Cvn-77

[SparrowHawk62]

Subject: George H. W. Bush, CVN-77

Until now, the thought was that the George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier had been paid for.

BY PETER DUJARDIN
247-4749

March 2 2005

NEWPORT NEWS -- The George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier needs $869.9 million between 2006 and 2008 to cover cost overruns and other increases encountered during the ship's construction, according to details of the budget proposal President Bush recently submitted to Congress.

If lawmakers agree to grant the money, the total government price tag for the nuclear-powered carrier, now the biggest project under way at Northrop Grumman Newport News, would rise to $5.89 billion, a 17.3 percent increase over last year's projection of $5.02 billion. The Navy said in its request that the $869.9 million needed for the Bush is necessary "to compensate for ... cost increases resulting from unbudgeted escalation funds, increased labor hours to construct the ship, increased material costs and to cover maximum government liability."

That's a change from a year ago - when the Navy didn't anticipate the Bush needed any more money before its delivery to the Navy in 2008.

Up to now, the tenth and last Nimitz-class carrier, also known as the CVN (carrier vessel nuclear) -77, was thought to be paid for.

In an account deep within the budget proposal called "completion of prior year shipbuilding programs," the Navy estimates it will need $1.38 billion between 2006 and 2010 to pay for finishing ships that were paid for in past Congresses.

In addition to the Bush increases, the Navy projects it will need another $342 million between 2006 and 2009 to complete the first four Virginia class submarines, a project the local shipyard is partnering on with General Dynamics Electric Boat, its one-time competitor in New England.

The submission also calls for $155 million for the LPD-17, being built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, in Pascagoula, Miss.

In January, the Navy told Congress the Bush project was running about eight months behind schedule. It's now expected to be completed and delivered to the Navy in November 2008 rather than March of that year.

At the time, the Navy cited "lower than anticipated work-force productivity" and the late delivery of key parts as reasons for the delay.

"Because the ship will still be under construction for this additional duration, contract costs will continue to accrue, primarily in production labor, escalation and overhead," the Navy said. "Currently it is difficult to assign a specific cost to the delay itself. However, the funding contained in the (budget proposal) is sufficient to cover t he projected costs."

The Bush administration's proposal shows that the Navy plans to ask for the additional Bush money over a three-year stretch: $145 million in fiscal year 2006, $348.4 million in 2007 and $376.5 million in 2008.

It was unclear Tuesday how much of the $870 million the Navy says is needed for the Bush is the result of increased man hours or material costs at Northrop Grumman Newport News.

The $5.02 billion original cost of the Bush included money both to pay the shipyard as well as to pay for other costs, including items the Navy buys directly - such as electronics, the nuclear reactor and propulsion systems. The main construction contract with the Newport News yard, signed in January 2001 and adjusted slightly over the years, is targeted at $3.25 billion. That includes targeted construction costs - labor, electricity, materials, etc. - of $2.76 billion and a targeted profit to the yard of $492 million.

Under the terms of that contract, any cost growth above the $2.76 billion - so long as it's not a change to the ship contract itself - is shared by both the Navy and the shipyard: The Navy pays 70 percent of the increase, and the shipyard pays 30 percent. That means cost increases on the main construction project have the potential to eat into the shipyard's target profit on the CVN-77. It could not be determined Tuesday how the profit has changed.

Shipyard President Mike Petters, in a recent interview about efforts now under way to improve the shipyard's performance on Navy contracts, said the Navy's satisfaction level on the Bush project had grown in the past few months.

Last fall, he said, the Navy and yard worked out several issues on the CVN-77 - including working out the kind of warfare system and integrated communications system the ship would have - that were holding up the project.

But he voiced confidence, he said, that the Bush project had turned a corner.

Tuesday, yard spokeswoman Jennifer Dellapenta added: "We have worked with our Navy partner in developing and implementing solutions for the various challenges that have arisen when building a ship as complex as a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier."

The warfare and communications system issues, she said, are not atypical of the challenges the program has faced or will continue to face before it's delivered. "We're confident that when we are done, however, we will deliver the most advanced and technologically capable warship in the U.S. Navy fleet. Our performance will speak for itself."

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will fully support the funding request for the Bush, said John Ullyot, Warner's spokesman.

"Sen. Warner believes that completing the George H.W. Bush is absolutely essential, especially given the Navy is proposing to retire the Kennedy," Ullyot said.

With fewer ships being built of late, and reduced submarine purchases, the yard's bottom line - and productivity - are damaged, Ullyot said. "The bottom line is that Sen. Warner understands that the costs, while regrettable, need to be understood in a larger context."

With 4,000 workers, the Bush aircraft carrier is the yard's biggest shipbuilding now under way.

Expected to be a replacement for the conventionally powered carrier USS Kitty Hawk, the warship had its keel-laying ceremony in 2003, with former president and namesake George H.W. Bush in attendance for the festivities.

[Boats]

Just think how many of the already built vessels could have been retro'd and put back into service. All this money for flat tops doesn't get you any closer to the shore line in those small areas that need to be covered.

Don't get me wrong I'm a flat topper but the Navy is more than a bunch of carriers.

[SparrowHawk62]

Originally posted by Boats Just think how many of the already built vessels could have been retro'd and put back into service. All this money for flat tops doesn't get you any closer to the shore line in those small areas that need to be covered.

Don't get me wrong I'm a flat topper but the Navy is more than a bunch of carriers.

Yes, us flat top guys tend to forget the rest of the Fleet at times.
But we couldn't do the job with out the "Little Boys"!
It's a sad fact that so many of the carriers went through the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) only to meet untimely decommissioning! They could have turned one or two of them in to Helo Platforms, (LPH's) and thus allowed us to have further inshore contact when needed.
But this old sailors voice can't be heard over the roar of politics.

[SparrowHawk62]

Don't know why the Navy called it SLEP, it surely wasn't to keep these carriers going well into 2010+. They should have called it SLEEP: Slowly Losing Equipment Entertaining Politics!
The waste of Money, not to mention Man Power needed to have these carriers re-worked! Really tends to piss me off.
Photo is of the USS Independence CV-62 in the Philly Ship Yards during her SLEP period of 1985-1989.