Kick the New Tin-Can, Build the Old Tin-Can

The hearing on Friday finally produced a number of details regarding the discussions that popped up last week regarding a nuclear Arleigh Burke class as a possible replacement to the CG(X) program. Well it turns out, while that is certainly one aspect of the discussion, the Arleigh Burke class appears to feature predominately in the future discussion in a number of ways. From Ronald O'Rourke's testimony on March 14th, 2008.

At a March 6, 2008, hearing before the House Armed Services Committee on the Department of the Navy’s FY2009 budget, committee members indicated that they are considering the option of not procuring additional DDG-1000s and instead procuring additional DDG-51s. These DDG-51s, it was stated at the hearing, could act as a bridge to a CG(X) design based on an enlarged version of the DDG-51 hull and powered by one-half of the Ford (CVN-78) class reactor plant. The subcommittee asked that this statement address the question of the number of DDG-51s that might be procured under this option, and how the capabilities of those DDG-51s would compare to those of the DDG-1000s.

Two variations on this option might be envisaged. One would use the funding programmed for the third through seventh DDG-1000s to procure additional DDG-51s. The other would use the funding programmed for the third and fourth DDG-1000s to procure additional DDG-51s, and the funding for the fifth through seventh DDG-1000s to procure CG(X)s currently planned for procurement in later years, so as to accelerate the introduction of CG(X)s into the fleet.

A total of $12,957 million is programmed in FY2009-FY2013 for the procurement of the third through seventh DDG-1000s. Based on potential DDG-51 procurement costs provided by the Navy to Congress in 2007, this sum might procure 8 DDG-51s.

A total of $5,217 million is programmed in FY2009 and FY2010 for the procurement of the third and fourth DDG-1000s. Again based on potential DDG-51 procurement costs provided by the Navy to Congress in 2007, this sum might procure 3 DDG-51s.

On Friday Gene Taylor instructed Allison Stiller to draft a report, which he wanted in 30 days, for a price estimate for a multi-year, multi-buy DDG-51s to start this fiscal year. There was no indication the exact number of new DDG-51s the House is looking to buy. Given the ratio question posed to Admiral Keating back on March 12th, which was 2.5:1, if you remove 5 DDG-1000s one would hope the goal is to build at least 12, although Rourke's testimony implies 8 is the equal buy.

This gets back to some testimony of Adm Roughead back on March 6th, when he told the full committee his biggest headache with shipbuilding is resolving the issues related to the surface combatant programs. The comment was interesting, because he didn't have to add it. Basically Roughead is looking for a way to increase the size of the combatant fleet, but what is interesting is that I don't think he is excited about either the DDG-1000 or DDG-51 on the table. He doesn't say that, but if you listen to the testimony it sounds like he wants more combatants, but smaller combatants not larger. I don't know if that is what he is thinking, but it certainly sounds like it when he comments on the topic.

A lot of the testimony on this centered around the various possibilities of DDG-51s. One such aspect of the discussion that caught our attention was when asked about the Advanced Gun System intended for the DDG-1000, Vice Admiral Barry McCullough testified that the AGS can fit on a Burke hull, but he wasn't sure about magazine capacity. That raises an interesting possibility to build a Flight III Burke class with AGS. What is odd about the testimony between the House and the Navy, the rigor of defense for the DDG-1000 was half hearted at best, in fact of the last few weeks of testimony the only real DDG-1000 defender to testify has actually been Sec. Winter and Allison Stiller, both civilians. Hmm...

While it is unclear what will happen, it is very clear more DDG-51s are in play for this fiscal year. It is also very clear that the House outright rejects every estimate the Navy offers regarding the DDG-1000, and appears ready to fight the Senate on the cost point as a reason to shift from the DDG-1000 to the DDG-51 solution.