Skip to comments.Navy awards Mississippi shipyard $2.38 Billion contract to build USS Tripoli (LHA-7)
Posted on 06/01/2012 4:32:41 AM PDT by moonshot925
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy awarded a $2,381,448,356 contract to Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (HII) May 31, for the detail design and construction of the future USS Tripoli (LHA 7), the Navy's next large-deck amphibious assault ship.
The ship will be constructed at HII's Ingalls Operations in Pascagoula, Miss. Ship delivery is expected in fiscal year 2018.
Like the future USS America (LHA 6), LHA 7 has an increased aviation capacity, including an enlarged hangar deck, realignment and expansion of the aviation maintenance facilities, a significant increase in available stowage for parts and support equipment, and increased aviation fuel capacity.
(Excerpt) Read more at navy.mil ...
The USS Tripoli? How disrespectful and Racist! This is a slap to the face to all our good Muslim Brothers and Sisters! (sarc)
Hmm, when it’s finished it should just about be able to transport the whole EU military any where in the world it’s needed. /s.
Well, maybe not /s.
On a serious note - in any other Navy these days the ship would be an Aircraft Carrier.
Not with NObama at the helm.......
“”the Navy’s next large-deck amphibious assault ship””
As opposed to the NON amphibious ship?
The designation “amphibious assault” refers to these ships’ ability to carry large and powerful units of “amphibious ‘soldiers’” (Marines) and their equipment.
I was posting to Duffy instead of you. So Duffee you can call me dooflous
looks like the Tarawa class with a little larger deck
I remember when a CVN and the airwing was $1 billion total cost.
There is a lot of waste in federal spending. Defense is no exception.
An LHA should not cost over $2 billion.
I'm sure there are a lot of folks in Mississippi and Virginia who would love to hear all your expertise on how to accomplish that.
Thank you, I didn’t know if that Duffy was supposed to be me or was another Duffy. My duffee is an old Scottish spelling and is the name of my Scottish Terrier.
Actually, the 150 million tax payers would really love to hear it. I've been around plenty of DoD contracts and believe me, lots and lots of waste. And a good portion of it is the massive administrative hurdles designed to prevent waste.
Pointing out wasteful spending by the DoD should be everyone's concern. Paying outragous amounts for our military makes us weeker, not stronger.
That said, I am far from convinced that there is nearly as much "fraud, waste and abuse" in DOD as the "fraud, waste and abuse" zealots claim.
And a good portion of it is the massive administrative hurdles designed to prevent waste.
ROFL!!! So ... do you want to eliminate the massive administrative hurdles, or erect another layer of administration to eliminate the waste caused by the anti-waste bureaucrats?
Hmmm...I'm guessing about $3,638,230,164.67 if they weren't using all those chicom junk parts...
(Of course, i could be off by a few dollars.)
I’m an advocate of more small carriers such as this and a fleet of diesel subs for regional work.
I don’t think Duffy minded. He hasn’t posted since 2006
That could mean you are a librarian, supply clerk, copy boy, etc.
If you have specific expertise in naval architecture and shipbuilding, then present it.
That was many, many, many, many moons ago.
Cost of the latest boat, CVN-78, alone is $13.5 billion.
The shipp is planned at 45,000 tons which is heavier than the Frogs Charles de Gaulle.
Here are some folks with specific expertise in naval architecture and shipbuilding:
“Maersk Line orders 10 “Triple-E” mega-ships
Maersk Line has signed a contract for 10 of the world’s largest, most efficient container vessels with an option to buy another 20. The vessels will have a capacity of 18,000 TEU and will be delivered from Korea’s DSME shipyard from 2013 to 2015.
The new, giant container vessels will be known as Triple-E, based on the three main purposes for their creation:
Economy of scale
At 400 metres long, 59 metres wide and 73 metres tall, the Triple-E will be the largest vessel of any type known to be in operation. Its 18,000 twenty-foot container capacity is a massive 16 % larger (2,500 TEU) than Emma Mærsk.
At a cost of USD 190 million per vessel and therefore a contract value of USD 5.7 billion should the option for a further 20 be exercised Maersk Line is buying the ships to position itself to profit from the 58 % growth in trade from Asia to Europe that the company expects, and to maintain its industry leading market share in the trade.”
Here are some particulars on the Tripoli:
“LHA 7 and LHA 6 are the first two ships in the new America class of amphibious assault ships. At 844 feet long, 106 feet wide, and a displacement of 44,971 long tons, the Tripoli will be about 100 feet shorter than a Midway-class aircraft carrier, yet with roughly the same displacement. A pair of General Electric LM2500 gas turbine engines will provide roughly 70,000 total shaft horsepower enabling the ship to achieve speeds in excess of 20 knots.”
Some further particulars on the Maersk Triple E class:
Other principal measures of the Triple-E include: o Beam (breadth): 59 meters o Draught: 14.5 meters o Deadweight: 165,000 metric tonnes o Reefer container capacity: 600 o Top speed: 23 knots”
Comparing construction costs, the Maersk vessels will cost $1,151.00/DWT, while the Tripoli will cost $57,777.00/DWT, or 5,000% more.
I am willing to make some allowance for increased costs for warship construction due to specialized systems, etc, but the Tripoli costs are way, way out of proportion.
You're comparing apples and desk chairs.
