Cruisers, Destroyers, and Questions...

Emelie Rutherford has a story out for Defense Daily (subscription only) titled Young: Study If DDG-1000 Hull Is Right For Future Cruiser discussing some comments made by John Young regarding the DDG-1000. This article is just loaded with good information, way too much to quote. Here are the key points listed broken down by category:

Destroyer Programs:

• The Navy had not crafted requirements spelling out the need for more than 64 DDG-51s
• The Navy estimates the new-production DDG-51s would be $2 billion hulls.
• * DefenseNews reports Young said DDG-1000 will "be a $2.5 billion hull"
• DDG-1001 and DDG-1002 will be a fixed-price incentive contract, which suggests some cost certainty for taxpayers (and BIW seems OK with this).
• Plans for future-surface combatant have gone nowhere

CG(X) Program:

• The CG(X) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) is completed.
• Requirements work done by the Navy as part of an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the CG(X) cruiser shows that future ship having features of the DDG-1000 hull.
• CG(X) AoA showed the cruiser costing $6 billion.
• Studies have looked at the LPD-17 hull for the CG(X), because of the need for a ship with enough hull size, displacement, and power to accommodate the CG(X) radar.

It looks to me like the recent deal between the Pentagon, Navy, and industry to truncate the buy of DDG-1000s at three ships and build more DDG-51s is nothing more than a 2 year shipbuilding plan to stabilize shipbuilding for a few years, also known as buy time to make a decision. I'm not sure how stable this plan is for Mississippi though, at first glance, of the 3 DDG-1000s and 3 DDG-51s, 4 of those ships are being built at Bath Iron Works.

That raises the question, what don't we know about what will be built in Mississippi? Why would Gene Taylor (D-MS) celebrate this deal if his district does not appear to be getting more work? There has to be more to this, because even though LPD-17 is continuing, that work would be shared with Avondale. I also don't see a National Security Frigate option.

I think this LPD-17 hull version of the CG(X) is in play. There have been rumors of CG(X) being built in two versions, is that what is developing here? One version based on the LPD-17 hull built in Mississippi and one version based on the DDG-1000 hull built at Bath Iron Works?

Gates is punting the CG(X) issue to the QDR, which means the Navy has until the QDR to make the case that it should lead ballistic missile defense. The only way a $6 billion CG(X), or potentially 2 versions of the CG(X) will ever be built is if the Navy makes the case that naval ballistic missile defense is the best investment in the near term (what would amount to 13 years of shipbuildnig for the entire CG(X) program) than any alternative solutions over that period. With ballistic missile defense funding, a short build for $6 billion CG(X) LPD-17 hull versions and a larger build of DDG-1000 hull versions of CG(X) are a lot more affordable. I for one don't think the Navy understands strategic communications well enough to sell this, even though I think that argument is more easily made with the American people than you may assume.

If the Navy is looking at 2 versions of CG(X), the part of the whole mess that makes the least sense to me is restarting the DDG-51. Either the Navy does not need a CG(X) and builds more DDG-51s, or the Navy needs a CG(X) and doesn't build more DDG-51s. The grand plan as outlined by Gates calls for three DDG-51s, which will run at least $2 billion each to restart.

Why not just build a 4th DDG-1000 instead of a 3rd DDG-51? The 4 DDG-1000s can replace the 4 Iowa's and the naval gunfire support requirement is met.

Will there be more than the 3 proposed DDG-51s? If the answer is no, and the current requirement for DDG-51s is 64, build the 4th DDG-1000 instead of the 3rd DDG-51.

If the answer is yes, how many and under what requirement? Furthermore, why? How does the Navy justify the DDG-51 class serving until 2060 and beyond? How in the world will that system remain relevant over the first half of the 21st century when there is very little margin for growth left?

Are there any new ship designs planned? The lack of alternative designs for surface combatants looks to be part of the problem Congress has to deal with.

I look forward to seeing what the Navy intends to build in FY2012, because right now we have no idea what surface combatant shipbuilding looks like after FY2011.