Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Light Speed; Alamo-Girl; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; PAR35; Rummyfan
More Hulls....soon!

Industry agrees, and it isn't primarily a profit issue (the predictable media talking point)...but one of even viability...werewithal to do these ships at all in the budgets being so "generously" outlined. Yet GWB/Rummy's crew appears to be deaf, dumb and blind as to the real risks here of complete loss of necessary shipyard capacity (maybe he is complacent about outsourcing carriers to France, Japan, or China?)

Industry Official Wants Consistency in Shipbuilding
WILLIAM MATTHEWS
DEFENSE NEWS, MARCH 24, 2005

Expecting that the U.S. Navy would order as many as 24 DD(X) destroyers and 12 LPD-17 amphibious transport ships, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems launched a $112 million improvement program for its Avondale, La., shipyard.

The promise of high-paying, long-term jobs looked so bright, the company was able to convince the state of Louisiana to pay half of the cost — $56 million — to modernize the privately owned shipyard.

Now, however, the Navy says it plans to order only nine LPD-17s, and the buy of DD(X) destroyers also may be cut to as few as nine.

“How can we build a business plan against the constant churn?” asked Philip Dur, president of Northrop’s Ship Systems division. “How can we continue to provide value to our customers and the taxpayers” when the Navy’s shipbuilding plan is constantly changing?”

Dur pleaded for consistency during a Navy League discussion of shipbuilding and the industrial base in Washington on March 22. He blamed Congress for shirking its constitutional responsibility to “maintain a navy.”

Dur received only limited sympathy from a deputy assistant Navy secretary and a naval analyst.

Allison Stiller, the Navy’s deputy assistant secretary for ship programs, said that while the 2006 Navy budget calls for building only four ships in 2006 — instead of the six projected earlier — Navy spending on shipyards remains significant.

In addition to $6.3 billion for new ships, the Navy plans to spend $3.1 billion for overhauls and $2.4 billion for research and development of new ships, for a total of $11.8 billion. Ship research and development spending is the highest it has been in years, she said.

Naval analyst Robert Work was even more blunt. Shipyards are in danger of pricing themselves out of business, he said.

The average new warship costs $1.4 billion. Unless shipyards can cut that cost, the U.S. fleet will remain on an irreversible downward spiral, he said.

Historically, the Navy on average has spent about $10 billion a year on shipbuilding. And although budgets in recent years have promised $13 billion or $14 billion “in the out-years,” the promises have not materialized, Work said.

The Navy should plan for shipbuilding budgets of about $10 billion a year, he said. As for shipbuilders, “the thing you really have to attack is the cost of $1.4 billion” per ship. At that price, the Navy cannot build enough new ships a year to maintain a fleet of about 300 ships.

In part, the high cost is due to building ships that are “over-speced,” or more capable than they need to be, Work said.

The U.S. Navy already has a vast margin of superiority over all other navies in the world. There is no need to make the margin even greater, he said.

The DD(X), for example, began as a replacement for the FFG-7, a low-end frigate. The Navy decided that the DD(X) must be able to sail 12,000 miles without refueling. Thus the ship’s fuel alone weighs more than the FFG-7, Work said.

The DD(X) “is clearly not a replacement for the FFG-7,” he said. “The DD(X) is an awesome ship, unquestionably the best in the world. But how many can you build on $10 billion a year?”

77 posted on 03/25/2005 7:22:52 AM PST by Paul Ross ("Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right." -William Gladstone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: Arthalion; lepton; navyvet; F14 Pilot

Ping. FYI


79 posted on 03/25/2005 7:29:41 AM PST by Paul Ross ("Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right." -William Gladstone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross
About halfway thru my 2 decade plus stint in the oil/gas fab sector...noticed a trend where Grays hairs went out one door with young kids coming in the front.
The quality of worked dropped off.
Management ran around with their hair on fire screaming.
Contracts were lost afterwards...as consortiums saw problems with *That shop.

We could never keep up with the steel shortage.
Crappy steel would show up from Brazil,Ukraine etc.
Then the Oil firms would see the metallurgy on them and go ballistic.....as critical medium numbers in their percentile were inconsistent.
Now we are doing metallury assay...ultasound inspection .
spending oodles of time to meet contract stipulations.

If Q.C. [Quality control] is not on the ball...all kinds of mistakes occur.
especially with *Stainless.
Where welder see's a 4 in Stainless pipe ...fits it..welds it.
Later...its the wrong grade.
Welders become paranoid after....won't touch nothing until God comes down to confirm its the right material given them.

To make a project succeed...you need the Gray Hairs calling the shots.
Experience = success.

81 posted on 03/25/2005 11:09:43 AM PST by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

To: Paul Ross

Thanks for the ping!


92 posted on 03/25/2005 9:02:04 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson