US navy christens costly new carrier

[Vikrant]

WASHINGTON: The American navy christened the first of its next generation of aircraft carriers on Saturday, a multi-billion-dollar vessel hailed as the most technologically advanced warship ever built.

The USS Gerald Ford, which has been plagued by huge cost overruns at a time of growing budget pressures, is due to begin service in 2016.

The 13-billion-dollar nuclear-powered carrier, which is equipped with an array of technological wizardry, was christened with a bottle of champagne at a ceremony in Newport News, Virginia, near the sprawling Norfolk Naval base.

"May God bless and watch over the USS Gerald R Ford, those who built her and the men and women who will sail her into harm's way," said the late president's daughter Susan Ford Bales moments before shattering the bottle against the hulking ship.

The Ford represents the first new design for a carrier in 40 years, and the navy's chief of staff Admiral Jonathan Greenert called the ship "a technological marvel",

The pomp belied problems with the project, however, which is only 70 percent complete, with delivery postponed until February 2016.

And faced with automatic budget cuts and the need to fund other programs, including submarines, Greenert has warned the service may have to delay completing the Ford "by two years."

The move would force the United States to rely on a fleet of 10 existing carriers and means "lowering surge capacity" in a crisis, he added.

US law requires the military to maintain 11 aircraft carriers, but at the moment only 10 are available since the retirement of the USS Enterprise in 2012.

The current carrier fleet, launched between 1975 to 2009, are Nimitz-class ships, but the Ford, or CVN 78, represents a new class of carrier with a new design, which will be followed by the John F Kennedy and new Enterprise carriers. All have a similar length of about 1,090 feet (330 meters).

The Ford-class design is supposed to allow for 25 per cent more sorties for the fighter jets and helicopters on board, generate more electrical power and produce more fresh water from desalination systems, allowing sailors to take comfortable showers.

"The Ford class is designed to provide increased war-fighting capability with approximately 700 fewer crew members," reducing the cost of maintaining the ship, the Navy said in a statement.

While fewer sailors will be needed to run the carrier, the cost of building the ship has sky-rocketed. Since the start of the contract in 2008, construction costs jumped 22 percent over the scheduled budget to $12.8 billion in total.

And the Navy's estimate "does not include $4.7 billion in research and development costs," according to the congressional budget Office (CBO), which provides financial data to lawmakers.

Navy officers say such cost overruns are typical for a new series of ship, and that the price of subsequent vessels in the class tends to drop.

But at a time of budget austerity, the mushrooming price tag is a source of irritation.

The navy and the defense contractor "must still overcome significant technology development, design and construction challenges," the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, wrote in September.

The GAO questioned the decision to go ahead with new technological systems for the ship before proving they worked, an approach that "introduces risk of late and costly design changes and rework."

A new electromagnetic catapult to launch aircraft, new radar and new arresting gear to catch planes landing are also facing technical delays and higher costs.

"But even after the ship's commission, several key ship systems will continue to face significant reliability shortfalls that will likely increase costs to the government and limit the ship's mission effectiveness," the GAO said.

US navy christens costly new carrier - The Times of India

 

[R.C. Christian]

So does this mean we'll have 12 carrier groups or are they just going to mothball 1 and put this one in instead?

 

[whitehall]

The last time a US warship was attacked was by a plywood speed boat.

 

[DGS49]

Having worked in military procurement for many years, it frosts my balls to keep reading about "cost overruns" on major weapon system procurements. This is a total mischaracterization of the facts.

The development time of a ship of this magnitude spans many generations of technological improvements in the hundreds of subsystems incorporated into the ship. Each time a major development takes place, the program manager must decide whether to go forward with something that is now obsolete, or try to incorporate the new, improved version into the design. Often this is not a situation of merely removing one thing and replacing it with something of the same size and weight. Things get bitter, smaller, require more or less power, and interface with other systems on the ship, which also might have to be retrofitted.

The alternative is to spend billions of dollars on a ship that is technically obsolete when it is commissioned.

When you pay more to get something that is better, that is not an "overrun." "Overrun" implies that the taxpayers are paying X-plus for something that the contractor was required to provide for X, and that is simply not the case.

Which is not related to the question of whether we ought to be putting a device worth more than ten billion dollars out to sea. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe yes.

