Frigate and destroyer costs

I recently finished a blog post about using smaller ships to combat piracy and am having a bit of trouble coming up with the costs of the standard US Navy capital ships. The Littoral Combat Ships are pretty doggone expensive, judging from a Navy report about the program, but I can't find similar information for frigates and destroyers.

So if anyone else could point me to some good information I'd be grateful. For the Cyclone class patrol ships also; I have a ~$25 million figure for them, and though I have a .gov that says that's in the ballpark I wouldn't mind a more detailed program cost piece. :D

Thanks.

I can tell you that the cost for a DDG-51 Flight IIA Destroyer is $2,200,000,000 per ship according to the CBO. The DDG-51 Destroyer and the CG-47 Cruiser and the main ships in the U.S. fleet.

Source
CBO Report on Current and Projected
Navy Shipbuilding Programs

generally run from $350M to 1.5B or more, equipment and building nation dependent. Her's a list I got off the internet. It is from the "Canadian American Strategic Review" of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. I picked it up a couple of years ago. Their web site is apparently down right now so I cannot see if they have newer figures. They seem reasonable to me.

Quote:

---

[2] Unit costs for naval vessels (especially when averaged) are notoriously unreliable – there are simply too many variables and accounting practices. With that caveat in mind, the following are rough unit prices for the frigates mentioned in the text and the Single Class Surface Combatant.
• Danish – 1.5B Kr = $333M Cdn (Project Patruljeskibe)
• FREMM – 280M € = $447M Cdn (French version, diesel powered)
• FREMM – 350M € = $600M Cdn (Italian version, turbine powered)
• Dutch – 400M € = $639M Cdn (De Zeven Provinciën class)
(or up to – 450M € = $719M Cdn quotes vary according to source)
• Spanish – 400M € = $639M Cdn (F100/Nansen class, prices vary)
• Typ 125 – 550M € = $878M Cdn (projected German Fregatte Klasse F125)
• FREMM – 550M € = $879M Cdn (projected air defence version)
• Typ 124 – 700M € = $1.12B Cdn (German Sachsen class air defence frigate)
• CF SCSC – 1.06B € = $1.70B Cdn (Single Class Surface Combatant)"

---

Probably the wrong question. No reason to use / put at risk expensive Navy ships designed for far more complex operations than this.

For a fraction of the cost we could deploy a few contract vessels that can launch, recover, sustain RHIBs and Helos. I'm sure the good people at companies like Triple Canopy or Blackwater would be happy to pick up all or part of that operation.

Wow. Those frigates are a fair sight more expensive than I had expected (though I may have forgotten to adjust for inflation when I checked the globalsecurity sourge). Thanks though, it's a big help.

And to Mr. Bob's World: Yep, that's essentially the argument I'm making: you don't need the big expensive ships when littler ones will do the same job for less money; this is hampered by the fact that our navy doesn't like to have smaller ships. Contractors would do nicely too... But I think a lot of people would argue that, politically, private contractors are bad juju.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GC13

Wow. Those frigates are a fair sight more expensive than I had expected (though I may have forgotten to adjust for inflation when I checked the globalsecurity sourge). Thanks though, it's a big help.

And to Mr. Bob's World: Yep, that's essentially the argument I'm making: you don't need the big expensive ships when littler ones will do the same job for less money; this is hampered by the fact that our navy doesn't like to have smaller ships. Contractors would do nicely too... But I think a lot of people would argue that, politically, private contractors are bad juju.

---

As to that last bit

That's probably more so due to the fact they make great scapegoats for the agencies they are hired by when things start to get hot.

Seems like they would be better on accountability for the actions of their employees if that equated to more confidence in them by those that contracted them rather then what seems to be the norm of if something goes wrong they'll go to extraordinary lengths not to let it come out because doing so will almost guarantee large scale losses.

Just figure why would either of the two you mentioned want such a thing considering first time they actually shot someone they would probably find themselves up in front of an international war crimes commission.

Long and short contracting can provide a lot more for much less but in order to get that value from it you might be required to actually publicly acknowledge that value.

Contract vessels come with contract crews. You could put uniformed shooters on board. Great mission for Marines.

The USNS Stockham is contracted and provided by 7th Fleet to support OEF-Philippines, and it has been an absolute dream in terms of the type of persistent, low signature, flexible support that it can provide. In addition we contracted an ocean going tug as a support vessel to Maritime operations that has provided tremendous endurance and flexibility to US and Fil small boat operations under the direct control of the JSOTF Commander.

