However, Navy officials have raised concerns about the viability of placing the engine on the DDG-51. The Center for Naval Analyses cost-benefit analysis of the ICR engine concluded that the engine should not be used on the DDG-51 due to the high cost to fit the engines on ships that were not designed for them and the small number of destroyers (14 at that time) remaining to be built. This latter problem was due, in part, to continuing contractor quality control problems. In March 1996, an ICR program official told us that the impact of the initial recuperator failure on the ICR program has been catastrophic and that the Navy has yet to recover from it. According to Navy officials and documents, the need to have a propulsion system available for ships in development, especially the new multinational frigate, drove an aggressive recuperator recovery plan to redesign recuperators without the benefit of results from tests of individual cores and the environmental test data from a special test unit. The Philadelphia facility cost $5.4 million to construct. Because of funding reductions and other problems, the Navy is considering eliminating this testing. Navy Undecided If It Will Test the Engine at Sea

The Navy has not decided if it will test the ICR at sea because of the high cost involved. If it is determined that the program should continue, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy to not use the engine in the DDG-51 destroyer; determine total program costs for developing and acquiring the engine relative to the Navy’s requirements for future surface combatant ships, including costs for U.S. test facilities and/or pilot ship engine testing; prepare a facility use plan for the U.S. test site; and prepare a test plan and schedule for the engine that provide sufficient assurance that it can transition from development to production and be realistically available for use in any U.S. ship. Specifically, with the January 1995 failure of the engine’s recuperator, the program has experienced serious design, manufacturing, and quality assurance problems. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Navy's intercooled recuperated (ICR) engine program, focusing on the: (1) Navy's need for the engine; (2) cost, schedule, and performance of the program; and (3) impact of the Navy's test and development strategies.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) some Navy officials are questioning the economic viability of the ICR engine program and have raised concerns over placing ICR engines on naval destroyers, since most destroyers are equipped with reliable propulsion systems; (2) engine development costs pose a significant economic investment; (3) some officials believe the engine should not be used on naval destroyers given the small number of new U.S. destroyers involved, adequacy of current destroyer engines, high cost of incorporating the engine, uncertainty of future integration plans, and current state of ICR development; (4) the Navy has not recovered from initial recuperator failure that resulted from design, manufacturing, and quality assurance problems; (5) a contractor is instituting a recovery plan to redesign future recuperators, but the plan is not allowing sufficient time to evaluate test data prior to ordering production ICR engines; (6) the Navy has interrupted work on redesigning future recuperators because of funding reductions, contractor quality control problems, manufacturing problems, and delivery delays; and (7) the Navy needs to decide how and when it will use the Philadelphia ICR test facility and if it will test the ICR engine at sea.