Monday, January 15, 2024

Constellation Fraud

The Navy assured us that the Constellation class frigate would be a zero risk, on-time, on-cost, romp through the park to build since it was, essentially, a copy of an existing Fincantieri FREMM design.  There would be only minor, inconsequential changes – the color of the paint, perhaps, or an extra bulkhead or two for greater compartmentalization – that would have no impact on the design or production of the ship.
 
Of course, when the concept drawings were released, it turned out that the ship had been heavily modified and actually bore little resemblance to the parent FREMM design.  The Navy had lied to Congress and the public by presenting the frigate as a minor variation of an existing design when, in reality, it was a nearly brand new design with little in common with the so-called parent.  I won’t bother reciting the litany of changes from the parent design as those are readily available on line.
 
So, how’s all that working out?
 
USNI News website reports that the ship construction and delivery is going to be delayed at least a year.[1]  Construction began in Aug 2022 and the Navy is now hoping for delivery in 2027.  Far more likely is a 2028-9 delivery.  That’s a five to seven year delivery for what the Navy claims is a minor tweak of an existing design!
 
This babbling, incoherent, pointless statement from Andy Bosak (deputy manager for the frigate program) tells you everything you need to know about the state of the program.  The Navy has no idea what’s happening, no idea how to fix it, and no idea when the ship will be delivered. 
We are doing our analysis, as the Navy does, of doing deep dives of causes and effects and various different levers of which we can pull within that shipyard,” he added. “And we need to, as a program, work with our leadership, kind of figure out what we want to do. And from that, we will make that assessment as to what the actual schedule impact is of where we are. And that effort is ongoing.[1]
The builder, Fincantieri, blames much of the delay on labor shortages, welders, in particular.  No doubt this is a factor but I suspect there are other, far more impactful problems.  For example, 
… Fincantieri … wrestled with Americanizing the FREMM design for two and half years before it hit the 80 percent design completion and could begin fabrication on Constellation in 2022.  The modification of the design altered almost every drawing of the FREMM and required review from NAVSEA … [1]
The labor situation was well known before Fincantieri submitted a bid and the before the Navy awarded them a contract so that should have already been factored into the schedule.  What wasn’t factored in was the extent to which the Navy would modify the design.  The modifications sent ripple waves of disruption spreading throughout the program, culminating in the major schedule slippage we learn about now.  Undoubtedly, the schedule will slip even further.  We’re likely looking at closer to a two year schedule delay for a ship that was supposedly a knock off of an existing design.
 
The Navy knew all this and understood what deviating from the parent design would mean. 
"[The Navy] and the shipbuilder agreed that design maturity was probably the single biggest factor we could do to reduce the risk of production,” former program executive officer for unmanned and small combatants Rear Adm. Casey Moton said in August of 2022.[1]
So, knowing full well what a modified (immature) design would do to the production schedule, the Navy went ahead and completely redesigned the ship anyway.  Not only is the Navy complicit in the current problems, they are the proximate cause of the problems!
 
Here’s yet another example of the ‘minor, insignificant’ changes the Navy made: 
… testing at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock found that the modified design did not meet service standards for operating in heavy seas, necessitating design changes that ate into the schedule margin … [1]
 
“We were already into the functional and detail design when that report came from Carderock – something of a surprise because the parent design didn’t really have that,” Vandroff (Mark Vandroff, Fincantieri Marinette Marine’s chief executive officer) said.[1]
That was a surprise to you, Mr. Vandroff?  Seriously?  You completely changed the design to the point that it is a brand new, never before produced design and were surprised to find that created new problems?  You’re not an engineer, I’m assuming?
 



 
Conclusion
 
This program has been nothing but fraud and deception piled on fraud and deception from the very beginning and now it’s coming home to roost.  The Navy tried to hide a completely new ship inside the shadow – and lies – of an existing ship and now they’re acting surprised that the fraud is impacting the production schedule.
 
We need to also keep cost in mind.  Schedule slippages of this magnitude don’t come free.  The cost is going to skyrocket and the Navy will, again, act surprised and attempt to blame the builder.
 
By the way, do you recall that the Navy claimed that the follow on ships (2-20) would cost less than $800M?  Yeah, they said that.  Here’s the quote from RAdm. John Neagley:
 
“The follow-on objective cost for FFG(X) is $800 million. We think we can get below that.”[2]
 
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), on the other hand, estimated an average cost of $1.2B per ship.[3]
 
As it turns out, the actual budgeted costs are around $1.1B-$1.2B, and that’s before the inevitable cost overruns, costs associated with schedule slippages, deferred completion costs for incomplete delivery, etc.  The true cost will be somewhere in the $1.5B+ range.
 

