REPORT TO CONGRESS

STATUS UPDATE:
USS PORT ROYAL (CG 73)
MATERIAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT
May 2013
Prepared by:
Naval Sea Systems Command
1333 Isaac Hull Ave.
Washington, DC 20376
To date, preparation of the report/study cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $115,000.0 for the
2013 Fiscal Year. This includes $60,000.0 in expenses and $50,000.0 in DoD labor. Generated on 2013APR05.
ReflD: 4-7F8BB29
Table of Contents
1. Requirement
2. Background
3. Assessment Methodology
4. Status Update (As of March 25, 20 13)
5. Way Forward
6. Acronym List
I
2
2
4
5
6
1. Requirement
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National Defense Authorization Act Conference Report (P. L. 11 2-
705), on H.R. 43 10, Section 354, page 721 , includes the following language:
Limitation 0 11 availability of ftmds for retirement or inactivation of Ticonderoga class
cruisers or dock lallding sltips (sec. 354):
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 354) that would limit the obligation and
expendilure of funds authorized to be appropriated or olherwise made availableforfiscal
year 2013 for the relirement, inactivation, or storage of a cruiser or dock landing ship. The
provision would provide an exception for the retirement of the U.S.S. Port Royal (CG- 73).
Finally, the provision would require the Secrelary of the Navy to maintain the operational
capability and peJform the necessary maintenance of the cruisers and dock landing ships in
support of operational requirements of the combalant commands.
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 344) that would express the sense of the
Congress on Navy fleet requirements, including the fact that the Secret my of !he Navy should
maintain the operational capability and pe1jonn the necessa1y maintenance for each cruiser
and dock landing ship belonging to the Navy.
The Senate recedes wilh an amendment that would eliminate the exception for the retirement
of the U.S.S. Port Royal. The V.S.S. Port Royal incurred significant damage following a
grounding incident in 2009. Although the Navy indicates that the ship never completely
recovered from the grounding, the Navy has not provided adequate analysis and cost data on
the structural condition of the ship.
Therefore, the conferees direct the Secretmy of the Navy to conduct a detailed material
condition assessment of the U.S.S. Port Royal that will:
1) include a comprehensive inspeclion of the ship 's major structural, machine1y,
electrical, combal and weapons systems elements;
2) idenlify the necessa1y repairs and modernization, including detailed costs to make those
repairs and upgrades, that would be required for the ship to meet its expected service
life, consistent with other ships in the Ticonderoga-class:
3) be conducted by the Navy, with the results evaluated by the appropriate Navy technical
authority; and
4) be reviewed by an independent board of subject matter experts, from indust1y and the
Department of Defense.
The conferees further direct the Secretmy to submit the results of that assessment, along with
results of independent reviews of that assessment, to the congressional defense committees
within 180 days of enactment of this Act. The conferees further direct that the Government
Accountability Office conduct a sufficiency review of this report. The Secretmy shall also
provide the congressional defense commiflees a status updale on the assessments within 120
days of e.nactmenl of this Act.
2. Background
On February 5, 2009, the CO 47 Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser USS PORT ROYAL
(CO 73) ran aground approximately one-half mile from the coast of Honolulu, Hawaii. After
being successfully disengaged on February 9, 2009, preliminary assessments indicated
significant damage to the sonar dome, propellers, and shafts required that the ship be taken into
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (Pl-INSY & IMF) to be dry-
docked for repairs. In addition to the aforementioned systems, structural repairs were made to
the ship's tanks, superstructure, and underwater hull. The ship left dry dock in September 2009
and completed its availabil ity in January 2010.
USS PORT ROYAL's first post-grounding deployment occurred between June 2011 and January
2012, during which emergent structural repairs were required in Bahrain due to the identification
of new structural cracks. USS PORT ROYAL conducted minor underway periods between
January and April of2012, performed a scheduled maintenance availability from April to June
2012, and participated in Rim of the Pacific (RIMP AC) exercises from June to August 2012.
3. Assessment Methodology
The Naval Sea Systems Command (NA VSEA) is the technical authority for Navy vessels and
their respective equipment and systems. This detailed material assessment is being conducted by
the NA VSEA Deputy Commander for Surface Warfare (SEA 21) and reviewed by the NA VSEA
Chief Engineer and Deputy Commander for Naval Systems Engineering (SEA 05).
