By Emelie Rutherford
Three House panels yesterday recommended changes to the White House’s proposed defense budget including tacking on up to four additional Navy ships, calling for irregular- warfare organizational changes in the Pentagon and adding nearly $1 billion for equipment readiness.
The fiscal year 2009 ship changes recommended by the House Armed Services (HASC) seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee could put the House at odds with the Senate– after Senate authorizers last week called for heeding the administration’s seven-new-ship request–and end up a matter for a conference committee to sort through (Defense Daily, May 2).
The full HASC is scheduled to mark up its version of the FY ’09 defense authorization bill next Wednesday, and the panel’s final three subcommittees finished their markups yesterday.
The seapower subcommittee’s marked-up bill proposes changes to ship programs–including the DDG-1000 destroyer–that could raise the service’s seven-new-ship request for FY ’09 to as high as 11 ships, subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and aides said.
The seapower panel wants to pause the continued procurement of the DDG-1000s, one of which the Navy hoped to buy in FY ’09. The subcommittee wants the Navy to use $400 million in advance procurement funding for either continuing the DDG-1000 program or for restarting procurement of DDG-51 destroyers.
Taylor said the subcommittee “strongly urges” the Navy to restart DDG-51 procurement, and estimates the service could buy up to two DDG-51s next year.
“There’s a lot of time between now and the conference [committee] so we want to work with the CNO [Adm. Gary Roughead] on this,” Taylor said after the markup. “My gut tells me the CNO would prefer to build [DDG-]51s. Also my gut tells me that the [Chairman] of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [Adm. Michael Mullen] would prefer to build [DDG-]1000s. So we’re going to give them the summer to work this out between them. I personally think the nation would be better off by building additional [DDG-]51s.”
Taylor said pausing procurement of follow-on DDG-1000s is a “prudent course of action” because technology development for the combat systems is not completed, detail design for the vessel will not be complete before the start of construction, the current authorized funding for the lead ship has no margin for cost overruns, and the budget request for follow-on ships is contingent on achieving lead ship costs.
“In short, there are too many unknowns in the construction schedule for these two vessels,” Taylor said, citing concerns about future cost overruns.
The seapower subcommittee also calls for adding to the administration’s request $1.8 billion for one LPD-17 amphibious ship–bringing the buy to 10 for the ship class and keeping the production line open.
It proposes adding monies to the National Defense Sealift Fund to exercise the contract options to build the two remaining T-AKE cargo ships. However, adding the T-AKE funds does not necessarily mean two ships would be procured in FY ’09, aides noted.
The seapower subcommittee calls for funding the Navy’s two requested Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), while making a reduction of $80 million because of material available from cancelled ships. The panel also would raise LCS’s $460 million cost cap. The cost cap would rise with inflation, up to $10 million per ship, aides said.
The panel also calls for adding $300 million in advance procurement to the administration’s request to change the schedule for building two Virginia-class submarines per year–so two are built in FY ’10, one in FY ’11, and two in FY ’12 (instead of administration’s request for one in FY ’10, two in FY ’11, and two in FY ’12). This change was made via an amendment from Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.).
The subcommittee recommends reducing requested research and development funding for the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) by $40 million “without prejudice” to the program. The subcommittee is open to reexamining the issue in conference committee, Taylor said.
After the markup Taylor said he remains concerned about the Marine Corps’ plans to make the developmental EFV more resistant to underbelly blasts by adding an armor appliqu�, and that he hopes the Marine Corps works with the subcommittee to find another solution for fortifying the amphibious vehicle.
The seapower subcommittee also:
- calls for the next-generation of amphibious warfare ships be built with nuclear-power systems– similar to a successful proposal it pushed last year for future cruisers to be nuclear powered.
- does not grant–or even address in its bill–the Navy’s request for a waiver to drop the number of aircraft carriers from 11 down to 10 for a limited period.
- calls for commencing the complex refueling overhaul of the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) aircraft carrier in FY ’09, sooner than planned.
- recommends the full committee authorize $448 million for P-3C Orion anti-submarine and reconnaissance airplane repairs, to be funded in the war supplemental bill soon to be considered on the House and Senate floors.
- recommends the full committee authorize $2.6 billion in the war supplemental for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAP), at least some of which congressional sources expect to be used to buy MRAPs following an expected Pentagon call for ordering more vehicles.
The HASC terrorism, unconventional threats and capabilities subcommittee called yesterday for the Defense Department (DoD) to assign an executive agent for irregular warfare.
DoD would decide if the power would rest with SOCOM, the Army, or another service, terrorism subcommittee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said.
Rep. Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) said it is a “very legitimate question” about whether Special Operations Command or the Army should have that role, noting that SOCOM has unique needs.
When the terrorism subcommittee marked up its portion of the defense authorization bill yesterday it also called for adding more than a net $200 million in funding to the president’s request, aides said.
Added money includes $185 million for eight items on SOCOM’s unfunded priorities list for investments, $40 million more for the Chemical-Biological Defense Program, $10 million more for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and $8 million for science and technology for strategic communication. Of the $399 million in total recommended added funding, roughly half is for various member priorities, aides said.
The terrorism subcommittee recommends a total $179 million in reductions to the president’s request. Cuts in the mark include $100 million for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency– made because of executability issues–and $29 million for various information technology items, aides said.
The terrorism-focused panel also recommends creating a clearinghouse to “quickly find and distribute commercial information technology (IT) for the military,” and creating a management board to coordinate DoD’s counter-terrorism strategic communications, Smith said.
The HASC readiness subcommittee in its bill mark-up yesterday called for adding to the administration’s request of $950 million for operation and maintenance accounts. That money boost includes $260 million for Army depot maintenance for vehicles and equipment, $78 million for unfunded Marine Corps needs, $120 million for Navy ship repair, $50 million to redistribute Army equipment to fill unit shortages, and $60 million for Navy aircraft maintenance, according to Chairman Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas).
The panel wants to cut requested funding for proposed missile defense sites in Europe, an aide said. The committee’s legislation proposes reducing the administration’s $108.56 million request for the site in Poland, to have interceptors in silos, down to $48.56 million–a $60 million cut. It calls for trimming the requested $132.6 million for the Czech Republic radar site down to $52.6 million–an $80 million drop, the aide said.
The reductions were made without prejudice, the aide said, noting the money is not needed now for construction.
The readiness subcommittee also wants DoD to contract for an independent assessment of the organic capability needed to provide depot-level maintenance in the future, Ortiz said.
Three HASC subcommittees–air and land forces; strategic forces; and military personnel– finalized their versions of the FY ’09 defense authorization bill Wednesday (Defense Daily, May 8).