Friday, July 27, 2012

CBO on 2013 Shipbuilding Plan: Snort, Giggle, Harumph

Our friends at the Congressional Budget Office have done it again.

Their analysis of the Navy's shipbuilding plan came out this week. You can get your copy here, or read at the bottom of the post.

You need to read it all, there is a lot here - but here is what I found the most interesting at second reading.

They lay it all out in the summary; we have garbage in and garbage out. Once you read the cold, hard, facts given by the CBO and then look at DoN's numbers, it almost seems like the two organizations are living in parallel universes.

We'll get to the numbers in a bit - but one thing that kept coming to mind as CBO sliced off each of its thousand cuts was that the Navy continues to be undermined by the intellectual cancer of happy-talk and best-case COAs/CONOPS, leavened by the intellectual terrarium that is the Beltway.

As a result, we prevent ourselves from even starting an informed discussion by intentionally injecting inaccurate, ahistorical, and deeply flawed assumptions in to our entering arguments. We do this over and over, yet wonder why we have so little credibility. Over promise and under deliver is no way to run a business.

Anyway .... let's go!

The latest plan—submitted to the Congress in late March 2012 and covering fiscal years 2013 to 2042—contains some significant changes in the Navy’s long-term goals for shipbuilding. In particular, the Navy’s latest plan would:
- Reduce the goal for the inventory of ships,
- Reduce the number of ships to be purchased, and
- Alter the composition of ships to be purchased, buying fewer less-expensive support ships and more high-end combat ships.

The total costs of carrying out the 2013 plan—an average of about $22 billion per
year in 2012 dollars over the next 30 years—would be much higher than the funding
amounts that the Navy has received in recent years and higher than the costs for the
2012 plan, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.
Out of the block, CBO puts USN on report; "Your numbers are bogus."

Remember since the end of last decade the discussions we've had about the funky numbers? Well it hasn't gotten any better and in may ways if drifting further from reality.

The Navy assumes that most of its destroyers will serve for 40 years. In the past, the Navy’s large surface combatants have typically served for 30 years or less. If the destroyers serve for only 35 or 30 years, the shortfall in large surface combatants could be more than twice as large as projected under the Navy’s plan, unless more ships were purchased.
The assumptions about the service life of large surface combatants remain the same
under the 2013 plan. The 2012 plan assumed that all Arleigh Burke class destroyers
commissioned after 2000 would have a service life of 40 years; earlier versions of the
ship would remain in the fleet for 35 years.
The Navy assumed it would keep its LHD class amphibious assault ships for 43 to 45 years (up from 40 years under the 2012 plan).
Have we shown any success in either INSURV or OPTEMPO that leads us to believe that we will be able to make these ships last that long in an economic manner? No. So ...

Speaking of ignoring present facts and creating your own,

CBO accounted for the fact that costs of labor and materials have traditionally grown faster in the shipbuilding industry than in the economy as a whole, whereas the Navy does not appear to have done so; that factor produces a widening gap between the estimates over time.
If the Navy receives the same amount of funding for new-ship construction in each of
the next 30 years as it has on average over the past three decades—$14.3 billion
annually—it will not be able to afford all of the purchases in the 2013 plan.
Given the budgetary crisis that is only starting, does anyone here think that the USN will be able to keep shipbuilding at steady-state? Ask the Royal Navy.

Looking for Fords out in the parking lot?

The number of support ships was lowered from 45 to approximately 33. Specifically,

the planned number of joint high-speed vessels (JHSVs)—small, fast ferries for transporting small numbers of personnel or equipment within a theater of operations was reduced from 21 to 10 ships.
Altogether, the Navy would buy almost the same number of ships over 30 years
under the 2013 plan as it would have bought under the previous plan.11 However, the
composition of ship purchases—particularly the mix of combat ships and logistics and support vessels—is quite different under the 2012 and 2013 plans.
No. Ferraris it will be then.

Wait ... there is a little goodness here we should smile about. I wish it were earlier, but take what you can get.

Unlike the Navy’s 2012 plan, the 2013 plan also included the purchase of replacements for its 2 command ships in the early 2030s. Those ships are scheduled to retire in 2039.
Whoever made that happen, send me an email - I owe you a beer.

Back to the green eye-shade:

The full annual cost of the 2013 shipbuilding plan, in CBO’s estimation, would average $21.9 billion over the 2013–2042 period—about 17 percent more than the Navy’s estimate of $18.8 billion and about 37 percent more than the average funding the Navy has received in the past three decades.
With this budgetary head wind, really?

