From DefenseNews

 

Posted 03/28/07 18:15

Lawmakers Offer Ships That U.S. Navy Is Reluctant To Accept

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

 

Some in the U.S. House of Representatives want to buy the Navy 12 new ships next year, not just the seven the service requested in the 2008 budget proposal.

But when asked by appropriators in the Senate “what number is prudent,” the Navy’s top officer suggested maybe eight.

After complaining for years that its fleet is shrinking and that its shipbuilding budget isn’t big enough, the Navy finds itself in the awkward position of having to turn down an opportunity to dramatically increase shipbuilding.

One problem is that U.S. shipyards would be hard-pressed to increase production to 12 ships a year, said Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations. Another problem is that two of the Navy’s shipbuilding programs are so problem-plagued that buying more of them poses an unacceptable risk, he said. A third problem is that buying an extra submarine requires about two years of advance procurement.

The Navy would like an extra LPD-17 amphibious ship, but it’s “not affordable,” Mullen told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee March 28.

The one extra ship that the Navy could probably accommodate, Mullen said, would be a T-AKE — a fairly inexpensive, civilian-manned ammunition carrier. That “could be done relatively easily,” he said.

The Navy has asked for $13.65 billion for shipbuilding in 2008, up from $10.4 billion this year. If ships are added, the 2008 total could increase to more than $17 billion.

Instead of welcoming the extra spending, Mullen and Navy Secretary Donald Winter cataloged the difficulties besetting Navy shipbuilding.

Damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 continues to hobble shipyards in Mississippi and Louisiana, making questionable the ability to actually build extra ships, Mullen said.

Inability to increase production capacity means that if Congress adds money for extra ships to the 2008 budget, it is likely that the Navy would “essentially be booking a ship, not actually building it,” Mullen said.

The U.S. shipbuilding industrial base is so diminished that “ramping up” ship production is very difficult, Mullen said.

Adding a submarine to the 2008 budget would involve other complications, he said. Submarines require two years of partial funding to buy the nuclear propulsion system and other advance procurement items before the main purchase is made. So construction of an extra submarine wouldn’t begin until 2010, Mullen said. An extra submarine then also would start two-per-year sub building two years early, which, in turn, would leave a “$5 billion hole” in the budget for 2011, when the Navy plans to have only enough money to build one submarine, he said.

The Navy’s two newest classes of ships might seem like logical places to spend some extra money, except that both are experiencing serious development problems. Adding ships to either program in 2008 would put money at risk, he said.

The Littoral Combat Ship program has experienced cost overruns of between 50 percent and 75 percent on the three ships under construction. What was supposed to be a $220 million ship now is $350 million to $375 million. The Navy has been forced to cut ship production to pay for the overruns.

The DDG-1000, the Navy’s new destroyer, is projected to cost $3.3 billion but analysts say the actual cost could rise to $5 billion or higher. The DDG-1000 program is in its early phases, thus too risky to merit extra spending in 2008, Mullen said.

In case that suggests to some buying more DDG-51s, Mullen said he wanted to “make it clear that we do not want to go back” to building any more of the Cold War-era ships. The last DDG-51s were bought in 2005.

Confronted with out-of-control ship costs and storm-damaged shipyards, senior Navy officials look with envy at foreign shipbuilding capabilities.

Winter told the subcommittee that a tour of foreign shipyards showed that many have superior technology. “We need to take a look at our plans for shipyards.” They need infusions of advanced technology, modernized processes, new facilities and a better work force, he said.

Who will pay for all that? “That’s worthy of significant discussion,” Mullen said when asked whether improvements should be financed by the federal government or the industry itself.

boy we certainly have some problems.