Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
aawmod [2009/08/30 18:42]
historian
aawmod [2011/01/04 02:54] (current)
historian
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== THE GUIDED MISSILE FRIGATE (DLG) ANTI-AIR WARFARE MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ====== ====== THE GUIDED MISSILE FRIGATE (DLG) ANTI-AIR WARFARE MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ======
    
-###U. S. General Accounting Office Staff Study - DLG Anti-Air Warfare Modernization Program - Department of the Navy###+###**U. S. General Accounting Office Staff Study - DLG Anti-Air Warfare Modernization Program - Department of the Navy**### 
 ===== PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND STATUS ===== ===== PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND STATUS =====
  
-###The DLG Anti-Air Warfare Modernization Program is primarily intended to improve the anti-air warfare capabilities of the 10 ships of the DLG-6 class, the nine ships of the DLG-16 class, and the nuclear DLG(N)-25. Modernization will enable these ships to launch TERRIER and STANDARD missiles from the same launcher. Illustrations of the DLG-6 and DLG-16 class ships are attached as Appendixes I and II. The DLG(N)-25, will have about the same above deck profile as shown tor the DLG-16 class.+###The DLG Anti-Air Warfare Modernization Program is primarily intended to improve the anti-air warfare capabilities of the 10 ships of the DLG-6 class, the nine ships of the DLG-16 class, and the nuclear DLG(N)-25. Modernization will enable these ships to launch TERRIER and STANDARD missiles from the same launcher. Illustrations of the DLG-6 and DLG-16 class ships are attached as Appendixes ​[[aawmod#​APPENDIX ​I|I]] and [[aawmod#​APPENDIX II|II]]. The DLG(N)-25, will have about the same above deck profile as shown tor the DLG-16 class.
  
 All ships are being equipped with an improved three-dimensional air search radar, an improved guided missile fire control system, and the Naval Tactical Data System. Changes are also being made to improve the communications system, increase the anti-submarine detection capability, and to increase the electrical generating and air-conditioning capacities. In addition to modernizing the ships, needed repairs and rehabilitation are being made to ship structures and equipment. All ships are being equipped with an improved three-dimensional air search radar, an improved guided missile fire control system, and the Naval Tactical Data System. Changes are also being made to improve the communications system, increase the anti-submarine detection capability, and to increase the electrical generating and air-conditioning capacities. In addition to modernizing the ships, needed repairs and rehabilitation are being made to ship structures and equipment.
Line 11: Line 12:
  
 The first of the remaining four ships of the DLG-6 class started the program in October 1972 and modernization of all four ships is scheduled for completion by March 1976. The DLG(N)-25 is scheduled to start in June 1974, and be completed in October 1976.### The first of the remaining four ships of the DLG-6 class started the program in October 1972 and modernization of all four ships is scheduled for completion by March 1976. The DLG(N)-25 is scheduled to start in June 1974, and be completed in October 1976.###
 +
 ===== PROGRAM COST EXPERIENCE ===== ===== PROGRAM COST EXPERIENCE =====
  
Line 25: Line 27:
 |Estimating Change | (+) 1.8 | | |Estimating Change | (+) 1.8 | |
 |Other Changes | **__(-) 1.4__** |  **__(+) 14.0__** ​ | |Other Changes | **__(-) 1.4__** |  **__(+) 14.0__** ​ |
-| | | |+||||
 |Program Costs as of June 30, 1972 | |  **__$ 1,​020.6__** ​ | |Program Costs as of June 30, 1972 | |  **__$ 1,​020.6__** ​ |
  
Line 69: Line 71:
 |Total |$ 713.4  |$ 148.4  | |Total |$ 713.4  |$ 148.4  |
 |Amount actually appropriated by the Congress for this program was $101.4 million. The change occurred because funding for the DLG-11 was postponed until fiscal year 1974.||| |Amount actually appropriated by the Congress for this program was $101.4 million. The change occurred because funding for the DLG-11 was postponed until fiscal year 1974.|||
 +
 ===== CONTRACT DATA ===== ===== CONTRACT DATA =====
  
Line 75: Line 78:
 The contract with Bath provides for modernizing eight ships at a fixed price of $54.4 million (plus escalation) and repairing them at prices to be negotiated on a repair order basis. As of June 30, 1972, there were 150 changes to the scope of the modernization work at an estimated cost of $8.3 million. With respect to repairs, that have been 3,980 repair orders issued at an estimated cost of $49.9 million. ​ The contract with Bath provides for modernizing eight ships at a fixed price of $54.4 million (plus escalation) and repairing them at prices to be negotiated on a repair order basis. As of June 30, 1972, there were 150 changes to the scope of the modernization work at an estimated cost of $8.3 million. With respect to repairs, that have been 3,980 repair orders issued at an estimated cost of $49.9 million. ​
  
