with your assessment of the lack of ship building capacity and ability in the USA but that basically is because of the excessive regulation of flying the USA flag on a ship - we need significant reduction in regulation of shipping in the US to encourage flying the flag on US ships. Then we could see our ship building capacity rebuild over time as more and more shippers start returning to shipping under the US flag. We don't have to spend endlessly on the Navy to rebuild our ship building capacity but we do need for Congress to remove the excessive regulations on those that ship under the US flag. Just look at the vast cruise industry shipping out of Florida and you will be hard pressed to find many running under the American flag! taxpayer Posted February 20, 2007 7:43 AM
• Dear Concerned, You must be new! Don't you know that "taxpayer" has all, knows all and most importantly, tells all of us how everything is wrong. For the last two years that I've been reading his "boy that cries wolf" tirades, I have learned one thing, s/he should run for every office in the country and ALL our problems will be solved! Or more realistic, just try (hard is it sounds) ignore him/her and maybe "taxpayer" will come down off the soapbox! (I doubt) Good luck! Tom Posted February 16, 2007 9:35 PM