By Emelie Rutherford
While the Navy snagged support from a key Senate panel last week for its new plan to build one more DDG-1000 destroyer before restarting production of the older DDG-51s, a DDG- 1000 critic in the House continues to prod the service with questions about the new destroyer.
With the four main defense panels on Capitol Hill all taking different approaches to the Navy’s destroyer plans–which changed in July and then again in August–the matter will likely be resolved by the most senior defense-focused lawmakers, predicts Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.).
“I think it is fair to say that it’s going to be decided by the big four,” Taylor told Defense Daily, referring to the heads of the House and Senate armed services committees and appropriations defense subcommittees.
Taylor, chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee, sent Navy Secretary Donald Winter a letter on Sept. 3 asking for “an explanation of events which caused you to reevaluate the destroyer acquisition program.” Taylor notes an Aug. 18 letter from Winter on the service’s destroyer plans that does not mesh with plans Navy officials described in July. Taylor requests a briefing for subcommittee staff that also includes the service’s assessment of the findings of a July 2008 Government Accountability Office report titled “Defense Acquisitions-Cost to Deliver Zumwalt Class Destroyers Likely to Exceed Budget.”
“Your letter also appears to ignore the findings,” of that GAO report, Taylor writes.
The GAO report raises “serious questions” about the Navy’s ability to deliver the DDG-1000 on time and on budget, he says.
Asked about the Navy’s response to Taylor’s letter, spokesman Lt. Clay Doss said the service has “an ongoing dialogue with Congress on shipbuilding” and that “it is not appropriate to discuss the details of congressional correspondence or briefings.”
Taylor’s panel early this year kicked off talk of truncating the DDG-1000 line at the two on contract and reviving the DDG-51 line. Since the House in May passed its FY ’09 defense authorization bill–which drops plans to buy the third DDG-1000 in FY ’09 and instead includes advance-procurement funds for either one of the destroyer programs–the Navy indicated in July it does not want that third DDG-1000 and wants to restart the DDG-51 line, building eight more starting in FY ’10. Then, last month, the service changed course and said it wants the third DDG-1000, as it still eyes a DDG-51 line restart.
Taylor, a DDG-51 supporter, said his stance on the destroyer debate has not been altered and that he still opposes building a DDG-1000 in FY ’09.
The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee (SAC-D) last Wednesday became the only of the four defense panels to nearly reflect the Navy’s current destroyer plans in its budget blueprint. The SAC-D’s marked up FY ’09 defense appropriations bill includes $2.5 billion for buying a DDG-1000 and adds $397 million for advance-procurement of one DDG-51 combatant. In addition, the SAC-D also sticks the Navy’s February budget request and includes $50.9 million the service initially sought in advance-procurement monies for a fourth DDG-1000.
The report accompanying the SAC-D’s bill explains why it includes the initial DDG-1000 procurement and advance-procurement funds sought by the Navy back in February, along with the advance-procurement DDG-51 funds that were not on the radar until more recently.
“The Committee believes that a decision of this magnitude (to end the DDG-1000 program and restart DDG-51 production) should not be made without a comprehensive review and evaluation by the next administration and the Congress,” the SAC-D’s bill report states. “Therefore, the Committee recommends full funding for the DDG-1000 program. The Committee also believes that it is prudent to preserve the option for the next administration to restart the DDG-51 program. In order to preserve this option, the Committee has included $397,000,000 in advance procurement funding for one DDG-51 class destroyer.”
By comparison, the three other defense panels did not commit to the advance-procurement funds for DDG-51 in their bills. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s (SASC) version of the bill–which the committee marked up in April and is now being debated by the Senate–funds the third DDG-1000 but does not include the advance DDG-51 monies. The House Armed Services Committee’s legislation–passed by the House in May–does not fund the third DDG-1000 and has either/or language allowing advance-procurement funds for either DDG-51 or DDG-1000. The House Appropriations Defense subcommittee’s (HAC-D) bill that emerged in July does not fund a third DDG-1000 or have advance funds for a DDG-51, though it does have advance- procurements monies for DDG-1000.
HAC-D Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) told reporters last Wednesday that “shipbuilding is probably the biggest” point of contention in conferencing the House and Senate versions of the defense appropriations bill.
SASC member and outspoken DDG-1000 supporter Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told Defense Daily last Tuesday that she is concerned the House authorization and appropriations bills would interrupt the surface-combatant-building industrial base. She said she will be a conferee on the House-Senate defense authorization conference committee.
“This is going to be one of the most significant issues to be resolved in conference,” she said.