I was looking over the details of the House Armed Services Committee's new authorization bill, and several things stood out. We'll come back to the addition of more Super Hornets later, because two other issues jump out as more interesting discussion.
The first is on Ohio class SSBNs:
OHIO-CLASS REPLACEMENT PROGRAMThis is a pretty strong signal by the House that they have every intention to be directly involved in defining the requirements for sea-based strategic defense provided by the ballistic submarine fleet. I think that is a very good thing, even if it takes longer to find a policy everyone agrees with and makes the entire process more expensive. Nuclear deterrence isn't an issue any single administration - or leadership group in the Pentagon - should have sole jurisdiction of.
The fourteen ships of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine fleet are a national treasure and have helped maintain our nation’s safety for more than two decades. The Committee remains concerned about unanswered questions regarding the current program to replace the Ohio-class ships. To address these concerns, the bill limits the obligation of authorized funds to fifty percent until receipt of a report from the Secretary of Defense outlining various alternate platforms and weapons systems considered as replacements for the sea-based strategic defense currently provided by the Ohio-class force.
The second issue is a great discussion topic.
SHIPBUILDING PLANSThere are several issues here worth examining.
The Committee believes that the Navy’s shipbuilding plan should reflect the shipbuilding requirements that are outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review. To better align the Navy’s plans with the QDR, the bill changes the reporting requirements of the 30-year shipbuilding plan to be delivered to Congress every four years with the Quadrennial Defense Review. It also prohibits any changes during the intervening years that would decrease planned ship procurement without an addendum to the QDR.
I was not very impressed with the Quadrennial Defense Review this year, so I am having a hard time keeping a straight face on this one - indeed my first reaction was to laugh out loud. It isn't a bad idea per se; it is just that I don't see how the QDR is the appropriate strategic document to drive shipbuilding requirements.
But the idea shouldn't be dismissed outright, because the idea is founded on a fair assessment of the shipbuilding issues. Inconsistency from year to year by administrations is an important part of Navy shipbuilding. The US Navy is the US shipbuilding industry's biggest customer, and the constantly changing shipbuilding plan does not allow industry to properly forecast labor and training requirements for future ships. A consistent shipbuilding plan allows for better budget forecasts and helps both industry and Congress understand the needs of the Navy both financially and industrially. With a 4 year frequency the QDR does force some stability into shipbuilding plans.
But is the QDR the right strategic document to tie shipbuilding? I do not think so, indeed I believe shipbuilding should be driven by Maritime Strategy - which is built upon National Defense Strategy. What does this addition to the House bill tell the Navy regarding their Maritime Strategy? What does it say regarding Congressional opinion regard the absence of an Obama administration National Defense Strategy?
I think this is a great shipbuilding issue for debate and discussion, and I will likely follow up with several posts on the subject in the near future. There are several aspects of the House details document linked above that we will be discussing on the blog - I encourage folks to take a look at the document.
No comments:
Post a Comment