By Geoff Fein

Lawmakers yesterday raised concerns with the top Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard officials about fleet size and capabilities, and offered to find the funding to help the Navy build a nuclear powered cruiser.

House members, led by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), have been pushing for the Navy to build its next generation cruiser, CG(X), with a nuclear propulsion system. The Navy has included an option for nuclear power in its CG(X) analysis of alternatives.

But yesterday Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said the cost of making CG(X) nuclear powered could impact other shipbuilding efforts.

“As we go through our analysis on designs and force structure, the cost of building a nuclear cruiser is going to be significantly higher than it would not be as far as acquisition cost,” Roughead said. “The concern I have is…how will we then resource the rest of the shipbuilding program when we have a significant cost up front, perhaps to be regained as we go through the lifecycle of the ship. But I am concerned about what the initial ship costs will be and what that will do to fleet size because of the rate of procurement we can have.”

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told Roughead lawmakers will help. “You are looking at the people who are going to solve that for you.”

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway was asked if the Navy and the Marine Corps are working to fulfil the requirement for 33 amphibious ships.

“I am very comfortable the Navy and Marine Corps have worked together closely to identify what the requirement is to put two brigades in assault across another enemy’s shore…the forcible entry capability we must have as a nation,” he said.

Conway noted that the number of amphibs required is actually 34. However, his predecessor, Gen. Michael Hagee, said the Corps could get by with 30. “So I have maintained that line of reasoning. If the requirement is 30 ships, if you apply 85 percent of availability against that, then we probably need 33 ships to have that capacity ready on short notice.”

Conway said he had those conversations with former CNO Adm. Mike Mullen, and he and Roughead have had similar conversations.

“I think we are in general agreement on the requirement. At this point I think the determination is, do we extend old ships for a longer lifecycle or do we build new ships to get to that number? But we are confident the CNO and Navy understand the requirement,” Conway said.

Roughead said he does not believe there is a lot of daylight between Conway and himself. “There are requirements and there is what we can afford,” he added.

“While I agree with the requirement, I also have the obligation to you to produce a shipbuilding plan that is fiscally possible,” Roughead said. “So, as we go through our process in the coming years, the requirement is there and we will work very closely together to realize the capabilities for our country and Navy and Marine Corps that gives us the capability that is important and called out for in our maritime strategy.”

Both the Navy and Coast Guard were asked about developing common hull forms for their ships to cut down on the cost of building ships as well as eliminating some of the problems that have arisen in both services’ shipbuilding efforts.

“That conversation has started a year and a half ago,” Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen told lawmakers. “Adm. Roughead and I are schedule to meet after the first of the year…an ongoing series of warfighter talks, and the topic of that meeting is a side-by-side comparison of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and National Security Cutter (NSC). Not just hull forms, but systems and subsystems, the deck gun, radar…”

But Allen noted that the concept of operations for LCS and the NSC are different and that drove some of the hull considerations.

“LCS is looking for speed. They operate with oilers. We look for high endurance, the ability to loiter, we operate independently, and that does take you to different places on the hull design,” Allen said. “But it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. We need to be talking about it. We need to provide you answers based on our conversation.”