Observing H.R. 1540 as It Moves Through the House

I've been reading H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as reported by HASC on Wednesday, May 11, 2011. As I go through it, I sometimes find myself looking at H. Rept. 112-74 (the committee report). There are several dozen things that stand out, but in H. Rept. 112-74 a few things in this section really stood out.

Navy Shipbuilding Program

The budget request contained $14.9 billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy.

The committee is pleased that the Navy has turned around the downward spiral in battle force ship quantities, and the plan to achieve the floor of 313 ships appears to be achievable. To obtain the required capability and to provide the required stability to the fragile shipbuilding industrial base, the committee believes the following programs are crucial.

CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford-class of aircraft carriers. The committee was critical when the Navy changed construction starts of these carriers from 4-year to 5-year centers. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to keep these aircraft carriers on 5-year centers at the most, with fiscal year 2013 being the first year of detail design and construction funding for CVN-79. The committee believes one key to success in this program will be to minimize changes from ship to ship in the class.

The Virginia-class submarine program has proven itself to be a model shipbuilding program. Cost reduction efforts and ever-decreasing span time for construction and delivery allowed the Navy to fund two ships a year starting in fiscal year 2011, 1 year earlier than previously planned. The committee believes that modularity of payloads and open interfaces for its weapons systems, including electronic warfare, will improve capability while being more affordable. To continue to get the most efficiency from this program, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that advance procurement for the next block of Virginia-class submarines is funded to required levels.

Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the shipbuilding program is that it will be difficult to fund and maintain the current plan once the Navy begins to acquire replacements for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine fleet. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, Navy officials suggested that there may be options to fund these boats outside of the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account. The committee believes that the industrial teaming arrangement has been successful on the Virginia-class submarine program and would encourage the Secretary of the Navy to use the capabilities of both submarine shipbuilders in crafting an affordable acquisition strategy for the Ohio-class Replacement Program.

The re-start of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class of destroyers is an important step in maintaining highly capable surface combatants in sufficient quantities, especially given the increased reliance on these ships to provide additional ballistic missile defense capabilities. Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision that would grant multi-year procurement contract authority for these ships. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue pursuing an open architecture, data sharing approach to the maintenance and sustainability of existing weapons systems. This approach will allow for more competition and affordable upgrades.

The committee received testimony that the Marine Corps’ requirement for amphibious ships is 38 ships, but that the number of ships that are absolutely necessary with acceptable risk is 33. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue pursuing a minimum of 33 amphibious ships.

I see three interesting details here.

First, Congress remains focused on CVN-79. This is not trivial, because there is real concern regarding how the transition to a 5 year cycle for construction will impact the industrial base. You lose the industrial base, aircraft carriers become cost prohibitive.

Second, the committee report explicitly mentions that there may be "options to fund these boats (SSBN(X) outside of the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account." This is a discussion the Navy must have with Congress every year this decade.

Finally, it is not good for the amphibious ship force when the committee explicitly says it "encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue pursuing a minimum of 33 amphibious ships." The Marine Corps has lost the MPF(F), the 2.0 MEB assault metric, and the EFV over the last few years, and all they will have to show for it is new stationary that says "The Department of Navy and Marine Corps." That's token, if not insulting.

Finally, the House Republicans deserve a lot of credit for the transparency the public has into the FY12 defense budget process to date. Obviously there is still a ways to go before any of this becomes law, but the transparency into the committee reports and other aspects of the process from an online observer is a very nice new feature.