-The modernization and repair work at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard is done on a cost-reimbursable basis. Currently, seven of the ten DLG-6 class ships and the one DLG-l6 ship had completed or were undergoing work. The following schedule summarizes costs for modernization and repairing them' ​as of June 30, 1972:###+The modernization and repair work at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard is done on a cost-reimbursable basis. Currently, seven of the ten DLG-6 class ships and the one DLG-16 ship had completed or were undergoing work. The following schedule summarizes costs for modernization and repairing them as of June 30, 1972:###
  
 |< 400px 300px 100px >| |< 400px 300px 100px >|
Line 85: Line 88:
 ###The Navy purchases equipment and services from a number of contractors for the modernization program. However, a Navy official informed us that updating the contract data previously reported in the SAR would entail extensive research. ​ ###The Navy purchases equipment and services from a number of contractors for the modernization program. However, a Navy official informed us that updating the contract data previously reported in the SAR would entail extensive research. ​
  
-The progress reporting plan for the Bath Iron Works Corporation and the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard consists of the submission of the following types of reports ​(1) status ​of significant industrial milestones,(2) labor progress curves, (3) test memorandum status, (4) erection ​schedules, and (5) material ​status reports. The shipyards also participate in Quarterly Production Progress Conferences. We were informed that these reports combined with bi-monthly inspections by project office personnel permit close control of the shipyards'​ operation.###​+The progress reporting plan for the Bath Iron Works Corporation and the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard consists of the submission of the following types of reports:### 
 + 
 +  - Status ​of significant industrial milestones 
 +  - Labor progress curves 
 +  - Test memorandum status 
 +  - Erection ​schedules 
 +  - Material ​status reports. ​ 
 + 
 +###The shipyards also participate in Quarterly Production Progress Conferences. We were informed that these reports combined with bi-monthly inspections by project office personnel permit close control of the shipyards'​ operation.###​
  
 ===== PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPERIENCE ===== ===== PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPERIENCE =====
Line 94: Line 105:
  
 The only characteristic change made in fiscal year 1972, will provide increased air search capability to the last four DLG-6 ships to be modernized. This capability will also be given to the DLG(N)-25.###​ The only characteristic change made in fiscal year 1972, will provide increased air search capability to the last four DLG-6 ships to be modernized. This capability will also be given to the DLG(N)-25.###​
- 
 ===== PROGRAM SCHEDULE EXPERIENCE ===== ===== PROGRAM SCHEDULE EXPERIENCE =====
  
-###As of June 30, 1972, the six DLG-6 and three DLG-l6 class ships that had not yet completed the program were expected to do so on or before their scheduled milestone dates. According to a project official, one of the DLG-6 ships may experience a starting delay because its funding was postponed 1 year to fiscal year 1974. Should this occur, there would be a delay in the completion of the ship's modernization. ​+###As of June 30, 1972, the six DLG-6 and three DLG-16 class ships that had not yet completed the program were expected to do so on or before their scheduled milestone dates. According to a project official, one of the DLG-6 ships may experience a starting delay because its funding was postponed 1 year to fiscal year 1974. Should this occur, there would be a delay in the completion of the ship's modernization. ​
  
-We reported in our March 1972 study that the DLG(N)-25 had experienced a l2-month delay in the start of its modernization work. During this review, we noted that the ship start date has been delayed an-additional three-months. This is due to the ship's nuclear engine'​s ability to operate longer than anticipated before replacement.+We reported in our March 1972 study that the DLG(N)-25 had experienced a 12-month delay in the start of its modernization work. During this review, we noted that the ship start date has been delayed an-additional three-months. This is due to the ship's nuclear engine'​s ability to operate longer than anticipated before replacement.
  
 The two DLG-6 ships completing the program in fiscal year 1972, completed the program 3 to 4 months later than expected. The delays were primarily caused by engine auxiliary exhaust problems and high fire room temperatures encountered during final contract trials. These problems were subsequently corrected.###​ The two DLG-6 ships completing the program in fiscal year 1972, completed the program 3 to 4 months later than expected. The delays were primarily caused by engine auxiliary exhaust problems and high fire room temperatures encountered during final contract trials. These problems were subsequently corrected.###​
Line 116: Line 126:
  
 ###A draft of this staff study was reviewed by Navy officials associated with the management of this program and comments were coordinated at the Headquarters level. The Navy's comments are incorporated as appropriate. As far as we know there are no residual differences in fact.### ###A draft of this staff study was reviewed by Navy officials associated with the management of this program and comments were coordinated at the Headquarters level. The Navy's comments are incorporated as appropriate. As far as we know there are no residual differences in fact.###
 +
 +===== APPENDIX I =====
 +
 +{{:​append1.jpg?​600x434}}
 +
 +===== APPENDIX II =====
 +
 +{{:​append2.jpg?​600x424}}