Anyway, the title of this post comes from the best SECNAV we have had in, well, almost all my career. I prefer “Happy Talk” myself, but this does sound more professional.
The CBO report follows warnings in April by Navy Secretary Donald Winter that a "culture of over-optimism" among shipbuilders and bureaucracy within the Navy is fostering distrust between Congress and the service and could jeopardize the Navy's future shipbuilding appropriations.That plus-up isn’t going to happen. If we do not change towards new, off-the-shelf platforms of DDG-51 or European baseline, or something domestic along the FFG-7 development concept (fast, cheap, directive and “good-enough”) - then we are heading to a fleet of 210 sooner more than later because…..
The non partisan Congressional Budget Office said the service will need annual shipbuilding budgets averaging nearly $21 billion between 2008 and 2037 to buy the 293 ships in its shipbuilding plan. That's about one-third more per year than the Navy's projected shipbuilding budgets, CBO said.
In a report to a House subcommittee, CBO said the Navy has underestimated the cost of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, first in a new series of flattops, by about $1 billion...and stand-by,
The Ford...is likely to cost about $11 billion, CBO said.
Neither CBO's new projections nor the Navy's cost estimates on the Ford include about $4 billion already spent on research and development for the new class of carriers.
Plus, the cost could run higher, as the first ship in a new series typically is more expensive than those that follow because shipbuilders are working out kinks in the design, shipbuilding experts say.How did we get here? Simple; a lack of accountability combined with a “culture of over-optimism.”
CBO said the Navy also has set its cost targets too low on the new Zumwalt-class destroyer, a planned series of cruisers known as CG(X), Virginia-class attack submarines, and a new series of amphibious assault ships, among other ships.
More heads on pikes please.