DDG(X) Destroyer Could Cost Up to $3.4B a Hull, SSN(X) Attack Boat Up to $7.2B, Says CBO Report

[LeGenD]

Type 055 is not the second strongest destroyer, it is the strongest. We all know that Zumwalt is abandoned garbage.

1st, China Type 055,
2nd, Korea Sejong class,
3rd, USA Burke 3,
4th, China 052D,
5th, Japan Atago class,
6th, Japan Kongo class,
7th, Japan Aikizuki class,
8th, China Type 052C,
9th, Britain Type 45,
10th, French Horizon class


lie.

It is impossible to pay for the maintenance of any warship and the training of sailors in a lump sum.

Type 055 is a well-designed warship (very large and spacious with considerable strike package). Type 055 is equipped with an assortment of impressive munitions but lacking in comparison to American options. Similarly, Type 055 is equipped with a sensor package that is very impressive on paper but I am not sure how it stack up to American advances in this domain.

Sejong the Great class is larger than the Arleigh Burke class with increased strike package but sensor package is on the level of Arleigh Burke Flight II. Sejong the Great is also equipped with an assortment of impressive munitions but lacking in comparison to American options.

Arleigh Burke Flight III is being equipped with top of the line sensor package. Flight III is also being armed with an assortment of munitions that are found to be capable of defeating a wide range of threats (apparent in live-fire trials). This is why Flight III has winning combination and advantage in combat situations.

China can develop better radar systems than Russia in the present. But Americans have a history of coming up with revolutionary radar systems from time to time, and they also developed the Aegis Combat System for warships which completely redefined naval battle concepts and practices. Evolution of the Aegis Combat System is the REAL DEAL beneath the HULL - this coupled with AMDR is why I insist that Arleigh Burker Flight III has top of the line sensor package.

 

[huanghong]

That's because you are talking about a ship that has NOT YET make. Budget overblown d exist, as I said, even Zumwalt IS the cheapest operating ship in the US Navy, it is NOT the cheapest ship to make.

This is from the article you quote



CBO estimated the acquisition cost for the LSC is 1.7B per hull, in 2020 budget, again this is in line with the estimate I said before.

No, whether the budget we are arguing about is exaggerated or not is irrelevant. We will have to wait for future facts to prove it.
Now we need to figure out whether the $3.4 billion proposed by CBO in 2022 is the purchase price of the hull or the LIFE cost you mentioned. In this article, the purchase price of LSC proposed by CBO in 2020 is 2.8 billion US dollars.

 

[jhungary]

No, whether the budget we are arguing about is exaggerated or not is irrelevant. We will have to wait for future facts to prove it.
Now we need to figure out whether the $3.4 billion proposed by CBO in 2022is the purchase price of the hull or the LIFE cost you mentioned. In this article, the purchase price of LSC proposed by CBO in 2020 is 2.8 billion US dollars.

I think you either lost track or you don't know what we are arguing about.

I don't know about you, I was talking to the other dude about this is NOT just acquisition cost, this is life time cost, when you come in and say it is not.

As I said, the cost is including operational and acquisition cost, which at 3.4 (or 3.7 billion in my quote) are logically because you would have around 2 billion for the acquisition of the hull, and then 1.7 billion to operate it in the next 30 years, hence it is the lifetime cost, and not just the money it need to acquire that ship. Even in your own reference, it separated the acquisition cost and total cost in the quote i mentioned.

While you are arguing the lifetime cost can adjust over the year, as I said, it of course can because we haven't build the damn thing yet, it's about to in 2025. Which mean it could go from 1.6 per hull (original estimate) to 2.8 billion per hull (as per FY 2019) to 3.4 billion per hull (as per this article now)

You are arguing a different thing than I did......

 

[huanghong]

I think you either lost track or you don't know what we are arguing about.

I don't know about you, I was talking to the other dude about this is NOT just acquisition cost, this is life time cost, when you come in and say it is not.

As I said, the cost is including operational and acquisition cost, which at 3.4 (or 3.7 billion in my quote) are logically because you would have around 2 billion for the acquisition of the hull, and then 1.7 billion to operate it in the next 30 years, hence it is the lifetime cost, and not just the money it need to acquire that ship. Even in your own reference, it separated the acquisition cost and total cost in the quote i mentioned.

While you are arguing the lifetime cost can adjust over the year, as I said, it of course can because we haven't build the damn thing yet, it's about to in 2025. Which mean it could go from 1.6 per hull (original estimate) to 2.8 billion per hull (as per FY 2019) to 3.4 billion per hull (as per this article now)

You are arguing a different thing than I did......

So, you mean that the $3.4 billion proposed by CBO includes including operational and acquisition cost?
There is a problem here. The acquisition cost proposed by CBO in 2020 is 2.8 billion US dollars. If you don't consider the new increase in LSC's acquisition cost, you mean that the operational cost is only 600 million US dollars?

 

[jhungary]

So, you mean that the $3.4 billion proposed by CBO includes including operational and acquisition cost?
There is a problem here. The acquisition cost proposed by CBO in 2020 is 2.8 billion US dollars. If you don't consider the new increase in LSC's acquisition cost, you mean that the operational cost is only 600 million US dollars?

Dude, the acquisition is lifetime. As I explained before, 2.8 include everything, not just the contract to build the ship.

So no, they don't just set aside 600 million for operation.

It's the same as DDG-51

Wayback Machine

The Navy estimates the procurement cost of the DDG-51 procured in FY2010 at $2,234.4 million (2.23 billions)

Yet the contract awarded for the 4 DDG-51 between FY-13 to FY-17 is 2.8 billion.

DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers Multiyear Procurement Contract Awarded

The US Navy awarded two contracts for the DDG 51 fiscal years (FY) 2013-2017 multiyear procurement (MYP) for DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers June 3. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) is being awarded a $2,843,385,450 fixed-price incentive firm target (FPIF) contract for the design and...

www.navyrecognition.com

US Navy awarded two contracts for the DDG 51 fiscal years (FY) 2013-2017 multiyear procurement (MYP) for DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers June 3. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) is being awarded a $2,843,385,450 fixed-price incentive firm target (FPIF) contract for the design and construction of four DDG 51 class ships, one in FY 2013 and one each in FY 2015-2017. This award also includes a contract option for a fifth ship.

 

[huanghong]

So no, they don't just set aside 600 million for operation.

It's the same as DDG-51

Wayback Machine

The Navy estimates the procurement cost of the DDG-51 procured in FY2010 at $2,234.4 million (2.23 billions)

Yet the contract awarded for the 4 DDG-51 between FY-13 to FY-17 is 2.8 billion.

DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers Multiyear Procurement Contract Awarded

The US Navy awarded two contracts for the DDG 51 fiscal years (FY) 2013-2017 multiyear procurement (MYP) for DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers June 3. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) is being awarded a $2,843,385,450 fixed-price incentive firm target (FPIF) contract for the design and...

www.navyrecognition.com

Man, I just found out that the CBO clearly defined the criteria for the $3.4 billion fee

The average annual cost of carrying out the Navy’s three alternative plans, which cover fiscal years 2023 to 2052, ranges from $29.7 billion to $32.7 billion (in 2022 dollars), CBO estimates. (Those estimates include the costs of purchasing ships but not the costs of operating and maintaining them.) The Navy’s 2023 plan differs significantly from its 2022 plan because, as is typical in the first year of a new Administration, the latter did not include a 30-year projection of inventories, purchases, retirements, or costs of ships.2

An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2023 Shipbuilding Plan

At a Glance Each year, as directed by the Congress, the Department of Defense submits a report with the President’s budget describing the Navy’s planned inventory, purchases, deliveries, and retirements of ships in its fleet for the next 30 years. In a departure from all previous shipbuilding...

www.cbo.gov

 

[jhungary]

Man, I just found out that the CBO clearly defined the criteria for the $3.4 billion fee

The average annual cost of carrying out the Navy’s three alternative plans, which cover fiscal years 2023 to 2052, ranges from $29.7 billion to $32.7 billion (in 2022 dollars), CBO estimates. (Those estimates include the costs of purchasing ships but not the costs of operating and maintaining them.) The Navy’s 2023 plan differs significantly from its 2022 plan because, as is typical in the first year of a new Administration, the latter did not include a 30-year projection of inventories, purchases, retirements, or costs of ships.2

An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2023 Shipbuilding Plan

At a Glance Each year, as directed by the Congress, the Department of Defense submits a report with the President’s budget describing the Navy’s planned inventory, purchases, deliveries, and retirements of ships in its fleet for the next 30 years. In a departure from all previous shipbuilding...

www.cbo.gov

........That was included under "Purchase Plan"......

And the passage you quote is for the Navy 3 Alternative Planning (Highlighted in Black). Not on the overall estimation (The 4 points you did not quote)....... And the reason for the different is already said in the latter part of the paragraph, highlighted in Red

 

[huanghong]

........That was included under "Purchase Plan"......

And the passage you quote is for the Navy 3 Alternative Planning (Highlighted in Black). Not on the overall estimation (The 4 points you did not quote)....... And the reason for the different is already said in the latter part of the paragraph, highlighted in Red

(Those estimates include the costs of purchasing ships but not the costs of operating and maintaining them.) Isn't the object referred to is Navy 3 Alternative Planning?

 

[jhungary]

(Those estimates include the costs of purchasing ships but not the costs of operating and maintaining them.) Isn't the object referred to is Navy 3 Alternative Planning?

Dude, for the second time, the 3 alternative planning is different than the general estimate, the reason, as I mentioned is in that paragraph itself and I even highlighted that part for you, I don't know what more can I do.

 

[huanghong]

Dude, for the second time, the 3 alternative planning is different than the general estimate, the reason, as I mentioned is in that paragraph itself and I even highlighted that part for you, I don't know what more can I do.

Dude, but the $3.4 billion figure is CBO's estimate based on the criteria of these three programs (Those estimates include the costs of purchasing ships but not the costs of operating and maintaining them.).

 

[jhungary]

Dude, but the $3.4 billion figure is CBO's estimate based on the criteria of these three programs (Those estimates include the costs of purchasing ships but not the costs of operating and maintaining them.).

Again, no.

And it's not three program, it's three plans for the next 30 year, and you really should read thru the ENTIRE reference you quote, it was explained there, I even quote and highlighted the answer you are looking for, again, I don't know what more I can say.

 

[nahtanbob]

Except for bitcoin.

Satoshi Nakamoto translates to central intelligence in Japanese. And if the dollar collapses and brings down the national currencies around the globe, bitcoin is the planned replacement.

US would own 500 trillion USD in todays worth of dollars in bitcoin if bitcoin goes to 100 million+ per bitcoin.

So the US is not afraid of a dollar collapse and pushing for a dollar collapse.

US could fund a 100 years war with China with the amount of bitcoin the USA owns. China could only fund a few years of war.

So as the Chinese are happy about the dollar demise. Chinese are happy only about their demise. Unless, China pushes for a silver and gold backed national currencies which would crush the US empire.

the war was a crappy place when the currencies were tied to the gold standard. it is not going to happen. if it is not the USD China will have to step up to the plate.

 

[SeymourButz]

Take a look at China's biggest destroyer, a $920 million cruiser that's said to be the 2nd most powerful in the world after the USS Zumwalt

The warships, which are also known as Renhai-class cruisers, are the most advanced warships China has ever made.

www.google.com

Take a look at China's biggest destroyer, a $920 million cruiser that's said to be the 2nd most powerful in the world after the USS Zumwalt​

BTW: 055 costs RMB 6 billion. That is 840 million dollars, not 920 million dollars.

But that is based on exchange rates right? That makes sense if Washington or some other country wanted to buy it and exchanged their USD for RMB. The more approximate rate is 1 USD = 3 to 3.5 RMB from places I checked that measured PPP instead of nominal exchange rates. So that Type 055 costs Beijing the equivalent of $1.7 to $2 billion per ship. Not as cheap but cheap.