By Geoff Fein
The Naval Sea Systems Commend (NAVSEA) is looking at the potential to neck down the number of surface ship and amphibious ship hulls it builds to make the future fleet affordable.
The Navy currently has 21 types of ships and approximately 29 models, Rear Adm. Charles Goddard, program executive officer ships (PEO Ships), told Defense Daily in a recent interview.
Goddard pointed to the DDG-51 class as a prime example. “There are currently three models of DDG-51 out there and that’s one type of ship,” he said.
“Go look at the 30-year [shipbuilding] plan and in 2020 it looks remarkably similar to what it does today. There are still 19 types and 27 models, and you ask ‘why is that'” he added.
One reason is that the Navy likes to replace like with like, Goddard said. For example, there is a LSD-X out in the future years to replace the current LSD-class. There is also a DDG-X to replace the DDG-51-class. “It’s assuming you are going to perpetuate the types of ships you have today.”
Vice Adm. Paul Sullivan challenged Goddard and his team to try and get below 10 types of ships. Goddard was tasked with developing a plan that would show what a fleet of less than 20 models would look like.
PEO Ships had a plan that had six different types and nine different models with the equivalent capabilities to the fleet that has 21 types and 29 models, Goddard said.
“We actually did several different alternative fleets depending upon what your focus was. Reuse was one of them, minimum types…sometimes if you are going to neck down on types you have to create a new type and that may not be the long-term most cost effective,” Goddard said. “So we did a fleet that looked like that and balanced between the two and then we had a hybrid in between that we looked at as well.”
One idea that generated a lot of controversy, Goddard said, was restructuring the amphibious fleet by adding an LSD, or the LSD-X for the future fleet instead of having a LHA-6 or LHD-8.
As the Marine Corps operates its Expeditionary Strike Group today, they have a LSD, a LPD and a large deck ship, either a LHD or LHA, Goddard said.
“If you kind of look at it, it is how we decided to spread the MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) across those big ship. We tended to focus aviation assets on the large deck, and then depending upon the variety of the LPDs and LSDs, one is heavy in vehicles and one is heavy in well-deck kind of craft,” he said. “The question is, is that the best way and most efficient way to spread the MEU across the ESG? And who says it has to be three ships?
“So we created what would be a new ESG,” Goddard added.
One variety had two large deck ships, one focused more on aviation and the other focused more on well-deck. And then there was a variant that had them both the same–the same aviation and the same sort of well-deck capacity. “That drew you to two pretty large ships, not all that different in size from a LHA-6 [or] LHD- 8,” Goddard said.
Another variant NAVSEA looked at was a smaller amphib lineup. This alternative had three ships and an LPD-type ship, he said. It would have a little bit more aviation capability to operate the Marine Corps’ F-35B Joint Strike Fighters.
“There is a possibility to get down to one amphib depending on how many you want to have, two or three, and how you wanted to actually distribute the MEU capability across those,” Goddard said.
Most people say the ideas make sense and the Navy could probably go off and do it.
No matter what path forward the Navy takes on the amphibious fleet, there will have to be discussions with the Marine Corps because different ships bring different utility. For example, a LSD can get into places a large deck can’t get into to, Goddard said. “You get into those kind of conversations.”
“But those are exactly the kind of conversations you have because it is about what capability and what missions do you want them to take,” he said. “We, as engineers, can go split the MEU up and build an efficient fleet. The question is, is that the most capable and utilitarian fleet for them? That’s why you have to go through these AoAs (analysis of alternatives) to decide.
The Marine Corps has no unified position, Goddard said, because these ideas are just concepts.
“I think the constant thing back from the Marine Corps is ‘what’s the lift requirement?’ So when we show them we were meeting their notional lift requirement that Marine Corps Combat Development Command has been working on, they were fine and said we need to have the debate,” he said. “As long as we were providing the full lift, they were comfortable with these kind of options because that is what it is about for them.”
Next, NAVSEA looked at surface combatants, Goddard said.
When Chris Deegan, director of cost, engineering and industrial analysis at NAVSEA, did his notional cost differences, PEO Ships found there wasn’t one theme that always produced the lowest cost, Goddard noted. “It kind of depended on where you were and what your reuse strategy was versus the benefits of necking down.”
On the surface combatant side, the most attractive from an affordability standpoint is to reuse DDG-1000 for the next generation cruiser and select one of the two Littoral Combat Ship designs and build on that to be the DDG-51 replacement, Goddard explained.
“In the end, you end up with just three types, and one could argue this is just two types of ships, a LCS-type, a small combatant and a large combatant with the cruiser just being another model of the destroyer,” he said.
Think about the non-recurring design expense because of each one of these, and that non-recurring design expense is what you avoid here, Deegan pointed out.
There are multiple benefits, he added. Some costs could be put toward buying a ship if the Navy just get more reuse. Then, there is the production learning curve and the economies of scale.
“It starts with a totally different approach to fleet architecture, and by fleet architecture I mean the design of the ships,” Deegan told Defense Daily during the same interview.
It tends to be more profitable for shipbuilders because the costs are known, Goddard said. “They know how to do it, there are no uncertainties.”
Some of the ideas Goddard floated are already being put to the test. “CG(X) discussions may be a huge decision for us for this very reason,” he said.
Northrop Grumman [NOC] recently completed a concept for CG(X) that shows the next generation cruiser should be a modified repeat design of DDG-1000 (Defense Daily, Jan. 15).
“Whenever you do mod repeats and reuse you are making compromises,” Goddard said. “That said, we always make compromises with cost versus capability, but you are restricting your options when you decide to reuse something. It could be good or it could be bad. Those are the decisions we are going to have to come through.”
DDG-1000 was built with some ability to upgrade it, Goddard added.
“When [John] Young [former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition and current DoD acquisition chief] decided to switch to S-band [radar], it was done with the thought that it was going to set us up for the cruiser and put us in a better position for when CG(X) came along,” Goddard said.