By Emelie Rutherford

Saying there is movement within the Navy to halt the DDG-1000 destroyer program and continue building DDG-51s, a shipbuilding panel chairman has called Navy officials to Capitol Hill for a hearing to air both sides of the procurement battle.

“I am willing to give both sides a chance to make their best case,” House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) said about why he scheduled the July 31 hearing on the Navy’s destroyer plans.

“I’m convinced that after both sides make their best case, that the best thing for this nation to do is buy more DD[G]-51s,” he said July 10 in an interview.

Thanks to his panel, the House-passed fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill calls for pausing procurement of DDG-1000s and directing the Navy to spend $400 million in advance-procurement funds for restarting purchase of the DDG-51 destroyers or for continuing the DDG-1000 program.

Taylor said support has decreased within the Navy for sticking to the service’s plans to continue buying DDG-1000s, the third of which the Pentagon wants to build with $2.5 billion in FY ’09.

“I think it’s fair to say that at the highest levels of the Navy, schools of thought…the most recent school of thought is the one that says let’s stop at two [DDG-]1000s and go back to [DDG-]51s,” Taylor said. “And so the portion of the Navy that had signed off on the [DDG-]1000 plan, it still has to be convinced the [DDG-]51s are the way to go.”

The destroyer funding battle has spurred friction and intense lobbying on Capitol Hill. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) calls for granting the Navy’s request for one DDG-1000 in its FY ’09 defense authorization bill, which the full Senate has not yet debated.

A bipartisan mix of New England lawmakers in both chambers have advocated on behalf of maintaining the Navy’s official DDG-1000 plans.

Maine’s General Dynamics [GD] Bath Iron Works is building one of the first two DDG-1000s–while Northrop Grumman [NOC] Shipbuilding in Mississippi is building the other. In addition, Massachusetts-based Raytheon [RTN] has a significant role in the program. Hundreds of jobs in Rhode Island alone would be lost if the DDG-1000 program ends, sources said.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a SASC member, said he touted the DDG-1000 program to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead when they attended the Naval War College graduation ceremony in Newport, R.I.

“Mostly my point to him was that this was a very important program, not only to the Navy but also to the region,” Reed said July 8 in a brief interview. “We have significant contributions from our industrial base.” While he acknowledged the concerns about Raytheon jobs, Reed said the program is “particularly important” for Bath Iron Works in Maine, where the DDG-51s also have been built.

Reed said he also talked to Roughead about the DDG-1000 program being “the baseline in terms of the succeeding generations of different classes of ships.”

“They were going to build this so that you could basically upscale the electronics, move them from ship to ship, etcetera. And I think that concept is still worthwhile,” the senator said. He also noted the significant investment in development work on the DDG-1000 effort.

Other lawmakers who have advocated for the DDG-1000 program include Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Mel. Martinez (R-Fla.), leaders of the SASC seapower subcommittee, as well as Sens. John Kerrry (D-Mass.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), John Sununu (R-N.H.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla). There is also support in the House from Reps. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Tom Allen (D-Maine).

Reed noted, during his July 8 comments, that the Navy’s official position remains supportive of the DDG-1000 program.

Taylor, however, hinted the Navy’s position is shifting.

“I have reason to believe that the school of thought that we ought to continue the [DDG-]51 program and limit the purchase of the DD[G]-1000s to two, I have reason to believe that things are happening to cause that to be the course of action within the Department of the Navy,” he said.

The HASC seapower subcommittee requested the testimony of two panels at the July 31 hearing: one with Allison Stiller, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for ship programs, and Vice Adm. Barry McCullough, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of resources and capabilities; and one with Congressional Research Service analyst Ronald O’Rourke, Congressional Budget Office analyst Eric Labs, and Government Accountability Office Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management Paul Francis.

Taylor is open to additional witnesses testifying, and to non-committee House members and senators participating in the hearing, his office said. “I am more than willing for everyone to make their best possible case,” Taylor said.

“On the flip side, I think they’re going to have a heck of a hard time convincing me or anyone who’s followed shipbuilding lately that they’re going to be able to bring that [DDG-1000] in for anything near even the $3.5 billion, which is the new inflated price.”

“I really do think if people take a look at affordability, look at capability, look at our need to…add 50 ships to the fleet to get us up to a 313[-ship Navy], when you look at all of those things, I’ve become convinced that the only way we get there is by continuing to buy the [DDG-] 51,” he added.

Lawmakers have complained that the Navy and Pentagon are sending mixed messages on whether they truly want to continue the DDG-1000 program, and on just how much they believe it would cost (Defense Daily, June 5 and 9).

Taylor acknowledged this, adding: “When it’s all said and done, it still comes down to Congress making what should be good decisions for the Navy.”

“I do think that now that we [the HASC and House] have spoken, that the Navy is going to come around in fairly short order to our way of thinking,” he said.

House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman (HAC-D) John Murtha (D-Pa.) said “the Navy’s got to get its act together” on its message on the DDG-1000 effort.

“They tell us so many stories,” Murtha said July 9 in a brief interview. “I don’t have a clue what they want.”

The HAC-D is scheduled to mark up its version of the FY ’09 defense appropriations bill on Wednesday, though it is not clear on Capitol Hill if the legislation will actually pass Congress this calendar year (Defense Daily, July 11).

Still, Murtha said he is not ready to give the Navy the $2.5 billion it requested for the DDG-1000 effort.

“It’ll be a lot less than they want,” he said. He added that even if the Navy received its full request for one DDG-1000 it wouldn’t be able to build it in FY ’09 anyway.

Taylor said the Navy will likely alter its shipbuilding plan next year.

“I think some things are afoot that are not written in stone yet,” he said. “But where the Navy is just facing up to the realities between the cost of the war, exorbitant price escalation on some of these [ship] programs, and quite frankly things like the Iranians testing those missiles [July 9]. Add to that a change in leadership in the top position of the Navy a year ago, and I think all of those things have contributed to a very real possibility that the Navy will be submitting a plan next year that is different from the one this year.”