Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

USS Miami To Be Decommed

From The New London Day (may require premium access):
The Navy notified Congress on Tuesday it plans to stop repairing the USS Miami and remove the submarine from the fleet.
In April, the Navy discovered additional cracking on board the submarine, which was severely damaged after a civilian worker set a fire inside the submarine at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, in May 2012. The cost of the repairs increased from an estimated $450 million to $700 million, according to the Navy...
Staying at PD...

Update 1805 07 Aug: RADM Breckenridge explains the reasoning behind the decision. Excerpt:
The combination of these effects — sequestration effects in 2013 and the expanded scope of work — resulted in two adverse consequences: the bulk of the repair effort was pushed from FY 2013 to FY 2014, and the cost estimate increased from $450M to $700M.
Sequestration could levy a devastating burden on FY 2014 maintenance spending, causing the potential cancellation of up to 60 percent of scheduled availabilities. The shift in Miami repairs and the increased cost estimate means that without $390M in additional resources in FY 2014, funding the repairs would require cancellation of dozens of remaining availabilities on surface ships and submarines. The Navy and the nation simply cannot afford to weaken other fleet readiness in the way that would be required to afford repairs to Miami.

60 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Probably the safest and most intelligent option. No telling what that heat had done to the structural integrity of the hull. Glad safety and common sense finally prevailed over politics.

8/06/2013 5:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this over one shipyard pyro-crab wanting to get off early to go see his girlfriend. An amazingly sad turn of events.

8/06/2013 5:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it was a matter of money not safety and common sense that led to this

8/06/2013 5:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good decision. I would argue that it should have been made a year ago, but I agree nonetheless. I would tend to agree that money was more likely the overriding factor, not safety or common sense, but in the end this is most likely the best plan. Seriously, raise your hand if you'd like to do the first deep dive on her during sea trials had they repaired it and put her out to sea. Didn't think so.

8/06/2013 5:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

not just about money, but also about manpower available. Public shipyards are overworked and under-manned.

Dropping the Miami project will free up a lot of man-power, so maybe some other projects can make it out of the yard on time.

8/06/2013 5:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MTS-755? Time to move the nuclear training pipeline from the technology of the 1960's to the 1980's.

8/06/2013 5:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MTS 755?

I know they didn't want to make any I boats into MTS, but this seems like a good option. After all, the forward end is already gutted...

8/06/2013 5:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm assigned to the Miami and would have willingly taken her back to sea. The Miami has no bearing on getting other projects out late. The cost has only been going up from the figure that the Navy had in mind a year ago that they thought was acceptable.

8/06/2013 5:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon @ 5:56pm:

>The Miami has no bearing on getting other projects out late...

That might seem what it looks like from onboard the boat, but when you look at the metrics that NAVSEA05 deals with for all the shipyards, you see that the manning that is going to MIAMI could be put elsewhere to get other projects back on track (not just ones at Portsmouth).

Yes it is a small piece of the overall pie, but it still makes a difference. There are carriers out there that need help....

8/06/2013 6:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not replace the MTS 626 and 635 at NPTU Charleston with the USS Miami and the USS San Francisco.

I also agree that it would be a serious safety risk to take the Miami back out to sea.

8/06/2013 7:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Miami sailor-

Get a senior yardie to explain PNS's layer cake graph and then see if your availability has no impact on fleet readiness. I don't have the details but I guarantee they'd love to be using the man-hours on another ship somewhere.

8/06/2013 7:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be my understanding there is not enough life left in the reactor to make it a MTS.

8/06/2013 7:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This was a no-brainer based on the future budget outlook. re-allocate the manpower to something useful.

8/06/2013 8:07 PM

 
Anonymous MMCM(SS) Ret said...

For all the MTS posts...I just completed my tour at NPTU. The La Jolla and SF are already slated to replace the Webster and Rayburn. First is supposed to arrive in 2017. And believe it or not, there is more to it than gutting the front end. The forward end is filled with the Supplemental Water systems. MTSs are treated as land based reactors and have a few more rules to follow. Basically, in commercial jargon, EFW, EFIC, ESAS, RBS and several other systems are required. It would probably cost more to make it an MTS than it would to fix it. And yes, I am employed as an instructor at a commercial plant.

8/06/2013 8:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You just completed your tour at NPTU, but you're already an instructor at a commercial nuke? How is that even remotely possible, as there is no way you've already completed your SRO cert or license? That's a minimum of 18 months unless you got one of those pretend "management certs."

8/06/2013 8:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 2041 - Only license instructors require the certifications that you think they all need. Maintenance/Non-Licensed Operator instructors do not.

