Ford Costs

As we know, the Navy’s ability to produce reasonably accurate cost estimates is on par with my ability to fly like a bird.  Just for fun, let’s review the Navy’s cost estimating for the Ford.  Below are the Navy’s cost estimate figures for the four Ford class aircraft carriers as they changed over the years.[1, adapted from Table 2., p.10] 

 

 
 

These are bad and, what’s worse, they’re fake because the Navy simply cut off the cost accounting when they reached the Congressionally mandated cost cap limits.  After that, they kept racking up construction costs but buried the costs in other accounts that are not publicly discernible.
 
For example, despite being delivered in May 2017 and commissioned in Jul 2017, the Navy continued funding continuous weapons elevator construction and repair until Dec 2021.  Various reports suggested that as many as 200 contractors were working on the elevators at one time.  None of that has been included in the ship’s cost.  Similar work took place – and is still taking place! – on the EMALS catapult, Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), Dual Band Radar, and other systems. 
 
The Navy may play word games with what they classify as construction costs but the true construction costs continue to accumulate and are no longer being recorded in any publicly visible accounting.  The true construction cost is likely around $16B+ to $18B+ range.
 
 
It is also instructive to examine the Congressionally mandated cost cap limits.[1, p.8]

 

 

Look at the magnitude and frequency of those cost cap changes.  It’s not really a cost cap when Congress increases the cap as the Navy exceeds the cap, is it?

 
Demonstrating just how toothless the cost caps were/are, here are some accompanying language describing the caps.[1, p.8]
 

FY07  “plus adjustments for inflation and other factors
 
FY14  “plus adjustments for inflation and other factors (including an additional factor not included in original cost cap)

FY16  “plus adjustment for inflation and other factors, and with a new provision stating that, if during construction of CVN-79, the Chief of Naval Operations determines that measures required to complete the ship within the revised cost cap shall result in an unacceptable reduction to the ship’s operational capability, the Secretary of the Navy may increase the CVN-79 cost cap by up to $100 million

FY18  “The provision also amended the basis for adjusting the caps for inflation, and excluded certain costs from being counted against the caps

FY20  “The provision directs the Navy to exclude from these figures costs for CVN–78 class battle spares, interim spares, and increases attributable to economic inflation after December 1, 2018.

 
There’s not a lot of ‘capping’ going on, is there?
  
 
 
__________________________

 
[1]Congressional Research Service, “Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress”, August 16, 2023

Impact of Overhead on Shipbuilding Cost

Shipbuilding costs have skyrocketed, generally exceeding the rate of inflation, exceeding all reasonable expectations, and blowing away all historical precedents.  The reasons for this cost explosion are many and not always obvious.  Unfortunately, the lack of obvious reasons leads to simplistic, sensationalistic explanations among naval observers and, disappointingly, they are largely wrong. 

 

One of the most common complaints/explanations is that the shipbuilding industry, in cahoots with government and corrupt admirals, is rife with fraud and if we could just eliminate the fraud, shipbuilding costs would drop precipitously.  While this explanation makes for a compelling and, in a sense, satisfying (because we have an identifiable ‘villain’) story, it is unsupported by any significant body of evidence and fails to stand up to analysis.  This is not to say that a degree of corruption and fraud does not exist but it is not responsible for the magnitude of the cost increases we see on every new shipbuilding project.

 

A far more significant explanation for runaway costs is simple overhead.  We’ve previously covered this in depth (see, “Shipbuilding Costs – Impact of Low Volume”) but it warrants some follow up.  For those who may not be familiar with the basics of accounting and cost allocation, the following is a brief and grossly simplified explanation of overhead.

 

A product’s cost is the sum of two components:  direct costs and overhead costs.

 

cost = direct + overhead

 

Overhead is the cost of business not specifically and directly related to producing a product. 

 

For example, regulatory compliance costs (diversity, gender, environmental, maternity leave, etc.) are necessary costs (are they really?) but they are not directly related to the cost of production.  A department of lawyers or accountants provide no direct contribution to production but their cost is indirectly included.  Taxes must be paid on land and facilities but they have no direct relation to production.  And so on.

 

Direct costs, on the other hand, include raw materials, cranes, assembly facilities, and labor.