In order to perform the material condition assessments ofUSS PORT ROYAL, as directed in
Section 1, the Navy made the following assumptions to enable the methodology for the
assessments:
Expected Service Life for CO 73 is 35 years
Mid-Life will not occur earlier than Fiscal Year 2016
A homeport change would be approved to support a Mid-Life Maintenance Availability
Cognizant Navy In-Service Engineering Agents (!SEAs) will conduct technical
assessments of systems and equipment
Crew readiness and proficiency will not be assessed
Ship systems identified for material condition assessments include:
(1) Structural (deck, underwater hull, superstructure);
(2) Machinery Systems (propulsion, engineering, damage control, environmental ,
auxiliaries);
(3) Electrical Systems (electrical distribution, shore power, distributive systems, gas
turbine generators); and
(4) Combat/Weapons Systems (navigation, operations, Aegis Weapons System (AWS),
Gun Weapons System (GWS), Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), Vertical Launch
System (VLS), MK 45 Naval Gun System, Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control
2
System (TrWCS), Close-in Weapons System (CTWS) , Harpoon Weapons System
(HWS), Undersea Warfare System (USW), and communications).
Cognizant Navy ISEA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) conducted all system and equipment
assessments. SEA 21 and SEA 05 will review ship's data sources and certifications in order to
focus the system assessments. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division (JSEA)
will be tasked to re-assess the findings of the Top Side Structural Assessment and the
Underwater Structural Assessment to document any changes, updates, repairs, or further
degradation.
Assessors will utili ze existing Total Ships Readiness Assessment (TSRA) procedures, Preventive
Maintenance System (PMS) procedures, and Engineering Operational Sequencing System
(EOSS) to assess systems and equipment. In the absence of TSRA or PMS procedures, assessors
will develop a new procedure and have them approved by the appropriate technical authority.
Assessors will generate Maintenance Action Forms (MAF) to be entered into the Current Ship's
Maintenance Project (CSMP) system by an onsite representati ve prior to assessment team
departure.
Estimated costs for repai rs will be developed and compared to similar cruisers. NAVSEA will
consider past workload requirements and associated cost to complete Mid-Life mainte nance and
modernization availabilities. This data will be utili:ted to compare avai lability package size
across the CG 47 Class. Maintenance costs and proj ected requirements will be provided by
NAVSEA's Surface Maintenance Engineering Planning Program (SURFMEPP). Mid-Life
availabilit y data will be collected from USS LEYTE GULF (CG 55), USS LAKE CHAMPLAIN
(CG 57), USS CHANCELLORSVILLE (CG 62), and USS SAN J ACLNTO (CG 56). Due to
platform simil arity that includes like aluminum sensitization/cracking issues, the lifecycle costs
of USS CAPE ST. GEORGE (CG 71) and USS VELLA GULF (CG.72) will then be compared
to those of USS PORT ROYAL (CG 73). USS VICKSBURG (CG 69), which also suffers from
aluminum sensitization cracking, was not selected for comparison to USS PORT ROYAL
because it has not been through a significant CNO availability during the past three years,
making the condition assessment data dated and unreliable. The data collected from USS CAPE
ST. GEORGE and USS VELLA GULF is sufficient for the purpose of this assessment. .
Conducting a special condition assessment of USS VICKSBURG would not alter the outcome of
the assessment and would require additional resources in the form of manpower and funding, and
would del ay delivery of the final report.
The Hull , Mechani cal and Electrical (HM&E) and Combat System (CS) assessment data will be
provided to the Navy technical authority for review. The output of the Navy technical authority
review will be provided for independent reviews by industry and DoD. The American Bureau of
Shipping (ABS) has been selected to provide the independent industry review and the Navy
Board of lnspection and Survey (INSURV) has been selected to provide the inde pendent DoD
review.
3
4. Status Update
USS PORT ROYAL (CG 73) is executing a scheduled 11 week FY 13 Continuous Maintenance
Availability (CMAV) from February 21, 2013, to May 8, 2013. The availability includes
scheduled Waste Heat Boiler (WI-IB) inspections. The availability is being executed by BAE
Systems Hawaii and PHNSY & JMF. Material assessments of the HM&E and Combat Systems
are being conducted by the TSEAs during the ongoing CMAV.
A. The HM&E Assessment Teams have successfully completed the follow underway
assessments: High Speed Run, Turns and Crash Backs. The following HM&E systems will
receive In-Port assessments:
Entries into the ship's CSMP of discrepancies noted during the assessments are ongoing.