Granted, there are limitations to the comparison, a better measure would be to compare lightship displacement costs per ton, not deadweight.
Even allowing for all the bells and whistles of outfitting a warship, in the end a ship is made of plate steel, cut and welded.
For another comparison, look at the Allure of the Seas, world’s largest cruise ship, 5,000 plus passengers, a floating palace.
Roughly 4 times the size of the Tripoli, constructed in 2010 for $1.2 billion.
I believe the key point you have made is economies of scale. Not simply economy of scale through a single class of ship, but scale throughout the entire US shipbuilding industry, such as it is. There is no domestic merchant shipbuilding sufficient to support a naval construction program.
Remember Alfred Thayer Mahan. A nation’s sea power is utterly dependent upon a domestic merchant marine to provide the ships, shipbuilding and manpower required.
Under current conditions, a single naval order is required to support almost the entire infrastructure of yards and shipbuilders.
At these costs, every ship becomes a capital ship that cannot be lost, or even risked.
Name: Allure of the Seas
Owner: Royal Caribbean International
Operator: Royal Caribbean International
Port of registry: The Bahamas Nassau, Bahamas
Ordered: February 2006
Builder: STX Europe, Turku, Finland
Cost: US$1.2 billion (2006)
Yard number: 1364
Laid down: 2 December 2008
Launched: 20 November 2010
Maiden voyage: 1 December 2010
Identification: Call sign: C6XS8
IMO number: 9383948
MMSI number: 311020700
Status: in active service, as of 2012
General characteristics 
Class and type: Oasis-class cruise ship
Tonnage: 225,282 GT
Displacement: approximately 100,000 tons
Length: 360 m (1,181 ft)
Beam: 47 m (154 ft) waterline
60.5 m (198 ft) extreme
Height: 72 m (236 ft) above water line
Draught: 9.3 m (31 ft)
Depth: 22.5 m (74 ft)
Decks: 16 passenger decks
Installed power: 3 × Wärtsilä 12V46D (3 × 13,860 kW/18,590 hp)
3 × Wärtsilä 16V46D (3 × 18,480 kW/24,780 hp)
Propulsion: 3 × 20 MW ABB Azipod, all azimuthing
4 × 5.5 MW Wärtsilä CT3500 bow thrusters
Speed: 22.6 knots (41.9 km/h; 26.0 mph)
Capacity: 5,400 passengers (lower berths)
6,300 passengers (all berths)
Notes: 50 mm (2.0 in) longer than Oasis
ThirdMate is comparing an 18-wheel truck to a main battle tank.
Great News! My first ship was the USS SAIPAN (LHA-2). LHA’s are very large and very versatile ships. I’m sure the new one will have even more capabilities.
I admit I was a bit shocked wen I saw the $2.4 billion price tag though. Maybe this one will have an onboard precious metals vault and the price includes the cost of a couple tons of gold bars :^)
Nah, trucks and tanks don’t float!
Late 80's. A 1000% increase in 25 years seems a bit steep.
Seriously, you want to defend the premise that Federal spending suddenly becomes efficient and cost effective when it is DoD?
I have worked on naval aviation support contracts off and off sense leaving active duty.
The cost of depot level maintenance on FA-18s is at least double what it could be.
The former. Somehow the private world is able to conduct business without it.
You stated without equivocation that an LHA should not cost more than $2B...I asked you to demonstrate the competence to make that claim. So far you have not been able to do it.
Working on “naval aviation support contracts” can mean anything.
Well ... there, at least, is a point of agreement. I'd gladly join in eliminating the Department of Eliminating Waste and Redundancy Elimination Department ...
Even at the risk of being accused of encouraging waste.
Whatever. Take a hike.
$2.8 billion for an LHA is ~$35 per pound, with very little in the way of weapon systems (CIWS only).
I’m curious, as $2.8 billion isn’t an issue for you, is there any figure that you would question.
Has it occurred to you that overspending hurts our military capability? e.g. if ships and planes cost half as much, we could afford more of them.
We’ll take it!
But I am shocked and dismayed that a woman with your vast experience, wisdom and knowledge has not been snapped up by the shipbuilding companies so they can learn how to properly build naval vessels at the right cost.
Unless you are the Green Lantern, stop calling me “honey”. I’m a man.
Second, I’ve worked around DoD projects for 25 years and know what waste looks like.
I have no doubt that ships and aircraft can be and are built for considerably less than when done under DoD contractual provisions. Designing and building a standard airliner would cost 40-70% more if it were done under DoD contract (not off the shelf purchase).
Do you have any knowledge, what-so-ever of DoD contract requirements? Any? Have you ever managed one? Forget that, do you read current events?
As I said before, federal spending doesn’t suddenly become circumspect and intelligent when the dollars get put into the DoD accounts.
Kiss my ass dirtbag.
You sure as hell wouldn’t say that to my face. Not more than once.
If you desire an address to give it a shot, just let me know.
You’re chicken squeeze, all the way through.
I’ve emailed you my contact information. I’m happy to finish this face to face. Put up or shut up.
That is awesome!
Thank you for the ping!
I hope you are doing well.
You are a coward. I’ve given you a chance to, as you say “man up”, but you stick with your anonymous homosexual come ons.
You love wasteful spending and like to sweet talk men, why are you on FR? Did DU kick you out of their Little Boy forum?
Doing great thanks. This is good news. Means my nephews will have work for years.
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.