U.S.S. John F. Kennedy repair cost 3 times higher that planned(Clinton Era Military Alert)

GlobalSecurity.org ^ | 13 June 2003 | trueblackman

[Trueblackman]

Kennedy overhaul price tag balloons Years of neglect have added millions to the cost of upgrading ship

By Rachel Davis

Halfway through an extensive nine-month overhaul, the cost to refurbish the Jacksonville-based USS John F. Kennedy has risen significantly over the Navy's initial report.

With millions added since work began in January, the maintenance cost for the Kennedy has climbed to about $ 300 million. The Navy says it can easily absorb the price tag, but U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw's office said it is beyond the usual estimated 15 percent for an aircraft carrier's repairs.

Officials at the Navy's Air Force Atlantic Fleet in Norfolk, Va., said the carrier is not over budget and was only compensating for additional work found after the project began. The initial cost estimate is based on maintenance and repairs that the Navy was aware of at the onset of the maintenance work, said spokesman Cmdr. Hal Pittman.

This is the first extended maintenance program since 1993 for the Kennedy, a 35-year-old aircraft carrier, said Kennedy Capt. Ronald H. Henderson, adding, '. . . as maintenance personnel begin previously scheduled repairs, they usually find additional items that require work. We anticipated growth work would emerge when we started . . . and we have discovered growth work tied to existing repairs.'

Some examples include:

-- Replacing rusted deck around an air ejector.

-- Additional repair work for the catapult systems.

-- Additional fuel and steam pipe work discovered after other piping was removed.

Funding for the Kennedy's newfound system repairs lies in an ample defense budget -- $ 3.5 billion for ship maintenance in 2003 plus an additional $ 940 million from a wartime supplemental budget passed by Congress this year. Thus far for the Kennedy, $ 61 million in new work has been added, according to Air Force Atlantic Fleet.

'No one planned for that kind of [cost] growth, they've been plagued by that kind of growth in every area of the ship,' said a high-ranking Navy official familiar with Kennedy repairs, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. 'This ship is in significantly worse shape than what they estimated.' In December 2002, at the onset of the work, the Navy released a statement that said the work would be 'valued at more than $ 200 million,' but Friday Navy officials said the initial estimated budget was $ 244 million.

The $ 200 million figure released by Kennedy public affairs officials was discounted by Pittman, who on Friday said, 'it was at the beginning so maybe they didn't have all the figures.'

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based defense watch group, said the figures on the Kennedy should be characterized as a cost underestimate rather than a cost overrun.

'That's been the problem with this ship for quite some time. People have been overoptimistic on what was needed to keep the thing in top operating condition,' Pike said. 'I think they just basically need to get some realistic cost estimating and get on with the job.'

MAINTENANCE CUT SHORT It is not clear if the Kennedy's additional costs will affect the amount of money another ship might receive for its repairs, but officials said the fleet would get the necessary maintenance 'to operate safely and reliably.'

The Navy did not address the question of whether any of its other ships' maintenance packages would be reduced for 2003 or 2004.

The Kennedy, the third-oldest carrier in the Navy's fleet, also is scheduled to go to Norfolk, Va., for the second phase of its maintenance in 2005. Commissioned in 1968, it is scheduled to stay in the active fleet until 2018.

Crenshaw, R-Fla., said the Navy expected exceptional cost growth from the Kennedy because of its lack of funding in the past.

'As we know, the Kennedy is anything but typical. She is a unique ship with a history of neglect,' Crenshaw said. 'The workload growth was expected and it's an example of what happens when the Navy neglects its assets. The Kennedy went through an extended period of lean maintenance years and this is the result.'

Over the past decade the Navy has shorted the Kennedy an estimated $ 300 million in maintenance, beginning when a three-year maintenance program designed to extend the life of an aging carrier was cut short in 1995.

The aircraft carrier was placed into the Navy's reserve fleet and never received the required upgrades.

In December 2001 the Kennedy performed poorly on a material inspection and its commanding officer was relieved of his command. The Navy said the carrier was in poor shape because of gross underfunding.

Some of the systems cited during the inspection were degraded aircraft catapult systems and elevators, flight deck firefighting equipment and an 'unreliable' propulsion system.

To get the Kennedy ready for a six-month deployment overseas, the crew worked extended shifts last winter alongside contractors, forgoing extended holiday and vacation leave.

