We Know Enough to Know We Don't Know...

A few things have been bothering me since the Gates announcement. First, I have been unsure about the shipbuilding agreement details, and I am still not sure I really understand it. Second, I have not seen any information that suggest the Navy has a real plan ahead after FY11, in other words, all we really know right now is the Navy has a 2 year shipbuilding plan mostly constructed to fix the problem with surface combatants.

What caught my attention is a recent Zachery Peterson article with InsideDefense (subscription only) titled Navy: General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman Agree on Destroyer Builds. It is one thing that Gates has the Air Force bending over backwards for the F-22, but it is quite a feat that he was able to get General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman to do this:

"After extensive discussions with General Dynamics Corporation Bath Iron Works and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, the Navy arrived at a plan that most affordably meets the requirements for Navy surface combatants, commences the transition to additional, improved missile defense capability in new DDG-51 class construction, and provides significant stability for the industrial base," Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss said.

"The plan will align construction responsibilities for DDG-1000, 1001, and 1002 at BIW with [Northrop] continuing participation in the program," Doss continued. "This will help stabilize and minimize cost risk for the DDG-1000 program. The plan also calls for efficient restart of the DDG- 51 program with DDG-113 and DDG-114 to be constructed at NGSB and DDG-115 to be constructed at BIW."

...

Gates announced last week that the Pentagon would request two destroyers in FY-10. This request would fund one DDG-51 and complete funding for the third DDG-1000, according to Pentagon sources.

So if I am reading this right, the Navy is going to buy 1 DDG-51 for Ingalls and finish paying the third DDG-1000 for Bath in FY 2010. Then in FY 2011 the Navy is going to buy two DDG-51s, one for Ingalls and one for Bath. That appears to be what is confirmed in this Navy Times article, which adds one more interesting note.

The deal also includes a provision for Northrop Grumman’s shipyard in Avondale, La., to continue building San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks.

This means General Dynamics will build three DDG-1000s and 1 DDG-51 while Northrop Grumman builds only 2 DDG-51s, but the LPD-17 class is not retired and will continue construction. Additionally, Northrop also would continue to build the composite-structure deckhouse for all the Zumwalt-class ships at its facility in Gulfport, Miss.

Prior to the new building strategy, the Zumwalt destroyer was going to be built under a shared model of 25% for each contractor, with the remaining 50% being built at alternating yards. So for DDG-1000, 75% would be built by General Dynamics while 25% would be built by Northrop Grumman. The new agreement kills the divided workforce approach, because unless the deckhouse is considered 25% of the ship (I don't think so), Northrop Grumman is getting a limited share of each DDG-1000.

In the end, Northrop Grumman only gets 2 DDG-51s and new LPD-17s, while General Dynamics in Bath ends up building 3 DDG-1000s and 1 DDG-51. Now it makes sense why the Maine Senators were celebrating, this is a short term boost for them.

What about FY 2012? I have not heard a thing, which suggests that could be where the Future Surface Combatant comes along. With Northrop Grumman the lead contractor of DDG-51 now, it could be they evolve right into the Future Surface Combatant if it is based on the DDG-51 hull, or General Dynamics assumes the role of prime contractor if Future Surface Combatant is based on the DDG-1000 hull. If this is what is happening, such a building strategy would line up surface combatant construction with this document (PDF) produced by Navy Times earlier this year.

Bottom line, while the newspapers are out touting there are going to be more DDG-51s, unless I am missing something there is no evidence there will actually be more than three new DDG-51s built. So what is going on here? Has the Future Surface Combatant idea been put to bed? Maybe, I can't think of a good reason the Navy would open up the DDG-51 line at two shipyards, then stop production, but this is the US Navy surface combatant construction program we are talking about, so anything is possible.

In the July 31, 2024 hearing Vice Adm. Barry McCullough told Congress the Navy intended to buy DDG-51 destroyers at a rate of one in FY 2010, two in FY 2011, one in FY 2012, two in FY 2013, one in FY 2014 and one in FY 2015. Based on the unofficial (and obsolete) 30-year shipbuilding plan leaked to Navy Times (see PDF above), the Navy had planned to build FSCs at a rate of three every 2 years from FY 2012 through FY 2025. If that plan is followed as a baseline for hull types under a new DDG-51 plan, that could potentially mean the Navy builds 21 more DDG-51s to add to the 62 already in service, for a total of 83 total DDG-51s. It is noteworthy that if the Navy decided to do that, the DDG-51 class would serve until 2070, assuming a 40 year service life. That seems very unlikely, a DDG-51 is probably not going to be relevant at sea come 2070. With that said, based on the plan outlined by Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, the DDG-51 funded in FY 2015 would serve until 2060, and I'm not convinced the ship will be relevant then either.

The budget is going to answer many questions, but for all the happy talk of the Navy following the Gates briefing last Monday, it looks to me like all Gates did was inject a short term, 2 year solution into shipbuilding surface combatants and everything starting FY 2012 is essentially a blank slate.

With the MLP and the second LPD-17 pushed out to FY 2011 per Gates vision forward, I don't see how the Navy builds 10 ships this year as the Congressmen have been suggesting. The way I read FY 2010:

1 SSN
1 DDG-51
1 LPD-17
3 LCS
1 JHSV
2 T-AKE

That would be 9. Where does the 10th ship come from, or do they count the DDG-1000 from FY 2009 as number 10? The FY 2011 plan would, in theory, look like this:

2 SSN
2 DDG-51
4 LCS
2 JHSV
1 LPD-17
1 MLP

That is 12 ships but without the 2nd LHA(R), which according to the last schedule I saw would be built in FY 2011. The 11th LPD-17 and MLP being pushed to FY 2011 would suggest the 2nd LHA(R) would be pushed back as well.

Looking at everything, I think there are a lot of questions. How many total DDG-51s beyond the three are going to actually be built? Will a DDG-51 funded in FY 2012, delivered in 2017 with a service life of 40 years still be relevant come 2057? These ships have essentially been upgraded to the point they have no room for growth left, so what is the strategy here?

The way I look at the Gates plan for the Navy, the Navy needs a crash course design program for surface combatants and they need it yesterday. If the DDG-1000 is too big, and the DDG-51 is too old, what is left, a VLS LCS Navy?

Gates has essentially outlined a two year shipbuilding strategy for surface combatant construction, hardly the stuff of vision or substance the Navy can rest easy with. It is going to be very interesting to see what FY 2012 and going forward looks like.