Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: GAO On New US Carrier - USS FORD Will Cost More
Softwar    9/26/2007 9:14:13 AM
http://www.dailypress.com/business/dp-biz_fordcosts_0925sep26,0,6541131.story?track=rss Federal investigators raised more red flags Monday on the Navy's newest aircraft carrier, warning that the cost of the Gerald Ford warship will likely exceed budget forecasts. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said the budget for the first in a new line of carriers is "optimistic" and that "substantial risk remains" in the development of new technologies needed for the ship. Expanding on warnings first issued in July, a new GAO report faults the Navy for providing "insufficient cost surveillance" and for assuming that the complex new ship can be built in less time than was needed for the previous two carriers. The Ford, scheduled to get under construction in Newport News next year, carries an estimated price tag of $13.7 billion. That includes $8.1 billion for construction and $5.6 billion in design and development work that will be used on all succeeding carriers in the class.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
doggtag    Gee, only $13.7billion?   9/26/2007 10:17:54 AM
That almost makes it sound like a bargain (DDX/DDG1000 coming in at $6billion a copy in the water...).
 
I wouldn't be surprised at all if this new flat top crosses the $20B mark by the time its floating pierside for its final fitting out.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    NGD   9/26/2007 10:28:33 AM
Which brings me back to the OK from the USG for the merger between Northrup/GD and Newport News Ship.  NNS by themselves were very competitive and pressed hard to remain on budget/on schedule.  NGD control of the major nuke yards gives me the shakes when it comes to budget and schedule.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       9/26/2007 12:00:32 PM
Yeah, I'll agree with you there.
 
What I find interesting is,
that the US government expresses minimal concern over the major defense contractors merging together and growing ever larger, all in the name of remaining competitive (let alone just surviving) in an ever-intensifying global market economy,
yet back in the 1980s they went after AT&T and drafted the legislation to break them up, on the grounds of anti-trust laws (can't have one name controlling it all).
 
How big will the US gov't allow defense contractors to become, before they pull the anti-trust card on that industry as well?
 
Diversification amongst industry is what keeps prices competitive, and allowing manufacturing to consolidate is only going to make future procurements more expensive, not more affordable (when there's only one soul supplier of a given system, you pretty much have to agree to their price or do without).
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       10/28/2007 11:29:10 AM
Maybe we should hire shipyards that specialize in civilian ships. If they can crank out or maintain huge cruise ships, tankers, and cargo ships; then they ought to be able to handle a warship or two.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       10/28/2007 1:58:39 PM

Maybe we should hire shipyards that specialize in civilian ships. If they can crank out or maintain huge cruise ships, tankers, and cargo ships; then they ought to be able to handle a warship or two.

A US yard that does that? Where is it?

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       10/30/2007 5:06:58 AM
Do carriers really get obsolete? why not just build more Nimitz, with new radars and a few upgraded systems?
 
its not like carriers are going to get stealthier.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       11/1/2007 2:59:53 PM
They become more efficient, though.  The EMALS (Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launching System) and the Advanced Arresting Gear remove the requirement for complex, bulky, and maintenance-intensive steam piping throughout the ship.  These require a new powerplant and new electric generation capability, and allow the interior of the ship to be redesigned to be more efficient (larger hangars and magazines, etc).  These changes will make the ship more capable and could not be retrofitted to a current Nimitz design.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       11/1/2007 3:25:24 PM



Maybe we should hire shipyards that specialize in civilian ships. If they can crank out or maintain huge cruise ships, tankers, and cargo ships; then they ought to be able to handle a warship or two.


A US yard that does that? Where is it?

Herald


Detyens Shipyards, Inc South Carolina
Derecktor Shipyards
Todd Shipyards Corporation
Ingalls Shipbuilding
 
Best estimates I can find are that there are about 250 private shipyards in the US doing mostly commercial business.  Only 20 private shipyards in the US can accomodate vessels over 400 ft. in length.  Obviously, to do a 1000 ft+ carrier you need a big yard.  Thus, Newport News VA has been doing the carrier construction because it is set up to do so. 
 
My only gripe is the fact that General Dynamics/Northrup now owns NNS and they don't appear to be as anxious to meet prices, schedules and the needs of the US Navy that NNS used to. 

 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith       11/2/2007 11:28:43 PM
Breaking up ATT was to protect the consumers.  The defense industry's largest monopoly is the US government itself.  All of its efforts to pit competitors against each other to control cost is what has driven the consolidation in the industry because if you loose the competition, where do you go for business?  The foreign customers buy what the US government buys, essentially expanding the customer monopoly.
 
 
The DoD has melted down in terms of protecting industrial base.  When the F-15 and F/A-18 go out of production, there will only be one tactical fighter manufacturer in the US.  Ya' think they're going to be falling all over themselves to control price?  The F-35 will destroy the abilty of the US to design fighters.  After a decade or so of sustaining F-35 production, Lockheed will in all likelihood no longer have the technical expertise to develop significant new aircraft.  Look at Israel's faiilure to develop the Lavi years ago.  The entire technically advanced country couldn't conjure up the capability.  Any wonder why there are so few kids entering Aero Engineering degree programs.  With DoD buying one new aircraft program every decade or two, there just isn't anything to attract the interest in the industry.  The skill base is coming up on retirement age and there's no one to replace them.  There was some talk about skipping a carrier.  Who's going to pay for all the ship designers and builders to sit around for seven years to be needed again.  When that skill goes away, it will be hard to re-establish.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Two words.   11/3/2007 3:45:25 AM
Space program.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics