Senate panel cuts 1 of 3 LCS ships, backs FCS

 

By William Matthews - Staff writer

Posted : Tuesday Sep 11, 2007 17:59:18 EDT

 

The Senate subcommittee that oversees the U.S. military budget eliminated one of the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships Sept. 11, leaving the program with just two ships.

 

Each remaining vessel is a different design, and the subcommittee said it expects the Navy to pick one as the winner in a contest between Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics to build as many as 55 ships for the Navy.

 

In documents prepared by the subcommittee, senators said the two ships should be delivered to the Navy by next summer and the Navy should evaluate them and decide which one to build in volume by Oct. 1, 2008.

 

The decision by the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee cuts $910 million from the Littoral Combat Ship program for 2008. It also takes back $300 million from the program in 2007 funding. And it adds $75 million for advance procurement funding for a ship in 2009.

 

The Senate subcommittee decision differs from House action on the LCS program. The House cut $571 million from the program for 2008. That difference will have to be resolved in a final version of the military spending bill.

 

Overall, the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee approved defense spending bill worth $559.3 billion. In August, the House approved a $559.6 billion bill.

 

Each house voted to spend less than the $463.1 billion President George W. Bush requested in military funding for fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1.

 

Senators trimmed $1.4 billion from Bush’s request for $99.6 billion in “procurement” funding – the money used to buy new weapons. The House trimmed only $15 million from the president’s request.

 

Senators added $270 million to the $75.4 billion Bush requested for research and development – the part of the budget that pays for developing new weapons. The House added $1.1 billion to the president’s R&D request.

 

Both houses cut about $300 million from the $8.8 billion Bush sought for ballistic missile defense programs.

 

During a brief subcommittee meeting Sept. 11, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee, announced that his subcommittee’s version of the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act “fully funds FCS,” which he identified as the Army’s highest priority.

 

That decision is at odds with a House vote to cut $406 million from the Army’s request of $3.6 billion for FCS. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said the FCS program has become unaffordable. FCS has been priced at $160.7 billion by the Government Accountability Office.

 

In another favor for the Army, the Senate subcommittee keeps alive the armed reconnaissance helicopter by allocating $242.3 million for 16 helicopters. The House voted to cut all funds for buying helicopters, but allowed research and development to continue.

 

Earlier this year, a prototype of the Bell-made helicopter crashed. Then in March, the Army ordered Bell to stop work on the program because it was behind schedule and over budget.

 

The fates of FCS and the helicopter will probably have to be resolved by a conference committee as the House and Senate wrap up work on a final version of the defense spending bill.

 

Despite those and other differences in spending on certain programs, there really is little difference between the spending bill the House passed in August and the one the Senate subcommittee approved Sept. 11, said Christopher Hellman, a defense budget analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

 

And with a $142 billion war-funding bill and an anticipated request for $40 billion more to pay for the “surge” of troops to Iraq this year, budget numbers are still very fluid, Hellman said. There will be multiple opportunities for lawmakers to secure funding for programs that are not funded in the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act, he said.

 

In all, Bush asked Congress for $647.2 billion in defense spending for 2008. That includes $483.2 billion for regular defense expenses, $141.7 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $17.4 billion for nuclear weapons programs managed by the Energy Department and $5.2 billion in defense-related activities by other agencies.

 

That total will go up if an additional funding request is made to pay for the surge.

 

Find Navy Times article here.

From DefenseNews

 

Posted 09/12/07 18:40

Alabama Senator: Proposed LCS Cut Likely To Stand

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

 

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said it would be hard for him to reverse a decision Sept. 12 by the Senate Appropriations Committee to cancel construction of a second Littoral Combat Ship to be built in an Alabama shipyard.

Senate appropriators unanimously approved a $459.3 billion defense spending bill for 2008. That’s $3.8 billion less than President George W. Bush requested for fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1.

In July, the House Appropriations Committee passed a $459.6 billion defense spending bill for 2008. Differences between the two bills will be resolved by a conference committee made up of members from both houses of Congress.

During a Senate Appropriations Committee meeting Sept. 12, Shelby complained that the Senate version of the 2008 budget eliminates $910.5 million that the Navy had requested for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program.

The ship’s ability to operate in shallow water, hunt submarines and find mines make it “extremely important to the Navy,” Shelby said.

But he conceded that the LCS program has been plagued by “huge cost overruns.” Shelby blamed those on the Navy, which he said has repeatedly made costly design changes to the ship.

Originally priced at $233 million apiece, the Navy has acknowledged that LCS costs have ballooned by 50 percent to 75 percent.

Shelby declined to try to amend the Defense Appropriations Act to restore funding for an LCS that was to be built by Austal USA in a shipyard in Mobile, Ala.

“I don’t think an amendment would carry right now,” he said. Senators won’t restore funding until the Navy develops program reforms to keep costs under control, he said.

Shelby voted with the rest of the Appropriations Committee to approve the spending bill minus money for the LCS.

The House version of the bill cut $571 million from the program for 2008, leaving $339.5 million. That money and materiel from prior years would be used to build a single LCS, House lawmakers said.

Austal and its partner, General Dynamics, were supposed to build two LCS prototypes. A rival team headed by Lockheed Martin was supposed to build two others, whereupon the Navy was to pick one design and buy a total of 55 ships.

Because of spiraling costs, the Navy canceled the second Lockheed Martin ship last April. Now Senate appropriators have voted to cancel the second Austal-General Dynamics ship.

In a report on their bill, the appropriators said the two ships should be delivered to the Navy next summer, and by the end of 2008, the Navy should decide which ship it wants to continue building. The committee also directs the Navy to produce “a new acquisition strategy for the future procurement of the LCS class.”

RRW, JSF Engines

Funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) may become a last-minute target when the full Senate takes up the spending bill later this month.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said the Senate should cut $30 million now in the bill for engineering planning on how to place the RRW on a Navy Trident missile.

The spending is premature because no decision has yet been made to go forward with the RRW, she said.

The House has cut all funding for the program, and Feinstein urged senators to do the same. The warhead, which the Defense Department insists is an upgrade of an existing design, will be seen by other countries as a new warhead, and as such, “is going to be interpreted as an opportunity for nuclear proliferation,” she said.

Feinstein hinted she may try to amend the spending bill to remove RRW funding during debate on the Senate floor.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, urged his colleagues to halt spending on an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Having competing engine suppliers for the fighter is supposed keep costs down, but Harkin said three reports have concluded an engine competition would save little or nothing.

Having to maintain two engines will lead to parts mix-ups and training problems for JSF engine mechanics, he said.

“We’re not talking about chicken feed,” he said of the $480 million expense in the 2007 budget.

The Defense Department has consistently opposed developing a second engine for the fighter, and so have the eight countries working with the United States on the plane, Harkin said.

“There was a competition” to determine who would build the JSF engine and “one company lost.” Since then, it has been lobbying Congress to build an alternate engine, Harkin said.

Pratt & Whitney is the Joint Strike Fighter engine supplier. General Electric wants to produce the alternate.