 

So, again, a product’s cost is the sum of direct costs plus overhead. 

 

cost = direct + overhead

 

Seems simple enough, right?

 

The thing is, direct costs are fixed whereas overhead is variable.  I know, you think overhead is also fixed but we’re going to demonstrate that it’s not and we’re going to demonstrate how/why that variation impacts shipbuilding cost.

 

As an illustrative example, let’s pretend there’s an item that has $100 of direct costs to produce, regardless of the time required.  Let’s further assume that the overhead costs are $100/yr.

 

If that item takes us one year to produce then the total cost is

 

cost = direct + overhead

cost = $100 + ($100 * 1 yr)

cost = $100 + $100

cost = $200

 

Now, let’s suppose that item takes us two years to produce.  The total cost becomes

 

Cost = direct + overhead

Cost = $100 + ($100 * 2 yr)

Cost = $100 + $200

Cost = $300

 

Now, let’s suppose that item takes us five years to produce.  The total cost becomes

 

Cost = direct + overhead

Cost = $100 + ($100 * 5 yr)

Cost = $100 + $500

Cost = $600

 

Wait a minute, how can the costs vary widely if it’s the exact same item with the exact same direct cost?  It’s the overhead, of course.  More specifically, it’s the time required to complete the item;  the longer the time, the more overhead that has to be applied to the item’s final cost.

 

Now, suppose that the item is a US Navy aircraft carrier that has $10B of direct cost to produce and the shipyard has an additional $1B of overhead per year.

 

If the yard could build the carrier in one year, the total cost would be

 

Cost = direct + overhead

Cost = $10B + ($1B * 1 yr)

Cost = $10B + $1B

Cost = $11B

 

In reality, we have historically produced a carrier in four to five years (we’ll call it five) which makes the total cost

 

Cost = direct + overhead

Cost = $10B + ($1B * 5 yr)

Cost = $10B + $5B

Cost = $15B

 

However, the Navy sometimes stretches out the build times to around seven years which makes the total cost

 

Cost = direct + overhead

Cost = $10B + ($1B * 7 yr)

Cost = $10B + $7B

Cost = $17B

 

We see, then, that the carrier could cost anywhere from $13B (3 yr build time) to $17B (7 yr build time), depending on the build time and the number of years of overhead that have to be applied.

 

Why does overhead have to be applied?  A company does not produce products for free.  It has to pass on all its costs to the buyer.  Therefore, the overhead accumulates, year after year, for every year that it takes to build the carrier and, at the end, the total accumulated overhead gets dumped on the carrier and the Navy/taxpayer pays the cost.

 

Now, let’s take a look at the actual build times for Navy aircraft carriers, as shown in the table below. 

 

 

Carrier Build Time, yrs Laid to Commissioning
CV-63 Kitty Hawk	5
CV-64 Constellation	4
CVN-65 Enterprise	3
CV-66 America	4
CV-67 Kennedy	4
CVN-68 Nimitz	7
CVN-69 Eisenhower	7
CVN-70 Vinson	7
CVN-71 Roosevelt	5
CVN-72 Lincoln	5
CVN-73 Washington	6
CVN-74 Stennis	4
CVN-75 Truman	5
CVN-76 Reagan	5
CVN-77 Bush	6
CVN-78 Ford	8

 

 

We see that build times went from 3-5 years, pre-Nimitz, to 5-8 years.  That means that recent carriers are being hit with 2-5 years of added shipyard overhead.  Of course the total cost is going to increase and increase substantially! 

 

Someone with too much time on their hands is going to point out that the shipyard likely has other work and 100% of the yard’s overhead isn’t dumped on a single carrier.  That is true, of course, however, for our simplified discussion, the concept is valid and substantially correct.

 

While it may be satisfying and cathartic to blame all our shipbuilding cost problems on fraud and corruption, the reality is that those are minor factors.  Overhead is a much larger factor and may well be the main culprit.  Of course, without an itemized breakdown of the production costs, I can’t say for sure.

The Nuclear Power Debate

The nuclear power debate has raged since nuclear power became a viable propulsion method.  I have avoided doing a post on the choice of nuclear versus conventional power for two reasons:  one, I’m ambivalent about the issue and two, it’s impossible to reach any well founded conclusion with publicly available data.  Both sides fling numbers back and forth with little regard for the analytical rigor of the underlying figures.  Generalities abound, none supported by rigorous facts.

