Home » Budget Industry » Navy Awards Ingalls 6 Destroyers, Bath Iron Works 4 in Multiyear Deal; Ingalls to Build Both 2018 Ships

Navy Awards Ingalls 6 Destroyers, Bath Iron Works 4 in Multiyear Deal; Ingalls to Build Both 2018 Ships

The Ingalls-built destroyer Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) launched at first light Saturday morning, Nov. 12, 2016. Ingalls Shipbuilding photo.

The Navy awarded six of its next Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to Ingalls Shipbuilding and four to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, in a combined $9-billion purchase right at the end of the fiscal year.

The two companies had been competing for work in a five-year multiyear procurement (MYP) deal that would cover at least 10 Flight III destroyers. The contracts span Fiscals Years 2018 – which ends on Sunday – through 2022.

“These contract awards are further evidence of the Navy’s continued delivery of lethal capacity to the nation with a sense of urgency while ensuring best value for the taxpayer,” Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said in a Navy news release.
“The Navy saved $700 million for these 10 ships by using multiyear procurement contracts rather than a single year contracting approach. We also have options for an additional five DDG 51s to enable us to continue to accelerate delivery of the outstanding DDG 51 Flight III capabilities to our Naval force. We executed this competition on a quick timeline that reflects the urgency in which the Navy and our industry partners are operating to ensure we meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy.”

Ingalls Industries’ contract is worth $5.1 billion and covers two ships in FY 2018 and one a year in FY 2019 through 2022. It also includes options for additional ships, which may be subject to a future competition with BIW.

Bath Iron Works’ contract is valued at $3.9 billion and covers one ship a year in 2019 through 2022 – and none in the short-term in 2018.

According to the Navy statement, “each shipbuilder’s contract contains options for additional ships in FY18/19/20/21/22, providing the Navy and/or Congress flexibility to increase DDG 51 build rates above the 10 MYP ships in the Navy’s FY 2018 budget request, if appropriated.”

Lawmakers in the House and Senate armed services committees have pushed for faster acquisition of the destroyers, and in the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act they authorized the Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement contract with the two builders for as many as 15 destroyers – three a year, compared to the previous shipbuilding rate of two a year.

The lawmakers on the appropriations committees only provided money to buy two ships in 2018, but they did fund three DDGs in the 2019 spending bill, which the Senate passed last week and the House passed this week. It is unclear if that third ship in FY 2019 would have to be competitively awarded or if the Navy would be allowed to select a shipyard based on schedule, performance or other factors – the contract announcement notes the options “may” be subject to a competitive process. Program officials had been mum during the competition on their acquisition strategy and how to handle options for additional ships.

All the ships covered under this pair of contracts is for the Flight III configuration, which is built around the powerful AN/SPY-6(v) Air and Missile Defense Radar.

“This procurement will efficiently provide Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability for our future fleet while strengthening our critical shipbuilding and defense industrial base,” DDG-51 program manager Capt. Casey Moton said in the news release.
“The Navy is proud to be working alongside the dedicated shipbuilders at BIW and Ingalls to continue to deliver these warships to the fleet.”

Moton told USNI News in a December 2017 interview that the contracts would be structured in such a way that additional ships – beyond the previous two-a-year rate – could be added easily if the Navy deemed it a priority in its spending request or if lawmakers wanted to add in more funding.

With this contract award, the two shipyards – who, for a time after the production line had restarted remained neck-and-neck on contract awards and deliveries – will further diverge. Ingalls Shipbuilding was awarded a contract in June 2017 to begin work on its first Flight III ship, DDG-125. Two months later, Bath Iron Works was awarded a contract that would have the yard build DDG-126 with a Flight III configuration but DDG-127 in the older Flight IIA design, like the rest of the ships in the previous multiyear procurement contract.

Though Navy and congressional officials would not comment while the competition was occurring, Bath Iron Works had been challenged to balance the Arleigh Burke-class program and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program. Keeping DDG-127 – which Congress incrementally funded in FY 2016 and 2016 – at the Flight IIA design would help ease the yard into Flight III production. The yard will not be building any new destroyers in FY 2018, according to the contract announcement, whereas Ingalls will take on two Flight III ships.

