Posted on 12/06/2005 7:29:59 AM PST by Paul Ross
Analysts say Navy ship plan faces uncertainties
By DALE EISMAN, The Virginian-Pilot
© December 6, 2005
Last updated: 12:59 AM
WASHINGTON — A new proposal to revive Navy shipbuilding and add more than 30 vessels to today’s fleet of about 280 depends on the service’s ability to control construction costs and keep other expenses – including the war on terror – from eating into shipbuilding budgets, independent analysts said Monday.
“It’s based on everything breaking right,” said Robert Work, a retired Marine Corps colonel and defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The Navy typically is too optimistic in forecasting its budgets and too conservative in estimating ship costs, he suggested.
Though Navy leaders remained publicly silent on their proposal, the service apparently began briefing key lawmakers last week on a long-range shipbuilding program conceived by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, who took over in July as chief of naval operations.
Mullen is reported to envision a fleet of 313 ships by 202 0. To get it, he wants the service to spend an average of $13.4 billion annually on ship construction beginning in 2007. The service invested $10.4 billion on new ships during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 but asked for just $8.7 billion in 2006.
Two months into the new fiscal year, the 2006 overall defense spending plan remains stalled in Congress.
Mullen’s proposal picked up a key early endorsement on Monday as U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., said the Navy leader “can count on me to be one of his strongest supporters.” Warner heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, which oversees defense spending.
Other members from shipbuilding states probably will give the proposal a similarly warm reception, analysts said.
But it’s far from certain that Mullen can protect the shipbuilding budget from raids by Pentagon planners when the military runs into unexpected war expenses or is stuck with the bills for its responses to disasters such as H urricane Katrina and last December’s Asian tsunami, they added.
Also contributing to uncertainty about the proposal are steady increases in military pay and benefits, particularly health care costs for service members and retirees. And while senior defense officials apparently have been briefed on the Navy proposal, the Pe ntagon is two months away from completing a Congressionally ordered “Quadrennial Review” that will include its suggestions for force levels in all the military branches.
Work said Mullen’s proposal appears reasonable in the short term, as the service develops the initial ships in its DDX destroyer program and its new aircraft carrier design, CVN-21.
Yet, b eginning about 2011 or 2012, there is “significant fiscal risk” in the proposal, as Mullen expects to go to a construction rate of two submarines and at least two major surface ships per year, Work said.
“This looks like it will work only if pretty much everything goes as planned,” agreed Ronald O’Rourke, who tracks Navy programs at the Congressional Research Service.
Work and O’Rourke noted that Mullen’s proposal does not include at least one big ticket item that typically is part of shipbuilding budgets: the $2.5 billion cost of refueling each of the Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.
It also apparently does not include the cost of the “mission modules” – special equipment – to be installed on each of the 55 “ littoral combat ships” Mullen wants to buy.
A brainchild of Mullen’s predecessor, now-retired Adm. Vern Clark, the relatively small, fast and highly maneuverable littoral combat ship is being designed for close-to-shore missions such as mine-hunting and anti-submarine warfare.
The interchangeable mission modules, to be installed and removed depending on each ship’s assignment, are expected to cost $150 million each.
The analysts said other potential trouble spots for the plan include:
nCVN-21. The proposal anticipates that the cost of the new series of carriers can be held to $8.8 billion per ship after the first ship in the line. That ship will cost more than $13 billion, including funds for research on its new systems and the development of a new design .
nDDX. The proposal apparently assumes that the Navy can trim $200 million from the cost of each of the first two DDX ships, reducing the price to $3.1 billion per ship.
Even at the current Navy estimate of $3.3 billion per ship, there are signs the two initial DDXs may be under-priced. A “cost analysis improvement group” inside the Pentagon has concluded that the first ship in the series could cost more than $4 billion.
The cuts apparently will require the removal of some weapons or other systems from the ships, though industry officials have insisted that a stable, long-term Navy budget will allow them to streamline work schedules and significantly reduce costs without cutting into warfighting power.
nThe Virginia-class submarine. Mullen’s proposal assumes that the Navy can reduce the price of each Virginia-class sub by about $500 million, to a total of $2 billion.