DRY DOCK STILL AHEAD A $ 29 million upgrade before deployment last year, coupled with the Kennedy's current maintenance project and its scheduled dry dock in 2005 in Norfolk -- when the ship is pulled from the water for work on its exterior systems -- should put the carrier back on track, according to Navy officials.

The dry-dock period in 2005 is still being scheduled, Pittman said, and the logistics and exactly where all the required maintenance will take place has not yet been finalized.

Thus far in the maintenance period, contractors and sailors have worked on such vital components as aircraft catapults and arresting wires, propulsion systems and much of the ship's worn-out carbon-steel piping, which will be replaced with a tougher more durable copper nickel. Through these pipes flow aircraft fuel, oils and steam for the ship's propulsion and catapult systems.

'We've repaired some decks and foundations for pumps and machinery,' said Capt. Richard Burna, supervisor of the Navy's ship-contract work in Jacksonville. 'We thought they were sound and could wait until 2005, but once the pumps were removed we saw that they were deteriorated and it was the smart thing to repair them now.'

Burna also said repairs that were initially scheduled for the Kennedy's dry-dock period in 2005 are being done now because of system availability and adequate funding.

The ship's four catapult systems, which launch aircraft off the flight deck, will also undergo an overhaul, including three jet blast deflectors, or large 'shields' that protect flight deck personnel from jet engine exhaust.

'With the catapults, we took the catapults apart. It was the first time they had been taken apart since Philadelphia,' Burna said referring to the time the Kennedy spent in a Philadelphia shipyard from 1993 to 1995. 'It was smart to do it now that all the other parts and components were out of the way to give us access.' MORE FOR ECONOMY

The additional growth money may or may not have an impact on the local economy, according to two economists who differ on the issue.

According to Paul Mason, a University of North Florida economics professor, an extra $ 50 million spent to refurbish the Kennedy will in effect double to $ 100 million as the dollars trickle down to hotels, restaurants and companies that supply material to the Kennedy.

But with so many variables, forecasting an economic impact is an inexact science. Mark Vitner, a senior economist with Wachovia bank in Charlotte, N.C., said a more accurate figure would be $ 70 million. That's because much of the extra spending will be for equipment, which typically is so specialized that it needs to be brought in from elsewhere. That means less money spent in Jacksonville. Staff writer Gregory Richards contributed to this report. Staff writer Rachel Davis can be reached at (904) 359-4614 or at racheldavis@jacksonville.com.

NOT SHIP-SHAPE: THE KENNEDY'S REPAIRS Here is a look at what has happened to the 35-year-old Jacksonville-based USS John F. Kennedy since maintenance problems were exposed two years ago: -- Dec. 2-7, 2001: Performs poorly on a maintenance evaluation by the Navy's Board of Inspection and Survey. -- Dec. 13, 2001: Navy strips captain of command. -- Dec. 14, 2001: Navy pushes Kennedy's deployment up two months to mid-January to relieve the USS Theodore Roosevelt in launching fighter jet missions on Afghanistan. -- Dec. 17, 2001: Holiday leave for the Kennedy's 3,000-plus crew members is shortened to get the ship seaworthy. About another $ 30 million in repairs are planned. -- Dec. 19, 2001: Navy names Capt. Ronald Henderson to take over command. -- Jan. 15, 2002: Navy announces deployment delay for further repair work. -- Jan. 16, 2002: Congressional delegates meet with Navy officials who acknowledge inadequate defense funding throughout the 1990s for the Kennedy. -- March 6, 2002: Relieves the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the north Arabian Sea in the war on terrorism. -- Aug. 17, 2002: Arrives back at Mayport. -- Jan. 6, 2003: Begins nine-month overhaul, reported at more than $ 200 million. -- April 9, 2003: Overhaul is about one-third of the way through, on schedule and now up to $ 250 million. -- May 27, 2003: U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw visits Mayport as the Kennedy completes 50 percent of its now roughly $ 300 million overhaul.