  • Ed L


  • Marjus Plaku

    With these coming on board and the future cruiser/whatever they decide to call it as well, air and surface defense is pretty much covered. The new Frigate should be focused on anti-submarine duties with sea/surface second. We have LCS for coastal/mine duty etc… To procure the FFG to be a half DDG half LCS type is just wasteful.

    • NavySubNuke

      Yes and no, they do need a basic level of air protection so that they don’t NEED to be operated with a DDG/battlegroup to have a chance at survival. One could imagine us in a war with China and shifting all of our DDGs there while using a force of FFG(x)’s to show the flag in the middle east.
      The LCS, with only a very limited emergency self defense capability – SEARAM only – from ASCMs, is completely unsuited to stand alone in this role. An FFG(x) as proposed by the Navy, with the scaled SPY-6 and VLS tubes loaded with SM-2/SM-6s as well as SEARAM, could actually provide a credible presence. Especially since the VLS tubes not loaded with SAMs could be loaded with strike missiles.

      • DaSaint

        Can’t really imagine a full-fledged war with China while having enough assets to ‘show the flag’ in the middle east. I’d think a war with China would escalate pretty quickly, with multiple theaters, including the middle east.

        • NavySubNuke

          Depends on what year the war starts of course. Right now it is hard to imagine them being able to sustain any kind of campaign in multiple theaters despite having their first ever base in Djibouti. That said, a decade plus from now – who knows.

  • DaSaint

    If my math is right, this means Flight III Burkes for $850M each for Ingalls and $975M each for BIW.

    If that’s the case, the new FFG(X) has to be well under that baseline. Also, BIW has been spanked again due to their yard issues, which probably means the Navy won’t trust them to them transition to Navantia’s F100.

    Starting to look as if the FFG(X) has to be cheap – that is under $700M, because the DDGs are now into FFG(X) pricing territory.

    • Nick

      If understand correctly your figures exclude Burkes GFE, government furbished equipment, funded directly both by Navy (SPY-6 etc) and Missile Defense Agency (Aegis), total cost ~ $2B per ship.

      Understand the equivalent ($850/$975M Navy budgetary figure for FFG(X) $495M and $850M+ for total cost, not to say that $700 would be a pleasant surprise.

      • Bubblehead

        Somewhere your math is wrong DaSaint, but I couldn’t tell you where. I have always seen figures of $2 billion a piece for ABIII. It might have to do with the options for more ships.

        And the price for the FFGX did not include GFE either Nick. It is supposed to be around $1 billion per hull NOT including govt furnished equipment.

        We really need to get this FFGX into the fleet fast. If it takes 5 years for an AB to hit the fleet for construction, how long will it take a FFGX?

        • Curtis Conway

          The two components to cost are HM&E, and the Combat System Suite (complete) for Tico. Back in the day the Spruance HM&E was $500M and the Aegis Combat System was $500M. Everything went into Magic Numbers on me after that.

          • DaSaint

            Thank you for saying this. Now I know it’s not just me.

        • Al L.

          “the price for the FFGX did not include GFE either Nick”

          Incorrect. Navy budgeting For FFG(x) is $950 million max all inclusive, $800 million target all inclusive, $495 million for BCC (the ship less GFE and other separately contracted costs).

          All this is plain as day on the bottom of page 5 of the latest CRS FFG(x) report

          So the FFG(x) complete is to cost no more than a Flt 3 Burke BCC. And the GFE on the flt 3 costs as much as the proposed complete FFG(x) .

        • DaSaint

          Bubblehead, it’s not ‘my’ math. Do it yourself. I didn’t write the article. I’m just doing simple division. Unless they’re awarding contracts differently, this is a severe departure from previous costs for single or two-vessel awards. In this case, one yard gets SIX and the other FOUR. Maybe, just maybe Trump does know how to wrangle extra money out of these contracts after all!

