By doing that, the Pentagon
would shield the DDG 1000 from a
Nunn-McCurdy Provision cost
breach that would trigger an
intense review, which could hinder
any efforts to use the DDG 1000 as
the basis for the FSC.
The Nunn-McCurdy Provision
requires congressional notification
of program cost growth of more
than 15 percent over the original
estimate, and calls for the termination of programs whose total cost
grows by more than 25 percent.
The estimated per-ship costs on
the DDG 1000 spiked from $2.3
billion to $2.9 billion after the
Pentagon agreed to build only
three ships, meaning that development dollars could only be spread
across a smaller number of platforms than once planned.
Adding the FSC, which is now
under the DDG 51 budget line, to the
DDG 1000 would essentially spread
development costs once again across
several ships and bring the per-ship
cost back down to $2.4 billion.
After deciding to trim the DDG
1000 program, the Navy opted to
restart production of the DDG 51s
in fiscal 2010 and 2011. Then, from
2012 to 2015, the service plans to
buy six FSCs, which would be
Still up in the air is whether the
FSC will be based on the DDG
1000 or the DDG 51. Young wants
to ensure that the Navy at least
looks at both options.
“The department agreed that the
baseline would remain open for
decision. The Navy budget currently funds FSC under the DDG
51 program line,” Young wrote in
the memo, which was distributed
to Defense Secretary Robert Gates
and other senior Pentagon officials. “The implication is that FSC
will be an extension of the DDG 51
Taylor, however, said bluntly
that he sees “absolutely no value in
spending even more precious ship-
“There will be those designers who say you might as well
design the whole thing from the ground up because it’s so interdependent. I tend not to agree with that. I think you can make
the accommodations, you can have common systems and, if
we have multiple ship classes that are all riding on the same hull
design that are using the same support systems and all the
associated components, I think, again, there are economies in
that scale. Those are the things that we have to do.”
Adm. Gary Roughead
Chief of Naval Operations
On how the Navy can streamline production to help keep shipbuilding, repair
and upgrade costs down.
Speaking with reporters at the annual Surface Navy Association Symposium in
“I keep on telling people the issue is not 10 or 11 [carriers].
The issue is how many of them are available to be deployed
at any given point in time. That’s what matters … not how
many ships I have on the naval register.”
Donald C. Winter
Secretary of the Navy
On the debate over the size of the Navy’s aircraft carrier fleet.
building funds to redesign the
DDG 1000 as a ballistic missile
[defense]-capable platform when
the affordable vessel already exists
in the DDG 51 destroyer.”
Until last year, the Navy planned
to build seven DDG 1000s. Over the
summer, however, service leaders
told Congress that they wanted to
buy only two. At the time, they said
buying more DDG 51s would provide ballistic-missile defense and
other capabilities battlefield commanders have requested.
During a July hearing before the
House Armed Services Committee,
Adm. Barry McCullough, deputy
chief of naval operations for Integration of Resources and Capabilities, said the “greatest single
threat” the Navy faces is proliferation of ballistic missiles and
stealthy submarines operating far
out at sea.
Those missions, the Navy argued,
are better suited for the deepwater
DDG 51 than the DDG 1000, which
is designed for coastline missions.
With the fiscal 2009 budget proposal already on the Hill, the Navy
backed off efforts to cut the DDG
1000 funding requested for this year.
Congress ultimately agreed to spread
the $2.5 billion needed for the third
ship in fiscal 2009 and 2010.
A Navy spokesman reiterated last
month that the service currently
plans to buy three DDG 1000s and
then reopen DDG 51 production.
“Final procurement quantities of
both ships are part of the Navy’s
POM [program objective memoran-dum] 10 submission under review
by OSD [Office of the Secretary of
Defense],” the spokesman said,
adding he could not comment on
budget discussions until they are
sent to Congress this spring.