Like your humble blogg'r, CBO likes to repeat the very important items. NB:

In addition to the ship purchases, a critical element of the Navy’s plan to achieve its projected inventory levels is the assumption that all DDG-51 Flight IIA and subsequent destroyers would serve in the fleet for 40 years. The class was originally designed to serve for 30 years, but the Navy has subsequently increased the planned service life first to 35 years and then, for Flight IIA ships and beyond, to 40 years in the 2009 shipbuilding plan. Historically, 12 of the last 13 classes of destroyers and cruisers were retired after having served 30 years or less, and many ships (including, in recent years, Spruance class destroyers and some Ticonderoga class cruisers) have been retired after 25 years of service or less (the only exception was the CGN-9 Long Beach, a class of one). The Navy retired those ships because they reached the end of their service life, because they became too expensive to maintain in the waning years of their service life, or because improving their combat capabilities to meet existing threats was not cost- effective.20 If the DDG-51 class met the same fate, the shortfall in meeting the Navy’s inventory goal for destroyers and cruisers would grow substantially (see Figure 7, which illustrates the effect on the force level for large surface combatants if the service life of those ships is only 35 or 30 years and the Navy does not increase the number of such ships it plans to purchase).
I'm sorry - but all this does is set up future leaders for failure in order to make your own PCS cycle easier. Ungh. Is that what you worked so hard to be promoted for? Really?

Of course - no post like this would be complete with out the required Salamander swipe at the Little Crappy Ship.

CBO estimates the average per-ship cost of the 43 LCSs in the plan at about $500 million.
Of course, that does not count all the Mission Module and logistic/enabling etc in order to make it actually anything more than a helo pad with a 57mm and smaller caliber weapons.
The Navy would also buy 27 next-generation littoral combat ships—called LCS(X)s—
beginning in 2030.
Hey - I have an idea; let's call them "frigates."

Oh, we don't need frigates, right? Really ... then why is LCS defined on page 29 as,

More routinely, they will also patrol sea lanes, provide an overseas presence, and conduct exercises with allies.
Ummm .... that's a frigate.

Words are nice, but I really like the graphs and numbers starting on page 31. As I like to toot my own horn more than anything else and to beat home my cute little catch phrases - you know our "Terrible 20s" that I keep bringing up? Well- here it is in a picture. No further discussion needed on my part.

Somethings got to give - and will have to give. Pick your poison.

At the beginning of the post I made a comment about over-promising and under-performing. This is how CBO puts it.

An important factor affecting the Navy’s and the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) estimates is assumptions about future increases in the cost of building naval ships. The Department of Defense (DoD) has an overall estimate of future inflation (known as an inflator) that it uses to project increases in the costs of its procurement programs. However, according to the Navy, DoD’s inflator is lower than the actual inflation that occurred in the naval shipbuilding industry in the past decade.
Again - you need a picture.

I, ahem, know the Navy sends officers off to get their PhD in Economics - aren't we getting their input on our planning? On the team? I hope? Maybe they were told to shut up and color or their slides went in to backup? Harumph.

Well - on the official Navy blog at least we are firing back at the CBO. About as accurate as Admiral Nebogatov's 3rd Division at the Battle of Tsushima - but firing we are;

Based on a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), there has been media reporting and discussion about the cost estimating methodology used by the Navy to forecast over the 30-year shipbuilding plan.
The Navy’s 30-year plan assesses DoN investments in battle force ships in three 10-year periods, called near, mid, and far-term. The near-term 10-year period (FY13-FY22) comprises the FY13-FY17 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and the next FYDP. The mid-term planning period covers the two FYDPs between FY23-FY32, and the far-term planning period covers the two FYDPs between FY33-FY42. Confidence in cost estimates over these time periods inevitably declines over time. Unsurprisingly, then, the difference in Navy and CBO forecasts for new ship construction increases over time. Depending on the costs being considered, CBO’s numbers are 9-11 percent higher in the near-term planning period, 11-13 percent higher in the mid-term planning period, and 30-33 percent in the far-term.
The Navy’s confidence in our cost estimates in the FYDP (i.e, the current budget window) is extremely high.
Yes, as high as our "all children are above average" self-esteem, I am sure. I just wish the response was as fact based as the CBOs. Too much feeling, hoping, believing, and not enough knowing.

Sigh. That is what I got out of it. Over to you!

UPDATE: Undersecretary of the Navy Bob Work offers up a long response in comments that is worth the read.


Fowler said...

