DDG-1000 and SM-2

Still wondering how the hell the DDG-1000 can't support SM-2s? Me too, which is why I find this little tidbit interesting.

This is the FY2009 Navy Budget. Note Research & Development, Navy (BA 5) (PDF) at the bottom right of that page.

It is a 6.11 MB PDF, so be aware. Turn to PDF page 416.

That appears to be the budget item for the integration SM-2 Block IIIB (latest version) for the DDG-1000. The budget item contains the following text.

Development is expected to conclude by FY10 for the P3I and SM-2 IIIB ICWI. Production representative missiles will be built between FY10 & FY12 for the 21 missiles that the DDG 1000 require for Developmental Test & Operational Test (DT&OT) in FY12 and FY13. SM2 IIIB will have dual use on AEGIS Cruisers/Destroyers & DDG 1000.

Apparently the DDG-1000 will be able to support SM-2s. Put another way, the Navy is blowing smoke up the ass of Congress and the American people about the capabilities of the DDG-1000. We look forward to the days where Huntington's advice about speaking clearly to the American people is a respected idea in acquisitions.

I'm not a fan of the DDG-1000, but I dislike dishonesty and deception more. If the DDG-1000 is a failure for cost reasons or more appropriately, strategic reasons, the Navy should just say it and make your case honestly. To suggest in a Congressional hearing "it cannot successfully employ the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2), SM-3 or SM-6, and is incapable of conducting Ballistic Missile Defense" doesn't appear to match the acquisition strategy of the DDG-1000 as stated in the Navy's own budget.

We think the American people could do without dishonesty in defense procurement.