For example, one can compare the nuclear powered Ford at a construction cost of $15B (and counting!) to the conventional powered carrier, the Forrestal, at $2.1B (FY2019 dollars) (2) and conclude that nuclear power costs $13B more than conventional power.  While this may be arithmetically correct, it ignores all the other factors that go into carrier construction costs.  Thus, the figure is correct but the conclusion is not. 

Many studies have been conducted that purport to compare the costs of nuclear versus conventional power.  Most of the studies have been flawed, the majority badly so.  Surprisingly, relatively few studies have attempted to quantify the operational comparison of nuclear and conventional power.  In fact, the only such study I’m aware of is the 1998 GAO effort (1) which has, overall, some serious methodological problems and the resulting conclusions are suspect, at best.

Despite my reluctance to address this subject, it’s reached a point where I feel I have to.  Too many readers are making unsupported and incorrect statements about nuclear power, pro and con.  This blog is all about facts, data, and logic so I guess it’s about time to examine the issue.  That said, let’s look at the various aspects of nuclear and conventional power.

Installation Cost.  This is the obvious place to start and we immediately see all hope of analysis fall apart due to lack of data and lack of a consistent set of criteria.  For example, what is the installation cost of a nuclear reactor?  Well, that depends on what you choose to include or exclude as part of the installation.  The reactor container, itself, certainly is part of the cost but what about associated piping?  Do you include the reactor cooling system?  What about the cost of shielding around the compartments and equipment?  What about the systems and equipment required to convert the nuclear energy (heat) into electricity?  And the list goes on and on.

Similarly, what do you include in the cost of a conventional power plant?  Do you include the fuel storage tanks without which the power plant is an inert paperweight?  How about the fuel handling/pumping system?  What about the auxiliary diesel engines that are a common part of any conventional power system today?  How about the air intake and exhaust ducting and exhaust stacks?  What about the exhaust IR suppression systems that are required for a conventional power system?  What cost do you associate with the enormous ship’s volume that is consumed by the giant ducting runs?  And the list goes on and on.

The installation cost, then, will depend on what pieces you include and exclude.  If you favor conventional power, you’ll include every nuclear related item you can think of to drive up the nuclear cost and make your position look better and you’ll exclude all but the direct items for conventional power.  If you favor nuclear power, you’ll do the reverse.

In addition, while we can find some reasonably accurate costs for some of the isolated big ticket items like the GE LM2500 turbines, it’s very difficult or impossible to find accurate data for reactors or for any of the ancillary equipment, nuclear or conventional.  Worse, the costs that we can see, like the Navy’s SCN line item budget figures, are undefined.  For example, the 2020 Navy SCN budget document has a Virginia class line item that reads, “Nuclear Propulsion Plant Equipment” but no description of what is included in the cost figure.  For the Ford class, there is a line item that reads, “Propulsion Equipment” (it doesn’t even mention nuclear!), and has a cost of $2B but, again, no description of what is included/excluded in the figure.  It’s not even clear that the reactor itself is included in the SCN propulsion line items.  They could be Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) that isn’t accounted for in the SCN budget.  However, given the magnitude of the propulsion line items, it seems likely that the reactor is included.

On the conventional side, the SCN budget has no line item for propulsion.  There is a line item for HM&E (Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical) but the detailed breakdown of that line item shows no propulsion machinery.  Alternatively, propulsion may be included in the line item, “Basic Construction/Conversion”, but, again, there is not description of what is included in the line item.  There is a “Main Reduction Gear” line item but that seems extremely specific and the dollar figure is fairly small.

Conventional wisdom claims that nuclear power is more expensive to install but I can find no data to support or refute that claim.

So, we have no hope of determining even the seemingly straightforward installation cost. 

Manning.  Nuclear critics claim that it requires many more people to man and operate a nuclear propulsion plant than a conventional one.  Again, I can find no data to support or refute the claim.  We did just recently see that the USS Ford has two reactors which require <25 watchstanders (5) which suggests that there is no great manning penalty associated with modern nuclear plants and they may even require fewer personnel !