Bottom line is, that if the international community wanted to take the fun out of being a pirate, they could do so fairly easily, and it would not have to be a military effort (as this is really law enforcement anyway), or could be just partially supported or C2'd by military.

GC13,

It will be difficult to find a cost breakdown for the cyclones simply because of modifications done over the years and differences between the individual platforms. According to this GAO report, the average unit cost in 2004 dollars was $19.1 million. It varies of course, but for a fairly standard ship like the Cyclone, the Hull, engines, electrical and other basic systems are about 1/3 of the the total cost. The rest is in all the systems - electronics, weapons, etc., plus integration costs.

Quote:

---

Yep, that's essentially the argument I'm making: you don't need the big expensive ships when littler ones will do the same job for less money; this is hampered by the fact that our navy doesn't like to have smaller ships.

---

That all depends on the "job."

ships -- it just that smaller ships have limited utility. They have little seakeeping ability, they're physically hard on the crews, their payload is limited, thus they have no stamina and require support from larger ships. They have to transported to theaters by other ships due to their short sea legs. There are far more minuses than pluses.

If you but a slew of them to 'fight pirate' now, what do you do with them after the pirate menace disappears or gets down to an acceptable level? Storing ships and recalling them to active service later is an expensive way to do business, that's why we don't do that much nowadays.

There are other problems with your plan. You're going to have to kill a lot of Somalis. Who's going to take the flak for that? You're going to haul some to Court -- where? Who's going to pay for that?

Well, it is just "The Military Hobbyist" not "The Military Expert", but... :)

The fact of the matter is that the increased cost in procuring a bunch of small ships and operating them for a couple years is going to be less than the reduced costs of transporting goods you're going to get. And piracy will never go away; until Somalia's situation improves, as soon as you remove whatever patrols "stopped" the threat it will come right back in a year or so. Still, you'd be able to reduce operating expenses by cutting patrols, so long as they didn't go away entirely, gifting excess ships to local coast guards who need the firepower.

I mean, I'm talking about ships in the $25M and under category, not the $400M and over category. It's a lot of money to any reasonable person, but the military wastes this much in its sleep every night.

As for killing Somalis: I don't hear any outrage over the three hostage takers being shot by snipers on the Bainbridge.

As for trying them: Kenya is handling that at the moment.

On the small ships though, yeah you definitely wouldn't want the same guys seaside for too long at once. I hear the smaller ones can be pretty rough, but I don't know how bad it would be on a fifty meter vessel. They'd need tenders in the area, sure, but you wouldn't be doing your heavy lifting with destroyers...

But... Wait! Why are we arguing in my request for info thread? We can argue in the comments on my blog so much more happily. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GC13

The fact of the matter is that the increased cost in procuring a bunch of small ships and operating them for a couple years is going to be less than the reduced costs of transporting goods you're going to get.

---

Are you sure about that? Do you have anything to back that up?

Quote:

---

And piracy will never go away; until Somalia's situation improves, as soon as you remove whatever patrols "stopped" the threat it will come right back in a year or so.

---

Piracy never has gone away - which leads me to ask: What has changed where new, smaller ships are suddenly so badly needed to fight piracy? When in history has such a strategy ever done much to impact piracy?

Quote:

---

Still, you'd be able to reduce operating expenses by cutting patrols, so long as they didn't go away entirely, gifting excess ships to local coast guards who need the firepower.

---

The problem is that patrolling (especially if that is all you're doing) doesn't do much against piracy for the same reasons that police patrolling doesn't stop crime. The ocean is simply too big to maintain the required presence, no matter how big your ships are. In the long history of piracy, patrolling has never worked.

The Navy could end about 90% piracy in Somalia in a few days if ordered to do so. That would be a cheaper route than spending a couple of years buying new ships, training crews, etc. if cost is your primary concern. It would also be more effective. So the real question you might want to ask is why hasn't the Navy been given that order?

Quote:

---

I mean, I'm talking about ships in the $25M and under category, not the $400M and over category. It's a lot of money to any reasonable person, but the military wastes this much in its sleep every night.

---

Procurement is not the most significant cost in the long run.

Quote:

---

On the small ships though, yeah you definitely wouldn't want the same guys seaside for too long at once. I hear the smaller ones can be pretty rough, but I don't know how bad it would be on a fifty meter vessel. They'd need tenders in the area, sure, but you wouldn't be doing your heavy lifting with destroyers...

