80°
forecast

Navy: Carrier cost overruns may hit $1.1 billion

Posted to: Military

By Tony Capaccio

Bloomberg News

The Navy has estimated a worst-case cost overrun of as much as $1.1 billion for the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, the service's most expensive warship.

The carrier is being built in Newport News by Huntington Ingalls Industries under a cost-plus, incentive-fee contract in which the Navy pays for most of the overruns. Even so, the service's efforts to control expenses may put the company's $579.2 million profit at risk, according to the Navy.

A review of the carrier's rising costs began in August after the Navy's program manager indicated that the "most likely" overrun had risen to $884.7 million, or about 17 percent over the contract's target price of $5.16 billion. That's up from a $650 million overrun estimated in April, according to internal Navy figures made available to Bloomberg News. The worst-case assessment would be about 21 percent over the target.

"Regular reviews of the cost performance indicated cost increases were occurring," Capt. Cate Mueller, a Navy spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Some rising costs are tied to construction inefficiencies, the Navy said. Sean Stackley, the Navy's assistant secretary for acquisition, directed the review "to determine specific causes and what recovery actions could be put in place," Mueller said.

Even as the Navy conducts its internal review, it is trying to assure lawmakers and Pentagon officials that costs of major vessel programs are being controlled. The Pentagon is evaluating strategy, retirement health benefits, weapons programs and military service budgets to find as much as $488 billion in reductions through 2021. The service has already offered to delay by two years the construction of the second Ford-class vessel, the CVN-79 John F. Kennedy.

Stackley's assessment is focusing on "every aspect of the ship's construction including the risks" of delays and cost growth to both contractor- and government-furnished equipment, Mueller said. Among the largest government-furnished equipment is the carrier's nuclear reactor.

The review includes officials from Stackley's office, as well as the Naval Sea Systems Command, the chief of naval operations and the Navy's supervisor of shipbuilding, Mueller said.

Late delivery of Huntington-furnished material has been a key factor in late assembly and inefficient construction, the Navy said. Still, the carrier remains on schedule for its planned September 2015 delivery, the service said.

Huntington Ingalls' goal is to reduce the program's costs, Chief Executive Michael Petters said.

"If there was something else I thought we needed to do, we'd be doing it," Petters said. "If there is something else somebody else thinks we ought to be doing, we'll listen and, if it makes sense, we'll do it."

Mueller said some of Huntington's cost-control efforts are producing "favorable results." For example, the Newport News-based shipbuilder has established specific labor-cost targets for its key manufacturing and construction jobs. Mueller did not say whether those moves have reduced costs yet.

The Navy also has agreed to consider changes to specifications and modify them "where appropriate to lower cost and schedule risk," Mueller said.

Huntington has designated a senior vice president and ship construction superintendent with daily oversight responsibility.

The Navy plans to report a new contract completion cost in its next annual report to Congress.

Mueller declined to discuss the current overrun estimates. The Navy earlier disclosed that the carrier faced the $650 million overrun to complete the contract, $562 million of which the Navy would absorb, with the remaining $88 million absorbed by Huntington.

The completed initial vessel, the first of three in the $40.2 billion program, is projected to cost at least $11.5 billion.

The $11.5 billion comprises $2.9 billion in detailed design and $8.6 billion for construction and government-furnished equipment, such as the nuclear reactor. An additional $3.7 billion is for research that applies to all three vessels in the class, the Navy said.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a June report that cost growth typically occurs when a ship is more than half finished. The Ford design contract is about 42 percent complete.

The Navy's projected cost has risen 10 percent between the fiscal 2008 and 2012 budgets and "further increases appear likely," CBO analyst Eric Labs wrote.

The office estimates that the final price tag will be about $12.9 billion if the increases in the aircraft carrier's cost follow historical patterns.

Any discussion of cost growth should reflect the Gerald Ford's status as a first-of-a-kind ship under development, Petters said.

"A lead ship comes with a whole lot of churn - things that don't go the way it should," he said. "It's like building a prototype."

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

Maybe bloomberg should detail inflation since sep 2008.

One of the things that isn't addressed is inflation since September 2008. How mauch has steel, paint and increased labor added to the cost? Since September 2008 inflation is at 5.1%, that's half of the "overage". Now factor in labor increases, delays caused by the government (EMALS being behind schedule), etc.

How come every Republican president

gets his name put on a carrier? Ford was president for 2-and-one-half years after Nixon resigned. He wasn't even elected to be VP. His most noteworthy "accomplishment" was pardoning Nixon. Carriers have also been named after presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the latter still being alive. BTW, they named the new airport in Houston, TX after him as well. Why no carrier named after LBJ? Or Carter? (clearly Ford and Bush were marginal presidents also). Clinton?
The only worthy Democrat is JFK?
The only unworthy Republican is Nixon?

I Suggest Reading History Books To Find Out Why Several

Carriers were named after Presidents. Could it be that they wore the Uniform of our country in time of war? With some knowledge of history you might find that in that pesky little war called WW II - that you might have heard about, LT Ford was cited for gallantry and heroism for leading Damage Control and FireFighting Teams to save a US warship that had been hit by Japanese warplanes. The senior Naval Officer directed the CO to abandon the ship. The CO ignored this and placed his trust in LT Ford and several other crewmembers who were convinced that they could save the ship. That is why the Navy honored him with a Carrier. H.W. BUSH is another Naval Officer who served in WWII and earned recognition for his bravery in combat.

Yes and LBJ was awarded the Silver Star by Gen. MacArthur

during the Second World War.He led this nation during the Vietnam war and also signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.Still, there is no carrier bearing his name.Reagan served in uniform but remained stateside for the entire war.Oh and I am familiar with the pesky little war to which you refer.My old man served in a segregated unit, the 92nd infantry, during the war.Prior to going overseas, he was stationed at Camp Claiborne Louisiana.As a colored soldier in the deep south he could not eat any any restaurants in the town there.German POWs held there,including some who were Nazis, would often accompany US soldiers into town on various details and could eat at any retaurant in town.

CVN 75

USS HARRY S TRUMAN

SSN 23

USS JIMMY CARTER.

Carter was an submariner and the third Seawolf Class sub carries his name.

There should be a carrier

There should be a carrier for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there is no better president over the past 100 years. Not even close.

Uss franklin d. roosevelt (CV 42)

Commissioned: 27 October 1945
Decommissioned: 30 September 1977

Second Midway Class Carrier

Currently, USS Roosevelt (DDG 80) is named for the President and First Lady.

Man, I'm confused...

First, we have the announcement that the cost overruns are going to be a 'worst case scenario" of $1.1 billion on a cost of 5 plus billion dollars. Then, further down the article, we are told the lead ship will cost $11.5 billion. But, it's reported the total cost for the 3 ships involved will be $40.3 billion, with 3 billion plus devoted to research, prototyping, etc. The FIRST ship of a class is always the most expensive, because its the one the yard cuts its teeth on to introduce construction techniques and other things. So the money being bandied about here doesn't make sense. So, back the original question: what is the construction price that these overruns are thus to be part of?

Bloomberg media

It doesn't have to make sense. It just needs to make the defense budget sound worse than it is.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: Military rss feed   



Toolbox


 

special features