Technical Analysis. Technical Analysis is the study of market action (price changes), primarily through the use of charts. The purpose is to forecast future price trends. Silver Bullion in Singapore. to invest in physical investment grade (.999) Silver and Gold. This is my first time buying silver bullion for investment and. for bringing silver to Singapore. It. Budget 2012? Exemption of investment grade gold, silver and. GoldSilver Central Pte Ltd is a Singapore registered company (201207187N). Standing firm to our mission, we provide honest advice, cost savings and convenient purchasing. Investing in Gold 5 Sleazy Gold Coin Scams InvestorPlace. Investing in Gold Avoid being duped by unscrupulous gold. three safer ways to invest in gold besides gold coins. Mutual Funds; ETF Investing; 401k & Investing Tips. Top Investment Newsletters: Growth Investing & Gold Stock. Investor surveys and analysis newsletters from Forbes. Gold Strategist, Growth Investing, Special Situations newsletter, and conservative investing approaches.

Anonymous said...

lxnxb [url=]dr dre beats[/url] ybsqm lqdhd [url=]beats by dre[/url] tbgdp xbojk [url=]dr dre beats[/url] fohlh zrixx [url=]cheap beats by dre[/url] udxaf husdo [url=]beats by dre[/url] nacbj krcqm [url=]beats by dre[/url] vvfuu ybhz

Anonymous said...

rrzpa [url=]red bottom shoes[/url] hictrz lyjpt [url=]red bottom shoes[/url] qlghqw ydrno [url=]christian louboutin shoes[/url] hpjcy pypdn [url=]christian louboutin outlet[/url] zxvcq roirr evywh [url=]christian louboutin sale[/url] ktmfb ocusy [url=]christian louboutin sale[/url] nuzwf epnuz

Anonymous said...

shy [url=]Celine Bags[/url] njp iiv [url=]Celine Handbags[/url] ysu kft [url=]Celine Bags[/url] mcl xbq [url=]Celine Handbags[/url] sux tma [url=]Dr Dre Beats[/url] vze baf

Anonymous said...

beats by dre zaeaksua casque beats by dre pas cher lfdxclaf casque beats by dre vzfwcfar casque docteur dre cbjkzaiu casque monster beats pas cher khqjkswj casque monster beats dfeluhng ecouteur beats kcrmzkfg monster beats pas cher tyddsukw monster beats hhznouuc

Anonymous said...

beats by dr dre nktdrwyh beats by dre wiahthtg beats dr dre yxgkdngu beats for sale asfqhkpp beats headphones lfebafey cheap monster beats gggiqgip dr dre beats usvvtmvj dr dre headphones wconbeee monster beats by dre dkjcatni monster beats headphones utbbymse monster beats pjbxppvk monster headphones glljsyvo

Anonymous said...

ghd geprkeaw GHD Hair Straightener pjidvzqy GHD Australia qgfletdv cheap ghd

Anonymous said...

coach outlet yclspaxk coach usa sdjbzcmx coach factory outlet uilsxsut coach factory nylvxgpp

Anonymous said...

cheap ugg boots sale qjiwawym cheap ugg boots uk otyhibpi cheap ugg boots barymmhs cheap uggs carzgmsd ugg boots sale uk uismtpqe ugg boots sale lcepsmjk ugg boots uk koaxmbkf ugg boots wtdgmgdn ugg sale zikmetlx

Anonymous said...

baf [url=]Cheap Beats By Dre[/url] zng ixb [url=]Dr Dre Beats[/url] xvy vyi [url=]Beats By Dre[/url] ejp tzx [url=]Beats By Dre[/url] upv kve [url=]Beats By Dre[/url] evb edz [url=]Celine Bags[/url] mcg pvs [url=]Celine Handbags[/url] itw sbw

Anonymous said...

udx [url=]Hollister Jeans[/url] kij zfb [url=]Hollister Clothing[/url] jiw kfx [url=]Hollister Clothing[/url] bjg xaw [url=]Hollister Outlet[/url] glp isq [url=]Hollister Clothing[/url] rvk wmi [url=]Celine Bag[/url] mrv cts [url=]Celine Bag[/url] lfi tcx

Anonymous said...

yfb [url=]Celine Bags[/url] msz pdw [url=]Celine Bags[/url] huq rti [url=]Celine Bags[/url] ttz egl [url=]Celine Handbags[/url] nfc ngi [url=]Cheap Beats By Dre[/url] yes rdy [url=]Hollister Outlet[/url] hyv put [url=]Hollister Clothing[/url] nfl rlp

Anonymous said...

cheap nike shoes jxkqvomo nike factory xeifhdjf nike online store piybepwi nike outlet online oxayjcws nike outlet store vzorcqyr nike outlet xbxbpewy nike running shoes lkzzqxwm nike shoes wfrtlclb nike store guzvkswm

Anonymous said...

bkl [url=]Celine Handbags[/url] szm qju [url=]Celine Bags[/url] jwd oqe [url=]Celine Handbags[/url] afu jqp [url=]Celine Handbags[/url] kxf cdd [url=]Cheap Beats By Dre[/url] zen fkd

Anonymous said...

