The House Armed Services Committee’s (HASC) initial draft of the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA) added $1 billion to find a second Virginia-class attack submarine (SSN), seemingly balanced by zeroing out the delayed Constellation
-class frigate.
According to funding tables for the NDAA, which will not appropriate the funds, the committee added $1 billion for one more SSN on top of the $3.6 billion requested for one submarine plus other advanced procurement funds.
However, the funding tables also zero out funding for the Constellation-class frigate, down from the requested $1.2 billion due to “program delay.”
The Navy’s FY ‘25 budget request confirmed the first new frigate, the future USS Constellation (FFG-62), will be delivered in December 2027, over a year later than the FY ‘24 budget request predicted (Defense Daily, March 15).
Frigate builder Fincantieri Marinette Marine has been plagued by workforce problems leading to the delays, made public since at least January.
A 45-day shipbuilder review directed by Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro estimated FFG-62 is now running three years late and may not deliver until 2029 (Defense Daily, April 3).
Later in April, Del Toro said the Navy sent over 50 design engineers to Marinette to help complete the final ship design, which had been frozen at about 80 percent for over a year (Defense Daily, April 26).
The HASC Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee’s section of the bill language report notes the bill provides incremental funding authority for an additional Virginia-class attack submarine in FY ‘25.
The bill report includes a section expressing the committee is “perplexed by the Navy’s inconsistent funding of shipbuilding and specifically that of Virginia-class submarines,” because the Navy has removed a previously planned submarine from the budget request for the second time in under five years.
While the Navy claims advanced procurement for a second SSN will mitigate the impact of only one SSN, the committee argued this will add uncertainty to the industrial base they are trying to have ramp up production to reach annual production of two attack submarines plus one Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine.
“Navy budget documents and committee briefings fail to identify what future hull will receive these components leading to further uncertainty for the industrial base. The committee can only conclude that it is the Navy’s plans to reduce advanced procurement (AP) funding at a future date of which they are incapable of or refuse to identify. This is the worst way to project future work to industry and will only cause reluctance in their decisions to invest in their workforce, facilities, and tooling due to their lack of confidence in Navy budgeting,” the committee said in the draft bill report.
The committee directs the Navy Secretary to provide a briefing to the committee by February 2025 on how the Navy plans to mitigate the impact to suppliers of reducing the amount of advanced procurement in future budgets.
In January, HASC leaders sent a letter to President Biden arguing to keep the rate of two SSNs per year (Defense Daily, Jan. 19).
Earlier this month, Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Seapower subcommittee, led a letter to the full committee leaders urging them to support adding this second SSN. His district includes the shipyard of one of the submarine builders, General Dynamics’ Electric Boat [GD] (Defense Daily, May 1).
This followed Courtney pushing a memo to colleagues outlining the consequences of cutting the FY ‘25 submarine procurement to one SSN and expressing criticism during a hearing (Defense Daily, April 18).
Separately, the bill would prohibit using funds to procure the Marine Corps’ Medium Landing Ships (LSM) until the Secretary of the Navy certifies the ship design is not based on more than 25 percent military specifications. It also requires the secretary to submit a report comparing the differences in cost and construction schedule between a ship design based on military specifications vs. commercial standards and elements.
The LSM limitations come after an April Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimated the LSM may cost over two times the Navy’s estimate of $150 million per hull, depending on how many military specifications are included (Defense Daily, April 12).
While the LSM is planned to be a hybrid between an amphibious warfare ship and a vessel based on commercial standards, this can make the cost range relatively wide, especially if the military standards of stronger hull and more hardened systems prevail closer to full Navy ship standards.
CBO said if the LSM is close to amphibious warfare ship standards the vessels could cost up to $600 million each, but if they are closer to commercial standards they would cost up to $140 million each.
The Marine Corps ultimately wants 35 LSM-type ships and the Navy has committed to an initial 18-ship LSM program that it expects to cost about $2.6 billion in 224 dollars.