Some Lawmakers Alarmed by 2006 Navy Shipbuilding Plan

The Navy’s fiscal year 2006 shipbuilding plan is likely to get a lot of attention this fall, from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

A draft of the Navy’s shipbuilding and conversion budget for 2006 shows a total of $6 billion for construction and investment. For fiscal year 2005, Congress in July appropriated $10.4 billion for seven new ships.

A Senate staff member said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., had not been briefed by the Navy on the details of the fiscal 2006 shipbuilding plan, but was aware of the sharply reduced dollar amounts quoted in recent trade press articles.

According to the staff member, Lott remained “very concerned” with regard to the level of naval shipbuilding and associated support for the industrial base, both critical issues in his home state.

When Congress returns from summer recess, Lott can be expected to “closely watch” the Navy’s plans. “This is certainly on his radar,” the Senate staff member told Sea Power.

Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, has been especially critical of the Navy’s draft plan. General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works shipyard is based in his state. Allen’s office, in a written statement, asserted the Bush administration “still doesn’t care about sustaining a healthy Navy shipbuilding industry adequate to meet our nation’s security needs.”

Navy Secretary Gordon R. England’s fiscal 2006 budget proposal was still being debated in mid-August, but a Pentagon source said one iteration of the financial plan contained funds to buy only one San Antonio-class landing platform dock ship, one Virginia-class attack submarine, one T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ship and the lead ship of the Navy’s next-generation destroyer, the DD(X). Those figures were first reported by the Washington, D.C., newsletter, Inside the Navy. Earlier plans had called for six vessels, including two Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) in fiscal 2006.

The Navy’s five-year shipbuilding plan, which was released last year, contained 48 ships, including six in 2006. Now the service’s possible change of direction is attracting the attention of lawmakers whose districts have a stake in the shipbuilding industrial base.

The shipbuilding budget often draws intensive attention on Capitol Hill, and many in Congress prefer a faster pace of construction and the near-term recapitalization of the Navy’s aging fleet.

The Bush administration only last month approved the $416 billion defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2005, funding two new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to be built at Bath and including $1.4 billion for the DD(X), $84 million of which was secured by Sen. Susan Collin, R-Maine, to cover advance procurement of a second DD(X) to be built at the shipyard.

Another $457.1 million will pay for a new LCS, including $105 million the president did not request.

Bath expects to benefit from performing some LCS design work, as well as from an additional $50 million that will fund Arleigh Burke-class destroyer modernization, a move that could translate to more jobs when the destroyers go in for overhauls.

Audit Paints Grim Picture Of Service Budgets

The services are quickly running out of money despite a recently enacted $25 billion wartime supplemental that is supposed to provide a reprieve from mounting costs associated with the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a recent congressional audit of the Defense Department.

While the Navy and Marine Corps are not in the hole nearly as deep as the Army and Air Force, combined the sea services are running short about $1.5 billion in this fiscal year, according to a new report by the recently renamed Government Accountability Office (GAO). In total, the GAO’s analysis suggests that anticipated costs for all the services will exceed the supplemental funding by about $12.3 billion for the current fiscal year. The Army’s projected shortfall was by far the largest, at $9.4 billion, much of that from operations and maintenance.

And with days remaining in the legislative calendar before a new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the situation could become dire if the services continue deferring equipment maintenance and refurbishing despite continued heavy use in Iraq.

Lawmakers anted up the $25 billion in emergency funds for 2004, along with a $416 billion defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2005. But none of it will help the services scrape by between October and March of next year, when Congress is expected to approve a second supplemental spending package.

In the meantime, no one on Capitol Hill holds out hope of providing the Pentagon with badly needed funding transfer authority to allow the services to shift money between different accounts until the next emergency funding package is approved next spring.

Bill Would Bolster Coast Guard, Port Security Efforts

Lawmakers in late July sent the president a bill approving more than $8.2 billion in spending for the Coast Guard, along with an additional $300 million secured by Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., for port security, as part of the Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The bill increases the level of active-duty Coast Guard personnel from 41,000 to 45,500 and authorizes Coast Guard officers to carry firearms and make arrests for maritime security violations.

The bill also omits controversial language from the House version that would have required the Coast Guard to approve security plans for all foreign ships entering a U.S. port. The high cost of the plan prompted House and Senate conferees to go with the status quo, under which a foreign government is responsible for approving each vessel’s security plan. The Coast Guard legislation also calls for the service to develop a long-range ship-tracking system as well as proposals to improve federal agencies’ collecting and sharing of maritime intelligence.

Lott Touts Navy Propeller Deal With Pascagoula Firm

Mississippi Republican Sen. Trent Lott was beaming last month about a Navy contract awarded to a British defense firm that performs work in his state. The $1.3 million award to Rolls-Royce Naval Marine, which owns propulsion manufacturing facilities in Pascagoula, Miss., calls for the company to build one set of aircraft carrier propellers with an option to manufacture an additional set.

Lott’s enthusiasm for the award is understandable, albeit somewhat ironic given his past efforts to undermine bids from foreign manufacturers of large-ship propellers. Four years ago, he helped tweak language in the fiscal 2001 defense appropriations bill to ensure U.S. Navy ship propeller contracts were not sent offshore. The language immediately disqualified a Dutch marine propulsion company from winning a Navy ship propeller contract, and the award was instead given to what was then Bird-Johnson’s propeller facility in Pascagoula — and what today is Roll-Royce Naval Marine.

Now that the British firm calls Mississippi home, Lott supports it. Earlier this year, Lott helped Roll-Royce break ground on a sizeable expansion and upgrade to their propeller plant that will result in a cutting-edge 18,000-square-foot facility.

“The Rolls-Royce propeller plant is a vital part of our shipbuilding industrial base and community,” Lott said in a recent statement.

Istook Provision May Delay Tanker Vessel Program

A provision inserted in the House’s $90 billion fiscal 2005 Transportation-Treasury spending bill by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., would delay funding for a program created last year to help finance construction of five U.S.-built tanker vessels. The tanker vessel program was created in fiscal 2004 authorizing legislation drafted by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

The idea was to reduce the Pentagon’s reliance on foreign-flag oil tankers, a problem during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and provide incentives for U.S. firms to compete in international commerce. But Istook, who chairs the Transportation-Treasury Appropriations subcommittee, included the provision in an effort to protect domestic shipbuilders from an administration regulation issued earlier this year that would allow the winning bidders to contract with foreign shipyards for construction of up to 10 percent of a vessel’s total steel weight.

Supporters argue that some foreign assistance is needed to handle complicated ship componentry. But Istook said this would subsidize foreign competitors, including China and South Korea. Although Istook’s move has proved popular with large U.S. shipyards, it caught a number of lawmakers by surprise, including House Appropriations Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., whose district is home to two firms that oppose the legislation.

Young is expected to scrutinize the legislation closely during an upcoming House-Senate conference, along with Senate Transportation-Treasury Appropriations subcommittee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., whose home-state shipyards are among those that also oppose Istook’s provision.

Joint Staff, OSD Office Study Undersea Warfare

The Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) program analysis and evaluation (PA&E) unit have divided the labor in a comprehensive new study of undersea warfare. The Joint Staff examines naval undersea warfare capabilities, mapping these against future threats. The PA&E unit, naval forces division, is working on an assessment of submarine requirements, including a look at the numbers: how many submarines does the Navy need to do its missions? The last time such a comprehensive assessment was undertaken was the 2001 quadrennial defense review. The next such review is due in 2005.

Compiled by Sea Power Correspondent Amy Klamper. Associate Editor Hunter C. Keeter contributed to this report.