      • DaSaint

        These aren’t ‘my’ figures. This is the math from the figures in the article. Unless, we’re doing new math, these are the lowest numbers for a Burke I’ve ever seen, and I’m thinking it’s because of the large award in terms of numbers AND options.

    • Curtis Conway

      If those numbers are real then your conclusion makes sense. Makes one wonder just how much more we have been paying for destroyers. This also calls into question the estimated $3+ Billion for the double-ender stretch Burke Cruiser replacement. I further wonder how much of the new math effects the NSC costs? If it goes down commensurately, then an NSC based FFG(X) may actually be affordable even with the extra capability. A decent fiscally responsible administration really makes a difference, doesn’t it ? . . locally, intra/inter-state, nationally, and internationally.

      • PolicyWonk

        A decent fiscally responsible administration really makes a difference, doesn’t it ?
        It would – but neither this administration or the GOP are either, unfortunately.

        After years of the GOP pretending to be deficit and debt hawks during the Obama years, all it took was for them to get a POTUS too lazy to bother reading the summary of the budget he signed, for them to drop any pretense whatsoever of fiscal responsibility/prudence. Mr. Trump, as a result, didn’t even notice that his own party didn’t include so much as one thin dime to the acquisition of the land required to build his ever-so-cherished wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for.

        Tax breaks for the ultra wealthy also do not indicate any pretense of fiscal responsibility when our national debt is skyrocketing into the stratosphere, while the ultra wealthy have been given a massive new pile of money on the backs of the middle class.

        This is not how the US economy was designed to function, and even the GOP itself said they were “hoping” it would all work out (problem: no one buys the BRAVO SIERRA tax reform was useful for anything other than transferring a tremendous amount of wealth to the ultra-wealthy, which is why a large majority of GOP reps dropped it from their reelection campaigns). You might recall from the Obama years, that “hope” is not a policy or a plan, and that was according to the GOP.

        The GOP has since divorced itself from fiscal responsibility, and are now endangering the nation because its buying its own BRAVO SIERRA: if any of us ran our own finances the way the GOP does, while spending enough to make a drunken Kennedy blush with embarrassment, we’d all be living in cardboard boxes on the streets.

        Where by now you must realize I am a solid defense hawk, and a strong supporter of the finest navy the world has ever seen – I am also a dedicated fiscal conservative in the traditional Republican sense. This administration, and what passes for today’s Republican Party, are devoid of any semblance whatsoever of responsible economic management of this nations finances.

        If you have evidence that points to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

        • Curtis Conway

          There is merit to your argument . . . mostly. However, “…while the ultra wealthy have been given a massive new pile of money on the backs of the middle class.” must be supported by facts and be specific, not general. The middle class are really charging on now, most of whom are Small Businessman and Entrepreneurs who are no longer strangled with regulations, high taxes and health care cost.

          • PolicyWonk

            The US middle class now ranges from $45k to $135k per year. The tax breaks they got amount to little more than “lunch money”, as was touted by none other than Paul Ryan himself. When it comes to the GOP house and senate members that passed this glorious pile of legislation, and their own opinions w/r/t what the consequences would be:

            From Bloomberg: By a 2-to-1 margin — 61 percent to 30 percent — respondents said the law benefits “large corporations and rich Americans” over “middle class families,” according to the survey, which was completed on Sept. 2 by the GOP firm Public Opinion Strategies and obtained by Bloomberg News.

            Bottom line: The top 1% of US citizens saw 83% of the tax cuts.

            And, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said it was reasonable the tax cut would mostly benefit the rich because the poor just spend all their money on “booze or women or movies,” and Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) made it clear the voters’ opinion of the bill was irrelevant because his rich campaign donors were telling him “Get it done or don’t ever call me again.” After it was passed, House Speaker Paul Ryan boasted that the bill was a success because a secretary in Pennsylvania gained an extra $1.50 a week in take-home pay. And some other Republicans just openly celebrated that the bill put more money in their own pockets, with Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) buying a multimillion-dollar luxury yacht on the same day he voted to pass the bill.

            The GOP isn’t even trying to hide the open economic warfare they are committing against this nation, and its middle and poorer classes. And of course, when comparatively responsible politicians are elected and taxes are increased, they’ll of course howl like dogs, and be very angry that the nation finally smartened up.


