The Senate Armed Services Committee’s (SAC) version of the draft fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) pushes the Navy to procure a second attack submarine, third destroyer and showed concern about ship design maturity issues.
The committee announced on Friday it had passed the bill, with it next to go to the full Senate floor.
Mississippi (SSN 782) departs Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam for routine operations. General Dynamics’ sales in the quarter benefited from work on the Block IV version of the class. Photo: U.S. Navy
Like the House Armed Services Committee’s version, the Senate bill exceeds the Navy’s request for just one Virginia-class attack submarine (SSN) in FY ‘25 due to industrial base limitations and delays in the short and medium term. Instead, the service seeks to funnel more money into long term industrial base investments.
While the SASC’s bill was not released in full, the executive summary said it authorizes increased funding to both enhance the submarine industrial base and support construction of a second SSN.
The summary also said it directs the Navy to work with submarine shipbuilders “to establish a process by which they can bring new suppliers into the submarine industrial base more quickly.”
The Senate authorizers went further than the House side in ship production by also authorizing an additional $1.43 billion for a third Arleigh Burke-class destroyer the Navy did not request, past its usual two destroyer per year pace.
The bill includes several provisions focused on ship design maturity issues, including fencing FY ‘25 funds for the Constellation-class frigate pending certification of design completion.
The Secretary of the Navy’s 45-day shipbuilding review earlier this year revealed frigate design and workforce issues have pushed back delivery of the first ship by up to three years (Defense Daily, April 3)
Both the House authorizers and appropriators’ FY’25 defense bills cut $1 billion from the Navy’s request for another frigate amid the delays (Defense Daily, June 12).
Amid these and other ship design issues, the Senate authorizers included language to clarify the definition of basic and functional design while requiring written determination that detail design will be completed for each block of a ship’s construction before beginning construction of that block. It also requires a report on the status of vendor- and government-furnished information.
This is a step back from the House NDAA bill that pushes the Navy to attain 100 percent design completion before construction starts on the first ship in a new class (Defense Daily, May 23).
Another provision in the Senate bill prohibits construction of the new Landing Ship Medium (LSM) “pending certification of design completion and authorizes the procurement or chartering of a minimally modified commercial or non-developmental landing ship that meets core Marine Corps sealift and beach landing requirements.”
The Marine Corps has started using a leased modified commercial vessel made into a Stern Landing Vessel to test concepts for the LSM, with options to ultimately buy several similar modified commercial ships.
These concerns about ship design follow the 45-day shipbuilding review and several independent reports outlining design issues increasing costs and timelines for new Navy ships.
An April Congressional Budget Office report estimated the LSMs will cost two to three times as much as the Navy estimates given it will be a landing ship with hybrid designs between an amphibious warfare ship and one based on commercial standards, but edging closer to the military standard side (Defense Daily, April 12).
Then, a May Government Accountability Office report argued significant design changes from the parent design and Navy design metric mistakes led to the frigate delays (Defense Daily, May 29).
The frigate report recommended that the design of each ship block be completed before construction starts, even if the entire ship design cannot be completed before production starts.
Other ship provisions include requiring the Navy to conduct full-scale testing of at least two electric propulsion motor technologies for the DDG(X) program, a report examining options for producible small surface combatants and retrofitting existing vessels with missile launching capability and growing the number of used foreign-built ships that can be acquired for the Ready Reserve Force for sealift.