8/06/2013 9:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Miami Sailor: Please post your rec committee address.
As a plank owner I'm sad that she will be retired early. Whether for money or for safety. I know we built one fine war machine as EB HATED us when we finally left. We held them to standards during boat turnover and they didn't like it one bit.
The going question I think would be is it cheaper to MTS her, or to defuel her and extend the San Fran a couple of deployments?



hagar,
focking bummed.

8/06/2013 10:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me Google that for you!

Here you go!


USS Miami (SSN 755)
FPO, AE, 09578-2411

8/06/2013 11:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^^
Nice, thanks, hadn't had a chance to search it yet. I'd just found the Group 2 web page for her.
Anybody know what the decomm committees are doing these days to raise money?



hagar,
bummed.

8/07/2013 1:52 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unbelievable that Fury is only sentenced to 17 years after destroying this boat.

8/07/2013 7:18 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am just wondering all the guys assigned to the USS Miami, what are you guys doing? Is it basically a shore duty at this point? Do you think the decomm of this sub will affect other subs OPTEMPO?

thanks for your service.

8/07/2013 7:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At a USSVI anniversay weekend a number of years ago, we had a chance to visit the Miami. It was the first time I was on board a nuke and was really impressed by it's size and very complicated "stuff" all jammed into every conceivable space. And to think I thought my diesel boat was the epitome of complex machinery, but the nukes take the complex prize. It seemed that us diesel boat sailors had more people room than the 688's.

8/07/2013 7:24 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The MTS idea was looked at, and as stated earlier, was abandoned due to core life.

8/07/2013 11:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why not replace the MTS 626 and 635 at NPTU Charleston with the USS Miami and the USS San Francisco." - anon @ 7:28 PM

Good question, but reason #1 is public perception. Think about the boats that became MTS 626 & 35. Nothing about their published histories would ever remind a nuclear-paranoid public of ongoing nuclear risks, right?

Although the San Fran and Miami histories certainly underscore the robustness of naval nuclear safety design to US submariners, the comfort does not extend to the general public for obvious reasons.

Historically, the navy has rarely prolonged the life of any vessel involved in an embarrassing event. On the contrary, even after rehabilitation, an early decommissioning is availed.

Bart

8/07/2013 12:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good ideas Bart, but as discussed above, they *are* turning the San Fran into an MTS.

8/07/2013 1:36 PM

 
Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Why didn’t they hired me for say $1 million buck…I could saved them a ton of money. I came closer than the Navy!

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/brattleboro-vt/T9EEGQGHPHLF242JB

Burned for 10 hours.

Fire in torpedo room, command and control, and crews quarters...

$800 million dollar sub...replacement about $2 billion...

8/07/2013 1:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Good ideas Bart, but as discussed above, they *are* turning the San Fran into an MTS."

That certainly was the plan, kind of like the "final" decision to repair the Miami was the plan, right?

The number of SSNs is declining (Hint: the number of nukes will decline apace), wouldn't we think?

8/07/2013 2:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fact: the number of MTS is declining too.

Decline to zero, which would make it impossible to train even a "declining number of nukes". We will have to transform some 688s into MTS. The MTS are too old, and can not be refueled again.

688I boats were off the table as they are more valuable from a tactical employment standpoint. With Miami now not headed back to the fleet, no reason (other then needing a new core) not to make her a MTS.

The last five years has showed that even the existing infrastructure is inadequate to train the "declining level of nukes" that we have.

8/07/2013 2:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The drift of the latest may boil down to which vessel, LaJolla or San Francisco, involves more potential embarrassment for the nav, and whether both are actually needed in light of sequestration (castration of the US military)?

8/07/2013 3:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So every other boat should gain one guy minimum per division.

Four section for everyone!!!

Kidding aside, this is totally the right call and sad money was even wasted on some of the work already being done on the now ex SSN-Miami.

Why spend that amount of money (even the 450M was too much to spend) on a 23 year old boat. Better to trash it an build another long-term strategy to aquire another new boat if that's what the Navy really needs (which it doesn't)

As taxpayers we should rejoice that we didn't blow $750M on an old boat.

This talk of MTSs has me wondering if the curriculum at NPS has changed to reflect the new engine room technology.

8/07/2013 3:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Other questions raised by scrapping Miami are whether it signals a cowardly plan to phase out Portsmouth Navy Yard, and what effect it might have on SecNav's promise for 2014.

8/07/2013 3:21 PM

 
Blogger KellyJ said...

