The Navy Bets Against the House

The Navy and the Congress have some very difficult decisions to make regarding shipbuilding. It is no secret that the current administration has not been a friend to the Navy. By the time this President leaves office the Navy will have about 60 ships less than when he started. It will be up to the next President and the next Congress to put our nation back on track to building and maintaining a powerful fleet. However, there are some things we can do and we must do this year to set the course for recovery.

The current shipbuilding plan for the 313 ship fleet is pure fantasy. It is totally unaffordable with the resources the Department of Defense allocates to the Navy for ship construction. This year in the Annual Long Range Report to Congress on Shipbuilding, the Navy essentially admits it does not have the funding to build the ships it requires in the ‘far term’ which is defined as after 2020. The Navy also increased projections of the ‘near term’ shipbuilding costs from $13.4 billion dollars per year to $15.8 billion dollars per year (using constant 2007 dollars). These projections were forecast by Dr. Labs from the Congressional Budget Office last year, to the Navy’s adamant denial. Today we will have the opportunity for the Navy to explain their revised forecasts and receive an update from Dr. Labs as to his evaluation of the new forecasts.

I am disappointed with the ever changing shipbuilding plan. We have been told for the past two years that the key to efficiency is stability, I agree. However, there is nothing stable in this shipbuilding plan.

As I analyze the shipbuilding plan I see four programs that are building ships on time and on budget. Those are the LPD 17 class amphibious assault ships, the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, the Virginia Class submarines, and the T-AKE Dry Cargo Ammunition Ship. And what is the Navy answer to programs which build ships on cost and schedule?

• Cancel the LPD 17 before the minimum Marine Corps requirement of 11 ships is achieved;
• Cancel the DDG 51 Burke destroyers in favor of a brand new ship with 10 major technological innovations that may end up costing five times what an Arleigh Burke costs;
• Continue to delay construction of two submarines a year until 2011; and
• Cancel the last two ships of the T-AKE class.

As a side note, I asked ADM Keating, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, on Wednesday if he would rather have 2 DDG 1000s or 5 DDG 51s - he told me he wanted the DDG 51s. This proves to me that the Navy in Washington does not always listen to the Navy which actually operates the Fleet.

- Portion of Opening Statements by Gene Taylor, March 14th, 2008

It is going to take all week to discuss the testimony the Navy gave the House Armed Services Committee last Friday. As usual, the testimony was excellent, the press coverage has been limited so far, and it will probably be within the entire week the various stories of the testimony get put out in the media. The various issues discussed included the nuclear powered cruiser, alternatives to the DDG-1000, some fairly sharp criticism of the Navy regarding EMALS, the Littoral Combat Ship and modules, the LPD-17 and other amphibious ship requirements, the National Defense Sealift Fund, Virginia class submarines, the reduction of total SSBNs from 14 to 12 in the future, and appropriately to Congress the cost issues of all the above. There is no way to cover all of these points in one post, so like the media we will break it down into small parts and start a running discussion.

For those looking to review the data themselves, there were two sessions on Friday. The first session was with Allison Stiller, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Ship Programs and Vice Admiral Barry McCullough, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Resources and Requirements. Their joint prepared statement can be downloaded here, and the audio of that session is available here.

The second session was with Dr. Eric Labs, Senior Naval Analyst, Congressional Budget Office and his prepared statement can be downloaded here. Also on the second panel was Mr. Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in National Defense, Congressional Research Service whose prepared statement can be downloaded here. The audio transcript of their session can be downloaded here.

We will cover all of this. The prepared statements are very good, but the audio of both sessions is excellent.