Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/30/2009 5:40:34 PM EDT
The Enterprise should have been replaced with a Nimitz class carrier a few years ago.



Navy: Cost of restoring carrier Enterprise grows by $6 million

By Peter Frost | 757-247-4744
April 30, 2009

NEWPORT NEWS — The U.S. Navy is finding that keeping the nation's oldest aircraft carrier in the fleet keeps getting more expensive.

The service announced Wednesday that it is on the hook for an additional $6 million for "emergent and supplemental" work on the USS Enterprise, which is undergoing a 16-month dry-dock maintenance period at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Newport News shipyard.

That brings the total cost of the maintenance project on the ship to $480.9 million, about 6 percent higher than its initial $453.3 million price tag.

Wednesday's contract modification marked the third time Northrop has requested more money to fix the "Big E," which arrived at the Newport News shipyard a year ago.

In late September, the yard received a supplemental contract for $9.6 million to build various replacement units on the carrier.

Then in December, Northrop received another $12 million to do work on some of the ship's tanks and piping systems that was not covered under the initial contract.

The Enterprise still is on schedule to be re-delivered to the fleet in September.

Because the ship is approaching 50 years old, it's not uncommon for repair projects to require additional funding, as shipyard workers and engineers discover more problems than expected after the ship arrived in the yard for a full inspection.

While in Newport News, workers will clean, paint and preserve the ship's aging hull and interior tanks; repair and replace valves, pipes and pumps in the ship's nuclear propulsion plant; and make other general repairs to extend the ship's life until at least 2013.

The carrier is scheduled to make one final deployment before being decommissioned.

Some members of Congress have suggested that the Navy attempt to extend the ship's life until at least 2015, when the next-generation carrier, Gerald R. Ford, is expected to be complete. But, so far, the Navy hasn't endorsed such a plan.

The Enterprise was built in Newport News and commissioned in 1961.

Cost growth on the "Big E"
September 2008: Northrop received a supplemental contract for $9.6 million to build various replacement units on the carrier.

December 2008: The yard received another $12 million to do work on some of the ship's tanks and piping systems.

April 29: The Navy approves spending $6 million more on supplemental and emergent work.




Maintenance cost for Enterprise rises

The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Apr 30, 2009 11:55:27 EDT

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — The cost of maintaining the world’s first nuclear aircraft carrier has gone up again.

The carrier Enterprise is undergoing a 16-month dry-dock maintenance at Northrop Grumman Corp.’s shipyard in Newport News. The Navy said Wednesday that a contract modification for “emergent and supplemental” work will increase the project’s cost by $6 million.

It’s the third contract modification for the maintenance project, which initially was to cost $453.3 million. The price tag is now $480.9 million.

Commissioned in 1961, the Enterprise is on schedule to be re-delivered to the Navy in September. The project will extend the carrier’s life until at least 2013.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:43:51 PM EDT
GM and Chrysler cost that much money before 9:00AM.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:44:30 PM EDT
1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:46:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AKSig:
1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?


Yep. It appears the cost per year is ~125million.

Interesting read on the cost of new vs used. (Carrier Costs as a SWAG Unit)

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:47:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AKSig:
1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?



It costs that much to pay GM and Chrysler not to build cars for a week.

I prefer spending it on this.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:50:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AKSig:
1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?


Cool ship and all but that was what I was thinking.   $480,000,000  just for four more years ( and one deployment)   According to Wikipedia it was $451 to build her in the first place.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:51:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 5:52:06 PM EDT by KA3B]
Originally Posted By dport:
Interesting read on the cost of new vs used. (Carrier Costs as a SWAG Unit)
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/


I would like to get that guy on board the USS Bush in E-nothing berthing for it's first cruise and then put him on board the USS Enterprise in e-nothing berthing for its last cruise and then let him tell me if the money spent on the Enterprise equals out to the money spent on a new ship.  
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:51:44 PM EDT
Did they contract out to CTD?
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:52:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dSmith45:
Originally Posted By AKSig:
1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?


Cool ship and all but that was what I was thinking.   $480,000,000  just for four more years ( and one deployment)   According to Wikipedia it was $451 to build her in the first place.


Inflation is a bitch.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:53:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By dSmith45:
Originally Posted By AKSig:
1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?


Cool ship and all but that was what I was thinking.   $480,000,000  just for four more years ( and one deployment)   According to Wikipedia it was $451 to build her in the first place.


Inflation is a bitch.


Apparently so ...
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:53:52 PM EDT
It will also make it easier to prepare her for the mothball fleet.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:54:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By dport:
Interesting read on the cost of new vs used. (Carrier Costs as a SWAG Unit)
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/


I would like to get that guy on board the USS Bush in E-nothing berthing for it's first cruise and then put him on board the USS Enterprise in e-nothing berthing for its last cruise and then let him tell me if the money spent on the Enterprise equals out to the money spent on a new ship.  

I agree, it needed to be replaced years ago. Ideally, we'd have a newer ship like Kennedy still around to fill in the gap, but when you don't pay for maintenance for the better part of a decade it's kinda hard to keep a carrier around, even a newer one. The only thing that really enabled Big E to outlast Kennedy is Naval Reactors' standards. There is no way they would have tolerated the maintenance practices from Kennedy on a nuke ship.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:54:58 PM EDT




Originally Posted By marksman121:

Did they contract out to CTD?






Link Posted: 4/30/2009 6:01:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
Originally Posted By AKSig:
1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?



It costs that much to pay GM and Chrysler not to build cars for a week.

I prefer spending it on this.


I don't have a problem with it, I was just shocked at the cost.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 6:30:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 6:30:52 PM EDT by DragoMuseveni]
Isn't it the last non Nimitz class in service?

It's time to replace it.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 6:42:53 PM EDT
Why did they keep the Enterprise for so long? It is a one off design, seems kind of silly to me.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 6:45:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 6:46:49 PM EDT by Frank_The_Tank]
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Why did they keep the Enterprise for so long? It is a one off design, seems kind of silly to me.


Probably because the Navy needs a certain number of carriers,  they take years to fund, approve and build replacements,  etc.  They finally retired teh last fossil fuel carrier a year ago or slightly loner I believe.  The Enterprise probably will need to be in service until its replacement is ready and they will be able to maintain X number of carriers.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 7:11:48 PM EDT
Welcome to government contracts.

Bid 1 - $300 million
Bid 2 - $310 million
Bid 3 - $250 million

Bid 3 Wins!!!

3 months later: Change order increases project to $275 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $300 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $350 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $480 million

Contractor wins.  Taxpayer loses.

disclaimer, durations and amounts fictional to prove a point.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 7:16:02 PM EDT
So the US taxpayers are footing the 450+ million dollar bill for just one more deployment?  Holy shit what a waste of time and money.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 7:20:12 PM EDT
it will likely get more then 4 extra years.



also that price isn't bad 400mill in the 50s was a shitload.



Try and restore a muscle car for its original value.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 7:22:03 PM EDT



Originally Posted By dport:



Originally Posted By dSmith45:


Originally Posted By AKSig:

1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?
Cool ship and all but that was what I was thinking.   $480,000,000  just for four more years ( and one deployment)   According to Wikipedia it was $451 to build her in the first place.
Inflation is a bitch.


GOLD!




 
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 8:06:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Why did they keep the Enterprise for so long? It is a one off design, seems kind of silly to me.


Speed.

It is still the fastest carrier in the fleet

8 small reactors vs 2 bigger reactors
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 8:19:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DanTSX:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Why did they keep the Enterprise for so long? It is a one off design, seems kind of silly to me.


Speed.

It is still the fastest carrier in the fleet

8 small reactors vs 2 bigger reactors


Would that really be a factor in keeping it around?

Can't all the carriers outrun the ships in their battle groups anyways?
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 8:35:14 PM EDT
Those overages don't sound too bad to me considering the original task.  Look at how far over budget the new ships are running.

But this is strangely apropo:
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 8:49:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DanTSX:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Why did they keep the Enterprise for so long? It is a one off design, seems kind of silly to me.


Speed.

It is still the fastest carrier in the fleet

8 small reactors vs 2 bigger reactors


Really? Got a source?

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 8:55:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fike:
Originally Posted By DanTSX:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Why did they keep the Enterprise for so long? It is a one off design, seems kind of silly to me.


Speed.

It is still the fastest carrier in the fleet

8 small reactors vs 2 bigger reactors


Really? Got a source?



Wikipedia lol
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 12:24:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dSmith45:
Originally Posted By AKSig:
1/2 a billion to get one more deployment?


Cool ship and all but that was what I was thinking.   $480,000,000  just for four more years ( and one deployment)   According to Wikipedia it was $451 to build her in the first place.


Is that $451 in then dollars or now dollars?  Inflation can be a bitch.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 12:52:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By dport:
Interesting read on the cost of new vs used. (Carrier Costs as a SWAG Unit)
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/


I would like to get that guy on board the USS Bush in E-nothing berthing for it's first cruise and then put him on board the USS Enterprise in e-nothing berthing for its last cruise and then let him tell me if the money spent on the Enterprise equals out to the money spent on a new ship.  

I agree, it needed to be replaced years ago. Ideally, we'd have a newer ship like Kennedy still around to fill in the gap, but when you don't pay for maintenance for the better part of a decade it's kinda hard to keep a carrier around, even a newer one. The only thing that really enabled Big E to outlast Kennedy is Naval Reactors' standards. There is no way they would have tolerated the maintenance practices from Kennedy on a nuke ship.


I think the Admirals who approved the cutting of maintenance to save money should have the same done to their retirement check.

Also, why is it 3 in port and only 1 out?
Figured it would be more like work up, deploy, return/maintenance, repeat.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 3:32:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mPisi:
Those overages don't sound too bad to me considering the original task.  Look at how far over budget the new ships are running.

But this is strangely apropo:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb51/06DIESEL/BoatDingy001.jpg


Link Posted: 5/1/2009 4:50:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mPisi:
Those overages don't sound too bad to me considering the original task.  Look at how far over budget the new ships are running.

But this is strangely apropo:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb51/06DIESEL/BoatDingy001.jpg




You, sir, have made my day.  I'm printing that off at work next week and posting it.

Link Posted: 5/1/2009 5:06:22 AM EDT
Why the hell are they spending all this money on a ship that is only going to be deployed one more time? if that's not a waste i don't know what is....
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 5:29:02 AM EDT
6 million is pocket change to the .gov.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 5:31:42 AM EDT
Now Obama's cabinet will have to find $106 million in saving.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 5:48:57 AM EDT
Semper Fi

Mardet big E 1995-1997
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 5:55:24 AM EDT
Just to give you an idea I was on board when we did another one of these big over hauls (16months, god knows how much $) in 2002-3. The old girl is ready to be done for. She should do a deployment, another regular 6 month yard period , then one last deployment. That will take her to 2012/3. At that point she'd need a refuel. Your talking at least a billion for that. It's time to call it quits. Let her RIP.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 6:59:09 AM EDT
Well, Big E's gone anyway, since the Great and Powerful Obama has decreed that we no longer need as many carriers.  Evidently Hope and Change means we only need 10.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 8:02:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KJCA3:
Why the hell are they spending all this money on a ship that is only going to be deployed one more time? if that's not a waste i don't know what is....




I was wondering that too. Seems to me that they should try to keep it in service for a little bit longer.  Why doesn't the Navy like the idea of keeping it until 2015 when the Ford will be ready?




-K
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 8:17:08 AM EDT
Even if it was $6 billion it would be .000001 if the bailouts Obama passed.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 2:46:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KJCA3:
Why the hell are they spending all this money on a ship that is only going to be deployed one more time? if that's not a waste i don't know what is....


To maintain our presence over seas. The Combatant Commanders require these things to perform missions. What's the price tag on airpower when and where you want it?
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 2:47:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BulletBait:

I think the Admirals who approved the cutting of maintenance to save money should have the same done to their retirement check.

Admirals don't chose their budgets. They are forced to make choices based on scarce resources.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 2:49:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Chadnutz:
Welcome to government contracts.

Bid 1 - $300 million
Bid 2 - $310 million
Bid 3 - $250 million

Bid 3 Wins!!!

3 months later: Change order increases project to $275 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $300 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $350 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $480 million

Contractor wins.  Taxpayer loses.

disclaimer, durations and amounts fictional to prove a point.


Usually the change order is because .gov decides to change the contract requirements.  I suspect in this case they chipped off some paint in drydock and found more things that needed to be fixed.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 2:51:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BulletBait:

Also, why is it 3 in port and only 1 out?
Figured it would be more like work up, deploy, return/maintenance, repeat.


