Listen to the article
The first Trump-class “battleship” ordered up by the White House could cost as much as $22 billion, and could cut into the Navy’s plans for next-generation destroyers, Congressional researchers said Thursday.
An early analysis by the Congressional Budget Office indicates that the BBG(X) could cost between $15 billion and $22 billion, depending on weight and other decisions, CBO analyst Eric Labs said during a presentation at the Surface Navy Association symposium outside Washington, D.C.
“You’re talking about a lead ship in the range of $18 to $19 billion for the 35,000-ton displacement, north of $20 billion if the displacement ends up being higher,” Labs said.
That would make the BBG(X), which Trump announced in December, one of the most expensive ships in U.S. history—more than the $13 billion aircraft carrier Ford, which came in 30 percent over budget.
Labs speculated that subsequent Trump-class warships could cost somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion, depending on the size of the vessels and under ideal labor conditions. In his presentation, he noted that the U.S. shipbuilding workforce, which has not grown since 1990, is too small to handle even the Navy’s current plans.
“There’s a lot of reasons to think that those numbers are not going to be correct. I think it’s a starting point,” Labs said. “There are a number of factors that are going to play in that lead me to conclude that the ship might be more expensive than what I’ve said so far … and there’s reasons to think why they could be less expensive.”
The vessel is pitched as a cornerstone of the president’s “Golden Fleet,” announced after the Navy cancelled its Constellation frigate program in November and subsequent launched a new frigate effort.
Congressional researchers also wonder what the battleship program means for the Navy’s next-generation guided missile destroyer, or DDG(X), program. Navy officials have suggested that the former will replace the latter: “The battleship took the DDG(X) concept and it’s put that on steroids, under the assumption that the counter-targeting efforts of the Navy will protect it and make it survivable,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said on Wednesday.
But what happens if a future administration cancels a giant warship that many naval experts have called impractical?
“I think it’s worth asking the question if at some point, for some reason, there’s a change of heart on the battleship program a few years from now, then what will be the impact of the time loss on the DDG(X),” Ronald O’Rourke, a naval affairs analyst for the Congressional Research Service, said during Thursday’s presentation
The DDG(X) and the Constellation frigate programs have been under heavy scrutiny for inaccurate cost estimates and running behind schedule. To avoid similar pitfalls, O’Rourke said, Congress should also consider whether the starts of both the BBG(X) and the frigate programs have received sufficient analysis—particularly since their announcement caught some service officials off guard.
“It’s at least worth asking the question and understanding whether the program came first and the analysis came later or not,” he said.
Read the full article here
14 Comments
The comparison between the BBG(X) and the $13 billion aircraft carrier Ford, which came in 30 percent over budget, suggests that the former’s cost estimate may be underestimated.
The Ford’s budget overrun was largely due to unforeseen technical issues, but the BBG(X)’s design and construction should be more streamlined to avoid similar problems.
The idea that the BBG(X) program could replace the DDG(X) program is intriguing, but it’s essential to consider the potential consequences of canceling the latter, as Admiral Daryl Caudle suggested.
The presentation by Eric Labs and the discussion about the BBG(X) program highlight the need for more transparency and accountability in the Navy’s budgeting and planning processes.
Ronald O’Rourke’s question about the impact of a potential change of heart on the battleship program in the future is valid, and Congress should carefully evaluate the long-term implications of such a decision.
The fact that the BBG(X) is pitched as a cornerstone of the president’s ‘Golden Fleet’ suggests a significant shift in the Navy’s strategy, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years.
The announcement of the BBG(X) program after the cancellation of the Constellation frigate program in November raises questions about the Navy’s priorities and the potential consequences of this decision.
The estimated cost of the BBG(X) warship, ranging from $15 billion to $22 billion, raises concerns about the Navy’s budget allocation and potential impact on other programs, such as the next-generation destroyers.
I think it’s essential to consider the long-term benefits and strategic advantages of investing in a state-of-the-art warship like the BBG(X).
The estimated cost of subsequent Trump-class warships, ranging from $10 billion to $15 billion, is still significant, and it’s crucial to consider the economic and strategic implications of investing in such expensive vessels.
The fact that the BBG(X) program has been announced with relatively little analysis and scrutiny is concerning, and Congress should ensure that the program receives adequate evaluation and oversight to avoid potential pitfalls.
Eric Labs’ statement about the U.S. shipbuilding workforce not growing since 1990 is alarming, and it’s crucial to address this issue to ensure the successful construction of the Trump-class warships.
The statement by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle that the battleship took the DDG(X) concept and put it ‘on steroids’ suggests a significant increase in capabilities, but also raises questions about the potential risks and challenges associated with such a project.
The potential impact of the BBG(X) program on the Navy’s next-generation guided missile destroyer program is a concern, and it’s essential to carefully evaluate the trade-offs and potential consequences of prioritizing one program over the other.