AboutCollectionsAdd a ReportContact
 

RL32109
Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress
June 04, 2009

Download Locations:

Open CRS (User submitted)

Summary:

The Navy's proposed FY2010 budget requests $1,084.2 million to complete the cost of a third Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyer that was authorized but only partially funded in FY2009, and $309.6 million in additional procurement funds to cover cost growth on the first two DDG-1000s, which were authorized in FY2007 and funded in FY2007-FY2008. The Navy estimates the combined procurement cost of the first two DDG-1000s at $6,634.2 million, or an average of $3,317.1 million each, and the procurement cost of the third ship at $2,738.3 million. The Navys proposed FY2010 budget requests $539 million in research and development funding for the DDG-1000 program. The Navys proposed FY2010 budget requests $1,912.3 million to help complete the cost of an Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer to be procured in FY2010. (The Navy also plans to request approval to transfer or reprogram $128.6 million in prior-year funding to help complete the cost of this ship.) The ship received $199.4 million in FY2009 advance procurement funding. The Navy estimates the total cost of this ship at $2,240.3 million. On April 6, 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced a number of Department of Defense (DOD) decisions regarding DODs proposed FY2010 defense budget. Among these was a decision to end the DDG-1000 program at three ships and restart procurement of DDG-51 destroyers. Gatess announcement appeared endorse, to some degree at least, a proposal announced by the Navy on July 31, 2008, to halt DDG-1000 procurement and restart DDG-51 procurement. Until Gatess April 6 announcement, OSD publicly had reserved judgment on the Navys July 2008 proposal, stating that further analysis of its merits was needed. Gates stated on April 6 that DODs support for building the all three DDG-1000s was contingent on the Navy reaching an agreement with its two surface combatant builders General Dynamics bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME, and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding (NGSB) to transfer the second DDG-1000 from NGSB to GD/BIW, so that GD/BIW would be the builder of all three DDG-1000s. On April 8, it was reported that such an agreement had been reached. As a result, GD/BIW is to build all three DDG-1000s, NGSB is to build the first two DDG-51s to be procured under the DDG-51 restart, GD/BIW is to build the DDG-51, and the two firms will then share in the production of subsequent DDG-51s. Potential issues for Congress include the following: the merits of DODs decision to halt DDG-1000 procurement and restart DDG-51 procurement; the status of a proposal made by John Young, the then-DOD acquisition executive, in memorandum dated January 26, 2009, to begin procuring in FY2012 a ship called the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) that could be based on either the DDG-51 design or the DDG-1000 design (and whether to provide direction to DOD regarding this proposal); whether to complete the procurement funding for a third DDG-1000 in FY2010; whether to continue with the construction of the second DDG-1000; whether to fund the procurement of one or two DDG-51s in FY2010; whether to direct the Navy to build the second and third DDG-1000s to a modified design featuring additional missile-launch tubes in the place of the DDG-1000s Advanced Gun Systems (AGSs); and whether to provide direction to DOD regarding the design of DDG-51s procured in FY2010 and beyond. This report will be updated as events warrant.

XML

 

Available Versions:

June 04, 2009
November 14, 2008
October 22, 2008
October 09, 2008
September 11, 2008
August 08, 2008
July 15, 2008
June 05, 2008
May 01, 2008
April 11, 2008
October 25, 2007
June 11, 2007
August 14, 2006
July 26, 2006
February 28, 2006
July 29, 2005
June 24, 2005
April 21, 2005
January 25, 2005
October 28, 2004