Last week we wrote up an unpublished paper from the influential Center for Naval Analyses warning the Navy that it faces a critical tipping point where the “demand signal” from overseas combatant commanders will soon exceed the number of ships. Dismal federal budget forecasts only compound the squeeze on Navy budgets from rising personnel and operating costs and the skyrocketing price tag for new ships; the resulting downward pressure on shipbuilding budgets will see the fleet decline from today’s 286 ships to around 230–240 ships by 2025.
Hard numbers showing how bleak things look for shipbuilding can be found in the Pentagon’s April Selected Acquisition Reports, released last week, providing details on weapon’s cost and schedule changes.
The cost to build three Gerald Ford class carriers has jumped from $35 billion to $40 billion, a 15 percent increase, since September 2008. Production costs for three DDG 1000, call them technology demonstration ships, jumped by 86 percent; although this was largely due to cutting the buy from 10 ships to 3. Littoral Combat Ship program costs rose by $883 million, a 31 percent increase (speaking of the LCS, Defense Tech friend Paul McLeary has some good shots of the Independence).
The CNA paper said annual buys of around 6 or 7 ships per year, the average over the past ten years, is not enough to arrest the decline in fleet size. The Navy projects a build of 9 to 10 ships per year over the next five years, mostly smaller, supposed to be cheaper ships like LCS and the Joint High Speed Vessel. How the Navy sticks to that plan as shipbuilding costs continue to rise is difficult to see.
– Greg
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
What you'd like to have and what you can afford to have are not necessarily the same. The hatchet job draw down of US forces following the Soviet Union's collapse included the retirement of viable combatants: carriers, cruisers, subs, destroyers, even the battleships. While it may not be an ideal solution in the eyes of some, many of those units could have been refurbished and or assigned to reserve units. Indeed many, such as the cruisers were in fact scheduled for significant upgrades. We have to start being more clever about upgrading the assets we have and living with systems that are not "new" in their entirety. CVN 65 is now 50 years old and still quite effective… B-52s even older. C-130s. M113s. Ma Deuces. U-2s. Hell, the SR-71 is to this day the highest performance manned jet ever devised… The list of successfully maintained upgraded equipment is long.
Since when is CVN-65 effective?? That old thing can't even make it out of dry dock.
Isn't a design decision on the LSC due any time now?
What ever happened to cost cutting measures that use common sense when it comes to building Navy flat tops ? Electricians, steam fitters, welders etc, are probably all unionized. Is there a policy for over-time that takes into account
the ability to hire on apprentices who get OJT and not get top dollar wages when its practical and workable ?
The modular approach to shipbuilding should include easy to install units that are configured for access and maintenance AS the ship gets built.
Try these for carriers etc:
CUT DC Navy Dept bureaucracy alone
Give Incentives to CUT costs in Dev.
CUT R&D time.
Outsource more
Combine rates in Navy IE BT & HT thus becomes BHT.
(save money & X train enlisted rates more).
Examine Union contracts to build ships alone.
Automate more ( shipbuilding).
Re think shipbuilding.
Cut general Pentagon bureaucracy
Pre fab ships more
Change procurement rules.
Change system in DC alone.
true, I do think we should use things longer (airframes & ships). Like how Boeing introduced the “Silent Eagle” (I think they called it), which was a stealthier F-15…which means we wouldn’t of have had to make the raptor. Dont get me wrong, I know full well the Raptor is superior…but were frickin’ broke.
I think they need to do a better job in designing ships…and don wait until its under construction to start adding additional things to it.
Theirs a lot they could do to cut costs…and they dont involve more outsourcing.
if i was a Navy commander, i'd rather have a LOT of smaller
ships and planes than a few sitting ducks.
the smaller ships could hold unmanned airplans and minisubs
to deploy and recon as required…they also could have
munitions carried for mission needs on the recon units.
as the Joint Chiefs / Central Command / i'd
say i was only going to award bids to companies
who produced via robotic and automated assembly
[here in the USA] that would drive their innovation
and reduce my per piece price tags.
if they tell me the only things they can automate
to produce at this time are very small weapons, those are the
ones i'd order. i'd let their internal sales process decide
how much focus they would put on the mandate through
how much revenue they wanted from the DoD.
given the right input, they'd come around.