Operating Costs.  After the installation costs, there are daily operating costs.  Again, this all depends on what you include/exclude.  Nuclear proponents would claim that there are no daily operating costs (manning aside, which is a wash between nuclear and conventional) and that this is the major advantage of nuclear power.  However, what about the long term nuclear disposal and storage costs that ultimately become part of the overall operating costs of nuclear power and that continue for decades/centuries after the individual nuclear ship is long gone?

Conversely, what about the costs to operate an entire fleet of tankers to replenish conventional powered ships?  What about their crew costs?  What about the land based fuel tank farms that are required to support the tankers?  What about the drilling and refining operations to make fuel?  And on and on.

As we noted, the evaluation of this depends on what you include and exclude.  Without dipping into a quagmire of debates over what to include/exclude, and without attempting to put a specific dollar figure to it, it seems as if the operating costs of conventional power are far beyond those of nuclear given the requirement for a vast infrastructure of fuel processing, storage, transport, and tanker fleets to support conventional powered ships.

Operational Benefits.  This ought to be a major factor and yet almost no one factors it into their discussions.  If nuclear power conveys a significant tactical or operational benefit, that would compensate for, or outweigh, many disadvantages.  However, the only operational benefit is the reduced need for tanker support and even that is only a limited benefit since the carrier’s escorts all need tanker support.  Of course, eliminating the need for ship’s fuel frees up internal ship’s space for larger magazines, more jet fuel, more food and water stores, or whatever else the ship designer wishes to include.  Is this enough of a benefit to justify nuclear power?  I don’t think so.  The benefits are nice but not critical and do not enable any significant combat enhancements.

Battle Damage.  This factor strikes me as potentially one of the more significant aspects of nuclear power.  While a reactor is protected, to a degree, within the ship, the possibility of battle damage resulting in nuclear contamination is real.  What is the likelihood?  I have no way of knowing but it would seem unlikely that the reactor has any inherent immunity to damage so the likelihood would seem as great as for any other area of the ship.  The problem is that the potential exists for relatively minor damage to produce a serious contamination issue which could result in the operational loss of the ship.  I don’t know the ins and outs of naval nuclear power plants but, conceptually, a damaged ancillary system (cooling, for example) might be the source of a radiation leak even though the reactor had no direct damage.  Depending on the location and spread of the leak the carrier might have to be abandoned or operations halted from a relatively small amount of physical damage.

As I say, I have no inside information about the likelihood of such a scenario but the potential for radiation related battle damage seems all too high.  This factor, alone, strongly sways me away from nuclear power.

Midlife Refueling.  We have seen in recent post discussions that the stated midlife refueling costs for carriers are mostly fraudulent in the sense that the Navy includes extensive overhaul costs with the nuclear refueling costs (see, "Nuclear Carrier Refueling Costs").  So, again, we’re left with no actual, verifiable, authoritative costs to look at.  It seems clear, however, that of the multi-billion dollar overhaul and refueling costs that the Navy cites, the vast majority of it is for non-nuclear work.

Summary

So, where does all this leave us?  Well, it leaves us right where we started which is clueless.  We have no actual comprehensive cost figures to examine and what partial cost figures we have seem to be a wash – depending on what is included/excluded.  Therefore, I see no definitive conclusion based on costs.

Manning is a non-issue with manning levels seeming to be comparable for modern nuclear plants.

Operational benefits of nuclear power are limited and not significant.

The only factor that seems significant is the issue of battle damage and, unfortunately, we have no reliable assessment of the likelihood or severity of such an occurrence.

Once upon a time, when we were dependent on foreign oil, one could make a compelling argument for nuclear power based on our strategic vulnerability to oil shortages during war.  Today, however, the US is essentially energy independent so that argument is invalid.  This does, however, highlight the benefits of ensuring that our strategic resources are under our control (I’m looking at you, rare earths!).  But, I digress …

In the end, we wind up arguing about nebulous numbers.  Is it any wonder I find myself ambivalent about the whole issue?  If I had to offer a conclusion, I’d lean towards conventional power on the basis of the battle damage issue but, lacking definitive information on the subject, my ‘lean’ is not very strong.

I can conclusively and definitively state that I am deeply and profoundly ambivalent about nuclear power.

___________________________________

(1)General Accounting Office, “NAVY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and

Nuclear-Powered Carriers”, Aug-1998, GAO/NSIAD 98-1

(2)Navy Matters, “Forrestal – Ford Comparison”, 21-Oct-2019,

https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/10/forrestal-ford-comparison.html

(3)Navy Matters, “Nuclear Carrier Refueling Cost”, 20-Nov-2019,

https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/11/nuclear-carrier-refueling-cost.html

(4)Navy Matters, “Carrier Costs”, 23-Sep-2019,

https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/09/carrier-costs.html

(5)Navy Matters, “Ford Design Considerations”, 23-Mar-2020

https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2020/03/ford-design-considerations.html

Nuclear Carrier Refueling Cost

There are certain naval topics that are guaranteed to spark arguments and debates and one of them is the question of nuclear versus conventional power for carriers.  Proponents and critics toss ‘data’ back and forth at each other, each proclaiming that the data unequivocally supports their side of the debate.  How can that be?  How can each side muster seemingly incontrovertible data and arguments?  Shouldn’t the data provide a straightforward, clear cut answer?  Well, it all depends on what you include or exclude in your data set.  Does the cost of the extra tankers needed to support conventional powered carriers get included?  What about the cost of the crews that have to man those tankers?  Or the cost of the fuel storage tanks at some land base that the tankers refuel from?  Or the cost of the refineries that supply the fuel?  And on and on.  The same kinds of questions apply to nuclear power, as well.

From the many studies I’ve read, the costs of conventional versus nuclear power tend to be a wash when all the pertinent factors are included.  For that reason, ComNavOps is ambivalent on the issue.  I have a slight leaning towards conventional power, not for any cost reasons but for the damage control aspects and repairability in battle.  But, I digress …

The point of this post is not to settle the issue but to offer one semi-relevant data point.

One of the major costs for a nuclear carrier is the mid-life Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH).  Costs seem to run around several billion dollars, if the Navy is to be believed.  Common sense, however, suggests that this kind of oft cited cost is not true.  Unfortunately, we have no itemized breakdown of the refueling costs to look at.  Remember that carrier refueling is always combined with a massive overhaul effort, the total of which is the cited cost but no one knows how much of the cost is direct nuclear refueling costs and this leads, inevitably to a large part of the ambiguity about nuclear refueling costs.

Well, here’s a related data point.  It’s the SSBNs which also undergo a mid-life refueling overhaul (Engineered Refueling Overhaul – ERO).  As an example, the USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) is currently at the start of a 2-1/2 year refueling overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

The project is expected to finish in 2022 and will take approximately 729,000 man-days to complete with a cost of around $400 million. (1)

Note that the $400M includes both conventional overhaul work and the nuclear refueling work.  The non-nuclear refueling portion of the work – the overhaul  portion – will include hull/tank preservation, a modernized reverse osmosis system, and modifications to accommodate female crew.  Thus, the nuclear refueling costs are something less than $400M.  The overhaul work does not seem terribly extensive or complex so I’d venture a guess that the nuclear portion of the costs is, perhaps, $300M.

That cost, $400M, is immensely less than the RCOH cost of multiple billions of dollars.  Why the enormous cost discrepancy?

One major reason is the sheer scope of the overhaul work – work that has nothing to do with the nuclear refueling.

During the dry dock phase of the RCOH, George Washington underwent significant upgrades and repair work both inside and outside the ship. In addition to defueling and refueling its power plant, Newport News shipbuilders have re-preserved approximately 600 tanks and replaced thousands of valves, pumps and piping components.

On the outside, they performed major structural updates to the island, mast and antenna tower; upgraded all aircraft launch and recovery equipment; painted the ship’s hull, including sea chests and freeboard; updated the propeller shafts, and installed refurbished propellers.

During the next phase of the complex engineering and construction project, shipbuilders will finish up the overhaul and installation of the ship’s major components and test its electronics, combat and propulsion systems before the carrier is redelivered to the navy. This period also will be dedicated to improving the ship’s living areas, including crew living spaces, galleys and mess decks. (2)

It is obvious from that brief description of the non-nuclear overhaul work that the scope and, therefore, cost is enormous. 

