Also noteworthy is some interesting news from the Green Bay Press Gazette:
The ships have been capped at $480 million each, and the two-purchase plan proposed by the Navy doesn't require the allocation of additional money.That is a very interesting statement that makes no sense to me at all, because it is almost certainly incorrect. The dual purchase option only changes the second contract, not the first contract for 10. In order for the dual-purchase option to save $2.9 billion, the cost of building 10 ships beginning this year would have to be ~$290 million less expensive per ship than a non-existent contract for 5 ships that would be solicited 2 years from now and an additional 4 ships the year after that in another yet-to-be solicited multi-year buy contract. How can the Navy possibly save $290 million per ship by purchasing 10 entirely new ships of a unique class instead of 9 new ships that would be of the same class selected in the down-select?
Stackley said the dual-purchase option leads to a savings of about $2.9 billion, which allows the service to purchase additional ships.
That comment by Stackley isn't even realistic, not unless the LCS that have been estimated at $600 million are somehow now being offered for $310 million per ship. There is no possible way that is true. Did he mean to say the total of the dual-purchase option savings is $2.9 million?
I am very confident that Stackley is either being taken out of context by the reporter or is somehow confused, because the idea the "dual-purchase option leads to a savings of about $2.9 billion" sounds like complete bullshit.
Maybe the combination of the savings gained in competition combined with fuzzy math in other areas allows someone to come up with a figure that the Navy can save $2.9 billion in costs somewhere and still buy one more ship, but even that doesn't pass the smell test.
If Stackley is going to exaggerate savings well beyond believability, something is very wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment