So, How Bad do You Really Want a Battleship?

...opportunity cost or you get what you pay for?

When we started talking about the cost of the new proposed battleship with CBO’s Eric Labs on the latest Midrats Podcast, I knew the topic I wanted to start this week with.

First of all, let’s look back at the marker I put down right before the announcement.

For planning purposes (and budgeting), assume it will wind up costing at least 2/3 of a Ford CVN w/o her CVW.

OK, let’s look at the costs of the Ford Class CVN.

Some of the sources I see include the $5 billion of development cost added on to the cost of a bit more than $13 billion for a total of $18 billion for Hull-1 of the Ford CVN, with the follow-on Kennedy, Miller, etc coming in at $14/15 billion. Let’s call it $15 billion for the follow-on ships.

So, my ‘2/3’ cocktail swag would put the BBG-1 cost at $12 billion and BBG-2 and on at $10 billion per hull.

The latest Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG are running about $2.7 billion a hull.

The question that needs to be asked is: would a BBG-1 be worth 4.4 Flight III Arleigh Burkes? Would each follow-on ship be worth 3.7 Flight III Arleigh Burkes?

Would it be worth 3-3.5 DDG(X) (whenever that shows up and we can estimate the cost. I’ll assume it is significantly more)?

Well, hold on there. Before you get carried away, what does the CBO think BBG will cost?

The initial specs are saying that the displacement with be north of 35,000, so think between that and the 40K in the graph above. It looks like my estimates were a bit below CBO’s, but not too much, considering. Gold Star Happy Face to me.

One cost or another, there is the core question about the investment. Is the squeeze worth the juice? The opportunity cost is a valid topic of conversation…and one I think well-meaning people can take both sides of.

Me? As I really want to get as many conventional prompt strike warheads as possible at sea as soon as possible…and that does not even start to review the railgun possibilities.

The Zumwalts are just technology demonstrators. In theory, you can modify DDG(X) to carry CPS, but not as many and there are other tradeoffs and additional costs. As I prefer diverse fleets and spreading program risk around, I’m still leaning towards full-throated support for BBG if we can get the sustained funding for it. (there are other concerns that I may discuss tomorrow)

I won’t think you’re an idiot for opposing BBG. Buy me a few drinks, and I can make the anti-battleship argument with vigor as I’ve had that argument with myself a few times. Pro usually wins, but not every argument with myself.

The case still needs to be made.