By Geoff Fein
The next four years will be a challenging time for the Navy as the service looks to buy another aircraft carrier, five surface combatants, 18 littoral combat ships (LCS) and eight Virginia-class submarines, according to the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan.
Additionally, the Navy has revised its average steady-state annual shipbuilding funding requirement to $15.8 billion a year (in FY ’07 dollars) through FY ’20.
The plan, sent to Congress on Monday, details the Navy’s shipbuilding profile for the FY ’09 to FY ’38 time frame.
According to the document, the Navy’s shipbuilding budget will continue to grow, from $12.4 billion in FY ’09 to $17.8 billion in FY ’13.
The Navy will spend $3.9 billion in FY ’09 on continued construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), the service’s next-generation aircraft carrier. The ship is expected to be delivered to the service in 2015.
With the planned retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in 2012 and delivery of the Ford in ’15, the Navy will be down to 10 aircraft carriers, according to the shipbuilding plan. The Navy is seeking a waiver from Congress to decrease to 10 operational carriers during that time.
“During this 33-month period, Navy will mitigate the operational impact of the shortfall through selective rescheduling of carrier maintenance availabilities and by applying the inherent flexibility of the Fleet Response Plan,” the 30-year plan said.
“This risk mitigation strategy will support presence and surge requirements during this short time period, although it is not sustainable over a long period of time,” the plan added.
For FY ’09, the Navy will spend $3.4 billion for one Virginia-class submarine. The cost rises up to $3.9 for one boat in FY ’10, before dropping back down to $2.6 billion per submarine as the Navy looks to begin building two fast attack submarines per year. In FY ’12 the cost for two Virginia-class submarines declines to $4.7 billion, or $2.35 billion per copy, according to the plan.
The shipbuilding budget also reflects the cost growth in the LCS program, as the Navy has had to raise the cost cap to $460 million following acknowledgement last year that both the Lockheed Martin [LMT] and General Dynamics [GD] variants experienced considerable cost growth.
The shipbuilding plan shows two LCS in FY ’09 for $920 million, with three planned for FY ’10 at a cost of $1.3 billion. The remaining 13 ships planned for the FY ’11 to FY ’13 time frame will all cost $460 million apiece. Those include the ships that will likely be awarded when the Navy holds a competition in 2010 to build LCS.
In the Navy’s FY ’09 budget, the service lists basic construction cost for the USS Freedom (LCS-1), being built by a Lockheed Martin led team at Marinette Marine [MTW] in Wisconsin, at $471 million. The total cost of LCS-1, including final system design, mission system and ship integration, outfitting and post delivery is $631 million, according to the Navy’s budget.
General Dynamics’ USS Independence (LCS-2), being built at Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., has a lower basic construction cost of $440 million, but the total cost, according to the Navy, for the aluminum hull ship, is $636 million.
LCS-1 will be delivered to the fleet in FY ’08 and fleet ready in FY ’11, according to the Navy’s budget.
LCS-2 will deliver in FY ’09 and be fleet ready in late FY ’11 or early FY ’12, the budget said.
The Navy is looking to build one LCS in FY ’08 and two in FY ’09. Although these numbers are below last year’s LCS acquisition plan, it does keep procurement on track to reach the goal of 55 LCS by FY ’23.
The Navy will begin building a new ballistic missile submarine to replace the Ohio-class boats when they begin to retire in the 2027 time frame. According to the 30-year shipbuilding plan, the first new ballistic missile submarine will begin construction in FY ’19.
A replacement program for the Ohio-class subs is a strategic issue that merits immediate attention, according to the shipbuilding plan.
“Any delay in construction will impact the Navy’s ability to meet U.S. Strategic Command’s Sea-Based Strategic Deterrent requirement,” the plan said.
In a letter to Congress accompanying the plan, Navy Secretary Donald Winter highlighted the cost of recapitalizing the Ohio-class SSBN, which requires lead ship procurement in FY ’19.
“Its cost will have a profound impact on the Navy’s ability to maintain a balanced shipbuilding plan if special funding for this important national strategic capability is not provided,” he said.
The Navy is also reviewing requirements definition and acquisition plans, including options and associated risks, as the service prepares for CG(X) Milestone A, in 2008. At issue is whether the Navy can afford to build its next-generation cruiser with a nuclear propulsion system. Lawmakers have mandated that the next surface combatant be built with an integrated nuclear power plant.
The Navy is scheduled to begin construction on CG(X) in FY ’11 with follow-on construction planned for FY ’13.
In the far term (FY 2021 to 2038), the shipbuilding plan notes that 165 ships will reach the end of their service lives. Therefore, the Navy must carefully manage the service lives and modernization of legacy ships during this period to prevent block obsolescence from causing unacceptable gaps in capability and capacity, according to the plan.
Beginning in FY ’16, the Navy will transition to a sustaining rate for amphibious ship procurement that will eventually lead to a single ship type that will replace LSD-41 and LPD-17 classes, the plan said.
In the years FY ’22 through FY ’33, the Navy will face a shortfall in its attack submarine fleet. The number of boats will reach a low of 41 in FY ’28. However, the Navy has identified a strategy to mitigate the impact of the shortfall, the plan said. The steps include, “Reducing the build time of Virginia-class submarines to 60 months; extending the service life of selected attack submarines based on technical feasibility and affordability; and extending, as needed, the length of attack submarine deployments from six to seven months to meet operational requirements,” according to the plan.
While the Navy is taking steps to rein in costs in the near term through efforts to control requirements growth and efforts to reduce Virginia-class construction costs, cost estimates for far term shipbuilding efforts will be difficult to determine until conceptual designs are completed and more accurate cost estimates on methods can be applied, according to the plan.
In an effort to get a better handle on future costs, the Navy is proposing repeat builds of ships within the same class tor educe construction costs.
“This permits longer production runs and resultant cost reductions associated with production improvements and economies of scale,” according to the plan.
Incorporating open architecture for hardware and software systems and efforts to reduce logistics supports costs should also help, the plan added.