The House Armed Services Committee would withhold half the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s money until the Navy begins planning the refueling and complex overhaul of its aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73), if the seapower and projection forces subcommittee language passes the full committee next week and the full House of Representatives later in May.
In a single sentence within the subcommittee’s section of the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, chairman Randy Forbes (R-Va.) directs “not more than 50 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available…until the Secretary of Defense obligates funds to commence the planning and long lead time material procurement associated with the refueling and complex overhaul of the USS George Washington (CVN–73).” HASC spokesman Claude Chafin confirmed that Section 301, the section referred to in the text, is the entire OSD budget.
Forbes told reporters Tuesday morning at a Defense Writers Group breakfast, before the bill language was released, that no subcommittee mark with his name on it would be released that didn’t fully support keeping 11 aircraft carriers in the fleet. “You will feel comfortable by the end of the day that that carrier will be having everything that carrier needs to make sure we have 11 carriers moving forward,” he said, though at the time he would not elaborate on how he would accomplish that. He noted, however, that he was worried about both the number of planes and the mix of planes in the carrier’s associated air wing. The subcommittee language, released Tuesday, does not address the air wing, and the line-by-line funding tables will not be released until later in the NDAA process.
Also included in the seapower subcommittee language is the creation of a new fund for the new ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio-class boats, set for retirement beginning in 2029. The subcommittee language creates a “National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund” that would exclusively fund advance procurement and construction of the subs. Any funding for the submarines appropriated after 2017 would go into this pot of money, and the Secretary of Defense could request to transfer in up to $3.5 billion in unobligated funds left in the Navy’s shipbuilding and conversion account in FY ’14 through ’16.
Forbes told reporters Tuesday morning that he was confident the rest of Congress would go along with funding the submarines outside the Navy’s shipbuilding account because the subs’ high cost would decimate the rest of the shipbuilding programs.
“I think it’s good because we’re not going to have a choice” between the submarines and all other shipbuilding needs. “I don’t think Congress is going to want shipbuilding to stop completely, and yet we’re not going to let the most powerful vessels we have for national defense not be done. So I think we have a good opportunity for doing that.” He did note, though, that Congress has a knack for procrastinating until the last minute, and he said he wouldn’t be surprised if this effort is put off but ultimately passed at the last minute.
A contentious shipbuilding issue not tackled in this first draft of the subcommittee bill deals with the cruiser fleet. The Navy proposed taking 11 of its 22 cruisers and putting them through hull, mechanical and electrical upgrades now, keeping them laid up through the rest of the decade, and then performing weapons system upgrades on one ship at a time as each of the in-service cruisers nears decommissioning. The Navy has said the plan would keep 11 cruisers in the fleet at all times through the 2040s rather than losing the entire fleet by the 2020s.
But Forbes told reporters, “I feel pretty comfortable we won’t go with the exact plan the Navy had because I’m really concerned when you start laying those ships up, I’m not comfortable we’d get them out. And I think it’s just too important for us to have those 11 cruisers.”
He said he just decided a course of action Monday night, which did not leave enough time to add the plan into his bill. He said he would either offer an amendment to the bill later this week or incorporate it into the full-committee text.
In the strategic forces subcommittee text, also released Tuesday, lawmakers note their support for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, adding that the Air Force should continue its current block buy strategy but provide opportunities to open up competition to certified launch providers. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) announced last week it was suing the Air Force to compel the service to open up more opportunities for competition. SpaceX is going through the certification process now and, as a result, much of the block buy was awarded to United Launch Alliance (ULA) on a sole-source basis, (Defense Daily, April 25). The strategic forces subcommittee did not wade into that battle, leaving the language vague and simply encouraging competition among certified providers.
In another timely issue, the subcommittee provides $220 million for the Air Force to develop a next-generation liquid rocket engine to replace the RD-180 the Air Force currently buys from Russia. Ever since Russia began stirring tensions in Ukraine, and particularly once it annexed Crimea, lawmakers have increasingly called for halting buys of Russian products and starting an American rocket engine program.
The subcommittee’s language specifies the engine should be developed by 2019, using full and open competition, and available for purchase by all American space launch providers. The language does not mention Russia specifically but rather calls for an engine “that enables the effective, efficient, and expedient transition from the use of non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative for the evolved expendable launch vehicle program.” DoD would work with NASA on this project, the language adds, to ensure commonality in American defense and civil space communities.