Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    While the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) Newport News Shipbuilding unit continues to build the next-generation CVN-78 Ford-class carrier, the company and U.S. Navy are negotiating for the deal to construct the next ship, CVN-79 John F. Kennedy.

    “Without going into the inner workings of the negotiations or the discussions, our expectation is that this would be a fixed-price incentive contract,” HII CEO Michael Petters told Wall Street investment analysts during an Aug. 7 quarterly earnings call.

    “The question about contract type really is a question about how much risk is there and how do you put your arms around the risk,” Petters says. “We can put our arms around that in a fixed-price incentive contract. But then it’s a question of, can you fund that? And that will be part of the discussion. Contract type may be a way that we end up mitigating risk, but I’m not expecting that right now.”

    Petters underscored the urgency of getting the contract signed, while acknowledging the “dilemma” faced by the Navy, Congress and the company in drafting a fixed-price contract for a second ship when the first ship has not yet been completed.

    “I would tell you, emphatically, we need to get to that contract and get under way because what we’re doing now is we’re piecemealing the contract ... We’re doing some advanced construction, and we’re doing that one phase at a time. That really limits our ability to energize the complete supply chain,” he says. Holding off on the contract until more risk is reduced could incur costs greater than what might have resulted from that risk, he says.

    However, Petters acknowledges, “It’s an environment where the contract is not necessarily the driver. The other pressures in Washington may end up being the driver. And that’s part of how we discussed this project with the Navy going forward — what’s the right thing to do and what makes the most sense? We’re having good discussions with the Navy today, and we’re optimistic about where the program is going to go.”

    Progress on the CVN-78 Ford continues in preparation for its launch and christening in November, he says. On CVN-79, he adds, “Efforts continue under our construction preparation contract to ramp up engineering design, planning, long-lead-time material procurement and advanced construction.”
    HII CEO Forees Contract For CVN-79 Carrier

    Comment


    • #92
      .... to fix or not to fix !

      Originally posted by surfgun View Post
      While the Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) Newport News Shipbuilding unit continues to build the next-generation CVN-78 Ford-class carrier, the company and U.S. Navy are negotiating for the deal to construct the next ship, CVN-79 John F. Kennedy.

      “Without going into the inner workings of the negotiations or the discussions, our expectation is that this would be a fixed-price incentive contract,” HII CEO Michael Petters told Wall Street investment analysts during an Aug. 7 quarterly earnings call.

      “The question about contract type really is a question about how much risk is there and how do you put your arms around the risk,” Petters says. “We can put our arms around that in a fixed-price incentive contract. But then it’s a question of, can you fund that? And that will be part of the discussion. Contract type may be a way that we end up mitigating risk, but I’m not expecting that right now.”

      [/url]
      The risk of a "incentive fixed price driven contract" has great advances in a sustained stable engineering world.
      The mammoth amount of time from conception to delivery of a CVN is approaching the decade milestone.
      Figure in the technology which has not yet been invented ( did someone say FRAM ?!?) and change orders fly around the room.
      Yes, the second ship should be more cost effective to build. But oh those change orders.....

      Comment


      • #93
        Has there been any new info on CV-67? Last I heard the group in RI was really far into the app process. Now i know people keep saying that with the new JFK coming they'll have to scrap her but then why string tthat group along for nothing?? Although they did that with Ranger in WA. But also since JFK 67 wasn't a nuke (designation CV not CVN) would that help her "2 JFK carrier"thing? Would be nice to have 1 super carrier museum!
        RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by 85 gt kid View Post
          Has there been any new info on CV-67? Last I heard the group in RI was really far into the app process. Now i know people keep saying that with the new JFK coming they'll have to scrap her but then why string tthat group along for nothing?? Although they did that with Ranger in WA. But also since JFK 67 wasn't a nuke (designation CV not CVN) would that help her "2 JFK carrier"thing? Would be nice to have 1 super carrier museum!
          why would they have to scrap her, there's a USS Missouri SSN 780 and the ex USS Missouri BB 63 right now..

