By Geoff Fein
Northrop Grumman [NOC] will lay the keel for the USS Ford (CVN-78) on Saturday at its Newport News, Va., shipyard, officially marking the beginning of construction of the Navy’s next-generation aircraft carrier that brings a new look to the fleet and a shift from steam to electric driven systems.
According to a company spokeswoman, shipyard work on the Ford is further along at this point in time than the company was when it was building the USS Bush (CVN- 77), the last of the Nimitz-class carriers.
With this new class of carriers, the Navy is looking to not only reduce the crew by 1,200, but has abandoned steam catapults and opted to go with General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems Division’s Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). Other changes include a new aircraft arresting system and relocation of the island toward the aft of the ship.
Even with the visible and not-so-visible changes, the construction process for the Ford shouldn’t differ from the way the Bush was built, Mike Shawcross, vice president of the CVN-78 program, told Defense Daily earlier this week.
“The erection sequence hasn’t changed because of the layout of the ship or new features,” he said. “The island is still the last unit to be affixed to the ship.”
The new design really affects the outfitting, Shawcross said. “Where things go, and maybe to some degree the sequence in which we put them together…the outfitting.”
The Navy’s plan to cut the crew size did, however, have an effect on the Ford‘s design, he added.
“That was one of the inputs into how we designed the ship. That meant we tried to simplify systems, we tried to reduce maintenance of equipment, and wherever we could factor that into the design we did,” Shawcross said.
For example, Northrop Grumman designed the ship with the intent of having dry bilges, he noted.
“That meant we put more pipes and systems down below deck,” Shawcross said. “The idea is obviously wet bilges are much more maintenance intensive to coat them and keep up with them. There are a number of examples of things we have done to reduce maintenance costs for the crew and that went into the design for sure.”
With the Navy’s plan to keep the Ford-class design through CVN-80, Northrop Grumman is looking at what lessons it can take from CVN-78 and apply for the follow-on ships, Shawcross said.
“First of all we agreed with the Navy that we want to absolutely minimize the design changes,” he said. “We have been able to do that so far. There have been no major design changes that have to be made.”
Northrop Grumman is finding that there are some structural units that could be sequenced a little bit differently, Shawcross said, or even how the company puts those structural units together, factoring those into the build sequence for CVN-79.
The Navy is working a task to propose changes that could reduce the cost, he added. “We are starting those efforts now.”
“That is really one of the reasons to have this planning contract now. There are things we have to compensate for, obsolescence…equipment that is no longer [being] manufactured,” Shawcross said.
Shawcross hasn’t seen any specific examples of any companies deciding to get out of their particular business because of the decision to spread out carrier acquisition from four to five years between ships.
“We are concerned that that will drive costs up,” he said.
Shawcross said it could be more expensive for smaller vendors that don’t have other work. “[We would] expect that to show in their estimates.”
One recommendation Shawcross said Northrop Grumman will make to the Navy is how the service could best leverage current and future procurements.
“We are still buying a lot of equipment for [CVN]-78. If we could reach an agreement with Navy on how to strategically use some of this advanced funding for [CVN]-79…is there a way to benefit both ships? We are actively looking at that,” he said. “We are talking to the Navy about setting up a mechanism like that and they are interested in that. We haven’t finalized any particular agreements.”
Shawcross noted that the company does have funding that can be utilized. “The Navy has planned funding for [CVN]-79 in [fiscal years] ’11 and ’12…that contract is not placed. What we are currently working under is a planning contract for [fiscal years] ‘9 and ’10.”