Mr. Chairman, Congressman Taylor, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the DD(X) destroyer program. Specifically, the Subcommittee asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to compare the actual costs of the DDG-51 destroyer program with those estimated for the DD(X) program, to discuss the realism of cost estimates for the DD(X), and to examine the affordability of the DD(X) in the context of the Navy's ship construction budget. CBO's ongoing analysis of the Navy's shipbuilding programs in general and the DD(X) program in particular indicates the following: (1) The lead ship of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class of destroyers was more expensive, in terms of cost per ton of light-load displacement, than the Navy's current estimate of the cost of the lead DD(X), suggesting that additional cost growth is possible in the DD(X) program. (2) The 35-year life-cycle costs of a DD(X) are likely to be higher than those of a recently purchased DDG-51 on a net-present-value basis. (3) The first DD(X) would consume 19-percent of the Navy's ship construction budget in the year it was built, compared with 11 percent for the first DDG-51 in 1985.
Navy's DD(X) Destroyer Program
2005
11 pages
Report
Keine Angabe
Englisch
CBO Testimony The Navy's DD(X) Destroyer Program
NTIS | 2005
|
Future naval ship procurement : a case study of the Navy's next-generation destroyer.
DDG 1000
DSpace@MIT | 2006
|Online Contents | 2004
|