What is the split between overhaul and nuclear refueling cost for a carrier RCOH?  Is it 50% each?  Is it 90% nuclear?  Is it 90% overhaul?  Unfortunately, I’ve never seen even a crude breakdown of the cost split and that leads to the aforementioned arguments and suspect data.

On the surface of it, the SSBN ERO cost suggests that the actual nuclear refueling cost is not the major portion of the carrier RCOH and that the overhaul work is, instead, the major portion.  I would go so far as to venture a guess that the overhaul cost is on the order of 70% of the total RCOH cost.  If that’s even remotely correct, that drastically alters the financial arguments that are typically used to debate the nuclear power question.

Of course, a submarine ERO and a carrier RCOH are not directly comparable, even for the nuclear refueling portion of the work.  A carrier’s immense size means that the reactor is buried much deeper in the vessel and access is more difficult.  A carrier presumably has larger reactors and two of them as opposed to the single reactor in a submarine.  And so on.  Presumably, those factors add to the nuclear refueling cost but how much they add to the cost is unknown.  I would guess, perhaps, a 10%-20% premium?

The takeaway from the submarine ERO is that nuclear refueling costs are not inherently obscenely expensive which is the impression so many critics of nuclear power would have us believe.

As I said, this post makes no attempt to settle the nuclear versus conventional power debate.  It only adds a related data point to help guide discussions. 

_________________________________

(1)navaltoday.com website, “Ballistic missile submarine USS Louisiana docks for refueling overhaul”, 17-Sep-2019,

https://navaltoday.com/2019/09/17/ballistic-missile-submarine-uss-louisiana-docks-for-refueling-overhaul/

(2)navaltoday.com website, “USS George Washington undocks during nuclear refueling overhaul”, 1-Oct-2019,

https://navaltoday.com/2019/10/01/uss-george-washington-undocks-during-nuclear-refueling-overhaul/

Forrestal - Ford Comparison

The Ford class aircraft carrier represents the pinnacle of carrier development.  Its features represent the best aircraft carrier characteristics ever conceived and have never before been matched.  The Ford instantly obsoletes every other carrier that has come before.  Or so the Navy would have us believe.  In true ComNavOps fashion, let’s take a level-headed, objective look at a comparison between a supposedly hopelessly obsolete carrier design, the Forrestal, and the revolutionary Ford.

Here’s a quick comparison.

	Forrestal	Ford
Cost, FY19 dollars	$2.1B	$13.5B+
Length Overall, ft	1067	1106
Displacement Full Load, tons	81,101	100,000
Speed, kts	33	30+
Range, miles	12,500b	unlimited
Propulsion, Shaft Hp	260,000	?
Air Wing, number of aircraft	82-86	63-70
Combat Aircraft, number of aircraft	58-60	40-44
Crew without Air Wing	2700	2832a

^a Reportedly around 700 less than a Nimitz class

^b Estimated – USS Enterprise, CV-6, had a range of 12,500 nm at 15 kts (Wikipedia);  I’ve been unable to find an actual range for Forrestal

USS Forrestal

USS Ford

So, how do the two carriers compare?  Well, two factors just leap off the page.

Cost.  The Ford just explodes any previous carrier cost by a staggering amount.  Ford costs over 6x a Forrestal !!!!!!  We could build 6 Forrestals for one Ford.  Even compared to the Nimitz class, the Ford is about 60% more expensive (see, “Carrier Costs”).

The Ford cost is simply not sustainable.  A single Ford represents nearly a full year’s shipbuilding budget all by itself.  There’s no mystery about why our carrier fleet is steadily declining and why our air wings are steadily shrinking – it’s all about the cost.

Air Wing.  The other number that leaps off the page is the size of the air wings and the number of combat aircraft (fighters and strike).  Despite a whopping 23% increase in displacement, the Ford carries far fewer aircraft:  only ¾ of the Forrestal air wing and 70% of the combat aircraft (less when F-18 tanker aircraft are excluded from the count). 

