The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
Big Boat Budget

It's that time of year again! Here's some info to get you started on what the budget landscape could look like for the Navy:

1. One DDG-51 is being requested, at a cost of $2.24B.

2. A second year of incremental funding for the Fiscal 2009 DDG-1000 is being requested, to the tune of $1.62B.

3. One Navy and one Army Joint High Speed Vessel are being requested for $373M.

4. The Navy also wants three Littoral Combat Ships procured at the $460M cost cap, for a total of $1.87B.

5. A second year of incremental funding for the 10th LPD 17 amphibious transport dock ship from Fiscal 2009 and an advance payment on the 11th ship for Fiscal 2011, which totals $1.06B.

6. Two T-AKE ships procured as part of the Maritime Prepositioning Force-Future concept.

7. And one Virginia-class sub procured in the multiyear procurement contract and advance procurement for future ships, which will cost $4.18B. That's right: four billion dollars for one submarine.

Tags: ar99Navybudget
Email this post
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
Because what you need above all to conduct house-to-house searches or deter Somalis in rubber boats is a nuclear submarine.
5/7/2009 11:40 AM CDT
User Image
Bobbymike wrote:
Bill - oh no Cold War weapons, they must be cut like the F-22.
5/7/2009 11:50 AM CDT
User Image
LuF wrote:
Oh I don't know. Take a look at the video (to the right) about new missions for the Ohio class, and see that SEAL delivery vehicle. Think maybe there was one of those under the 'Bama raft? Maybe the "miracle" shots were a lot closer?

But 4 BB per sub, how many is each Chinese sub we sink going to cost on an amortized present value method?
5/7/2009 12:49 PM CDT
User Image
sferrin wrote:
What happened to "$1 billion Burkes"? Oh yeah, that's what happens when dimwitted politicians jerk around procurement.
5/7/2009 2:36 PM CDT
User Image
sferrin wrote:
$4 billion is cheaper than a Seawolf right?
5/7/2009 2:37 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
"And one Virginia-class sub procured in the multiyear procurement contract and advance procurement for future ships, which will cost $4.18B. That's right: four billion dollars for one submarine."

that's a real misleading statement and you know it. its the "advance procurement for future ships" which is the operative part of that statement.

this is taken from the Business Dictionary.com
Components, parts, or material (particularly those with long lead times) that must be acquired before their actual need to maintain a planned production schedule.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/advance-procurement.html

so in essence its for more than just one submarine!
5/7/2009 11:01 PM CDT
User Image
Michael Bruno wrote:
Solomon, thanks for the clarification. Perhaps we could have been clearer on the details, but I know that Bettina's point was - and remains - that that is a lot of money (for even two subs).

Everybody: Since this is Ares (and not a news story) and we allow ourselves to opine, I'll go a step further and say it's mind-boggling. The Navy and sub industry has long been struggling to get the Va. price down to almost $2B/boat (2005 dollars) and are still struggling. Last I heard myself, the $2B "goal" was on track, but only after Congress helped increase the annual order plan.

That leads me to something I've never understood in many of the debates in the military industrial realm: the idea that the answer is to just buy more so that the per-item cost will go down. The U.S. may very well need more subs than are planned, but it should buy them for the right reasons.
5/19/2009 11:51 AM CDT
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos