By Geoff Fein
Getting stability in the shipbuilding plan as well as minimizing the number of hulls the Navy has, will be key to the service reaching its goal of building at least 313 ships over the next 30 years, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) said recently.
Adm. Gary Roughead recently returned from touring eight shipyards across the country, where he was struck by the investment the yards are making and the pride the yard workers show in their efforts. He told Defense Daily in a recent interview that stability in the Navy’s shipbuilding plan will benefit the yards.
“There is no question that stability is important for the builders, stability is important for us, stability is important for Congress, and in that [stable] and predictable work flow, that’s where I believe the builders can realize their maximum efficiencies,” Roughead said.
“It was apparent to me as I went around, particularly on the mature lines, the amount of money the builders are taking out of the cost to build. That’s kind of where I am, get the plan, get the stability [and] the commitment and go with that,” he added.
Roughead added it is important for the Navy to talk about the new ship classes that are coming down the line and the importance of getting the design locked in as early as possible.
“There is no question you want your design set so that you have minimal changes and can reduce cost,” he said.
But, Roughead added, it takes too long to take a ship from concept to design. “In the world we live in today, to take 12 to 14 years to get a ship from concept into the water…I just have a hard time with that.”
Collectively, the Navy and industry need to be able to come together and have an open and frank dialogue about developing a stable design that can be built in less time, he added.
“The best thing for both parties is to have a good stable design when we go to production. But we also know in the world of rapid technological change that 14 years is too long. So how can we achieve the objectives of a good stable design from which to build, but do it in much less time?” Roughead said.
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is an example of the latter, he noted, but not the best example of the former.
“I am convinced, and I am just a simple ship driver, that there is a sweet spot in there some place where I think we can optimize both of those,” Roughead said. “That’s what I would like to work on in the next couple of years, because we have CG(X) coming, the Trident replacement will be coming down the road, [and] the replacement for our command ships is going to be something that I’d like to deal with on my watch.”
One way to bring down the time line on building ships, Roughead said, is by necking down the number of hull types the Navy has.
“I am a proponent of minimizing the number of hulls that we have. I think we can take time out of the process, I think we can take cost out of the process, I think we can take risk out of the process. And the hull forms that we have, have to include the hull forms of DDG-1000 and LCS,” he said. “Rather than when we see the need in the future to say we have to have a warfighting capability to do X,Y or Z, our inclination should be to say what do we have in the hull form inventory and that’s the way we are going to go as opposed to getting out a clean sheet of paper and starting from scratch which means more time and more cost and more risk.”
In December, during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, both Roughead and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway were asked about the Marine Corps’ amphibious ship needs. The two services have been holding talks on the subject dating back to when Adm. Mike Mullen was CNO. During last month’s hearing, both Roughead and Conway acknowledged the Navy understands the Marine Corps’ requirements. However, Roughead noted, “There are requirements and there is what we can afford (Defense Daily, Dec. 14).”
“There is no question in my mind what the Marine Corps requirement is,” Roughead said, “and my comment at the hearing was, I can acknowledge his requirement but in my plan I may have to say, ‘given where I am trying to balance other things, this is what I can afford.’ I don’t question the Marine Corps requirement. I also believe that those ships that fulfill his forcible entry capability are also perfect ships to do other types of things.”
Roughead wasn’t directly involved in the earlier discussion with the Marine Corps over its amphibious ship needs. In his view, though, he thought an issue that hung up the discussion centered on the idea that if the Navy agreed to a requirement it mean the service was going to buy it.
“I am not in that same place. I have a lot of things I would like to go out and procure,” Roughead said. “That’s why I think it is so important to have an open discussion, and then we take the money that we have and use it to try and balance things.”
In the past few months, Roughead has been working with Conway, and the CNO said he believes the two are of the same mind.
“We have a requirement. We say what it is and then we try to figure out how we are going to go after it,” Roughead said. “I feel the same way about shipbuilding. As I work my way through, if 313 is the floor, the inevitable question then is, what is the ceiling…[to] get to what I think, operationally, I may need to do my job. What I think that number is and what I can afford to do need not be the same number.
“I would not be surprised that I am looking at a number that may exceed [what] I can afford, but I also think it gets to having a discussion very broadly in this country [about] what kind of a Navy does the country need and what kind of a Navy does the country want to buy,” he added.
“We can talk about this program or that program but I think the fundamental thing that we need to have a good discussion about is what kind of a Navy does the nation need and how much is the nation willing to pay for that Navy. That’s ultimately what we get down to,” Roughead said.