Note that F-35C squadrons will be only 10 aircraft, further reducing the air wing and combat aircraft numbers. (2)

Combat.  The reason a carrier exists is, of course, combat.  Does the Ford offer any combat enhancements over a Forrestal?  None.  The only combat related claim ever made for the Ford was the now-debunked (by GAO and others) sortie rate claim.  In fact, the Ford has a few features that actually decrease its combat capability such as the EMALS catapults that can’t be individually or easily repaired without taking all the catapults off line in a massively time consuming electrical flywheel spin down and spin up procedure.

All other combat characteristics are identical between the two carriers:  same number of catapults, same launch capacity, same flight cycle operations, same aircraft recovery capacity, same number of elevators, etc.

Conclusion.  So, what do we gain from our staggeringly expensive $13B+ state of the art Ford class carrier?  Absolutely nothing!  In fact, the Forrestal cost a fraction of the Ford and carried a larger air wing.  Some of you may be saying that the Ford could carry a larger air wing and you’d be right, in theory.  The reality, however, is that the carrier costs so much that we can’t afford the air wing.  What’s a carrier without an air wing?  A floating paperweight!  What’s a carrier with a reduced air wing?  A marginally useful combat carrier. 

Note: You know that we only have 9 air wings for our 11 carriers, right?  That means we only have a maximum of 9 operational carriers.

Consider, however, if we were to build modern versions of the Forrestal for $2.1B.  Compared to the Ford, that would leave us with $11.4B to buy more carriers and more more/larger air wings.

A modern Forrestal sized air wing (say, 85 aircraft), at an average of $100M per aircraft, just to use a round number, costs around $8.5B – well within our $11.4B savings and still leaving us with $2.9B we could use for another carrier or escorts.

So, why are we building 100,000 ton, $13B+ Fords when we’ve just demonstrated that a modern Forrestal could provide the same combat capability and larger air wings for a tiny fraction of the cost?

___________________

Reference – Air Wing Composition

Typical air wing composition in mid-1980’s with number of squadrons, type of aircraft, and number of aircraft per squadron. (1)

2x F-14 Tomcat, 12 ea = 24

2x A-7 Corsair, 12 ea = 24
1x A-6 Intruder, 10-12 plus 4 KA-6D
1x E-2 Hawkeye, 4-6
1x EA-6B Prowler, 4
1x SH-3 Sea King, 6
1x S-3 Viking, 10

Total = 82-86

Combat = 58-60

Typical current air wing composition with number of squadrons, type of aircraft, and number of aircraft per squadron. (1)

4x F-18 Hornet, 10-12 ea = 40-44

1x E-2 Hawkeye, 4-5
1x EA-18G Growler, 5
1x MH-60S Seahawk, 8
1x MH-60R Seahawk, 6-8

Total = 63-70

Combat = 40-44

_____________________________________

(1)Wikipedia, “Carrier Air Wing”, retrieved 16-Oct-2019,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_air_wing#Cold_War_(1974–1990)_and_the_1983_Invasion_of_Grenada

(2)https://news.usni.org/2014/10/02/navy-base-f-35cs-nas-lenmoore

Carrier Costs

The carrier Ford’s construction costs seem way out of line even allowing for traditional first-in-class elevated costs.  In fact, carrier costs seem to have been increasing over and above simple inflation increases.  Those are my impressions at any rate.  Let’s take a look at some data and see what the situation really is.

The table below shows inflation adjusted construction costs for the nuclear carriers of the Nimitz class and the Ford.  Costs are obtained from the GAO report referenced in the table.  GAO cost figures are about as good as can be had in the public domain.

After adjustment for inflation – meaning all costs are set to FY19 dollars – the costs should all be identical if we were just making serial copies at the same relative cost.  Alternatively, if costs are decreasing due to serial production savings, as so many commenters want to claim, then we should see decreasing costs for each subsequent carrier.  Conversely, if carrier costs are increasing over and above mere inflation, as is my feeling, then we should see increasing cost figures.  Examine the table.

Carrier Construction Costs – Inflation Adjusted 2019 Dollars *
CVN-68 Nimitz (1)	$8.5B
CVN-69 Eisenhower (1)	$7.7B
CVN-70 Vinson (1)	$7.5B
CVN-71 Roosevelt (1)	$8.4B
CVN-72 Lincoln (1)	$8.6B
CVN-73 Washington (1)	$8.5B
CVN-74 Stennis (1)	$9.2B
CVN-75 Truman (1)	$8.5B
CVN-76 Reagan (1)	$9.1B
CVN-77 Bush (2)**	$7.4B
CVN-78 Ford (2)	$13.5B

* Costs for CVN68-76 were taken from Figure 3.2 in Ref 1 and adjusted for inflation.

