Posted on 06/13/2003 6:46:34 AM PDT by 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.
Remember the collision with the tanker in the North Sea? Or the F-14 lost on take off with the loss of the Phoenix missle? Those were heady times. The crew quarters were glorified slums.
Right you are. I was in the shower, about to go on watch when the collision alarm sounded. Scared the beejezus out of me.
Which explains why her skipper got relieved last year because of massive 3M deficiencies...
The you don't have to refuel every 3 days like a conventional carrier. is based on fuel for the ship to run. But nuclear power doesn't fuel the planes that fly! Under high tempo operations, like those just experienced for the Afghanistan or Iraqi Freedom campaigns, a visit by the local AOE to pass more av-gas and ordnance is required regularly -whether or not the carrier needs fuel for its engines. Without the av-gas refueling every 5-6 days, the carrier becomes an overlarge dance floor!
A nuclear carrier might be able to transit from point A to point B without worrying about refueling - but then remember that the Carrier Battle Group has several Aegis Cruisers/Destroyers and other ships, that require regular refueling.
A nuclear carrier has several advanatages - primarily no high temperature exhaust plume that can affect the jets that are coming in for a landing. Also - no need for the exhaust stacks that occupy so much space up the "island".
But if you include the cost of the cut-up and disposal of the reactor compartment, the disposal costs of the nuclear fuel, the higher manpower costs for the engineering crew (including training and nuclear proficiency pay) the nuclear power ship has a life-cyle costs that is about 10% greater than for a comparable fossil fuel powered ship.
For submarines, where the amount of fuel that can be carried is limited, and the ability to conduct sustained operations undetected - nuclear power is a definite plus. There are many benefits without considering costs to justify using nuclear power. But for surface ships - the cost factor just isn't there!!
Mike -- former Nuc Submarine Officer
If a ship was originally designed to be an oil-burner, I can understand that. But, the purported problem with the Kennedy is that it was not designed to be an oil-burner. I don't know how much extra maintenance can be attributed to the late change, but those that have worked on it seem to think it wasn't a cost-effective decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.