DDG-1000 Dominates Capitol Hill Discussion

Zachary M. Peterson writing for Inside the Navy (subscription only) had two stories recently regarding events for FY09 Navy budget. As he covers Capitol Hill, we start with some excellent quotes from the Senate. The article Senate Appropriators Fund DDG-1000, Potential DDG-51 Restart ran on September 15th.

Senate appropriators write that they are “disappointed” with the performance of the LCS program, but nevertheless “strongly support” its development.

“The committee understands that additional cost growth and schedule delays are occurring in the LCS program,” lawmakers note. “Despite these continuing issues the committee believes that the procurement of two additional LCS seaframes in [FY-09] is important to preserve the current industrial base until the next administration can evaluate the LCS program and make a recommendation to the Congress on the program’s future.”

Further, Senate defense appropriators added advanced procurement funds for LCS as well as Virginia-class submarines and LPD-26, the 10th hull in the San Antonio-class of amphibious ships.

“In anticipation of the new administration, the committee has made recommendations to preserve as many programmatic options in the shipbuilding and conversion, Navy account as possible,” members write.

In another article appropriately named Seapower Subcommittee Chair Wants Briefing On DDG-1000 Reversal, Zachary M. Peterson covers Gene Taylor, who doesn't sound very happy about the new agreement to build the 3rd DDG-1000.

In a Sept. 3 letter, Taylor requests that House Armed Services committee staff be briefed on the latest change of plans, which the congressman opposes, and that this briefing address a July Government Accountability Office report, which found that DDG-1000 hulls would likely exceed their budget.

Further, the congressman adds that this briefing should include information that “may be considered business sensitive or proprietary during these discussions.”

A Navy source said lawmakers were being briefed last week, mainly on the GAO report.
Taylor has repeatedly criticized the Navy for its recent shipbuilding plan. He has called the service’s plan for building a 313-ship fleet “pure fantasy.”

What Zachary Peterson captures in both articles is the frustration on Capitol Hill. Nobody is happy, everyone has something to complain about, and frustration is the emotion rising to the surface. When was the last time someone in the Navy talked to a reporter about the issues that have outstanding questions, or about the issues that Congress continues to express frustration about.

So the Senate punts all the shipbuilding problems in the Navy to the next administration. But Gene Taylor still wants answers, specifically about the 3rd DDG-1000. Where is this going, what is the plan here?

With the 3rd DDG-1000 in play, we see it like this. If the Navy gets the 3rd DDG-1000, they will likely get 2 DDG-1000s, with the funding of the third DDG-1000 being used to cover the cost overruns almost certain from the first two. If the Navy does not get the 3rd DDG-1000, the Navy will probably built 0 DDG-1000s, because whether it is McCain or Obama, this ship is doomed. Consider for a moment the next administration, which walks into office and asks about this enormously expensive program the Navy has already expressed interest in stopping. The Navy would then have to defend the position for 2 ships.

Well, the Navy never really made a case for seven ships, so how does it defend its position for 2 ships? One quick check of the public record, which doesn't exist considering the Navy doesn't actually talk to the media about shipbuilding, and the next president has no reason at all to build a DDG-1000. In our opinion, that is what the 3rd DDG-1000 represents. We could be wrong, but I don't see any way in the world anyone builds a third ship, picking one yard over the other in this strange construction scheme, particularly when the cost increases everyone knows is coming to the first two DDG-1000s start popping up.