Will Earmarks Push Change in the Naval Shipbuilding Culture?

Earmarks are often characterized as a means for a public official to circumvent the public finance system to provide funding for a specific expenditure usually associated in some way in US politics with the geographic location specific to the constituency of the politician proposing the earmark. An earmark almost always carries a negative connotation to it, because in general it is considered an exploits taxpayer money in a way that assigns specific purpose to money that would otherwise be allocated through the general fund. The negative implication behind those utilizing earmarks is that it provides an avenue for corruption or kickbacks by the receiver of the business receiving a contract through earmarks, and in fact it happens quite often.

Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., appears hell bent on using earmarks to push his theories on the Navy, and the Navy appears hell bent on resisting. For one, the theories Duncan Hunter is pushing do not fit nicely into the Navies current plan, and second the specific items being pushed are not necessarily on the priority radar as far as the Navy is concerned. Both projects, however, are interesting in that they are definitely transformational by the Navy's own definition, more so even than many of the Navy's own projects, and both of them would very much effect the current 313-ship plan that appears dead on arrival anyway.

The first project is the Sea Fighter (FSF 1), which through earmarks Duncan Hunter wants to be commissioned into the US Navy, and utilized in a way the Navy really doesn't want to use it... namely as a patrol vessel. There are obviously problems here, for one the LCS is both gas and diesel ship, has limited range, and doesn't have any weapons or a hanger. While it is an interesting ship to experiment with, which is what the Navy is currently using it for, it really isn't designed to be a front line vessel, at least from the Navy's point of view.

Personally, I haven't seen much that has sold me on the idea of deploying the ship, however I am open to new ideas because the current ideas appear flawed. For one, the Sea Fighter (FSF 1) could be doing some good today beside the HSV Swift in the Global Fleet Station. While Duncan Hunters idea is to replace the HSV Swift with the Sea Fighter (FSF 1), and idea I don't really like much, I think it would do very well to augment it, and within the framework of the current Global Fleet Station to South America the Sea Fighter (FSF 1) could be doing some good establishing some presence and intelligence gathering in the drug trade.

One of the things that has been bothering me about the current Global Fleet Station deployment is that it would appear it has too much of a tactical focus, with a real lack of strategic knowledge accumulation going on in a specific focus area. The HSV Swift arrives, trains local law enforcement based on their individual request, and then leaves. In Belize the Swift departed in time for the USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) to take over. In a way, if these two pieces were considered part of the same mission (which I am willing to do) this is a really smart approach. In the Dominican Republic, the HSV Swift arrived, delivered a few small boats, and trains the Dominican Navy in anti-narcotics work. When the Swift leaves, the USCG will remain as a static partner, again how it should work.

However, for say the Dominican Republic for example, there is no strategy for handling incoming and outgoing maritime traffic from points across the Caribbean Sea, something that needs to be established. There are no vessels fast enough to move around in the blue waters to track the cross Caribbean sea movements of illegal trade trafficker's. That role requires a considerable amount of time, persistence, and reach with platforms like UAVs. In that role, Sea Fighter would appear well fitted.

After all, isn't that what the LCS is for?

Or is the Sea Fighter too big for the job? If so, why not send in the M80 Stiletto? It too could fit well into the Global Fleet Station concept. It is true it would need a mothership, but had someone been thinking about it, the USS Pearl Harbor currently completing the UNITAS exercises in the region has a well deck able to house the M80. Why the USS Pearl Harbor and its force wasn't integrated into the Global Fleet Station concept to begin with is already an issue, but more with the limited scope the first Global Fleet Station had than with that specific deployment. Apparently the M80 is in the same boat (no pun intended) as the Sea Fighter (FSF 1), it is novel, but nobody really wants it right now because it doesn't fit into the plan.

Personally, I think what the Sea Fighter (FSF 1) and the M80 Stiletto represent is the SOCOM element of Sea Basing under the Seapower 21 concept, but Seapower 21 appears on the way out and Sea Basing specifically has taken a new form altogether different than the Defense Science Boards original purpose.

Personally, while I am not a big fan of pork, earmarks is about all that is out there right now for Congress to force changes upon the Navy in its direction. While I have never cared much for Duncan Hunter one way or the other, in this case, I'll be cheering him on to force the Sea Fighter (FSF 1) on the Navy, because the reality is, cheering for Duncan Hunter in this case is cheering for the little guy shipbuilder, the same shipbuilding the Navy has basically given the finger to in favor of the same big industry bunch that could use a healthy dose of competition to wake them up and get their shit together.