Feature 3 | SHIPBUILDING
Changes to the US
Navy Shipbuilding
Plan FY2007-FY2009.
Source: CBO, Resource
Implications of the
Navy’s Fiscal Year 2009
Shipbuilding Plan, 9
June 2008, p.7.
said. “The force to implement each key an extra amphibious ship, making the annual amount it has spent on
mission area must be both affordable down payments on two Virginia class shipbuilding since 2003.
and credible, and the Navy’s track record attack submarines, and creating the Describing developments in some of
must become one where its leadership is possibility of buying more F/A-18 the programmes that are in disarray, the
judged by its actual success.” to fill a shortage in jet fighters. The report looked at a range of programmes,
This is why some members of Congress committee also opened the door to buy such as the said LCS, which was originally
already afford the US Navy’s track more Arleigh Burke class destroyers at intended as a relatively low-cost ship to
record little credibility. “The current the cost of pushing back funding for a be purchased in great numbers. This
shipbuilding plan for the 313-ship fleet third DDG 1000 destroyer in the Navy’s relatively small combatant is designed
is pure fantasy,” said Representative FY2009 budget. to be employed on coastal missions,
Gene Taylor (D-MS), chairman of the Adding to the pressure on the US clearing the way for larger vessels and
House Armed Services Subcommittee Navy, the CBO recently conducted a supporting combat ashore.
on Seapower; Representative Duncan review of the US Navy’s cost estimates Profound shortcomings in the
Hunter (R-CA), the ranking minority that sharply differs from the US Navy’s acquisitions system and efforts to deliver
member in the same committee, finds the estimates. The CBO estimates that the the programme too quickly have led to
shipbuilding programme “in shambles”. execution of the US Navy’s current significant delays and cost increases, in
Hunter introduced a bill in May 30-year shipbuilding plan would cost an fact the cost of LCS - two of which are
2008 to amend the FY2009 defence average US$25 billion per year, which requested in the FY2009 budget - has
authorisation bill, adding funds for would require the US Navy to double already risen from US$220 million to
in excess of US$600 million. Delivery of
the two lead ships has been rescheduled
by 18 months and, as a consequence of
delays, cost over-runs and engineering
problems, the US Navy has cancelled
construction of the third and fourth
LCS and rescheduled the construction
of the remaining ‘seaframes.’
Funds previously appropriated for
the construction of the fifth and sixth
LCS are now being used to pay for the
over-runs of the two lead ships, a GAO
report states. According to the Secretary
Shortfalls entailed by the US Navy’s FY2009 shipbuilding plan compared to its stated of the Navy Donald C Winter, the US
requirements in 2007. Navy remains committed to building
34 Warship Technology October 2008
WT_Oct08_p30+31+32+34+
35.indd Sec2:34 10/10/08 1:15:03 PM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72