Washington Report

As Congress prepares this month to leave its mark on the president’s 2005 defense budget request, aspects of the Navy’s plan to build two new surface combatants are proving unpopular with some House lawmakers concerned with a lack of consensus on the size of the Navy’s future fleet and its impact on an increasingly anemic shipbuilding industrial base.

Criticism of the shipbuilding program is coming from some in Congress who generally support spending for naval programs. Last month, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., who chairs the House Armed Services Projection Forces Subcommittee, sparred with Navy officials touting the future capabilities of the DD(X) destroyer and Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). John J. Young Jr., assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, spent several hours defending a recent decision to move the next-generation platforms from procurement into research and development, a shift Bartlett aggressively challenged.

Bartlett’s opposition stems in part from his previous occupation as a research scientist and inventor, a career track that makes him a staunch advocate for the Pentagon’s modest basic research and research and development coffers. But Bartlett and others are also voicing concern with the budding technologies the new ships are expected to yield, their potential to delay fielding of new Navy capabilities and the risk they believe the Navy’s acquisition strategy and construction plans could pose to the nation’s shipbuilding capacity.

The tenor of questions from Bartlett and others may indicate the Navy still must convince some in Congress of the advantages of spiral development, the incremental integration of new technologies as ships are built. Fueled by a March study from the General Accounting Office, which found none of the 12 critical technologies for DD(X) to be fully mature, Bartlett asserted that the platform’s myriad new capabilities will not reach maturity before entering system development.

When the Navy restructured the previous DD-21 destroyer program into the current DD(X), steps were taken to ensure these technologies would be ready for a lead ship in 2005. But when the Navy makes its first ship production decision, only two critical technologies will have been sufficiently tested to demonstrate maturity, the study asserts, adding that only two backup technologies exist. If other critical technologies do not mature as planned, system redesign would occur. Because the DD(X) strategy focuses on developing technologies that could be used in other ship classes, risks could increase for other programs in development.

As for LCS, the study found that 10 of the 22 critical technologies will be fully mature at the start of system development. Six technologies are not expected to mature until after the design review. No fallback technologies for any systems have been identified.

In response, the DD(X) program office said Defense Department policy dictates that ship technologies must mature in time for installation, and that all DD(X) engineering development models will meet this requirement. At design review, the program expects that most engineering development models will be nearing maturity.

In defense of LCS, Navy officials argue that the first two ships would use mission modules composed of existing technologies, while future LCS vessels will use newly developed mission module packages that leverage lessons learned from the initial two vessels, an approach that would help mitigate risk.

Technology woes aside, Bartlett and other lawmakers said the Navy’s decision to blend construction funding with traditional research and development money could make it easier for the Navy to adjust annual funding levels for design and construction and disguise cost overruns that would be glaringly obvious to lawmakers through a more traditional acquisition approach.

But Young argued that the service is prepared to give Congress “total visibility” into these programs, and disagreed with detractors who assert the Navy has something to hide.

Rep. Edward Shrock, R-Va., said forcing the Navy to frontload ship procurement costs in its budget “can be crippling,” and noted some advantages to funding the lead ships for the two new surface combatants using R&D money.

Young agreed, and said that the Navy’s approach could allow contractors to develop modern manufacturing processes that might reduce labor and deliver the product at a lower cost.

Top Navy Officials Grilled On Ship Maintenance Funds

With Congress set to approve a massive $401 billion defense spending package this year, it’s easy to see how the Defense Department could lose track of small chunks of funding from time to time. But Washington lawmakers with a stake in how and where those funds are spent are not always so forgiving when they find out about it.

During a House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing in late March, California Republican Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Jerry Lewis, who chairs the panel, grilled Navy officials on their handling of $600 million included in the 2004 supplemental spending package that was earmarked for ship depot maintenance. When the bill was passed last year, the money was viewed as a boon to California’s shipbuilding industry. But Cunningham said he was worried that the money had been reallocated and scheduled maintenance for several ships had been deferred, a not-uncommon phenomenon during times of conflict that can lead to increased costs down the line.

“Are we going to add the money back to ship depot maintenance, which is critical, I think, for our defense and for our jobs in this country?” Cunningham asked Navy Secretary Gordon R. England during the hearing.