Scrapping PNS along with the 755 would be outstanding. With subs now being built with life of the ship cores, the I-688s are slowly heading to their final major Overhaul (with maybe 1 more DMP after that) and the older FLT3 VLS 688s (719-725 & 750) start hitting the 30 year mark in 2 years.
The force itself is reducing the number of hulls and PNS really serves no further viable purpose beyond a jobs program to keep a handful of Congress-critters employed. That is a lot of funding and resources that can better be utilized by concentrating them on the 3 strategic yards (NNS east coast, PSNS west coast, PHNSY Pacific).
The sooner this economic shock is dealt with in New England, the sooner they can transition and recover.

8/07/2013 9:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PNSY in Kittery is a MAJOR economic part of NH and ME. Each state only has 1M people so several thousand jobs going out the window is not the same as a larger state such as VA, CA, etc.

4% of Senatorial votes are tied to the shipyard's fate..... even VA gets political favors for jobs so it's the same for all defense work. PNSY is no different.

PNSY has been successful since they are focused on subs. They are very good at DMPs and 688 work. I would not say the yard is useless simply because they aren't as big. They will definitely need to adapt to changes

Having spent time at both yards, I would take PNSY over Norfolk to have my boat worked on...

8/07/2013 9:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PNSY is miles more professional and better than EB (crazy psychopath lighting a ship on fire notwithstanding).

Scrap EB. Keep PNSY.

8/07/2013 9:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The final price tag for the Miami was:
744 million for the 688
744 million for the Engineering Notes to upgrade her to a 688I. Congress didn't have to authorize the "upgrades". The original 688 contract was never updated.
They scrapped the Seawolf program because the Navy was BS'ing the congress on the actual cost of the boats at delivery. Walat, so magical amazing rise in delivery price tag. The rest of the story........



hagar






8/07/2013 11:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How are you proposing to scrap EB they build the boats in the first place. If the Miami had been repaired at Electric Boat instead of PNSY, the government could have filed a lawsuit to recover the cost of the damages. They can do nothing at Portsmouth, that would be the government suing itself.

8/08/2013 7:24 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And WHO insures EB...? The U.S. government. Fact.

8/08/2013 6:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say it is a sad day to loose a boat under this condition. We have to consider the crew and all of the work they doing to get her back to sea. The yard is a horrible place to be but it is a necessary evil we had to put up with. This crab will never own up to his actions but the man who has to dive it again will always be in fear. You know yourself and being thru the yard myself makes you work and do the job and we all know it has to happen. Unless you have been thru the planning process and worked thru it you have only an opinion. We all love our boats and now is the time to give support to the crew. I would love to say Piss off to all you who don't know and would welcome feedback from the been there done that group.
Deano

8/09/2013 3:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @6:11 PM

The U.S. government neither offers nor holds out product liability insurance to commercial enterprises.

FACT: EB is a commercial enterprise, and you are ignorant, a liar, or more than likely both.

8/09/2013 5:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wouldn't EB politically fall under the 'too big to fail' category? If it happened there I imagine whatever settlement would hypothetically be reached would ensure they can remain in business.

8/10/2013 5:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Wouldn't EB politically fall under the 'too big to fail' category? If it happened there I imagine whatever settlement would hypothetically be reached would ensure they can remain in business."

EB is a unitt of General Dynamics Corporation, a United States aerospace and defense company with four primary businesses: Marine Systems; Combat Systems; Information Systems and Technology; and Aerospace.

On August 19, 2008, GD agreed to pay $4 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the US Government claiming a GD unit fraudulently billed the government for defectively manufactured parts used in US military aircraft and submarines.

While $4 nillion is not $500 million, corprations not protected by the current socialist administration are required to pay up whatever. Cororations of GD's size have liability insurance for such contingencies, and insurers require much better operating controls than is expected of the current administration in particular and the federal goverenment in general.

8/11/2013 3:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some time ago the Army initiated their "everybody gets a beret" policy. It was seen by many as a slap in the face to those who earned theirs the hard way (Green Berets, etc.).

When I entered the Navy we had Dolphins, Seal pins, Naval Aviator wings, Aircrew wings, jump wings, Boomer pins and very few others. The surface community didn't have anything. Now it seems like there's a pin for everything.

Those of us who earned Dolphins understand how special they are. It's something that cannot be diluted by the addition of another pin, but I can't help but wonder where it will stop.

8/12/2013 8:06 AM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

Perhaps ANON @ 5:53 PM should look up the story about Rickover and Veliotis. No one insures EB/GD except the Navy. Imagine who would insure it? I'm not sure Price-Anderson applies to the yard (except if a Reactor Accident occurred).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,951382,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/20/nyregion/navy-electric-boat-settle-differences.html

8/12/2013 11:01 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^^
" No one insures EB/GD except the Navy. Imagine who would insure it?"