 
 
______________________________
 
[1]USNI News website, “First Constellation Frigate Delayed At Least a Year, Schedule Assessment ‘Ongoing’”, Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone, 11-Jan-2024,
https://news.usni.org/2024/01/11/first-constellation-frigate-delayed-at-least-a-year-schedule-assessment-ongoing#:~:text=The%20service%20has%20briefed%20Congress%20that%20the%20future,legislative%20source%20confirmed%20to%20USNI%20News%20this%20week.
 
[2]Breaking Defense website, “Navy Says It Can Buy Frigate For Under $800M: Acquisition Reform Testbed”, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., 12-Jan-2018,
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/navy-says-it-can-buy-frigate-for-under-800m-acquisition-reform-testbed/
 
[3]CBO website, “The Cost of the Navy’s New Frigate”, Oct-2020,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56675

34 comments:

  1. Like i said years ago- "half a Burke for 2/3 the price"!!
    Didn't like this program from the beginning, when it wasnt the unaltered parent version of the ASW variant. The fact that we cant create our own design, and had to go to a less-than-current design from Europe...thats pathetic. And then...we screw up the concept of buying am existing design...by changing it a LOT!!!
    Frankly, this is starting to make my spider sense tingle...Im getting Zumwalt/LCS vibes. I'd cancel the whole program right now, start cleaning house of flag ranks and anyone remotely connected to this program (as well as Ford and LCS), and try again to develop a proper ship in a few years...

    ReplyDelete
  2. We sill don't know the electric motor selected for these ships. The LM2500+G4 geared to 2 hafts CODELAG is about the only part remaining from the original. The Gensets are the same as used on F125 and Type 26. That is a good move as we have seen how bad actual Italian gensets performed on EPF and LCS-1.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is why the US Navy should never tampered with the FREMM Design and should have kept it in its original design. It would have kept the cost down and easier to build.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " It would have kept the cost down and easier to build."

      It would also have produced an obsolete design, regardless. The preferred approach would have been to design a clean sheet vessel using industry standard practices as continuously cited and recommended by CBO, DOT&E, CRS, and GAO (basically, everyone but the Navy!).

      Delete
    2. There is very little evidence the navy knows how to ge a from scratch design right at this point. I'm still half up for their adopted method here. If they were smart they'd start looking at a similar variation of the Italian PPA since it was designed without bow sonar from the start and actually has more potential electrical capacity available.

      Delete
    3. "There is very little evidence the navy knows how to ge a from scratch design right"

      And yet there's overwhelming evidence that letting industry design the ships is a colossal failure. Hence, my call for a return of the General Board and BuShips. They produced the best Navy ships since the age of sail.

      Delete
    4. "...letting industry design the ships is a colossal failure"

      And thats the thing! While Im not suggesting conspiracy theory level corruption, having companies that will build ships design them as well, every step in the process from first napkin doodle to a commissioned ship( and even years beyond that, these days) is controlled by folks whos purpose is to generate a profit. Their business isnt to build powerful, useful, survivable, and cost-effective ships. No matter how patriotic or dedicated individuals may be, building proper WARships is NOT a corporate entities first priority, no matter what the press releases say.
      Now obviously im not against them making reasonable profit. But handing this whole process off to industry is tantamount to an accused murderer getting to hand pick his jury and judge.
      Until we can create (and own) designs in-house and then put them out for bid...and Navy brass actually makes building proper ships again, I dont anything changing. The Connies show what happens when even a semi-reasonable idea gets into the hands of fools and/or those without the USN best interests at heart...

      Delete
    5. See, what I would have done is buy the FREMM design with very few design changes and keep it close to the Italian FREMM in the IT ASW version without any modifications.

      Delete
    6. I’d much rather go with a Japanese or South Korean design. Most Euro frigates are really just smallish destroyers with limited VLS capacity & bespoke systems that would take a lot of time, energy & money to integrate with our stuff. Japanese & Korean destroyers and frigates tend to hit harder & have deeper magazines & use a lot of American weapons & electronics built under license. They also have a lot more ship-building expertise than any country in Europe at this point & our the only allies we have with the demonstrated ability to produce major surface combatants with any alacrity & to do so on time & at or under budget. An Americanized Mogami would be a pretty good investment, IMO. I do like some of the Scandavian designs—The Danish Absalon & Iver Huitfeldt class frigates are versatile, heavy hitting ships for their size & the Swedes have developed some very nifty LO missile corvettes. Folks who can see Russia and/or China from their homes just seem to take defense a little more seriously than folks who live in nicer neighborhoods. 😉

      Delete
  4. Here's a thought, since the RN is going bust, lets buy them out, personel and all. Probably cheeper than building new construction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reckon they’d give us a friends & family discount if we took their carriers off their hands? 😁

      Seriously, though, the British just don’t have the resources or need to maintain large carriers anymore. And they don’t have nearly enough planes. The RN & RAF share the UK’s 30 or so F-35Bs between them. They don’t have any other carrier-capable strike aircraft & even if they did they likely wouldn’t be able to use them seeings as how the QEs lack catapults. They could use Harriers, I reckon, but they gave us all their Harriers back in 2010.

