Lines Are Being Drawn for Summer Battle Over DD(X)

The Bush Administration’s Pentagon takes pride in its efforts to wrench the military from a Cold War mentality into a new, dynamic era, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is known for prodding his minions to think creatively about everything from battlefield tactics to shopping for new weapons.

The same approach does not always apply on Capitol Hill, however, where many lawmakers are suspicious of change. Threatened by Rumsfeld’s quest for freedom and flexibility, most balk at even the subtlest attempts to undermine their oversight authority.

Last month, several members of the House Armed Services Committee detected one such effort — a clever plan crafted earlier this year to shift procurement funds earmarked for the Navy’s two new surface combatants into research and development.

The lawmakers believe the move could set a dangerous precedent for Pentagon acquisition policy. And some remain concerned about the two ships’ cutting-edge technologies. That prompted Maryland Republican Roscoe Bartlett, chairman of the House Armed Services power projection subcommittee, to lead a charge to slash nearly $330 million in construction funds for the Navy’s DD(X) destroyer and Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The measure passed the full committee markup in May.

Of course, not all lawmakers are averse to the Pentagon’s battle against a cumbersome and antiquated acquisition system. Virginia Republican Ed Schrock, a retired Navy captain, says the cuts to DD(X) and LCS could foil creative thinking among the military’s design and procurement communities, leaving them to rely on old systems that often contribute to enormous cost and schedule overruns.

And members of the Senate Armed Services Committee — whose six-year terms leave them less vulnerable to the collective anxiety that drives election-year politics — fully funded the president’s shipbuilding request for DD(X) and LCS. Maine Republican Susan Collins even threw in an extra $99.4 million for detailed design of the second production-version DD(X).

In conference, the full House Armed Services Committee is likely to negotiate a compromise that would fully restore funding for both programs. Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, said the ships “will play huge and important roles in increasing our ability to dominate a battle space in the future and improve our combat effectiveness.”

But the real debate is likely to come after the House Appropriations Committee sets to begins work on its version of the budget request. The committee has had DD(X) in its sights for some time, setting the stage for a battle with their Senate counterparts in conference this summer.

The committee’s proposed budget cut would not affect the decision to select contractors for the detailed design phase of the LCS program.

Just Ahead: A Tussle On Ship Leasing Practices

Meanwhile, another creative acquisition strategy that has drawn the fixed, bipartisan gaze of House lawmakers is the Navy’s reliance on a passage in the Budget Enforcement Act. It allows the Navy to lease foreign ships for years on end without budgeting for the cost up front, a practice that has been a thorn in the side of struggling U.S. shipbuilders.

Last month, Virginia Republican Rep. Jo Ann Davis rushed to their aid and, in a surprise victory, won bipartisan support for an amendment to the House defense authorization bill that could frustrate the Navy’s inventive procurement approach. Davis’ amendment limits leases of foreign-build ships to not more than one year.

In 1984, the Navy was given permission to charter vessels — mostly Maritime Prepositioning Force ships — for 25 years, but Congress in 1990 reduced the maximum to five years. Since then, the Navy has been leasing foreign-built ships for 59 months, just one month shy of the five-year limit, and then initiating another lease deal for 59 months to meet long-term requirements. This approach means the Navy has no need to seek funding authorization for the entire cost of the lease in the first year, a practice anticipated by lawmakers who oversee such high-dollar programs.

Industrial base protectionists say the defense shipbuilding industry has lost more than 180,000 highly skilled engineers and craftspeople over the last decade, and could face the loss of another 78,000 jobs over the next five years. The export of shipbuilding jobs, coupled with dwindling shipbuilding budgets, could leave America without the skill and industrial capability to build ships, they charge. However, a naval expert said the U.S.-built commercial ships are extremely difficult to obtain for long-term lease, and those that are available cost about twice the price of foreign ships for lease.

The Davis amendment garnered strong support among committee members, but Bartlett, who chairs the projection forces subcommittee, opposed it. Even committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, who usually embraces efforts to promote industrial base protections, did not support the provision. And the amendment’s “Buy American” tone is likely to repel Senate Armed Services Committee members, including free-trade advocates such as Chairman John Warner and Arizona Republican John McCain, in conference this year.

A September Study: SSBNs for Missile Defense

The Navy and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) are looking at the feasibility of using ballistic-missile submarines as a basing mode for the nation’s multilayered missile defense system.

Rear Adm. Christopher M. Moe, deputy of combat systems and weapons in the Navy’s Surface Warfare Division, is directing a concept of operations study on the interim integration of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) onto naval platforms. Included are both versions of the Ohio-class ballistic-missile subs, the SSBN Trident and the four SSGN boats being converted to fire Tomahawk missiles and transport special operations forces. Also being assessed: the USS Bunker Hill, a Ticonderoga-class Aegis guided-missile cruiser.