          • W900A

            Don’t get pulled into the fair share baloney because high income people pay a much larger hunk of their income no matter how you slice it. Frankly I want a fair tax where EVERYBODY see’s the same level of burden. Don’t fall into the envy trap the socialists sell. Frankly the graft and how we buy things as a nation is far more of a problem and half the commenters on here I bet are swilling around the beltway gobbling it up. As someone who see’s foreign Navy’s on a regular basis, the Japanese and South Koreans are starting to produce some very good stuff. There are a couple classes in Europe worth watching in the FFG class. I for one do not think the Figlets were retired too soon. They were all but unarmed other then the helicopter. The MK13 was pulled off decades ago and replaced with.. nothing. The 76mm mounted where? While the hull and propulsion system seemed reliable and they had a decent sensor package other then the helicopters they were not a force projection tool at all. Not much more then a Coast Guard cutter actually. If you want to have a FFG based on that hull it needs to be new from the deck up with some actual weapons and something more then a 76mm. Frankly the Knox was more formidable with the 5″. Whatever it is needs 25 or more shots of AAW capability, a more formidable gun, maybe a secondary set of smaller caliber guns to deal with small boat swarms and maybe something truly unique, make them as fast as the CVN’s. Some 40kt ships would be handy. Back on taxes. Since the wealthy pay something like 90% of the revenue it wasn’t really bad to take some of that burden away. what we really need is to go through and slash all the unconstitutional crap and clear out all the social welfare waste. Defense is constitutional, much of this other stuff is just buying votes from this Democrat group or that group. The best social welfare program is a job and we now have plenty of those and the government has taken in record tax revenues this year even with the cuts.

          • Duane

            The fallacy of your position is painfully obvious.

            So a famliy living on one or two minimum wage jobs should bear the same tax burden as Donald Trump .. or as Jeff Bezos? Really? You think that? That’ is just plain wingnut nutty.

          • orygone

            What regulations have been cut have directly affected small business?

          • DaSaint

            Even the majority of EPA regulations remain, last time I checked.

    • NavySubNuke

      You are missing the rest of the stuff that the shipbuilders don’t get paid for – including the GFE. If you look at the SCN budget — just google Navy 2019 budget and click on the secnav link, the scn budget book is the second item down on the right hand side, page 148 of 300 — it shows a more clear picture and the price is about $1.8B. Page 152 of 300 breaks it down by cost center – i.e. basic construction, HM&E, ordinance, etc.

      • DaSaint

        NSN, I hear you, but I’ve NEVER seen a DOD contract award to either Ingalls or BIW for Burke contracts with numbers that low. NEVER. Unless they are changing the way they announce contracts, this award is the lowest per vessel cost I’ve ever seen for a Burke.

        USNI can chip in here with an explanation or clarification…

        • NavySubNuke

          The numbers are comparable to previous awards/announcements – check out this block buy announcement from 2013:

          “The 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.
          Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) is being awarded a $3,331,476,001 fixed-price-incentive firm target (FPIF) contract for the design and construction of five DDG 51 class ships, one each in FY 2013-2017.”

          Note that the costs in this are $700M for Bath and $660M for Ingalls.
          (Source: “DDG 51 Multiyear Procurement Contract Awarded” Release Date: 6/3/2013)

          • DaSaint

            Good find, NSN. I stand corrected and clarified. Thanks!

            Based on this, it appears that GFE is not included. It shows that a ‘bare’ Burke hull, sans many electronics, systems and weapons, isn’t that much more than the expected costs of the FFG(x) hull.

          • NavySubNuke

            Always happy to help!
            Yes but keep in mind the FFG(x) cost the Navy has put out is the total weapons system cost — not just the bare construction cost.
            You really should check out that page 152 of the SCN budget — sure it is boring to wade through all that but you learn a lot about how the Navy costs a ship.

    • Rocco

      Even that’s too much money!!