      I’m not a huge fan of the British carriers but I reckon we could equip them with a scaled down version of the Ford’s EMALs & set them up as ASW carriers/command ships.

      Delete
  5. I heard Fincantieri was hit by a cyber attack on the network last April resulting in production delays. This can frequently take months or even over a year to get their systems rebuilt. When it rains it pours.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, since we seem to be getting much less than a Burke for nearly the price of a Burke, maybe we should just give up and buy more Burkes.

    I get it, the Burke is an old design. But they do work, and I'm very worried that we have a major threat in THIS decade, and a clean sheet design is basically talking about availability in the 2030's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But they do work"

      In what way? This is like saying that the old 4-stacker destroyers worked, as we entered WWII. Yes, they could sail without sinking but they were useless against the modern threats of WWII. Similarly, Burkes are pushing obsolete, now. They're decidedly non-stealthy by modern standards, have poor equipment separation, little redundancy, no armor, are structurally weak, have very little gun capability, lack close in weapon defense, are poor ASW platforms (due mainly to lack of training and cost), are too expensive to risk, have used up their weight margins, etc. In short, they're not survivable on the modern naval battlefield. Why do you want to build more 4-stackers as we're preparing to enter WWIII with China?

      Delete
    2. “ Why do you want to build more 4-stackers as we're preparing to enter WWIII with China?”

      I don’t oppose a clean sheet design. I think a clean sheet design would be great. We should do a clean sheet design. But a clean sheet design is a 2030’s solution. And we are facing a potential war in the 2020’s. How do we meet that threat?

      Delete
    3. "How do we meet that threat?"

      I assume you're a long time reader and have a thorough knowledge of the archives. Even if you're a relatively new reader, you've probably been spending every waking moment and half the night catching up on the archives. So, with that knowledge, you know that I've described the many ways to meet the imminent threat from China.

      Without repeating the multitude of posts, I'll simply say that the number one way is to STOP RETIRING SHIPS AND SUBS! We're planning on retiring around 50 over the next few years and we're only building a very small handful of replacements. War is coming - so says the Navy - and we're shrinking the fleet and reducing the overall firepower. That's got to be the dumbest policy I've ever heard of.

      For the rest of the ways we can meet the threat, you've got the wealth of the archives to answer that!

      Delete
    4. Every time a REMF says we have to “divest to invest” I feel an overwhelming urge to punch a baby.

      It’s possible I just really hate babies.

      Delete
  7. the UK, Canada and Australia have gone with a Type 26 derivative, Still don't understand why that design was not chosen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you ought to know, the frigate competition was limited to EXISTING designs. At the time, the Type 26 was non-existent. You can debate the wisdom of the parent requirement but it's crystal clear why the Type 26 was not considered.

      Delete
    2. The type 26 remains non-existent.

      Delete
    3. The Brits track are even worse than we are at putting hulls in the water in a timely fashion for the price they were ordered at…or anything close to it. By 2027 they’re likely going to be down to 15 major surface combatants.

      Delete
  8. T26 wasn't mature safe design with one already in the water. They went for FREMM as a safe option that could be built quickly, without delays or cost overruns. lol.
    I personally would have purchased the blue prints for T26 and made 10 with minimal changes to buy time.
    ASW is changing fast.
    Do you build a large T26 type mother-ship that can do TAS and automatous systems (do everything), do you make cheap "corvette" ASW with TAS, Do you do cheap mother-ships with autonomous systems.
    In an ideal world (in my opinion), we (UK) and you would have developed a cheaper "corvette" solution (15 year life) for AWS while we waited for the new technology to prove itself. But then in an ideal world we (both sides of the pond) would have done a lot of things differently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Industry types who insist they’re going to be able to cut crews in half by automating everything tend to badly overestimate (or just flat-out lie about) their technological capabilities.