Former ELT, you are generalizing application of the Price-Anderson Act, which became law in 1957, and applies only to what only it covers: " property damage in the event of a nuclear accident involving a commercial nuclear power plant."

According to U.S. Government sources, the inferno in USS Miami that resulted in a loss to taxpayers of roughly $700 Millions involved no nuclear accident or even damage to the power plant.

Hopefully you can see a difference in what other liability GD would have incurred for the $700 Million loss.

By the way, owners of nuclear power plants pay a premium each year for $375 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor unit. This primary or first tier, insurance is supplemented by a second tier. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $375 million, each licensee would be assessed a prorated share of the excess up to $111.9 million. With 104 reactors currently licensed to operate, this secondary tier of funds contains about $11.6 billion.

Semper Fi

8/12/2013 6:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read The Silent War: Rickover and General Dynamics to catch up with the rest of us who know who insures EB: the Navy does.

If you think otherwise, you're particularly well un-informed, especially given the many $100s of millions of dollars that EB porked Uncle Sam for over the 688 Class. The basis of claim? Insurance.

More info on the last time that EB put the nation over a barrel here...and here.

That is all.

8/12/2013 10:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^^
Well, so much for my hopefulness that the actual facts might help you to understand.

Sorting facts is never as easy or as much fun for some people as mindlessly repeating what you had always thought was true, when it was really a simpleton's generalization. For that I will not fault you.

For attempting to mislead other readers, however, I find you contemptible. Stay sober once in a while.

Semper Fi



8/12/2013 11:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was at EB when the pork-a-thon insurance claims happened, SF. Fact.

Calm down. Read the book. Learn something. It won't hurt.

Semper Veracem

8/13/2013 11:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether you were at EB during the "the pork-a-thon insurance claims" or not, no one has said those events never happened. Clear?

Two facts with continuous bearing apply:

1. The Price-Anderson Act (nuclear accident liability insurance paid for by reactor licensees) would not apply to the more recent USS Miami's arson contrary to what some reader(s) above have asserted.

2. Regardless of the shipyard scandal during the tenure of former shipyard manager P. Takis Veliotis, EB is liable under business law for preventable damages to government-owned property (including SSNs).

3. GD's shareholders would sue management for failure to insure (or self insure) against such losses.

Forget your history lesson for a minute. Which of the facts (1,2 and 3) above do you still deny? Please be specific.

8/13/2013 11:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd say you're pretty much full of shit (specifically: speculating) on both #2 and #3. Clear enough?

When EB screwed the pooch by way of not only performing bad structural welds, but by gundecking (specifically: falsifying) the required weld inspections...and then went on to denying that they'd ever done so...and then got caught...and then had to rebuild several 688s at the cost of $100s of millions of dollars...the DAMAGE that they did to these submarines via piss poor welds did not result in EB being held liable (#2), nor did their shareholders sue them (#3).

What DID happen? EB sued its only customer -- the U.S. Navy -- for reimbursement on the grounds that the Navy, as EB'S INSURER, was liable for their multiple and hugely expensive fuckups...and fraud...and, under Sec. Lehman's tenure... won.

Yes, that's history. Just as surely...all too clearly...is (ex) USS Miami now history.

Shipyards are dangerous places, and stupid, phenomenally expensive shit happens. That doesn't make EB the sole villain here by any stretch of the imagination...but, having said that, were it up to me they'd have been kicked in the nuts and THEN told that they'd have no further business from the U.S. Government if only because their profits overrode their sense of integrity. To me, that's sufficient cause for a "beyond reasonable doubt" corporate death sentence.

YMMV.

8/13/2013 3:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"EB sued its only customer -- the U.S. Navy -- for reimbursement on the grounds that the Navy, as EB'S INSURER, was liable for their multiple and hugely expensive fuckups...and fraud...and, under Sec. Lehman's tenure... won."

#3 - Since EB won, even a dummy would have to admit shareholders had no basis to sue. Do you follow that?

#2 - Under U.S. criminal law statutes, a verdict of guilt for previous acts does NOT equate to guilt for future acts. You yourself say, piss poor welds did not result in EB being held liable."

Obviously you never analyze the BS you repeatedly spew. What documentary evidence (public court documents) can you then cite to support your pathetic rants?

BTW, WARNING: public court documents are available on line, so do not try to send all of us to the contents of a book you claim to have read, scuttlebut you heard in the shipyard, or PNSY propaganda.

