"Raytheon Is Challenging Every Argument"

This is the first news report I have seen covering the GAO protest issue since we brought it up here. Reuters is covering both the GAO protest and the DDG-1000/DDG-51 decision in this story. We will wait and see about the GAO protest, because at this point it is easier to wait for the decision and go back and highlight which points mattered most in the GAO decision.

The real issue I see here is the DDG-1000 being truncated in favor of the DDG-51 without the supporting data to make a major switch. I've heard there really is a valid reason, but the folks who say this can't share what that reason is, claiming the real reason is Top Secret. Am I supposed to believe there is top secret reason that invalidates the current flagship program in shipbuilding today, and it is too secret to tell the American people why the Navy is making billion dollar decisions that have major impacts to the shipbuilding industry, absent any public information? I have a hard time believing that it would be secret for a legitimate reason, because this has the look and feel that the Navy is trying to cover someones ass. I'd welcome being proven wrong.

In the Reuters article, this part stuck out in my position. Ya I know, Loren Thompson has never found an industry position he didn't like, but in this case, everything I keep reading tells me Raytheon has a good point.

"Raytheon is challenging every argument that the Navy leadership is presenting for canceling its future destroyer," said analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute. "They're questioning the Navy's assessments of the threat, the cost and the capabilities of the new ship."

The Navy, citing changing military requirements, decided in July to halt its new DDG-1000 destroyer program at just two ships instead of the seven once planned.

It later bowed to pressure from lawmakers and agreed to add one more DDG-1000, and congressional aides said Raytheon clearly hoped it could persuade the Navy to add back even more.

Raytheon officials deny a link between its protest against the Aegis sole-source decision and the DDG-1000 cancellation, but congressional aides say Raytheon's goals are clear. "They are still trying to reverse that (DDG) decision," said one.

Congressional aides are not convinced Raytheon's lobbying drive will succeed, but Congress may examine the broader issue of Navy sole-source contracts in a hearing early next year.

Over the last 24 hours I've been looking into the decision to truncate the DDG-1000 decision. Every time I come across some new piece of information, I see smoke, and it leaves me wondering what the heck is the Navy doing. I will lay this out tomorrow, if I have time, and let you guys decide.

I'm starting to agree with Norman Polmar here, this will result in the shut down of a SC shipyard. I think there is some irony that Gene Taylor's push for the DDG-51 may result in the shutdown of the shipyard in his own district. I wonder if he even realizes it yet.

Loren Thompson's suggestion that Raytheon is challenging every argument may be true, but the question is, why isn't Congress demanding answers to unanswered questions asked of the Navy by Congress so they have a better understanding to support their funding decisions? If the Democrats won't demand answers to their unanswered questions from the Navy, what makes them any different than the Republicans who never demanded answers?

BTW, if you are a subscriber to InsideDefense, did you see the service POM briefs and supporting actions document dated August 27, 2008? If you did, can you email me and explain how on God's blue planet the DDG-1000 / DDG-51 plan is cost neutral? Even using the CBO estimates the DDG-1000 program looks like a cost winner. WTF?!? We'll discuss more tomorrow.