      Delete
  9. Technically, the Canadian competition was for an already in service design. Fincantieri offered to build FREMM's for the RCN at a fixed price but the government said it was unfair to other bidders to offer a cheaper, better alternative. They ended up choosing an unproven design which, inevitably, is coming in wildly over budget and late. There is serious talk in Canada of just giving up on the whole mess and buying Connies from U.S. shipyards. I'm not sure if this comment is in the "buying warships is hard" category or maybe "count your blessings, it could be worse".
    J.G. Murray

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please name one major weapon in past 10 years without any delay? without cost overrun.

    It's Pentagon's norm.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If they were going to change the FREMM so much to a mini Burke seems like the better option would have been basing off the National security cutter in perhaps two setups: ASW and surface warfare and AA and Surface warfare. Get hulls in the water at under Billion and stop making the LCS and than focus on making a really good ship to replace the Burke

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edit on the later not to mine Burke standards on the AA but I dunno reasonably solid.

      Delete
    2. edit more personally even the Patrol Frigate 4921 looked like a winner as a more or less of the shelf inexpensive buy.

      Delete
    3. A modified Cutter would likely make a pretty decent ASW frigate, albeit a very expensive one. They already cost something like $700 million & change per unit. Trying to rig up the NSC as a decent anti-surface/anti-air frigate probably isn’t worth it.

      Delete
    4. "better option would have been basing off the National security cutter"

      Bear in mind that the NSC was not built to full military standards. Potentially, that's a problem rendering the ship less survivable, depending on which standards where not followed. The ship is decidedly not stealthy which is a severe problem on the modern naval battlefield and one of the major reasons I call the Burkes obsolete.

      Does the NSC have EMP, NBC, and shock hardening?

      Is it built to ASW quieting levels? If not, it's dead meat in ASW.

      And so on. There's a lot more to the suitability of a ship for combat than just what you can visually see. Answer some of these questions before you jump on the NSC bandwagon.

      Delete
    5. "A modified Cutter would likely make a pretty decent ASW frigate"

      I suspect not or, at least, not without massive modifications. The ship would need extensive quieting measures such as rafting, acoustic isolation, special low-acoustic signature equipment selection, Prairie/Masker, specially designed props, very low self-noise, etc.

      Proceedings had a 2014 article on this. Link, here

      In short, modifying the NSC to a useful, EFFECTIVE combat vessel is much more involved and challenging than you think and would cost far more than you think.

      Delete
  12. @ Jjabatie "half a Burke for 2/3 the price" - Not strictly true as in FY 2024 Burkes budgeted at $2.216 billion, Constellations is $1.087 and has16 deck launchers for its NSM's in addition to 32 VLS cells, its all firepower, whether a mini-Burke is appropriate for an ASW frigate is another question.

    One of the greatest limitations to the old Burkes design is its limited range, 4,400 nm at 20 knots, which with its in extremis reserves cuts it back operational to just under 3,000 nm, noticeable that the new DDG(X) designed with 50% more range, 120% more time on station and 25% reduction in fuel consumption.

    As to cost the Navies and far east shipyards appear an order magnitude less costly, have seen the new DDG(X) to be ordered in 2032 and del'd 2036/7? quoted at $3,2 billion whereas the first Japanese 17,000t 128 VLS cell ASEV destroyer just ordered to be del'd 2036 for $1.3 billion if the figures are to be believed.

    PS Understand the Constellation HED system won by Leonardo DRS with their Permanent Magnet Motors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " Constellations is $1.087"

      The Burke price is fairly well established. In contrast, the Constellation price is still not much better than an estimate and will, with 100% certainty, increase substantially. We just noted the announced schedule delay of a year or more which will likely add several hundred million dollars to the cost. In addition, the Navy has moved to a process of incomplete delivery with the deferred construction being paid out of other, non-SCN budget accounts/lines. There will, with 100% certainty, be an endless series of change orders which will further increase the cost.

      Thus, the true, final cost is likely to be around $1.5B-$1.8B.

      "16 deck launchers for its NSM's in addition to 32 VLS cells"

      The Constellation has 1/3 the VLS cells. Burkes have been seen with 8 deck launchers and, being a bolt on system, there is no reason why they couldn't mount 16 in combat.

      "far east shipyards appear an order magnitude less costly"

      Note: the phrase 'order of magnitude' means a factor of ten. That aside, NO foreign quoted cost is accurate as the ALL include various cost gimmicks such as subsidies, lowered standards, altered cost accounting, 'for but not with', reused equipment, etc. Every time I've examined foreign costs, I've encountered these factors and, when the cost is adjusted to reflect them, the final cost isn't much different than US costs. Unless you know ALL the factors that go into a publicly announced Japanese cost, you're likely seeing a significantly understated cost.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.