Jura The idiot
General
Damn ! in fact your a bad guy
I remember Jeff instructed people, in situations like this, to have "a thicker skin" than somebody who "teases" you
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I remember Jeff instructed people, in situations like this, to have "a thicker skin" than somebody who "teases" you
Jura The idiot
General
I sure don't!
sorry for nitpicking, but didn't you mean multiplying by 1.5? this would correspond to Augustine's Laws
"His study of 81 major projects finds that final costs exceed pre-R&D estimates by an average of 52%."
by the way the article I linked is dated 24 Jul 2012 and considers $11.76b for CVN-78, while the price ceiling was recently announced to be $12.887b:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-40#post-365316
Brumby
Major
Thanks for reminding. I blame it on memory lapse due to age.
LOL heresorry for nitpicking, but didn't you mean multiplying by 1.5? this would correspond to Augustine's Laws
but yes 12,8 the second 11.3 bill* " almost cheaper " hehe, less 1,5 bill obviously the first is always more expensive.*
As i have posted on the Ford threat much more expensive for buy as the last Nimitz the Bush 13 bill vs 7 in 2009.
But during her service life of 50 years less expensive 27 bill vs 32 because
less personnal/maintenance for catapult for a total of 40 /39 with buying price, same.
But obviously people see buying price mainly and are very surprised ... logic.
One advantage for USN no RCOH in fact 3 years in more disponible.
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
... FORBIN it's just a current estimate, while
"The ship is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in June 2022."
which is like seven years from now; now going back in time,
FY08 budget $10,488.9b Estimated procurement cost of CVN-78 according to
Table2. Changes in Estimated Procurement Costs of CVNs 78, 79, and 80
in your source
Jura The idiot
General
Better for comparison
don't know what you mean ... I've tried to say any "comparison" seven years ahead doesn't sound terribly reliable to me, since by going seven years backwards, I see an error of ... 12887/10489-1 ... 23%; but I'm not a fortune teller
so I'll leave it at that
Blackstone
Brigadier
I'd be happy if the average government project only exceed original budgets by about 52%. My guess is it's worse than that.sorry for nitpicking, but didn't you mean multiplying by 1.5? this would correspond to Augustine's Laws
"His study of 81 major projects finds that final costs exceed pre-R&D estimates by an average of 52%."
by the way the article I linked is dated 24 Jul 2012 and considers $11.76b for CVN-78, while the price ceiling was recently announced to be $12.887b:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/aircraft-carriers-iii.t7304/page-40#post-365316
guys, you're boring me to death??? Saving the planet will take a little cash gents, get out your wallets? really, Obama has already spent most of ours, 18 trillion bucks in debt? social programs and giveaways?Better for comparison
Brumby
Major
The problem is when you examine the details, there is a different story. The original budget for CVN-78 is $10.5 Billion (in 2008 dollars). The latest estimate is $12.9 Billion which is $2.4 Billion over budget. In reality, the cost overrun is much more because some work is being shifted out as post completion activities to mask the true cost. That is a separate story in itself which we will not get into. The cost overrun is known and anticipated but sadly not seriously managed because GAO reported in August 2007 that:
Costs for CVN 78 will likely exceed the budget for several reasons. First, the Navy’s cost estimate which underpins the budget is optimistic. For example, the Navy assumes that CVN 78 will be built with fewer labor hours than were needed for the previous two carriers. Second, theNavy’s target cost for ship construction may not be achievable as the shipbuilder's initial cost estimate for construction was 22 % higher than the Navy's cost target which was based on the budget. (In effect, the Navy fudged the numbers which in reality would not be achievable). Finally, the Navy’s ability to manage issues that affect cost suffers from insufficient cost surveillance.
This is not withstanding the fact that the build approach was in attempting to implement some technologies that were not matured during the design and build phase such as EMALS, AAG, and DBR. This was a recipe for cost growth. The breakdown of the $12.9 Billion cost attributes $3.3 Billion to one time R&D with $9.6 Billion as a recurring build cost. If we contrast the latest appropriation of $11.3 Billion for CVN-79 (vs. original budget of $9.2 Billion) it represent a cost growth of $2.1 Billion. Given that CVN-79 would be a more stable design plus the efficiencies identified from the CVN-78 build, it is difficulty to reconcile against the latest estimate of $11.3 Billion to build CVN-79.
I blame it on Congress for giving the Navy a free pass back in 2007 when it was obvious that the Navy was fudging numbers that it could not deliver. In a commercial enterprise this would not have passage.