England responded that no ship availabilities had been canceled for lack of funding. “We have canceled and delayed some because of operational commitments” in Operation Iraqi Freedom, England said, adding, “I just can’t track the $600 million out of the supplemental specifically.”

However, Chief Naval of Operations Adm. Vern Clark told the lawmakers that the total number of dollars spent on maintenance is on the rise, and that the Navy’s maintenance backlog over the course of the last four years has dropped significantly. “People, I would hope, know by now that I am never going to turn my back on current readiness,” Clark said.

The president’s 2005 budget request includes $400 million for ship maintenance.

GAO: Deepwater Needs $2.2 Billion to Stay on Track

Despite large budget increases since Sept. 11, 2001, congressional concern remains as to whether the Coast Guard can meet all of its responsibilities given its increased emphasis on homeland security and reliance on a fleet of ships and aircraft that is in large part aged and technologically obsolete.

In testimony before a Senate subcommittee April 7, Margaret Wrightson, director of homeland security and justice issues for the General Accounting Office, said timely implementation of the agency’s ongoing Deepwater program to modernize these assets is crucial to reversing the trend. She also said the Coast Guard faces serious challenges in keeping the Deepwater program on schedule and within planned budget estimates.

Deepwater involves modernizing or replacing Coast Guard ships, aircraft and communications equipment. Wrightson said the Coast Guard needs $2.2 billion more than budgeted to return the program to its original 20-year completion schedule. And program funding, which is less than the Coast Guard planned, may need to be used to address critical maintenance of legacy assets, diverting funds otherwise intended for future Deepwater replacements and upgrades.

Helicopter Postponement May Jeopardize Navy Test Facility

The Navy’s plan to indefinitely postpone a $1.6 billion contract for the next presidential helicopter could jeopardize its $80 million funding request in 2005 to build a new test and evaluation facility.

In April, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who chairs the Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations panel, told Navy officials that the money might be put to better use. Navy officials admit the timing of the contract remains up in the air, but hinted during testimony that it could be awarded by the end of the year. In that case, they say, the construction money will be needed.

But Hutchison is not so sure. Given the Navy’s current budget constraints, and the fact that the committee is warily eyeing the Pentagon’s looming round of base closures next year, a closer look at the funding might be wise as the committee’s markup of the 2005 budget request nears.

Hutchison said she will be looking for “any efficiency in this number for this year, or if it could be put somewhere else that would be a higher priority within the Navy budget.”

Lawmakers Scramble To Gird Against BRAC

With the 2005 round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) fast approaching, lawmakers are increasingly myopic in their efforts to shield military facilities from what is commonly known as “the BRAC ax.” With almost parental concern, many are looking to the military to help protect local communities from the economic hardship that generally accompanies installations shuttered during BRAC.

During a hearing last month, Hutchison asked the Navy to bolster joint efforts with the Coast Guard at installations along the Gulf Coast in her home state. “I’m just wondering if the Navy has really looked at the Coast Guard as a real joint-use partner as much as it could, in light of the very enhanced Coast Guard responsibility in homeland security and their need to be all along the Gulf Coast,” she said.

As the 2005 BRAC round nears, the Navy might be wise to get “proactive in looking for places that there could be consolidation that would be to the benefit of both,” Hutchison suggested.

Piggybacking on the chairwoman’s Gulf Coast exigency, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., also appealed to the Navy’s sense of BRAC, asking service officials to consider a proposal by New Orleans to consolidate reserve components in her hometown and free up some of the valuable riverfront space for the growing cruise ship industry.

“With just a little bit of out-of-the-box thinking, but with no cost to the Navy, we could end up with really substantial facilities in a consolidated format that … add to the footprint of that great base in New Orleans,” Landrieu said.

Hansford T. Johnson, the Navy’s assistant secretary for installations and environment, told Landrieu he had seen the proposal, and liked it, but that “the last thing we want to get into is to have a community that’s coming and saying ‘we will build you a new building if you won’t leave,’” Johnson said. “We have to look at the larger context.”

Compiled by Sea Power Correspondent Amy Klamper.