GRAPHIC: Photo: 01met_KennedyRefit060603 01me Bruce Lipsky/staff Patrick Schram of Lakehurst, N.J., works in Catapult 4 on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier. The catapult systems were noted for poor performance in a 2001 Navy inspection. Photo: 08met_KennedyRefit060603 08me Bruce Lipsky/staff Construction crews and equipment fill the hangar deck of the USS John F. Kennedy on Friday at Mayport Naval Station. The 'Big John' is halfway through a nine-month overhaul. Photo: met_JFKcatapaultPipe 0577835 John Pemberton/staff DeShaun Myers adjusts a valve in a catapult room. The valve is a small part of the system that shoots the jets off the carrier. Photo: all_kennedy-fundraiser041702 Associated Press A full moon illuminates the horizon above as the USS John F. Kennedy prepares for Operation Enduring Freedom. Photo: met_JFKupdate3 040803 met_JFK Don Burk/staff Capt. Ronald Henderson said he expected to find additional areas that would need repairs when the overhaul began in January. Photo: met_JKFRehab052703 met577837 Bruce Lipsky/staff The USS John F. Kennedy is at the halfway point of a major overhaul that has reached $ 300 million. The aircraft carrier is 35 years old.

[Trueblackman]

Should we all be shocked?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

No.

[Prof Engineer]

Navy ping

[Rudder]

Keep it at 15 per cent. Per cent of what?

[justlurking]

A friend of mine was in the Navy, and I think he was stationed on the Kennedy.

If that was the one, he had some interesting stories about it. The Kennedy was originally supposed to be nuclear powered, but at some point late in the process, they decided to make it an oil-burner instead, purportedly to save money.

But, the late change meant that a lot of the mechanicals were in the "wrong" place, leading to a lot of jury-rigging and continuing maintenance headaches.

Plus, the unexpected exhaust stack was now too close to the radar antenna. Soot coats the antenna and degrades its performance, requiring cleaning or replacement more often than planned.

His contention was they had already spent far more money in extra maintenance than they saved by eliminating the nuclear reactor. And that was back in the mid-80's.

[stuartcr]

All true, it was and still is a bad-luck ship from the beginning.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The primary reason that the Kennedy was not decomissioned when her sister ship was (USS America, CV-66 and only a couple of years older), is the name. She ought to be decomissioned and the money put toward a new nuclear aircraft carrier. (The Kennedy is conventionally powered.)

[Blood of Tyrants]

Ae you talking about the incident with the Moosebrugger?

[Trueblackman]

The Kennedy will likely replace the Kitty Hawk and that is why she will be 50 years old at the time of her decommissioning. I say decomission her now and bring back either the Midway or Independence, the JN took good care of both and they are in great shape in mothballs.

[bribriagain]

"All true, it was and still is a bad-luck ship from the beginning"

I served on board the Kennedy back in 1976 and she was in bad shape then.

[stuartcr]

That and all the other incidents. I was on from '72-'77, and you would not believe the number of incidents that ship had....collisions, men-overboard, fires, plane losses, loss of lives, racial incidents, missile losses, etc.

[Blood of Tyrants]

There was some specification on with the Midway that prevented F-14's from being deployed on it. Up until it was decomissioned it had a couple of F-4 squadrons attached to it. It is too old any way at nearly 60. The Indy, maybe.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If she's an oil burner, she's one of the last US vessels to run this way. Nothing is as dirty as N6 fuel oil (unless it'd be coal).

[Trueblackman]

The Midway can haldle the F/A-18 as she had 3 squadrons before decommissioning and the only problem with the F-14 is the Midway's Hangers are too small for the tail like the S-3B the Midway has recovered and launched 14's in the past. The new F/A-18 E/F would make her just as powerful as any other carrier.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Would you want to be on a ship so old that a good many of the original plank owners have died of old age?

[Blood of Tyrants]

the Midway's Hangers are too small for the tail

That's what I remembered.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I'm guessing that the 15 percent is 15% of the total cost of the original carrier or the entire ship's projected maintenance budget. If the cumlative total maintenance cost for any piece of military equipment exceeds a certain point, buying a new one may be cheaper. One example is once 50% of the original price for a military vehicle is reached in maintenance cost over it's service life, it will be scrapped. The percent changes with the system.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I agree. People don't want to hear this, but nuclear power is so much better. It's much more efficient, the ship has better performance, and you don't have to refuel every 3 days like a conventional carrier. Nuclear power has a higher initial cost (installation, controls, and testing) but is cheaper over the life cycle of the ship.

[berserker]

Link to official USS JFK homepage.

[Trueblackman]

That is true.