The Nation Has a Date With the Navy

Gene Taylor has heard the rumors, and is moving quickly. Emelie Rutherford has posted a story on Defense Daily and is reporting that House Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) has called a hearing to discuss the DDG-1000 on July 31st. Rep. Taylor weighs in with his observations and opinions as reported in the article.

Taylor said support has decreased within the Navy for sticking to the service's plans to continue buying DDG-1000s, the third of which the Pentagon wants to build with $2.5 billion in FY '09.

"I think it's fair to say that at the highest levels of the Navy schools of thought...the most recent school of thought is the one that says let's stop at two DDG-1000s and go back to DDG-51s," Taylor said. "And so the portion of the Navy that had signed off on the DDG-1000 plan, it still has to be convinced the DDG-51s are the way to go."

If we are to be honest, we are not among those who agree the DDG-51s are the way to go, but we are convinced the DDG-1000 is absolutely not the way to go. The article goes on to discuss the tension between the House and the Senate on the subject, quoting Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) in a way that makes him sound like a total stooge for the defense industry, in our opinion the perfect example of a politician looking after the best interests of his own ass, not the Navy, industry, or nations best interest. For example:

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a SASC member, said he touted the DDG-1000 program to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead when they attended the Naval War College graduation ceremony in Newport, R.I.

"Mostly my point to him was that this was a very important program, not only to the Navy but also to the region," Reed said in a brief July 8 interview. "We have significant contributions from our industrial base." While he acknowledged the concerns about Raytheon jobs, Reed said the program is "particularly important" for Bath Iron Works in Maine, where the DDG-51s also have been built.

Senator Reed, we honestly question which "contributions" the Senate is really worried about. One wonders how the Senate has ignored all the work and testimony of Bob Work, Eric Labs, Ronald O'Rourke, and many others who have been giving testimony in front of the Senate for years warning about looming problems of surface combatants and Bath Iron Works. For the entire Bush administration, the Senate not only canceled ships the House had added to the budgets to work on that problem, but the Senate never once introduced some useful measure on its own to insure the sustainability of BIWs. The Senate worked to create the problem for themselves, and now you guys are grasping as tight as possible to the DDG-1000 because should the program be canceled, all those folks giving "contributions" will realize the Senate has been a bad political investment for the Navy Industry.

We would encourage the Senate to go back and read this interesting testimony (PDF) from April 12th, 2005, and carefully note pages 20 - 24. If the Senate didn't see this coming, they aren't doing their job. Fact is the Senate made a bad bet and made promises they could not keep. Ignoring the warnings of experts is a you problem Senator Reed.

The next few weeks of political posturing is going to be big for the Navy, important for some Senators facing election, and critical for Bath Iron Works. We do not believe the DDG-51 is the solution for the cancellation of the DDG-1000, but we recognize the DDG-51s as an excellent stop gap alternative until a real solution is found.

We got to this point because Gene Taylor adopted the idea of replacing the DDG-1000 with the DDG-51 as his opening statement on March 14th, meaning Gene Taylor, not the industry or the Navy has weighed in on real alternatives. If General Dynamics feels this specific alternative solution to support their shipyard is political, which it probably partly is, and isn't a good solution for Bath Iron Works, General Dynamics better step up with an alternative of their own.

The real question is, with $400 million already offered and on the table, what can General Dynamics and Bath Iron Works offer as an alternative to even the DDG-51s? We have heard rumors that the Industry has been seriously thinking about the Navy's maritime strategy, looking at it and structuring itself to fully engage and support the strategy. If General Dynamics feels the move by Gene Taylor is politically motivated towards the support of Northrup Grumman, then General Dynamics needs to have a smart, compelling, and strategic approach to an alternative to the DDG-51s that not only meets its requirements, but the Navy's requirements, and the political requirements which includes strategy for competitors.

The future of the Navy and Bath Iron Works is on the line with the cancellation of the DDG-1000, and July 31st just become an important date to be blunt, be honest, and tell it as it is. There will be calls to go overseas and take one of the solutions there, but that doesn't have to be the answer. The question is, what is the best way ahead to begin rebuilding both the Navy and the Shipbuilding industry in a sustainable way that gets American shipbuilding back in business towards the national interest while also competing on the global market?

That would be the strategic question regarding Navy shipbuilding to ask on July 31st, but the Navy, Industry, and Political question is whether the DDG-51 should replace the DDG-1000. There are strategic solutions, but where are the Navy leaders who take a strategic view towards shipbuilding? There are plenty of leaders who take a tactical approach to shipbuilding, Gene Taylor being one such example now, but isn't there a better way?

This week the theme is tough love. We intend to be blunt. We will be disagreeable and controversial, but we will be on point. Feel free to add to the debate.