  • Arthur Vallejo

    As a staunch Democrat, thank you, President Trump, Secretary Mattis and our Republican-led Congress for your urgency in further developing American strength, and for your intelligent and far-sighted leadership in guiding our foreign policy. Peace and freedom through our awesome military power. I wish that our world and our species were kinder and wiser. GO NAVY!

    • Jeffrey Bohemier

      While I’m glad to see the Navy is looking to expand the fleet, we’re still short on having a well deversified Navy capable of covering all theat areas while being fully capable of providing Escort services to merchant vessels traveling in dangerous areas of the world. The Ticonderoga class cruisers should’ve already seen replacements entering the fleet, yet the next Cruiser type of warship has yet to even enter the design phase. Perry class FFG’s were prematurely decommissioned well before any realistic replacement was even considered. There’s already an ample number of DDG’s in the fleet to fulfill the role which DDG’s have historically provided. When it comes to combatants, we’re now operating a Navy based on only one class of ship. While they’re great ships, any flaw or vulnerability discovered would seriously hamper our entire Navy’s mission. What the Navy also needs is an all new class of Battleships capable of short to long range bombardment that can effectively hamper the capacity for a hostile force to threaten us without having to resort to using very expensive Tomahawk cruise missiles for fulfilling those threats. There’s numerous areas throughout the world where using a low tech solution can be equally as or more effective against a low tech threat. Such a ship could be large in nature and also fulfill the often discussed desire to have a class of ships with a much larger inventory and loadout of missiles.

      • Bubblehead

        Exactly what I worry about with the AEGIS system. It is without a doubt the best weapon system on the planet. Tests prove this. But that doesn’t mean a near peer could not find a vulnerability in it pretty much making the USN defenseless. Specifically a cyber vulnerability. Even the upcoming FFGX will use an AEGIS based system.

        You can ditto this for the F35 which in the coming years will comprise a significant portion of our fighter force for every branch.

        A lot of eggs in one or two baskets.

        And since we did not learn from the past, the entire Western fleet is based in undefended Hawaii. With modern weapons a surprise attack is 100% easier to accomplish using long range weapons.

        • LCDR

          Wondering how you would decrease the Hawaii problem. Where would you station those ships? And the infrastructure that would be needed to support them?

          • Bubblehead

            I’m not going to play an expert on what protections the US has for the fleet but I would suspect it is minimal. Russia & China protect their bases with sophisticated S2A defenses. The only US base that I am aware of protected likewise is Guam. I am not aware of any cruise missile defences. Maybe I’m wrong?

    • Bubblehead

      I wish more Democrats had your frame of mind. Glad to see there are still a few out there. And I honestly don’t mean this as a back handed complement but a sincere compliment.

      • vetww2

        I was a Dem since I voted for the great Harry Truman. I worked to get Prez Carter elected. Following his administration the party seemed to be on an inexorable move to the left. Prez Clinton almost reversed it, but his persoal troubles diminished what might have been a spectacular presidency. Since then, I have been disappointed to see an accelerated move by the Dems to a socilistic. base.

        If the editors feel this statement to be too political for this post, they have my permission to remove it, but I just had to get it off of my chest,

    • Duane

      You are faking your political registration, dude. Just as gazillions of Russian troll farm inmates claim to be US combat vets.

      Trump is horrible on national defense, I could list a thousand things he’s already screwed the pooch on, but we would all be bored by the lack of winning he has brought us so far.

      For starters, stopping all ROK-US defense exercises in return for … nothing … from North Korea. And that was AFTER Trump threatened an unprovoked nuclear attack on North Korea the year before. Launching trade wars against all of our allies. Trying to kill the F-35. Acting as Putin’s Puppy Dog.

      Etc. etc. etc.

      No Democrat would ever write what you wrote, and neither would most independents. And only a small minority of Republicans too prior to 2016… but now the GOP is thoroughly corrupted by Trumpism and has rejected virtually everything the GOP stood for since the end of World War Two. The GOP itself is RINO – Republican In Name Only.

      Oh, and by the way, these DDG 51 buys were programmed into the Navy’s plans many years before, under Obama.