The Navy heretofore has not expressed official interest in submarines as a basing mode for missile defense. However, subs are much more difficult to locate and would not need a defensive force, as would surface ships. To be completed in September, the concept of operations study is being funded by MDA.

The KEI is specially designed to strike attacking missiles during their boost phase in the first 150 to 300 seconds of flight. However, industry experts said the KEI also may be applicable to the midcourse phase when the attacking missile adapts a more predictable glide path and a defender has a longer time to track and engage the target.

Congressional Panels Bolster Navy Budget

The House Armed Services Committee last month authorized $890 million over the president’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for numerous programs under the purview of the projection forces subcommittee.

Subcommittee Chairman Bartlett added $100 million for DDG-51 modernization, and both the House and Senate authorizing committees approved initial funding for a new LHA-R amphibious assault ship, with the Senate panel adding $150 million to the first increment of advanced construction.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., tried to trim these funds in order to remedy a short supply of armored Humvees in Iraq, but Senate aides say alternative sources were found.

New Englanders Look To Protect Attack Sub Force

Lawmakers from Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine are gearing up for a fight against the Navy’s reported plan to cut its attack submarine force. The move could harm the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Collins’ home state, as well as workers at Electric Boat facilities in Connecticut and Rhode Island, where some work on new Virginia-class subs is to be conducted. Collins asserts that the Pentagon’s 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review states that the planned fleet of 55 attack submarines is necessary to meet national security needs.

“While these budget scenarios are part of the normal process and the Navy continually assesses its force structure needs, this particular scenario is one that I would strongly oppose if it were to ever be considered by the Senate Armed Services Committee,” Collins said in a May 13 news release. A Navy study could propose cutting the submarine fleet from 55 to 37, retiring older submarines and ordering fewer new Virginia-class subs.

Navy Prodded on Slow Speed Of Software Migration Effort

House lawmakers are dissatisfied with the Navy’s effort to rid itself of legacy computer software and transition to the new Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). Last month, the House Armed Services Committee approved a plan to stop funding legacy systems after Sept. 30, 2005.

Language included in the bill by Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., directs the Navy to complete migration of all existing software applications — estimated to be 67,000 in number — to the new system by that date or develop a plan to fund these legacy systems. Hefley and others believe the project’s contractor, Electronic Data Systems, should not be held responsible for supporting the old networks and applications that the Navy fails to migrate to the new NMCI system.

Coast Guard Funding Increases May Not Last

Coast Guard funding has again been increased by Congress — as occurred last year — but some lawmakers, including Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., doubt the recent additions will prove lasting. LoBiondo, who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees Coast Guard spending, said the funding may not survive the House-Senate conference this year, let alone any changes the appropriators are likely to make.

Meanwhile, the Rand Corp. said the Coast Guard needs to double the number of ships and acquire 50 percent more aircraft than called for under its decade-old expansion plan. Rand also said in a new study that the Coast Guard needs to accelerate its ongoing modernization program and replace its aging fleet within 10 or 15 years, as opposed to the 20-year schedule currently under way.

Accelerating the program by five or 10 years would add as much as $700 million to the Coast Guard’s cost, according to the study, which also recommended less reliance on cutters and supplementing the current force with offshore rigs, airships and unmanned vehicles. House lawmakers are working to improve modernization efforts, and in April the House Transportation Committee authorized $8 billion for the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2005. The bill added over $400 million to the Coast Guard’s $678 million request for the Deepwater modernization project, although the Senate version calls for only a slight increase to $702 million.

Lawmakers Differ On Coast Guard Clout

House and Senate lawmakers will need to resolve differing provisions in their markup of the Coast Guard’s fiscal year 2005 authorization bill. The disparity could change the service’s new role in dealing with foreign-flag vessels.

While the Senate’s version tweaked part of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) to limit the Coast Guard’s authority in reviewing and approving security plans of foreign-flag ships, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee left the original language intact. The MTSA security requirements are due to take effect July 1.

The Senate change reflects current Coast Guard policy, and is backed by ocean carriers. Under the current MTSA, any vessels operating in U.S. waters must submit security plans to the Coast Guard for review.

Adm. Mullen Promises No Retreat on Standards

Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael G. Mullen, who soon becomes the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and NATO’s Allied forces Southern Europe, gave an audience at the May 7 Naval Aviation Symposium in Pensacola, Fla., a list of the “things that keep him awake at night.”

The list included prevention of terrorist attacks, such as the one on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in 2002, and sexual assault prevention among sailors. Another item keeping him up nights is the relatively high number of commanding officers that have been relieved of duty for cause during the last two years. Mullen reiterated the high expectations for those officers selected for command, saying, “We’re not going to lower the standard, and those that don’t meet it won’t stay.”

Reporting by Sea Power Correspondent Amy Klamper. Sea Power Editor in Chief Richard C. Barnard and Managing Editor Richard R. Burgess contributed to this report.