---

All of Ken's comments against small ships are valid, but one he doesn't mention is the ability to support helicopters. A bigger ship with a couple of helos is a lot more effective than a bunch of smaller vessels.

ship AND my life cycle costs... :mad:

However, they got mentioned and by whom isn't important. Good post, BTW, Entropy....:cool:

Nothing wrong with being a Hobbyist and Experts don't always get it right, GC13 -- however, while you're correct that Piracy will never go away, it can be brought down to acceptable levels. The best mechanism to do that is ashore, it is by the Somalis themselves.

It's not a question of fear or inability, it is a question of costs. Just as your small ship solution is not the best for grappling with Pirates. A big deck Amphib with a slew of Helicopters can provide far, far greater area coverage and do Pirates far more damage than a fleet of patrol craft and can do that at less overall cost in dollars. Plus those big ships and the birds have other uses, your patrol craft are pretty much purpose designed. Get rid of Somali piracy and then what do you use those small craft for? Latin American and Malacca Piracy? Don't think those folks want our help, not at all. We've been barging in where we aren't wanted for a long time but the world is changing and that needs to stop.

Back to Piracy off Somalia. The costs in human terms differ. For us, the big ship and Helo solution is far easier on people even aside from its significantly greater effectiveness. For the Pirate, it provide deterrence instead of capture -- capture requires trials and such -- and the captured folks will just be replaced by others. Deterrence is far cheaper than arrests. If you start a war with the Pirates, you're going to have to kill a lot of Somalis and you're going to make the rest of the world believe all its ever thought about evil America. That's a cost.

It's also a cost that will not lessen the problem. Some people in this world are like Yellow Jackets, they fly around doing their individual thing until someone gets too close to the nest -- then they swarm. Somalis are like that. You start attacking and you're going to have to kill an awful lot of Somalis and you still will not deter them. What will deter them is the consensus of their own Elders that the cost to the Somalis is not worth the benefits.

Destroy their boats from afar, that's a deterrent but it will not stop piracy. Capture their boats at sea -- same thing. The old dudes say 'Stop' to the young men and it will have to become a surreptitious effort as it was a few years ago, that will put it back down to an acceptable level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

(Taken from) Piracy never has gone away - which leads me to ask: What has changed where new, smaller ships are suddenly so badly needed to fight piracy? When in history has such a strategy ever done much to impact piracy? In the long history of piracy, patrolling has never worked.

---

I am neither a sailor or historian, surely there is a parallel between slavery and piracy? Recently in the muted (UK) public commeroration of the Royal navy's anti-slavery patrolling - off West Africa mainly - much was made of it's effectiveness (I am sure there are references). Incidentally the RN did anti-slavery patrolling in the same waters as today's piracy between WW1 and WW2 - intercepting movements between East Africa and the Arabian pleninsula. IIRC the RN used frigates.

On less certain grounds I recall the Israeli Navy deployed far south in the Red Sea, to protect their shipping (mainly oil supplies?) and used small patrol boats, the Reshef class?

On reflection perhaps supplying local partners with small ships, akin to the coastguard type, would be of assistance and the richer nations could supply the "legs" and helicopters.

davidbfpo

(Also copied to the Somali piracy thread).

Ken,

It's about time I beat you to the punch on something! :D

David,

I don't know much about the Brits and the slave trade, honestly. From what little I've read, it had some impact, but obviously did not end the trade.

Small boats aren't useless. In restricted seas or coastal areas, they can operate pretty well - most Navies are actually primarily composed of those kind of small, coastal patrol vessels and for a country defending/patrolling their own waters, it makes sense.

Through history the pirate problem is almost always "solved" either through a political agreement, destruction of pirate safe havens, or both. Patrolling will, at best, keep a lid on things. For example, various naval forces patrolled the Arabian sea in the 17th and 18th centuries to fight piracy, but it wasn't finally ended until the British captured some key ports and forced a treaty (one that eventually led to modern-day UAE).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GC13

The fact of the matter is that the increased cost in procuring a bunch of small ships and operating them for a couple years is going to be less than the reduced costs of transporting goods you're going to get. And piracy will never go away; until Somalia's situation improves, as soon as you remove whatever patrols "stopped" the threat it will come right back in a year or so. Still, you'd be able to reduce operating expenses by cutting patrols, so long as they didn't go away entirely, gifting excess ships to local coast guards who need the firepower.

---

Golly gee willikers--This sure sounds like the argument made by Thomas Jefferson for his gunboat navy approach to the Barbary problem. Funny thing is that back then, the US Government really was poor so it might have made a liitle more sense.

Here it is folks..one stop shopping,how to build a gunboat, how to sail it,how blow up pirate ships,how to board their ship,how fight them on the ship Deck and some other stuff to. from the making of the movie "The Sand Pebbles" 1966.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8tpClQVVhs