 

[Moonglow]

Hope it does not trip and fall.

 

[Samson]

"The Ford class is designed to provide increased war-fighting capability with approximately 700 fewer crew members," reducing the cost of maintaining the ship, the Navy said in a statement.



But at a time of budget austerity, the mushrooming price tag is a source of irritation.

Those that are "irritated" should remember the high cost of having the Chinese invade California.



If only we had a carrier group floating on the Rio Grande!!

 

[waltky]

Costs of the Pentagon's major weapons systems questioned...

Price tag skyrockets for military's weapons
May 1, 2014 ~ The costs of the Pentagon's major weapons systems have ballooned nearly half a trillion dollars over their initial price tags, and the 80 programs have average schedule delays of more than two years, according to a report released Wednesday.

The report by the Government Accountability Office came during a congressional hearing in which senators from both parties vented about continued cost overruns, billions of dollars wasted when contracts are canceled and a system that is plagued by a high level of turnover that prevents anyone from being held accountable. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., listed a series of failed programs, including the attempt to replace the fleet of presidential helicopters, saying they were examples of "really unacceptable cost overruns we've seen in the past, and apparently a failure to get a lot of it still under control." For decades, Congress and the Pentagon have struggled with creating a more efficient system for buying weapons, tanks and airplanes, with limited success. In its report, the GAO noted that "too often we report on the same kinds of problems today that we did over 20 years ago."

But now, the renewed efforts, underway in both the House and Senate Armed Services committees and at the Pentagon, come as spending is tightening, which officials say gives an added urgency. "We are going to have flat defense budgets as far as the eye can see, and the problems we're trying to deal with around the world are not flat," Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, who is leading the effort in the House, said in a recent interview. "So the only way to reconcile those two trends is to try to get more defense value out of the money we spend." During the hearing, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said that there have been notable successes, the most significant being the 2009 weapons-acquisition reform law, which has helped save $23 billion. But Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon's track record in buying IT systems "remains abysmal."

F-35A Lightning IIs, perform an aerial refueling mission with a KC-135 Stratotanker off the coast of northwest Florida

Frank Kendall III, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the committee that during his 40 years working in procurement, "I've seen any number of attempts to improve defense acquisition. My view is many of the things we have tried have had little discernible impact." Fixing the problems that plague defense acquisition "isn't as easy as many people think," he said. But he said there has been improvement in recent years and pointed to the Pentagon's Better Buying Power program, which follows "a process of continual improvement that focuses on the areas in which the most progress can be made." He also said that the process is ultimately "a human endeavor" and that there needs to be more focus on providing incentives and training for contracting officers.

Personnel turnover has been an especially acute problem, the GAO found. Since the position of the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics was created in 1986, the average tenure has been 22 months, according to the report. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons program in the Defense Department's history, has had six program managers since 2001. Part of the problem, many senators lamented, is the way the armed forces shuffle workers in and out of contracting positions. While it is okay to be stationed temporarily at some jobs, which allows service members to gain valuable expertise in different areas, senators said, acquisitions is so complicated that it should be staffed with specialists who stay for long periods.

MORE

 

[Navy1960]

Forgive me here if I tend to see some of the recent programs the Navy has undertaken as complete nonsense. Take for example the LCS ( Littoral Combat Ship) which was found so completely lacking in terms of weapons and ability it was given a zero percent chance of survival in surface warfare by the United States Navy. In fact this program along with the F35 have been such disasters they have been more of a detriment to the the Navy than they ever would benefit the Navy. As for the USS Gerald R. Ford. it remains to be seen after the Kennedy if these ships are a single or two ship class because of the massive costs involved as with recent budget cuts the Kennedy's launch date has been pushed back for many years. In fact with the recent budget cut backs the Navy is considering mothballing the USS George Washington rather than refueling her to save money when she clearly has at least 28 years of life left.

 

[Mr Natural]

A new carrier?

I thought Obama was gutting the military.

 

[william the wie]

Just lurking. Did my navy hitch 72-4 and think our military problems result from an incoherent foreign policy and too much money wasted on unnecessary and expensive bases both here and abroad.

 

[Ringel05]

A new carrier?

I thought Obama was gutting the military.

