Extending the deployment of the Harry S. Truman strike group by just one month could end up costing the government tens of millions more dollars because of the inefficiency caused by shifting plans, one analyst said.
Bryan Clark, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said that extending a carrier’s time at sea could raise costs by creating more wear and tear on the ship. The larger cost increase, however, comes from shipyards redoing their plans now that they will be receiving the ship for its maintenance period a month later.
“It creates all kinds of friction in private companies that work with the shipyard to get the maintenance period completed,” he said. “Companies have all built their schedule plans around the ship getting back on a certain day… If the ship is a month later, it may be a totally different group of people to do the job.”
Shipyards will often hire contractors to come on board for maintenance periods, but those contractors may no longer be available for the job a month later. This creates a “very inefficient” re-planning process when a maintenance period must be delayed.
Carrier maintenance periods often cost $100 to $200 million, Clark said. He estimated that this additional friction and changing of plans could increase costs by about 10 percent, or about $10 to $20 million.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said Monday that the 30-day deployment extension in the Middle East comes at a “critical time” in the anti-Islamic State campaign. While it’s partly about air power, since about a quarter of anti-Islamic State airstrikes come from the Truman, Richardson said it’s also about better intelligence collection and a show of force.
The extension means the Truman’s planned six-month deployment to the Middle East will last seven months, which is still less than the eight-month deployment length used in the Optimized Fleet Response Plan the Navy introduced in 2014.
Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Hawkins, a spokesman for the Navy, said “deliberate planning” went into the decision to extend the Truman’s tour, including the effect on sailors, families and fleet readiness.
“The extension falls within the established framework for maintaining, modernizing, training and maintaining an operational tempo that can respond to emerging combatant commander requests while maintaining fleet readiness,” he said.
Asked about any effect the extension would have on repair schedules for the Truman, or if maintenance for other ships could be delayed as a result, Hawkins said it’s difficult to know what maintenance will be needed until a ship returns to home port.
“Although deployment extensions generally increase the wear on the force, and maintenance needs, leaders regularly review schedules and adjust them as required,” he said.
The Aircraft Carrier Industrial Base Coalition used the extension as an excuse to lobby for the U.S. to increase the size of its carrier fleet from 10 to 11 hulls.
“With the demand for aircraft carriers and their strike groups only increasing, America needs a fleet of no less than 11 aircraft carriers. With only 10 carriers — the current size of the fleet until Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is delivered — ships, equipment and crews are severely strained and maintenance costs are increased,” the industry group said in an email.
