By Emelie Rutherford
House authorization panels recommended last Friday changing cost controls for Navy littoral ships, prodding the service to enter into multiyear contracts, and adding monies to the Pentagon’s budget proposal to continue the Joint Strike Fighter’s alternate-engine program.
The House Armed Services Committee’s (HASC) Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee and Air and Land Forces panel marked up their portions of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, which the full committee is scheduled to put together tomorrow during an all-day bill-writing session.
Several hot-button matters not covered extensively during the subcommittee markups are expected to surface tomorrow, including proposals related to the Pentagon’s approach to the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft, KC-X replacement Air Force tanker, and VH-71 presidential helicopter programs, and the Navy’s request to temporarily reduce its aircraft-carrier fleet.
The Seapower panel during its markup recommended restructuring the Littoral Combat Ship’s (LCS) $460 million-per ship cost cap so that it adjusts for inflation and no longer counts non-procurement government costs for oversight and lifecycle management. Seapower subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) also included in the mark, as expected, language saying if the two LCS contractors–General Dynamics [GD] and Lockheed Martin [LMT]–cannot build each FY ’10 ship under the cost cap the Navy must take steps to allow additional companies to bid on the program.
“The Navy is counting on 55 of these ships to be a part of the 313-ship fleet; because the (chief of naval operations) CNO wants (the LCS), we are going to try work through to see that it’s delivered,” Taylor said. “But I have concern for the fleet and for the taxpayers that pay for that fleet. We’re going to make some changes.”
Seapower panel Ranking Member Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said he agreed with Taylor’s move to require the Navy prepare to open the LCS program to competition if costs are not controlled. However, Akin said he was concerned about the proposed cost-cap change.
“I want to support the program, while making sure we’re not sending a signal that we’re easing up the pressure on industry and the Navy to control costs,” Akin said.
The Seapower panel in its mark supports funding the eight new Navy ships the administration requested, and grants all monies requested for the Marine Corps’ closely watched Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. The subcommittee’s proposal, though, calls on the Marine Corps to explore EFV design modifications.
The Seapower panel recommended granting the Navy two types of multiyear procurement authorities: for future unplanned F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from Boeing [BA], and for DDG-51 destroyers the service plans to start buying again from Northrop Grumman [NOC] and General Dynamics. Granting such contracting authority, though, would not in itself compel the service to enter into the multiyear deals with industry.
“This mark recognizes, even if the Secretary of Defense does not, that the Navy is facing an acute shortage of strike fighters to fill the air wings of our carriers in the coming decade,” Taylor said.
His said his panel’s proposal “clearly indicates” the Navy should build more Super Hornets instead of extending the lives of older F/A-18 A through D Hornets.
The Seapower subcommittee proposed increasing funding for more Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers than the current program of record.
The Seapower panel and the Air and Land Forces subcommittee during their markups supported adding $603 million to the defense budget for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) second-engine program. Congress has consistently funded the alternate-engine effort, with a General Electric [GE]-Rolls Royce team, not sought by the Pentagon.
The Air and Land Forces panel also recommended reducing the procurement request for the Lockheed Martin-built JSF from 30 to 28 aircraft, dropping one jet each for the Marine Corps and Air Force.
Its mark would limit the obligation of funds for development of the JSF aircraft to 75 percent until the Pentagon does two things: certifies all funds for development and procurement of the JSF second engine have been obligated, and submits a congressionally mandated 30-year aircraft building plan to lawmakers.
For the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) modernization program, the Air and Land Forces panel concurred with the Pentagon’s recommend cancellation of the manned-ground vehicle portion. Its mark includes full funding of $2.45 billion for FCS aspects slated to continue: the communications network and spin-out equipment sets.
The subcommittee, though, called for eliminating $427 million requested by the Pentagon for covering FCS contract termination costs, monies panel Chairman Neil Abercrombie (D- Hawaii) in a statement said could be covered with unspent FCS monies.
The Air and Land Forces panel’s mark also would limit the Pentagon to procuring one brigade set of FCS Spin Out Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team equipment under low-rate initial production authority. Aides said this limitation jibes with current law.
The panel also recommended limiting FY ’10 FCS research and development obligations to 75 percent until lawmakers receive a FCS Milestone Review Report required by law. Boeing and SAIC [SAI] have steered the FCS program.
Air and Land Forces subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and Ranking Member Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) lamented during the markup that the Office of the Secretary of Defense had not provided information they wanted on its new FCS plans. Abercrombie questioned to what extent the overall FCS effort still existed.
“I certainly request at this point that the (defense) secretary make more explicitly clear his desires, and then the Congress can come to a conclusion as to whether or not we want to support those recommendations; that includes the whole spectrum of activity within the Future Combat System program,” the Hawaii congressman said.
The Air and Land Forces panel also called for increasing the number of C-17 and C-5 aircraft the Air Force must maintain from 299 to 319. For the service’s next-generation bomber program, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates put on hold, the panel recommended adding to the budget $140 million to use technologies associated with it on other programs.
After the HASC marks up its defense authorization bill tomorrow, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) will dive into its version next week. The closed SASC bill-writing sessions will begin June 24 and run until June 26 at the latest, the committee predicts.