“The cost estimates on which this plan is based are so unrealistic it’s hard to understand,” said a Congressional analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The plan depends on cutting ship costs in an era in which those costs have been growing, generally faster than the Navy had foreseen, he added.
QDR Will Hold Line on F/A-22, F-35: Analyst
By MICHAEL FABEY
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) debate about the Pentagon’s next-generation combat jets has come to an end, and like most roller-coasters, it left the programs just about where they started, analysts say.
When it is released early next year, the QDR is expected to recommend that the Air Force buy about 180 F/A-22 Raptors and 2,500 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) — about the same number the Pentagon had planned at the beginning of the year, said the Lexington Institute’s Loren Thompson and other industry analysts.
There could be small changes in production runs near the end of the decade, Thompson said.
Analysts said the QDR calls for keeping the three different JSF variants: a bigger Navy plane, a lighter Air Force aircraft and the short-takeoff and vertical-landing Marine Corps jet.
Throughout the year, the Pentagon had asked the Air Force to study various hypothetical mixes of F-35 variants and other tactical fighters, said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Brick Izzi, in his service’s directorate of JSF requirements. Some of these studies made their way into news stories, erroneously, as recommendations or decisions, Izzi said.
One report had the Air Force ditching its F-35 variant to go with the Navy’s. Izzi refuted that, saying that the carrier variant, while a good choice for the Navy, was too heavy and complex and cost more than the Air Force version. It also lacks an internal gun, deemed essential to meeting Air Force stealth requirements, Izzi said.
Under the QDR, the Air Force would buy about 1.4 Raptors per month, which would keep Lockheed Martin’s production line running until JSF production begins, Thompson said. “This would allow them to keep the production line without violating their plan,” he said.
At October’s Air Force Association conference, Lockheed officials had asked for enough orders to produce two a month.
Congressional Research Service analyst Christopher Bolkcom said capping the Raptor buy could help stabilize that program if the decision is based on “prudent” business and budget reasons. But stretching production could be a different matter.
“Both congressional friends and foes of the Raptor are likely to be concerned if the QDR recommends slowing F/A-22 production,” Bolkcom said. “While creating a bridge to the JSF may appear a prudent hedging strategy, the impact on F/A-22 costs appears unfavorable.”
Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., has said for months the QDR would do little to change the Raptor or JSF numbers. “It sounds like they’ve decided to leave the decision to someone else, later,” he said. “Smart move.”
The Air Force wanted the Raptor so badly, it volunteered to buy fewer than the planned 1,735 JSFs, Thompson said. That decision won’t have to be made for a few years; the first planes for the service fleet aren’t due until early in the next decade. But it appears that the Air Force’s hopes to buy 381 Raptors are dead.
Still, the JSF — at about $250 billion, the Pentagon’s biggest project — has been a bull’s-eye for QDR analysts and other budget-cutters. Even if the QDR put JSF back on track, there’s still a possibility of financial derailment. Development costs recently rose $8 billion to a total of $40 billion; Air Force officials worry that the price could balloon as the Raptor’s did. The critical design review (CDR) in February should show how real development estimates are now.
“The CDR is when the government says if we have a viable design that meets the criteria,” Lockheed spokesman John Smith said. “If there any tweaks needed, we operate with a management reserve.” He did not know how much the reserve is.
Still, with the Pentagon operating in the red, a big-buck item like JSF is a target.
“The Congressional Budget Office projects annual DoD shortfalls of $50 billion to $150 billion in the out years,” Bolkcom said. “If these projections hold, a program as large as the JSF is likely to be vulnerable to budget cuts for many years to come.”
Lockheed officials said they had heard of no Raptor decisions yet.
“We have not been notified of any changes in the program of record,” company spokesman Jeff Adams said. •
What? Does Congress think we can keep flying EP-3's and get the "job" done?
If the Forces aren't going to ask - change that - DEMAND the equipment and armament they need, we are going to be SO caught short in 10-15 years by that unknown-as-now threat that is going to materialize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.