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by 85 gt kid View Post
            Has there been any new info on CV-67? Last I heard the group in RI was really far into the app process. Now i know people keep saying that with the new JFK coming they'll have to scrap her but then why string tthat group along for nothing?? Although they did that with Ranger in WA. But also since JFK 67 wasn't a nuke (designation CV not CVN) would that help her "2 JFK carrier"thing? Would be nice to have 1 super carrier museum!
            To scrap or not to scrap has nothing to do with naming conventions. As dundonri pointed out, there are two Missouris out there as just one example. To understand why carriers are retained in reserve mode or sunk/scrapped requires getting into a really arcane process of weapons acquisition that is counter-intuitive to say the least. I'm going to simplify it by breaking it down like this. CNO doesn't want a conventional supercarrier sitting around in a fairly good state of repair because they are afraid that members of Congress will say, "Look, you have that nice ship there to fall back on in a real pinch." Big Navy doesn't want to hear that because that means CVN 79 and follow-on ships might not get built. So CNO will push to get rid of those ships just as fast as they can so that they don't have them to fall back on. Have you noticed how quickly all the Spruance-class destroyers were sunk or are being sunk? Those ships had a lot of service life left, but if they are on the books, then DDG 1000 and a bunch of Flight III Arleigh Burkes don't get built. It's a pretty cynical game being played, but that's about the gist of it. I watched it going on with other programs when I was on the Joint Staff. There are about two dozen agendas in play between Congress, the Service Secretaries, and the Joint Chiefs at any one time, and rarely are they mutually supportive.

            It's also part of the same game that has Big Blue Naval Air shitting green every time some yokel refers to something like an LHA as "a mini-aircraft carrier." Put 15 or 20 F-35Bs on one and it in fact becomes a pretty potent combat systems platform. Say "mini-aircraft carrier" often enough and some idiot Congressman in East Jesus, North Dakota will start to believe it, and then Elmo Zumwalt's "sea control ship" will be realized at last. Well, I'm here to tell you that an LHA is not a CVN. There's a difference of about 15 knots just for starters. The rest is fairly obvious . . . unless one is an idiot Congressman from East Jesus, North Dakota.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
              why would they have to scrap her, there's a USS Missouri SSN 780 and the ex USS Missouri BB 63 right now..
              And subs named USS Texas and and USS North Carolina, too.

              Comment


              • #97
                I've said it before and I'll say it again: A supercarrier is too damn much ship for a museum organization to take care of. Unless you've got a billionaires bank account to draw off of, the logistics will bury the ship in debt faster than you can say "USS Yorktown".

                And all it takes is one greedy f*ckwad to ruin a priceless national artifact like USS Olympia.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • #98
                  Along those lines, I'm sure tbmfan can enlighten us on just how much money it takes to keep the Hornet afloat year-round, and it's not even a supercarrier, just a regular Essex-class conventional carrier.
                  "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                    Along those lines, I'm sure tbmfan can enlighten us on just how much money it takes to keep the Hornet afloat year-round, and it's not even a supercarrier, just a regular Essex-class conventional carrier.
                    I think that Midway and the Iowas are and will continue to be the upper limit for size. Anything larger and it's simply not possibly fiscally or logistically. Which is often the same thing.
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • From what was mentioned in earlier posts they won't make another carrier, bb, ddg etc if there's an existing ship with the same class and name. Also in regards to the museum part obviously that organization AND the Navy think they can handle it so we'll see.
                      RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 85 gt kid View Post
                        From what was mentioned in earlier posts they won't make another carrier, bb, ddg etc if there's an existing ship with the same class and name.
                        An existing COMMISSIONED ship ;)
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                          An existing COMMISSIONED ship ;)
                          So let's say hell froze over and they decided to reactivate the Missouri. What happens with the sub Missouri? Name change?

                          Comment


                          • Uhm, if hell froze it's not the time to be that nitpicking.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pacfanweb View Post
                              So let's say hell froze over and they decided to reactivate the Missouri. What happens with the sub Missouri? Name change?
                              If they were going to bring Missouri out of retirement they'd have to bring me out of retirement to be chief engineer because there aren't enough steam snipes available to man that pig. The chances of either occurring aren't even slim and none. They're none and none.

                              Comment


                              • Which reminded me of the BB Alabama. Since her name was reused for the Ohio-class SSBN Alabama, was the BB considered "defineatly not ever coming back", while the Massachusetts' and (until recently) the North Carolina's names were not reused so that door was left a very tiny bit open?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X