It has a lot to do with the fact that you'll have at least one carrier in a major overhaul and out of the cycle for close to two years. They do you little good if they're not taken care of. Remember carriers have the most complex engineering plant in the world. They also have to operate heavy aircraft, and have sophisticated electronics to integrate it into the battle group. All of these things require maintenance, especially when you're operating in a salt water environment.


There is one carrier out there whose deployment cycle right now borders on the ridiculous. It has a 6 month deployment, returns for less than 6 months, and then deploys again. It's all about the demands of the Combatant Commanders and maintenance and training requirements to provide Combatant Commanders the ships they need.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 2:52:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Special-K:
Why doesn't the Navy like the idea of keeping it until 2015 when the Ford will be ready?


-K

Because it will cost the taxpayers even more money to do that.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 3:03:07 PM EDT


They just need some of that Cylon stuff to fix it.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 3:04:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/1/2009 3:06:28 PM EDT by Kharn]
Originally Posted By Chadnutz:
Welcome to government contracts.

Bid 1 - $300 million
Bid 2 - $310 million
Bid 3 - $250 million

Bid 3 Wins!!!

3 months later: Change order increases project to $275 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $300 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $350 million
3 months later: Change order increases project to $480 million

Contractor wins.  Taxpayer loses.

disclaimer, durations and amounts fictional to prove a point.
And Contractor 3 finds himself fucked over when he bids another project and this past performance is brought to light.
Also the govt reimburses costs with an extra 6-10% fee for profit, all you do is keep the lights on when you go over-cost, as Uncle Sugar stops paying that fee.  Do it often enough and your stock holders will leave as you are not making your intended return on investment (% profit over the life of the project).

And if you if fuck it up really, really badly the govt can say they will not pay the overage but you must still perform the work.  Like if you thought you could eat some small costs over the life of the project but by the time completion rolls around they've grown quite large the contracting office can say those costs are unallowable (as you did not notify the govt of the overages as they occured) and you're stuck losing money on the project.

It all depends on how big the contracting officer's balls are, and if they kept impeccable records.

Originally Posted By mPisi:
Those overages don't sound too bad to me considering the original task.  Look at how far over budget the new ships are running.

But this is strangely apropo:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb51/06DIESEL/BoatDingy001.jpg
If I ever win the lottery, that's what I'm going to name my boat & dingy.

Kharn
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 3:15:02 PM EDT
Exposure-prize.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 4:28:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JLH3:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0KRN69leV-Q/SZa4WRNs5sI/AAAAAAAAFEk/eoMe53psJKU/s400/bsg-noexit.jpg

They just need some of that Cylon stuff to fix it.


But that stuff didn't work, remember?
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 7:09:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DanTSX:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Why did they keep the Enterprise for so long? It is a one off design, seems kind of silly to me.


Speed.

It is still the fastest carrier in the fleet

8 small reactors vs 2 bigger reactors


Depends on the "Other Things" it has on at the time

She got her ASS SMOKED by a Nimitz class one time
Its Not just the RXs (size or number)
RXs will put out plenty in Both designs
Also depends on time since last ....  well other things can come into play too

Both where in Excess of what ever the Navy has put out as top speed
Been too long is it 30 Kts?

Huum does it say ex Navy CVN-71 in my tag line?

Edited prior to post just because... well you'll can guess why I have a little inside info
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 7:33:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dport:
There is one carrier out there whose deployment cycle right now borders on the ridiculous. It has a 6 month deployment, returns for less than 6 months, and then deploys again. It's all about the demands of the Combatant Commanders and maintenance and training requirements to provide Combatant Commanders the ships they need.

Which one?
I'd like to know so I can look back in 10 years or so and watch the Navy retire it early like the USS America.

I also noticed looking at the carrier histories that the Navy never gets the claimed 15-20 years of extra life from the SLEP refits.
It's usually around 10 before retirement.

This is not a criticism, just wondering why the refits don't extend the usefulness for decades like the Midway class refits kept them going for 47 years.
Seems like newer tech should get +50.
Enterprise is the only one to do so.
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 7:43:00 PM EDT
What do you do with one of those when they are decomisshioned besides making it a museum?
Link Posted: 5/1/2009 10:51:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DanTSX:
Originally Posted By DLoken:
Why did they keep the Enterprise for so long? It is a one off design, seems kind of silly to me.


Speed.

It is still the fastest carrier in the fleet

8 small reactors vs 2 bigger reactors


That not so true anymore.  Age has taken its toll on its hull.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top