The New Shipbuilding Plan For Surface Combatants

Make no mistake, despite all the ink spilled over the DDG-1000 and Littoral Combat Ship, the most important surface combatant program is by far the CG(X). Intended to replace the 22 remaining Ticonderoga class cruisers currently active in service, the current CG(X) program of record calls for 19 replacements. Whether the Navy was going to reuse the DDG-1000 hull or not, this contract award was going to happen. Press Release:

Alion Science and Technology, an employee-owned technology solutions company, announced that it has been awarded a contract to support the Navy in managing the design and acquisition of the Navy’s next generation Guided Missile Cruiser, CG(X). The award, a delivery order under the NAVSEA SeaPort Enhanced (SeaPort-e) contract, has a potential value of $127.8 million over five years. The base year value is approximately $18.6 million.

CG(X) will be a highly capable major surface combatant tailored for joint air and missile defense and joint air control operations providing airspace dominance and protection to Joint forces operating in the Seabase. CG(X) will replace the U.S.S. Ticonderoga, CG 47 class AEGIS cruisers and improve the Fleet’s air and missile defense capabilities against advancing threats, particularly ballistic missiles.

According to an article by Zachary M. Peterson from September, the Navy submitted the first part of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to OSD that included a radar sensitivity analysis, number of missiles the ship will carry, and the various hull forms that will meet the requirements. The article went on to discuss when to expect to see the first CG(X) built.

“We don’t see [CG(X)] commencing within the current [budget plans through FY-15],” McCullough said last week. “It’s got to do with technology development of both the radars and propulsion; and to get the risk to moderate or below we don’t see how we can bring all those things together within” POM-10.

Interesting it mentions through FY-15, because as we look at the bigger picture, that would imply the shipbuilding plan that comes with POM-10 is going to have a different look for surface combatants.

A new InsideTheNavy article by Jason Sherman dated October 20th describes some of the considerations for the DDG-51 surface combatant construction. The title of the article, Navy Eyes Legal Step to Quash Competition For New Destroyers, certainly raises more questions regarding the industry favoritism issue I've been hearing quietly from a number of people, but as I'm seeing something else develop here. The article says:

The Navy’s fiscal year 2010 to 2015 investment plan, prepared this summer, includes funds to buy eight Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51s. The service plans to award six to General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works shipyard and two to Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s Ingalls yard as part of a new strategy to modernize the destroyer fleet in light of the decision to truncate the next-generation DDG-1000 program at three ships, according to internal Navy budget documents.

Normal acquisition regulations would require competing the new DDG-51 work, worth more than $16 billion.

However, the Navy’s general counsel, Frank Jimenez, has advised Navy Secretary Donald Winter of a legal device -- a “public interest determination and finding” -- that, if used, would permit the service to side-step normal acquisition rules and hand General Dynamics approximately 75 percent of the DDG-51 workload.

The article goes on to say a DDG-51 will be built at BIW in FY10, FY11, FY12, FY13, FY14, and FY15. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding’s Ingalls yard would build a DDG-51 in FY-11 and FY-13, which according to last years 5 year shipbuilding plan, would be the years the CG(X) would have previously been built. Sounds like favoritism for BIW right? Well, favoritism is the wrong word, this looks to me like the Navy taking control of surface combatant shipbuilding to insure the yards have ebough work as the Navy adjusts the current plan of record.

That is because Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding is going to find new work as well. The recently passed FY09 budget includes funding for two more LPD-17s to be funded in FY10 that will be built by NGSS, although those could be built at Avondale. Under the new plan, Ingalls would also get one LHA(R) in FY-11 and a second LHA(R) in FY-15. So how does this work out?

Well, the current DDG-1000 plan calls for either BIW or Ingalls to build at least %25 of each ship. Under this model, 4 of the ships would almost certainly have been built at BIW and 3 at Ingalls. So for the DDG-1000 plan, if in fact three ships get built (uh, we'll see), if BIWs builds two of the ships BIW will get about 58% while Ingalls will get about 42% of the DDG-1000 work.

That leaves the labor hours issue for the probably never to be built four ships DDG-1003 through DDG-1006. Ronald O'Rourke has done the labor hour math in this report (PDF).

Procuring roughly 9.3 to 10.3 Flight IIA DDG-51s through FY2013 would provide roughly as many shipyard labor hours as procuring ships 3 through 7 in the 7-ship DDG-1000 program of record.

Assigning 5.1 to 5.7 of those 9.3 to 10.3 Flight IIA DDG-51s to a shipyard would provide that shipyard with roughly as many shipyard labor hours as it would receive it were the primary yard for building ships 3, 5, and 7 in the 7-ship DDG-1000 program of record.

Assigning 4.2 to 4.6 of those 9.3 to 10.3 Flight IIA DDG-51s to a shipyard would provide that shipyard with roughly as many shipyard labor hours as it would receive it were the primary yard for building ships 4 and 6 in the 7-ship DDG-1000 program of record.

Applying the DDG-51 model as laid out in Jason Sherman's article, if the Navy builds 6 of the DDG-51s at BIW, then BIW is actually getting more work under the new plan than they would under the DDG-1000 plan. While Ingalls, building only 2 DDG-51s, would fall short between 2.2 and 2.6 DDG-51s, they will have the option of building 2 more LPD-17s and the guarentee of building 2 more LHA(R)s.

So what is the Navy wanting to do? The following best guess is based on some of the surface combatant changes announced.

In FY10 the Navy is looking to buy 1 SSN, 1 DDG-51, 3 LCS, 2 LPD-17s, 2 T-AKEs, and 1 JHSV.
In FY11 the Navy is looking to buy 2 SSN, 2 DDG-51, 3 LCS, 1 LHA(R), 1 MLP, and 1 JHSV
In FY12 the Navy is lookign to buy 2 SSN, 1 DDG-51, 4 LCS, 1 MLP, 1 JHSV, and 1 CVN'
In FY13 the Navy is looking to buy 2 SSN, 2 DDG-51, 6 LCS, 1 LMSR, and 1 JHSV
In FY14 the Navy is looking to buy 2 SSN, 1 DDG-51, 6 LCS, 1 MLP, and 1 JHSV
In FY15 the Navy is looking to buy 2 SSN, 1 DDG-51, 6 LCS, 1 LHA(R), 2 LMSR, and 1 JHSV

The current program of record includes a JCC(X) that would be built in FY12, but there has been no mention of that ship for a long time. With 2 LPD-17s funded for FY10, it is possible the LPD-17 line stays open and the JCC(X) could be build in FY12 based on that hull design, but that is just an observation. The current plan of record would call for 66 ships (1 being the JCC(X)), while the plan above would be 66 ships, and is missing the JCC(X).

Put another way, all this noise results in the addition of a single ship, IF the JCC(X) is still built in FY-12. All the while the DDG-51s will be more expensive, the LPD-17s will be more expensive, the LHA(R)s will be more expensive, and the LCS has become more expensive. Welcome to the shape of shipbuilding for the US Navy.