A Clear Picture of Littoral Combat Ship Program

This blog has been very critical of Proceedings, admittedly sometimes unfairly, with most of our criticism pointed directly at the editors for their choices regarding the content. Has out criticism been heard? Our logs show the good folks at the USNI have visited many times, so maybe? Probably not, but I will say one thing, January 2008 looks excellent!

This blog has tried figuring the numbers of the Littoral Combat Ship program following the FY08 budget, but ultimately we haven't been right. When trying to figure out where the money is, sometimes you need good information from the media, and sometimes that is hard to come by. A new article is out that gives a clear picture of the Littoral Combat Program, and Commander Otto Kreisher does a great job of laying out the facts. As usual, it is one of our favorites Bob Work setting the record straight.

Work also found the current cost estimates for LCS less troublesome than some of the critics. "The original guidance on that ship is that the total cost had to be $400 million, including the modules. The Navy made a guess that it would be $220 (million) for the sea frame, $180 (million) for the modules," he said. "What's happened is that the sea frame is coming in higher than expected, but the Navy's plan for the modules and the associated cost is coming in much lower than expected."

Work explained that the Navy initially had planned to buy three modules for each LCS, at an average cost of $63 million per module. But now the Navy is planning to buy only 64 modules for 55 hulls, for an average additional cost of $73 million per LCS, he said. That means a total cost per ship of $533 million, instead of $400 million, which is a 33 percent increase, he said. "That's not great by any means. But if you compare it to all the ships we've built over the last 25 years, that's not bad."

...

Despite the program turmoil and the higher cost, Congress essentially gave the Navy the green light to press ahead on LCS. The compromise FY08 Defense Appropriations Bill signed into law by President Bush slashed $571 million from the LCS funding the Navy had requested. But it provided $339.5 million in procurement funds and noted that combined with money left over from the canceled ships, that would be enough to buy an additional LCS, within the cost cap of $460 million.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England later issued guidance cutting the planned LCS buys over the next five years from 32 to 21, which will slow the program even more.

The bold emphasis is ours. Alot of this we have covered in the past, but Work explains the $339.5 million included in FY08 which is something that has eluded us.

So now we finally have a real number for the "total cost" of a single Littoral Combat Ship, specifically $533 million dollars. I can also explain that second sentence by Bob Work though, why he claims "that's not bad."

You see, back in the day when the Littoral Combat Ship was a powerpoint presentation instead of a boondoggle, the Navy was supposed to be able to produce 3 Littoral Combat Ships for the price of 1 DDG-51. At the time, the DDG-51 was $1.2 billion dollars. That is how the number $400 million came about as the cost for the Littoral Combat Ship.

Today, a brand new DDG-51 in FY08 dollars would cost 1.6 billion dollars according to the CBO. At $533 million dollars for 1 LCS, you can still buy 3 Littoral Combat Ships for the same price as 1 DDG-51, the only real difference being fewer modules. It almost makes one wonder whether this is a coincidence, doesn't it?

The Proceedings article, called "Is the 313-Ship Fleet Realistic?" is an excellent read, and can be accessed by registering for free on the USNI website. The majority of the article is actually a counter to Loren Thompson for his profoundly rediculous claim that the 313-ship plan is dead because Sec Winter canceled the LCS. We felt very comfortable disagreeing with Mr. Thompson back in November regarding his comments, and would like to thank Commander Kreisher for validating our criticism. We only wish Commander Kreisher would have advocated our advice for Mr. Thompson within the pages of Proceedings, because we believe our advice still applies.

If Loren Thompson wants to be an advocate for a better Navy, maybe he should advocate for a better concept in dealing with the irregular challenges outlined in the Maritime Strategy. One way to be an advocate for a better Navy would be to call out the Navy for throwing 'a naval truck one size fits all' platform as the only solution to irregular warfare, the only alternative to 3+ billion surface combatants, and the only new Naval surface fleet shipbuilding program less than 14,000 tons.

Oh well, can't win them all. Either way the article is an excellent update that gives the most clear picture you will find on the status of the Littoral Combat Ship program as we kick off 2008.