B. The status of the Aegis Combat System (ACS) elements being assessed are as fo llows:
C. The HM&E and CS Teams have completed all assessments. Return costs from four si milar
Cruisers (CG 55, 56, 57, and 62) that have completed their HM&E and Combat Systems
Modernization Availabilities are being collected to establish the FY 16 Modernization Costs
for CG 73. Also, the return costs and associated work specifications from two similar
Cruisers (CGs 71 and 72) are being determined to establish a comparison of the annual
4
maintenance costs to estimate the fiscal requirement to maintain CG 73 for three years prior
to a Mid-Life Modernization Availability.
Preliminary results indicate that the USS PORT ROYAL's material condition is comparable to
other CG 47 Class ships that were included in the assessment, and that the manifested effects of
the grounding in February 2009 are not as extensive as previously believed. Cost estimates are
being refined, taking into consideration prior year maintenance and modernization plans for USS
PORT ROYAL and available options for combat system upgrades.
5. Way Forward
SEA 21 will compile the data from the assessment teams and forward to SEA 05 for technical
review. The output of the Navy technical review and associated costs will be provided for
independent reviews by industry (ABS) and DoD (INSURV). In parallel SEA 2 1 will develop
the final report. The Navy is coordinating with the Government Accountability Office to
facili tate early involvement in review of the PORT ROYAL
5
ACS
ADS
ASW
AWS
CAS REP
CEC
CG
CHT
CIC
CIWS
CMAV
CNO
CONUS
COTS
CIS
CSMP
CIW
DFS
DMP
DSRA
ECWS
EDSRA
EM
EMAF
EOSS
ESL
EWS
EXCOMM
FCS
FlO
FRP
FIW
FY
GAO
GTG
GTM
HM&E
HP
HPAC
HVAC
HWS
ICMP
IGE
ACRONYM LIST
Aegis Combat System
Aegis Display System
Auxi liary Sea Water
Aegis Weapons System
Casualty Report
Cooperative Engagement Capabi li ty
Guided-Missile Cruiser (Ticonderoga Class)
Collection, Holding & Transfer
Combat Information Center
Close-In Weapons System
Continuous Maintenance Availability
Chief of Naval Operations
Continental United States
Commercial Off-the-Shelf
Combat System
Current Ship's Maintenance Project
Chill Water
Departure From Specifications
Depot Maintenance Period
Dry-Docking Selected Restricted Availability
Electronic Cooling Water System
Extended Dry-Docking Selected Restricted Availability
Electromagnetic
Electronic Maintenance Assessment Form
Engineering Operational Sequencing System
Expected Service Life
Electronic Warfare System
External Communications System
Fire Control System
Fuel Oi l
Fleet Response Plan
Fresh Water
Fiscal Year
Government Accountability Office
Gas Turbine Generator
Gas Turbine Module
Hull , Mechanic"al & Electrical
High Pressure
HP Air Compressor
Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning
Harpoon Weapons System
Integrated Class Maintenance Plan
Independent Government Estimate
6
IFF
INSURV
ISC
ISEA
IVCS
L/0
LPAC
MSMO
MSR
NAVSEA
NAVSEA 05
NSWC PHD
NSWCCD-SSES
OA
ORTS
PAAA
PEO IWS
PSA
QAWT
RBC
ROG
S/A
S/F
SCD
SECNAV
SPA WAR
SME
STBD
sw
SURFMEPP
SURFPAC
TPR
TSRA
TYCOM
uws
VLS
Identi fication Friend or Foe
Inspection and Survey
Integrated Ship Control
In-Service Engineering Agent
Interior Voice Communications System
Lube Oil
LP Air Compressor
Multi-Ship, Multi-Option
Master Ship Repair
Naval Sea Systems Command
Naval Sea Systems Command, Engineering Directorate
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division-Ship Systems
Engineering Station
Open Architecture
Operational Readiness Test System
Planar Array Active Aperture
Program Executive Office Integrated Warfare Systems
Post-Shakedown Availability
Quick-Acting Watertight Doors
Rack Based Console
Remote Operating Gear
Ship Alteration
Ships Force
Ship Change Document
Secretary of the Navy
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
Subject Matter Expert
Starboard
Saltwater
Surface Maintenance Engineering Planning Program
Surface Ship Pacific Fleet
Tank Planning Report
Total Ships Readiness Assessment
Type Commander
Underwater Warfare System
Vertical Launch System
7