The U.S. Navy’s leadership has shown unprecedented ineptitude in the handling of surface ship programs. The previous (and ongoing) mass of problems with the amphibious ships of the LPD 17 class and the littoral combat ships (LCS) seem to pale in comparison to the handling of the DDG 1000 “destroyer” program.
For eight years the Congress and public have heard the Navy’s leadership — civilian and uniformed — declare that they wanted no more ships of the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class. Sixty-two of these destroyers are in service or under construction.
Chiefs of Naval Operations Vern Clark (July 2000 — July 2005), Michael Mullen (July 2005 — September 2007), and Gary Roughead (since September 2007) had been adamant that the DDG 1000 was the surface combatant of the future. All three admirals are surface warfare specialists, giving credibility to their statements.
Furthermore, the 30-year shipbuilding plan, which the Navy Department presented to Congress in February 2008 (covering the period fiscal years 2009–2038) still indicated a total of 32 DDG 1000s.
The DDG 1000 program — assigned the class name Zumwalt — dates to the early 1990s and a Mission Needs Statement that evolved from the Navy’s post-Cold War strategy paper from the Sea (1992). The strategy postulated that future Navy emphasis should be oriented toward supporting joint/coalition operations against the shore. The “land-attack destroyer” and DD-21 concepts followed, evolving into the DDG 1000.
But this spring the Navy’s leadership essentially stopped supporting the DDG 1000 within weeks of contracts being awarded to construct the first two ships. At the same time, the Navy’s leaders began advocating for eight or nine additional Burke-class destroyers. Now, at congressional instigation, the third DDG 1000, which is in the president’s fiscal year 2009 budget, is also being supported by the Navy leadership.
Another turn-around? Not really, as the Burkes are still being asked for in addition to the three DDG 1000s. As indicated in an earlier blog, the DDG 1000 offers improved capabilities in most warfare areas compared to the earlier destroyer as well as greatly enhanced survivability features. Indeed, the Burke-class destroyer design, which dates back to 1979, will be extensively modified compared to the earlier ships, in part because of basic upgrades to that design, and in part because newer features must be provided to make the ships viable for the next three decades. These changes and other factors will increase the cost of the new Burkes to at least $2 billion per ship compared to just over $1 billion for those units now being completed. (By comparison, in production the DDG 1000s are estimated to cost about $2.5 billion after the first two ships, which are estimated at $3 billion each.)
The situation is confusing, in large part because of the actions of the Navy’s leadership. This state of affairs will lead to the new Congress and the new Secretary of Defense undoubtedly taking more control of the Navy’s shipbuilding program next January.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
“Defense News” has reported that the U.S. Navy (USN) leadership became concerned about the anti-missile defense capabilities of the Zumwalt class against new Chinese ballistic missiles that are being developed – deployed in the anti-surface warfare role. Thus, the USN has shown a preference for the upgraded Arleigh Burke platform rather than for a larger number of Zumwalt destroyers.
You yanks will never get your half as good as it needs to be in the in the future because those that run the programs seem to be totally inept, pretty much like your airforce too. In summary Yanks were great at making sht hot weapons of war, could still make more sht hot weapons if it weren’t for your pathetic inept program management/funding bs. Keep it up like it is at the moment and your screwed, big time screwed.Such a pity.
Awaits news of the next multi billion fck up to be cancelled and thrown on the scrap heap due to pathetic management….
In the end, the problem is the Pentagon, which has become a highly-armed version of the UN. Internecine fighting and bureacracy have drained the place of innovation while adding years to needed change.
Dump the whole process, it can’t be reformed. Find 20 guys who know what they’re doing and let them make all the decisions. Lobbyists and senators should not make war-fighting decisions.
Or doesn’t anyone remember Goat Island and the dud torpedos of WWII?
going back to the burke has nothing to do what the zumwalt can or cant do.
missledefense right now can only been done by ships that have a very special make-up, the 7 baseline 2 ticos cant do it, the Flight IIA burkes cant do it.
The biggest joke is the fact that somehow The maker of both the new dualband radar of the DDG-1000 and the Standard Missle is not able to bring those two togehter, Laughable.
in the end it is an industrial or political choose not a millitary one.
The new Flight III Burkes could be interesting though. why not put at least one AGS on them?
going back to the burke has nothing to do what the zumwalt can or cant do.
missledefense right now can only been done by ships that have a very special make-up, the 7 baseline 2 ticos cant do it, the Flight IIA burkes cant do it.
The biggest joke is the fact that somehow The maker of both the new dualband radar of the DDG-1000 and the Standard Missle is not able to bring those two togehter, Laughable.
in the end it is an industrial or political choose not a millitary one.
The new Flight III Burkes could be interesting though. why not put at least one AGS on them?
the DDG….Is going to cost a lot more then 3 billion … wait to the bill comes in from cost overruns etc.
At some point you’d think that programs “running aground” like this would become criminal. In that, either somebody is greatly underestimating costs to gain contracts, or altering the specifications to the extent that it is no longer the original product to be purchased. If it’s the latter, then they really need a better approval mechanism… maybe to be exercised only by the Secretary of Defense and/or by the Congress.
What prevents the Navy from starting out with a ship & subsystems that are known to work? Then as new developments occur, and are proven to work. Spiral the new systems into production or a future retrofit. By doing so, you would break subsystem R&D programs (ie. railgun) from the main ship-building effort, and avoid cap-sizing the entire project.
“Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs:”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf
What a sorry article for the Navy!
They have more ships than anything else?
And they aren’t using them correctly? They make
enlisted people so confused its not even funny!