As a result of taxpayers' $700 Million loss, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard loses its claim to be in business to assure taxpayer value.

8/13/2013 4:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enough, Francis. You've been schooled...but sorry to say you don't appear to be educable.

Troll elsewhere.

8/13/2013 4:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who're a notch or two above 'Francis-can't-read'...here's a book you can check out at your local library re. the EB debacle with 688s (though it paid off EB rather handsomely to engage in fraud):

Running Critical: The Silent War, Rickover, and General Dynamics" by Patrick Tyler.

8/13/2013 5:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obviously you never analyze the BS you repeatedly spew. What documentary evidence (public court documents) can you then cite to support your pathetic rants?"

The guy you're arguing with provided a specific example where EB successfully got the Federal Government to pay their liability insurance for a non-nuclear preventable damage issue.

It's now up to you to put forth a case where such a claim was denied. Otherwise, the other guy has adequately demonstrated his point that the U.S. taxpayer funds insurance for EB.

8/13/2013 7:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's now up to you to put forth a case where such a claim was denied. Otherwise, the other guy has adequately demonstrated his point that the U.S. taxpayer funds insurance for EB." - anon

Translation: If US Navy is EB's only customer, then all revenues to EB come from US taxpayers for services rendered and products provided. Insurance premium deductions and self-insurance (the self-imposed deductible) derives from those revenues, as well. In no way, shape, or form, however, do US taxpayers directly pay 3rd party insurance premiums on EB's behalf.

Give me one example where EB allowed an SSN in its shipyard to get incinerated and not be held liable for a 700$ Million loss.
GD would be sued (as well as EB), the Government would win at least $500 Million) and GD would have to pay up.

EB executive bonuses would be lost, some executive would be fired, and EB would try to include ammortized increased premium costs in overhead applied to future construction/repair project (current construction costs are already fixed and cannot be increased any longer).

The government would justifiably future deny future price-cost increases subject to negotiation (see SF-1411 and regs).

For egregious incompetence like Portsmouth's repetitive sub arsons, the government should and could hold a tough line.

Has Portmouth's shipyard commander been fired yet?

Keep your cross eyes on the ball.

Semper Fi

8/14/2013 10:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Give me one example where EB allowed an SSN in its shipyard to get incinerated and not be held liable for a 700$ Million loss.
GD would be sued (as well as EB), the Government would win at least $500 Million) and GD would have to pay up. "

That's not possible because it hasn't happened. But shipyard workers at EB did screw up construction of the 688 class and the taxpayers paid the insurance costs.

"Has Portmouth's shipyard commander been fired yet?"

What for? I fail to see how the military shipyard commander could have prevented a civilian employee from committing arson so he could go home early and cry over his girlfriend.

The shortcomings of shipyard firefighting were institutional wide and many still haven't been fixed because that would require spending money or flag officers acknowledging a problem that's tough to fix. Instead we get an article about how you can get response time to under 15 minutes if you do 999 code reds in a quarter, like that fucking matters when the boat will be inaccessible without breathing protection in under 2. So what would canning an O-6 at PNSY accomplish?

8/14/2013 8:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks EB would just eat a $500M (or $700M) shit sandwich without a major conflict has rocks in their head. Every heard of something called "P&L?" EB has.

They'd simply do what they'd done oh-so-"successfully" once before and stick it to the American Taxpayer Insurance Company.

Any other outcome is merely wishful thinking. "Semper Fi" has been spending way too much time in the bathroom.

8/14/2013 10:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But shipyard workers at EB did screw up construction of the 688 class and the taxpayers paid the insurance costs."

Yet, those 688 class hulls are in commission, and EB was penalized on future (Virginia class) construction (fixed, lower costs) contracts. See how it works? Probably not judging by the abysmal depths of earlier
comments.

"I fail to see how the military shipyard commander could have prevented a civilian employee from committing arson so he could go home early and cry over his girlfriend."

For one, the arsonist should have been required to pass the same background checks EB applies to its subs.

8/15/2013 10:11 AM

 
Anonymous poopy suit said...

"Has Portmouth's shipyard commander been fired yet?"

No, he got his star and moved on...

wrt. the Miami repairs affecting sub. repair schedules... my understanding is that EB was to get the contract to repair the Miami, not any gub'ment yard.

8/15/2013 2:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^^

Your understanding is flawed. EB was to have "assisted" Portsmouth's repairs. Go figure.

8/15/2013 7:23 PM

 
Blogger Mark Reitz said...

The MTS idea was looked at, and as stated earlier, was abandoned due to core life. By court reporters in miami fl

2/19/2014 4:59 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home