** Bush costs are suspect and probably reflect the beginning of the accounting games that the Navy began playing with ship costs.

What does the table tell us?

Nimitz.  As expected, the cost of the first-in-class Nimitz is higher than the next couple of carriers.

Trend.  The cost trend shows a steady rise of around $1.5B from the early CVN-69 to the later CVN-76.  That’s an increase of $1.5B over and above inflation.  That’s real increases for reasons unknown.  The Nimitzes are, indeed, as serial a production run as the Navy gets.  Yes, each carrier undoubtedly had small changes but there was nothing particularly major over the course of the run.  So why did the costs increase?  I have no idea but it is clear that carrier costs are rising faster than inflation.  Serial production savings are a myth.

Bush.  As noted, the Bush costs were highly suspect and likely reflect Navy accounting games which began in earnest around that time.  Obviously, the Bush didn’t suddenly drop from around $9B for the previous carrier to $7B.  Also, if we think the Bush numbers are artificially/fraudulently low, what does that tell us about the purported Ford costs?!  We know Ford has been racking up additional construction costs since delivery even though the ship has been supposedly paid for.  The true cost of Ford is likely around $15B by now.

Ford.  The Ford, while a first-in-class, blows any reasonable first-in-class increase out of the water.  The magnitude of the real cost increase is stunningly staggering.  Staggeringly stunning?  Unbelievable!  Yes, the Ford had some new technologies inserted but the basic carrier construction is the same as a Nimitz.  The new tech (EMALS, AAG, weapon elevators, dual band radar) add some cost but none come close to accounting for the increase.  Bear in mind that this is construction costs only.  The development costs for the new tech are staggering but those are not included. 

While some might be tempted to write the Ford costs, staggering as they are, off to first-in-class, we should note that the second and third Fords are also projected to be around $12B each and we know with 100% certainty that those cost estimates will go up!  So, the Ford costs are not just first-in-class costs but real, albeit stunning, cost increases for unknown reasons.

The overall conclusion is absolute, if unexplainable: carrier costs are rising faster than inflation.  I have no idea why carrier costs are rising faster than inflation and without access to a detailed, itemized cost list, I can’t begin to explain it. 

Because of the escalating costs, we are pricing ourselves out of the carrier business.  Carrier numbers have dropped steadily from the 20’s to 15 to 11 to our current 9+1+1 (9 carriers + 1 in long term refit + 1 non-functional Ford).  The Navy has, at least twice, floated/attempted the idea of early retiring a carrier to drop the fleet from the statutory requirement of 11 to 10.  Given the runaway costs, look the Navy to push hard to early retire a carrier in the near future.  Before you protest, recall that we only have 9 air wings which means we can only operate 9 carriers, at most.  Nine air wings makes a tiny bit of sense in a 9+1 fleet but not in a 10+1.  Sooner or later, Congress is going to ask why we need 11 carriers when we only have 9 air wings.  If/when the Ford joins the fleet, we’ll have two carriers without aircraft.  Do you really think the Navy is going to continue to operate 11 carriers when 2 don’t have aircraft?

We desperately need to rethink our carrier construction philosophy.  Carriers are increasing in size at the same time that the air wings are shrinking.  There’s a logic disconnect there.  We’ve doubled the cost of carriers by building the Ford class with no commensurate increase in combat capability and, objectively, we’ve decreased combat capability by installing an EMALS that can’t be repaired without shutting down every catapult (and weapon elevator?) and decreased our willingness to risk a carrier in combat due to the massive cost.  We need to return to basic carriers.  I’d prefer returning to the Forrestal pattern (especially with the smaller air wings) but even a return to the Nimitz pattern would save several billion dollars per carrier!!!!!!!!!

__________________________________

(1)General Accounting Office, “Navy Aircraft Carriers”, Aug 1998, Figure 3.2, p.77

(2)CRS, “Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class (CVN-21) Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress”, Ronald O’Rourke, Apr-2008