Marine Log - June 2008 - (Page 42)

ICE CLASS TANKERS Recent Navy Ship Force Structure Proposals 2006 Navy proposal Ship Type 313 ships Ballistic missile subs 14 Cruise missile subs 4 Attack subs 48 Aircraft carriers 11/12c Cruisers/destroyers/frigates 88 Littoral Combat Ships 55 Amphibious ships 31 d MPF (F) Shipsd 12 Combat logistics (resupply) ships 30 Dedicated mine warfare ships 0 Otherf 20 Total Battle Force Ships 313/314 Early 2005 2002-2004 2001 Navy Proposals Navy Proposal QDR Plan 260 ships 325 ships 375 shipsa 310 ships 14 14 14 14 b 4 4 4 2 or 4 37 41 55 55 10 11 12 12 67 92 104 116 63 82 56 0 17 24 37 36 14d 20d 0d 0d 24 26 42 34 0 0 26e 16 10 11 25 25 260 325 375 310 or 312 Sources: CRS/U.S. Navy data. a. Initial composition. Composition was subsequently modified. b. Report on the 2001 QDR did not mention a specific figure for SSGNs. The Administration’s proposed FY2001 DODbudget requested funding to support the conversion of two available Trident SSBNs into SSGNs, and the retirement of two other Trident SSBNs. Congressional markup supported converting all four available SSBNs into SSGNs. c. 11 carriers, and eventually 12 carriers. d. Today’s 16 Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) ships are intended primarily to support Marine Corps operations ashore, rather than Navy combat operations, and tare not counted as Navy battle force ships. The Navy’s planned MPF (Future) ships, may be capable of contributing to Navy combat capabilities (for example, by supporting Navy aircraft operations). For this reason, MPF(F) ships are counted here as battle force ships. e. The figure of 26 dedicated mine warfare ships includes 10 ships maintained in a reduced mobilization status (Mobilization Category B). Ships in this status are not readily deployable and thus do not count as battle force ships. The 375-ship proposal thus implied transferring these 10 ships to a higher readiness status. f. Includes, among other things, command ships and support ships. Comparison of 2007, 2008, and 2009 Navy Shipbuilding Plans Aircraft Carriers Large Surface Combatants Littoral Combat Ships Attack Submarines Ballistic Missile Submarines Amphibious Ships MPF(F) Ships Support Ships Total 20o7 Plan (2007-2036) 7 53 78 51 14 22 11 44 280 2008 Plan (2008-2037) 7 66 85 51 14 20 11 39 293 2009 Plan (2009-2038) 7 69 75 53 12 20 9 51 296 720 697 2.4 2.4 a a Total 30-Year New Construction Costs (Billions of 2009 Dollars) Navy's Estimate 483 483 CBO's Estimate 624 648 Average Price Per Ship (Billions of 2009 Dollars) Navy's Estimate 1.7 CBO's Estimate 2.2 1.6 2.2 b b Note: MPF(F) = Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future). a. The estimates include the costs of ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). For the Navy’s estimate, CBO used the cost target for SSBNs in the 2008 plan, updated to 2009 dollars. b. The Navy’s estimate is $2.43 billion per ship. CBO’s estimate is about 3 percent lower. Source: CBO for amphibious ships and for cruisers and destroyers. If these longer service lives are not achieved, it could increase the shortfall in amphibious lift capability and create a shortfall in the number of cruisers and destroyers.” Here’s the killer: “The Navy this year has increased its estimate of the average annual cost to fund the 30-year plan by about 40% in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. This 40% figure excludes the cost of 12 replacement ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) that are shown in the plan. If the cost of these 12 ships is included in the calculation, the increase in estimated cost becomes roughly 49% to 57%.” O’Rourke noted that “the Navy’s new estimated cost for implementing the 30year plan is similar to estimates issued over the last two years by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The Navy downplayed CBO’s estimates in 2007, referring to them in testimony as ‘worstcase analysis’ or as an ‘extremely conservative’ estimate. The increase in the Navy’s estimated cost for implementing the plan is so large that the Navy no longer appears to have a clearly identifiable, announced strategy for generating the funds needed to implement the 30year plan, at least not without significantly reducing funding for other Navy programs or increasing the Navy's programmed budget in coming years by billions of dollars per year.” Congressman Taylor called the 30year plan “pure fantasy” and “totally unaffordable with the resources the Department of Defense allocates to the Navy for ship construction.” “As I analyze the shipbuilding plan I see four programs that are building ships on time and on budget. Those are the LPD 17 class amphibious assault ships, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, the Virginia Class submarines, and the TAKE Dry Cargo Ammunition Ship,” said Taylor. “And what is the Navy answer to programs which build ships on cost and schedule?” • Cancel the LPD 17 before the minimum Marine Corps requirement of 11 ships is achieved; • Cancel the DDG 51 Burke destroyers in favor of a brand new ship with 10 major technological innovations that may end up costing five times what an Arleigh Burke costs; • Continue to delay construction of two submarines a year until 2011; and • Cancel the last two ships of the T-AKE class. Taylor said that instead of being www.marinelog.com 42 MARINE LOG JUNE 2008 YEARBOOK http://www.marinelog.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Marine Log - June 2008

Marine Log - June 2008 Contents Editorial Second Thoughts Update Inside Washington Innovation Needed to Meet Crew Shortage Optimism Abounds Despite Slowing Economy Can Shipping's Shopaholics Keep Up the Buying Binge? Can Congress Keep Navy Shipbuilding Off the Rocks? Fitting the Ultra-deepwater Pieces Together Generation Next Higher Demand, Higher Prices Demand Up For Large Combination Vessels The Dirty Truth About Emissions SSAS: Realizing Its Potential Fuel Saving Technology Newsmakers Tech News Contracts Events Buyer's Guide Website Directory ML Marketplace Tech Talk

Marine Log - June 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.