The Navy's May 11 Letter to Senator Kennedy

Many of you have asked why I have not commented on the recent study conducted at the University of Tennessee National Defense Business Institute that compared the DDG-1000 and the DDG-51 (PDF).

It is an interesting report, but what immediately stuck out to me is the new information in the report citing a source I was previously not aware of, and until I was able to see the source information I did not want to comment.

Somehow the authors of that report were able to obtain a letter sent by Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead to Senate Armed Services Committee member and Seapower Subcommittee Chairman - Senator Edward Kennedy, and do so without anyone in the media even being aware of such a letter. The letter was dated May 11, 2024 and is published in full below.

The copy of the letter I was sent had html tables that did not format well on the blog, so the images of the tables are courtesy of insidedefense.com

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman, Subcommittee on Seapower
Senate Armed Services Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In response to your letter of October 24, 2024 concerning the Navy's Long-Range Shipbuilding Plan and the decision to truncate the DDG-1000 program, I stated in my letter on January 5, 2024 that I would provide the cost estimates comparisons you requested when they were developed in conjunction with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget.

Specifically, you requested a comparison of "Acquisition Costs for DDG-51s and Modified DDG-1000s" with design specifications for the Modified DDG-1000 reflecting nominally equal capability. Table 1 provides a comparison of acquisition cost of Fiscal Year 2010 ship and average follow ship for a DDG-51 and Modified DDG-1000 based on a multi-hull procurement in constant FY10 dollars. The cost of 10 additional DDG-51s is less than a 7 ship class of DDG-1000s.

It is important to discuss the assumptions used in formulating Table 1. Specifically:

• Advanced Gun Systems and associated magazines in the current DDG-1000 design deleted and additional missile-launch tubes installed in their place.
• Ship and missile modifications as needed for the ship to successfully employ SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 missiles and otherwise give the ship a Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and area-defense AAW capability not less than that of Flight IIA DDG-51 with Advanced Capability 12.
• The primary system differences between the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 ships with respect to ASW are the bow mounted sonars, the Periscope Detection Radar (PDR) planned for the DDG-1000, and the DDG-1000's planned lower ship self noise characteristics. There is a known performance difference at the sensor level between the hull mounted sonars on the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 ships due to physical size and source level differences between the ships. The DDG-51 has greater detection capability with respect to environmental and threat variations in blue water environments. While it is less clear at the ship engagement level, analysis indicates the DDG-51 has slightly better performance, but when factoring the PDR and quieter self noise characteristics, the DDG-1000 could be expected to perform as well as, or possibly better than the DDG-51 under certain scenarios and acoustic conditions. At the campaign level when the ship is utilized in fleet ASW tactics in conjunction with other ship and air assets the magnitude of the performance difference is unclear. Due to the probability that the difference in performance levels at the campaign level would be low, I will forgo the detailed analysis and assess the two ships as equal in this area without modification.

The 10 additional DDG-51s would join an existing fleet force structure of 22 CGs and 62 DDGs. These follow-on DDG-51s build on a common hull and stable combat system configuration incorporating advanced Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) and Anti Submarine Warfare suite optimized for blue water sea base defense. Besides the enhancements required to gain IAMD capability in DDG-1000, the technical risk and acquisition costs associated with DDG-1000 are not as well defined as the known cost for the DDG-51 hull and combat system. Therefore, the additional capacity and capability gained through continuation of DDG-51s with lower technical risk and defined cost, coupled with the risks associated with the DDG-1000 make the restart of the DDG-51 line the preferred choice for affordable warfighting capability and capacity.

Table 2 provides data for your request to compare "Annual O & S Costs for a DDG-51 and a Modified DDG-1000" in constant FY 2010 dollars. Although DDG-1000 requires a smaller crew, comparing the individual element of manning costs between the two ships can be misleading. DDG-1000 was able to decrease its crew size through increased automation and by growing shore support primarily to complete maintenance traditionally performed by ship's company. Navy is committed to increasing the shore infrastructure to perform this maintenance however; those added maintenance costs generally negate the savings generated by the smaller crew size.

Assumptions used in compiling Table 2 included:

• All costs are expressed in FY 2010 dollars
• Reflects average annual cost per ship, calculated on a 35 year service life basis. Includes periodic depot maintenance and fact of life upgrades.
• Annual Fuel Usage rate of 87,373 barrels for DDG-51 and 121,233 barrels for DDG-1000

Crew Size is based on the following manning documents:

• DDG-51 FLT IIA Part 3 (DDG 91 - DDG 102) Final Ship Manpower Document, 9 April 2024
• DDG-1000 Program Preliminary Ship Manpower Document, DCDRL-C.12 Rev b, Attachment 2, 31 August 2024
• Three additional crew members added to each ship class for BMD
• Reduced manning benefits are best realized over a large class of ships such as LCS with 55 ships.

In my role as Chief of Naval Operations, I will continue to develop a shipbuilding program which provides affordable combat capability in sufficient capacity to maintain our position as the dominant naval power in the world. For less cost and risk, truncating DDG-1000 and building additional DDG-51s is the clearest path to that end.

Thank you for your continued interest in our shipbuilding program and for your unwavering support of our Navy. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

G. ROUGHEAD
Admiral, U.S. Navy