Ohio class submarine initial cost?
- Thread starter Aretaku
- Start date
Back during the late 1970s when the first few were appropriated, they cost over $2 billion in US dollars, during the mid-1980s the last few cost close to $3 billion. Recently, the first four have been converted from ballistic to tomahawks for the price of $800 million each. The Ohio class were built to last 40 years. In today's dollars they would probably cost at least $4 billion, if not $5 billion each.
The Los Angeles class of SSNs cost around a billion each, the Seawolf SSNs cost over $2 billion each, and the new Virginia class is running over $1.6 billion each, by the end of the program costs are expected to rise to $2 billion each.
The above prices reflect building costs, not R&D. When you include the R&D costs, the three Seawolfs cost $18 billion. However, the Seawolf design amounted to only 3 submarines, before the US Navy searched for a cheaper alternative. The Los Angeles class of SSNs is the largest class of nuclear propelled submarines America built, some 62 were built.
The Los Angeles class of SSNs cost around a billion each, the Seawolf SSNs cost over $2 billion each, and the new Virginia class is running over $1.6 billion each, by the end of the program costs are expected to rise to $2 billion each.
The above prices reflect building costs, not R&D. When you include the R&D costs, the three Seawolfs cost $18 billion. However, the Seawolf design amounted to only 3 submarines, before the US Navy searched for a cheaper alternative. The Los Angeles class of SSNs is the largest class of nuclear propelled submarines America built, some 62 were built.
These cost figures come from a number of old sources, Combat Fleets of the World and old Proceedings magazines, some issues as old as 1977. I repeat, cost figures are very misleading, some refer to price per submarine, other cost figures reflect R&D costs.
The Seawolf class of SSNs for example including R&D was from the current issue of Combat Fleets of the World. There was a large R&D effort and expenditure for the Seawolfs, whereas the Virginia class of SSNs R&D expenditure wasn't as much.
Frankly, I don't like to answer costs questions because its difficult to narrow down the price per ships because it depends on programme R&D, the number of ships bought per class overall, the number of ships bought per year, and which year the ship was bought, ships built early in a long programme cost less in the beginning and cost more at the end of a programme.
There is a huge difference in FY dollars as well. Obviously ships cost less in FY 77 dollars as compared to FY 97 dollars.
As I recall New Zealand purchased two Anzac class frigates in FY 88 for $NZ 470 million each, or $NZ 940 million dollars. New Zealand passed on purchasing one or two more for the same FY 88 price during 1998-1999, ten years later. One of the reasons why Australia and Tenix offered these extra ships at a price ten years prior more than likely reflected a 12 ship programme versus a 10 ship programme. Acquiring ships in numbers usually result in a lower price.
Another example of this confusion is the price of Australia's upcoming LHDs. Combat Fleets says the Mistral cost $235 million in US dollars back during FY 2000, while Australia is willing to spend $2 billion Australian dollars for two, or $1 billion Australian each during FY 2007. The last I looked the US dollar wasn't worth two Australian dollars. It appears if the Australians purchase this LHD they are also paying for some of France's R&D costs. Not to mention seven years of inflation have inflated the price. Australia is probably paying for a complete support package too, which the French more than likely didn't include.
The Seawolf class of SSNs for example including R&D was from the current issue of Combat Fleets of the World. There was a large R&D effort and expenditure for the Seawolfs, whereas the Virginia class of SSNs R&D expenditure wasn't as much.
Frankly, I don't like to answer costs questions because its difficult to narrow down the price per ships because it depends on programme R&D, the number of ships bought per class overall, the number of ships bought per year, and which year the ship was bought, ships built early in a long programme cost less in the beginning and cost more at the end of a programme.
There is a huge difference in FY dollars as well. Obviously ships cost less in FY 77 dollars as compared to FY 97 dollars.
As I recall New Zealand purchased two Anzac class frigates in FY 88 for $NZ 470 million each, or $NZ 940 million dollars. New Zealand passed on purchasing one or two more for the same FY 88 price during 1998-1999, ten years later. One of the reasons why Australia and Tenix offered these extra ships at a price ten years prior more than likely reflected a 12 ship programme versus a 10 ship programme. Acquiring ships in numbers usually result in a lower price.
Another example of this confusion is the price of Australia's upcoming LHDs. Combat Fleets says the Mistral cost $235 million in US dollars back during FY 2000, while Australia is willing to spend $2 billion Australian dollars for two, or $1 billion Australian each during FY 2007. The last I looked the US dollar wasn't worth two Australian dollars. It appears if the Australians purchase this LHD they are also paying for some of France's R&D costs. Not to mention seven years of inflation have inflated the price. Australia is probably paying for a complete support package too, which the French more than likely didn't include.
Last edited:
I wanted to add the Ohio class programme ran 18 years, one was ordered each year. Obviously the first ones cost much less than the last ones.
On the other hand Los Angeles class submarines were ordered in two and threes, during the Reagan years 3 were ordered at a price not much more than the 2 during the Carter years. The Navy awarded two to the cheapest bidder each year, and one to the other. During some years Electric Boat was awarded two and in other years Newport News was awarded two.
With the Nimitz class of aircraft carriers, at one point in the Reagan years Congress ordered two very close together saving considerable funds. Also during the Reagan years Congress ordered up to seven Oliver Hazard Perry frigates for a few fiscal years saving considerable funds during the drive to build up the US Navy to 700 ships.
Today the US is building only one SSN each year and the price has skyrocketed. If we decided to build two the second wouldn't be much cheaper, but if we decided to build three the third probably wouldn't cost as much as the first and second.
On the other hand Los Angeles class submarines were ordered in two and threes, during the Reagan years 3 were ordered at a price not much more than the 2 during the Carter years. The Navy awarded two to the cheapest bidder each year, and one to the other. During some years Electric Boat was awarded two and in other years Newport News was awarded two.
With the Nimitz class of aircraft carriers, at one point in the Reagan years Congress ordered two very close together saving considerable funds. Also during the Reagan years Congress ordered up to seven Oliver Hazard Perry frigates for a few fiscal years saving considerable funds during the drive to build up the US Navy to 700 ships.
Today the US is building only one SSN each year and the price has skyrocketed. If we decided to build two the second wouldn't be much cheaper, but if we decided to build three the third probably wouldn't cost as much as the first and second.