kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.
The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.
Further in the piece was this gem:
"The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise.
4 years and "several" billion... now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....
GW is few TIMES bigger vessel, with dozens of facilities Kuz never did and never will have that require overhaul, and overhaul is being performed in country where worker gets paid on average 20 times more than in Russia. Apples and oranges.
Don't be silly seriously and compare such things.
Errr... no. The GW is not really that much bigger. Her physical dimensions are quite comparable - the GW length/beam/draught is 332m/76m/12m while the K is 305m/72m/11m. Her displacement may be higher 97,000 tonnes vs 66,000 but much of that is crew space (6k POB vs 1.5k) and storage for strike ordnance (which the K as an air superiority platform doesn't require), so saying the GW is a "few TIMES bigger" simply isn't correct.
The scope of the K's overhaul will be VASTLY greater than the GW. New boilers (or at least new burners and combustion air supply system), new UKSK systems, upgraded AAMs, upgraded radars and battle-management system, refurbed flight wing etc etc... Russia will do this for ~1B while the US lays out at least double and gets far less.
BTW Russias far lower labour costs make this possible, as labour cost is linked to Russia far lower cost of living.
Every part of your post is dead on target except the last point. Labour costs cannot explain western prices. It took
$13 billion and 8 years to build the new Ford class aircraft carrier. Suppose the average salary for workers/engineers/etc
was $100,000 per year. The 100% of the cost would require 16,250 workers. I am quite sure that the workforce was actually
around 20% of this figure. (I include he R&D figure in both the construction and job estimates since they can be lumped
together and even if subsequent construction is 35% cheaper the basic point remains valid).
Newport News Shipbuilding employs 22,000 workers but has several large projects running concurrently:
Ford-class aircraft carriers
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- completed but overlapped other construction
USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
USS Enterprise (CVN-80)
USS Indiana (SSN-789)
USS Washington (SSN-787)
They are also dismantling the original Enterprise.
So its workforce is not dedicated to one project and cannot explain the cost. US military product prices are inflated by
profit all the way through the supplier chain. Russian prices are not yet equilibrated at this level and Russian workers
made about $1500 per month before the forex drop, which did not make them poorer and Russian companies operate
in rubles and not dollars so their wage costs have not gone down.