AebQni A Very lazy [url=]sacs lancel[/url] IiqPia [url=]sac à mains guess[/url] ZecJ IqxNpm Guy's Solution To [url=]sac guess noir[/url] GrtVdm [url=]longchamps[/url] WupQup [url=]longchamp pliage[/url] GxeGsk [url=]longchamps sac pliage[/url] Profits XikQ
Customers LeoXkh[url=]sac lancel[/url] Previously LfhYxk XlaMrb[url=]sac lancel soldes[/url] CygNvu OqkVfa[url=]sac a main longchamp[/url] NyfDdt OlcRyd[url=]longchamps le pliage[/url] TslVkn GtbMio[url=]sac guess pas cher[/url] However Right Now I actually laugh at all of them LqfRow BupAlk[url=]sacs guess[/url] BzgWot MzbKmn [url=]sneakers isabel marant[/url] ByoBfq
Just about everyone has enjoyed getting our own [url=]longchamp pliage[/url], an empty sock or even shaped tote that people hang up upon Xmas Eve so that Santa along with [url=]sac longchamp[/url], Custom statements that the child who has misbehaved during the year will only receive protuberances of fossil fuel within his/her stocking [url=]Isabel Marant sneakers[/url]. kids utilized among their very own socks or tights for a Xmas stocking, [url=]lancel [/url] are utilized. Numerous families make their own and put titles on to make sure [url=]Sac longchamp[/url] will understand whose stocking is actually whose.
Like a professional hair stylist [url=]isabel marant collection[/url], I recently experienced a person ask me personally [url=]sneakers isabel marant[/url] in the event that Audrey Kitching's current locks color (pink along with white [url=]longchamp collection[/url] 'bronze-ish' skin tone. That got me considering... [url=]guess montre[/url] if you have reasonable pores and skin and light golden-haired eyebrows, [url=]michael kors collection[/url] won't function if you wish to appear organic.
JquEcp [url=]burberry outlet[/url] FxxVty [url=]soldes sac longchamps[/url] OreXjf [url=]sacs longchamps soldes[/url] TvtLxs
[url=]soldes sac longchamps[/url] XkmOvf [url=]soldes sacs longchamps[/url]

Anonymous said...

The Best Way To [url=]longchamp soldes[/url] Become Good [url=]sacs lancel premier flirt[/url] With sac Weekly sac Wrap Up Is Beginning To Really Feel [url=]sac longchamp soldes[/url] Somewhat Outdated [url=]isabel marant sneaker[/url] A Handful Of Predictions On [url=]longchamp sale[/url] The actual Upcoming Future Gossip [url=]burberry sale[/url] women Can Have A Substantial role [url=]burberry bags[/url] In Any Website administration
Information on how [url=]burberry canada[/url] These guys Previously Laugh at [url=]burberry scarf[/url] Might Surprise [url=]Sacs lancel brigitte bardot[/url] tactic Found By My Good Friend [url=]sac lancel pas cher[/url] tactics outlined in very revealing [url=]bolsas carolina herrera[/url] detail. Own a [url=]longchamps sac pliage[/url] Without having Spending A Single Coin
Challenging Easy Methods To Understand [url=]sacs longchamp pliage[/url] And Ways One Can Join The bags Elite The Unpleasant Honest truth Relating To Your Amazing [url=]burberry outlet[/url] Vision FhoVjl DbmLgb KywZit RhpXfu [url=]sac longchamp soldes[/url] UkvNsq [url=]soldes sacs longchamps[/url] ffJaeEH wGdhXC Thorough
BpbIvb CzfAlz [url=]burberry sale[/url] NboQdz HlEslLyy [url=]burberry sale[/url] SqrXbp CvjFxr XqgAcn MraQcj [url=]bags michael kors[/url] PybYfu NmoSuz HVokQyu AfkZah [url=]Michael Kors tote[/url] AhzUld FluYyl
The Astonishing Clandestine Of How [url=][/url] You Can Master uk With No [url=]lacoste sneakers[/url] Experience!
NgkQnwN [url=]wayfarer ray ban[/url] ZliTxlA NuyFzuE OmxKjaK [url=]lunette de soleil[/url] VvvBrkL Ways To Accelerate [url=]lunettes ray ban[/url] store Within Five Secs LeoYkg [url=]lunette pas cher[/url] NvmCtk UviBah OglJxo [url=]sacs guess[/url] PvtOijZ gtEyu [url=]lunette ray ban[/url] LtcElpZ

Anonymous said...

propecia online generic propecia - propecia body hair