Construction was started in 2005, thousands of people employed to make it happen over the years....... As for whether Obama is gutting the military.... depends on what one considers "gutting". Currently it's just a continuation of cutting troops and programs no longer needed for Afghanistan, like what happens after every war.

 

[Samson]

the Navy is considering mothballing the USS George Washington rather than refueling her to save money when she clearly has at least 28 years of life left.

"Life?"

Sorry, but the ship is not alive.

You sailors really need to get a grip on reality: The USS George Washington is a COST that cannot be justified.

 

[Samson]

A new carrier?

I thought Obama was gutting the military.

Construction was started in 2005, thousands of people employed to make it happen over the years....... As for whether Obama is gutting the military.... depends on what one considers "gutting". Currently it's just a continuation of cutting troops and programs no longer needed for Afghanistan, like what happens after every war.

[MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]

Clearly we could have avoided the Great Recession had we built more carriers.

 

[Meathead]

Rather odd that an Indian would post about cost overruns on a US aircraft carrier when his own country commissioned an aircraft carrier in 2011 and will commission its sistership soon. This in a country where the majority still live in abject poverty.

Oh, btw, the first carrier's name is Vikrant.

 

[NLT]

A new carrier?

I thought Obama was gutting the military.

Ordered in 2005 years before obammy could cut it.

 

[Ringel05]

A new carrier?

I thought Obama was gutting the military.

Construction was started in 2005, thousands of people employed to make it happen over the years....... As for whether Obama is gutting the military.... depends on what one considers "gutting". Currently it's just a continuation of cutting troops and programs no longer needed for Afghanistan, like what happens after every war.

[MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]

Clearly we could have avoided the Great Recession had we built more carriers.

 

[Unkotare]

the Navy is considering mothballing the USS George Washington rather than refueling her to save money when she clearly has at least 28 years of life left.

"Life?"

Sorry, but the ship is not alive.

You sailors really need to get a grip on reality: The USS George Washington is a COST that cannot be justified.

Did you ever serve in the Navy? I didn't. If you haven't either then you have no place telling sailors what they need to get a grip on. They have a grip on keeping the country secure for people like you and me. They have a grip on guaranteeing sea lanes that make not only our own economy but the world economy possible. They have a grip on assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters. They have a grip on peace and security around the world that no other force could possibly gets its hands around and without which we would all be screwed a lot more than you seem to appreciate. Cost? The cost of weakening America militarily while others are busting their asses to get stronger is what a reasonable person would be concerned with. "Life"? Get one.

 

[william the wie]

A new carrier?

I thought Obama was gutting the military.

Construction was started in 2005, thousands of people employed to make it happen over the years....... As for whether Obama is gutting the military.... depends on what one considers "gutting". Currently it's just a continuation of cutting troops and programs no longer needed for Afghanistan, like what happens after every war.

[MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION]

Clearly we could have avoided the Great Recession had we built more carriers.

What would that have done to combat the 1931-9 dust bowl with its trillion or so losses, including knock on effects in 1930 dollars? That's was a huge negative wealth effects wave that kept on giving far more than the market crash. Sorry misreading on my part. The same argument was made in the 1930s.

 

[Samson]

the Navy is considering mothballing the USS George Washington rather than refueling her to save money when she clearly has at least 28 years of life left.

"Life?"

Sorry, but the ship is not alive.

You sailors really need to get a grip on reality: The USS George Washington is a COST that cannot be justified.

Did you ever serve in the Navy? I didn't. If you haven't either then you have no place telling sailors what they need to get a grip on. They have a grip on keeping the country secure for people like you and me. They have a grip on guaranteeing sea lanes that make not only our own economy but the world economy possible. They have a grip on assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters. They have a grip on peace and security around the world that no other force could possibly gets its hands around and without which we would all be screwed a lot more than you seem to appreciate. Cost? The cost of weakening America militarily while others are busting their asses to get stronger is what a reasonable person would be concerned with. "Life"? Get one.

Speaking of another that needs to get a grip.



Now that you've spouted off, Lets have a look at reality: As long as US citizens paying taxes and voting, then we can offer an opinion about wasteful government spending, as well as the ridiculous notion that every military expenditure is essential. You want to throw more money into wasteful programs sold on "assisting the most vulnerable following natural disasters," then I suggest you begin donating to UNICEF, but leave my money alone.