      In any event, POTUS’s have zero control over navy expenditures anyway. Congress controls that lock stock and barrel, per our Constitution. And in case you didn’t notice, the defense appropriations bills and NDAA bills for the two years so far since Trump entered office passed by overwhelming veto proof (yes, Trump threatened as recently as one week ago to veto the 2019 defense appropriations you are cheering him for, including threatening to shut down the government) bipartisan majorities in both House and Senate. The Congress ignored what Trump asked for, and instead produced a much higher shipbuilding appropriation than in the Trump proposal that was ignored.

      • muzzleloader

        “No Democrat would ever write what you wrote”
        Why, because he isn’t the brain fried Trump hating bat that you are?
        And you are actually accusing him of being a Russian troll?
        You really do get your rocks off of insulting total strangers, don’t you?

        • vetww2

          I was asked to opine on our last 5 presidents on 3 points =
          A. how good a man was(is) he?
          B. would you want him as a friend?
          C. How good a president was (is) he?
          1 t0 5. 1 is poor 5 is best.
          Reagan…….HW Bush….Clinton…..GW ….Obama……Trump
          A……. 4 ………….. 5 ……………2………. 4…………3 ………….2
          B…….. 5…………….5,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2………..4,,,,,,,,,,,,2…………..1
          C……. 4…………….3 ……………5………. 3 ………. 2 ………… 4+

          YOUR TAKE?

      • Arthur Vallejo

        Your logical argument is irrefutable. I am trying, perhaps feebly, to help heal our unhealthy partisan divide. And I am trying to set an example of country before party.

      • Bubblehead

        Duane it is almost a foregone conclusion that A) no POTUS in history was as bad in foreign policy as Obama. Bush handed O a won Iraq, & won Afghan and he screwed both them up. ISIS didnt own 1 city block b4 O took office. By the time he left, ISIS controlled 4 Countries. Trump destroyed ISIS in 6 months. And let’s not even start with the Iran deal. O secretly shipped billions to the largest world sponsor terrorism. And US did not gain 1 thing in return. At the absolute minimum he could have gotten our hostages back, which are still rotting away in Iranian prison. I mean let’s think about this. O sending Iran billions dollars in secret and didn’t even to bother think hey let me at least free the hostages. And Duane-y b4 you go on some big anti trump rant, everything I said is a matter of stone cold fact. Name I single thing I said that is false.

        As far as NK goes, the last 3 POTUS passed the buck and did nothing. Don’t blame Trump for NK nukes. Remember in the 90’s Bill Clinton gave China nuclear missile technology? That tech ended up in NK hands. No shocker there.

  • RTColorado

    The Burke class Destroyers are a great design and outclasses anything any opponent can put out to sea…it is getting “long in the tooth”, but is more than adequate for the foreseeable future. The Navy needs to refine the next generation of technologies and then design a hull for it…but the Burke class can still do great service for a long time to come.

    • W900A

      Actually some of the Allied navies have some pretty comparable stuff these days. Japan, South Korea, a couple European classes. Now they are not opponents but given the capacity of the Chinese if they come up with something of their own it would not take long at all for them to have a massive fleet if they choose to do so.

      • RTColorado

        Agreed, the Europeans lack the speed…the Chinese build shoddy ships..they lack skills and it’ll take another complete generation to even begin to catch up…I can buy a lamborghini …and I could probably even drive it to Burger King and back…but I couldn’t take one out to a race and win with it util I’ve had a lot of practice and training.

  • CaptainParker

    Stifle yourself.

    • vetww2

      concur, a total idiot.

  • Frank Valente

    With modern missile technology all ships are simply sitting ducks, that goes for aircraft carriers and even stealth aircraft. The latest and future “smart” missiles will dominate in every way…there will be no way of defending against them especially when dozens are targeted at a battle group. it’s over folks, even small countries will have those missiles. Better for humanity to go to the next level and declare war unthinkable!

  • Ed L

    They need to make sure the LCS’s have blip enhance transmitters on board to protect the larger ships Can the LCS’s do convoy duty? Like the USS LCS(L)(3)102 during WW2 earning battle stars