Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
May 9, 2008 By Dale Eisman, The Virginian-Pilot
WASHINGTON--A key U.S. House subcommittee wants to overhaul the Navy's shipbuilding program, pausing development of a futuristic new destroyer and shifting its $2.5 billion cost to a variety of other ships already in production.
The plan, unveiled in a meeting Thursday morning, could permit the Pentagon to build or begin work on as many as 12 ships next year, four more than the Bush administration requested in February.
The proposal gives Navy leaders considerable flexibility in deciding how to reallocate the money, however, so it might end up adding just two ships to the administration plan, staffers of the seapower subcommittee acknowledged.
The House plan, expected to reach the floor later this month, contrasts sharply with a Senate Armed Services Committee proposal released last week. Senators want to continue the DDG-1000 destroyer program, which has been a top priority for Navy leaders since the mid-1990s.
The DDG-1000 ships are to be loaded with a variety of computer-controlled systems and designed to operate with crews less than half as large as the 330 needed for today's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
None of the ships in dispute is built in Hampton Roads, but Northrop Grumman, which builds submarines and aircraft carriers in Newport News, has a major stake in the new destroyer through its yard in Pascagoula, Miss.
Lawmakers already have funded two of the new ships, but Rep. Gene Taylor, the Mississippi Democrat who chairs the House panel, argued Thursday that the program depends on unproven technologies and is likely to experience cost overruns that "will cripple the Navy shipbuilding account."
Taylor said that by withholding funds for a third DDG-1000 sought by the Pentagon, the Navy could build an additional San Antonio-class amphibious transport and commit to two additional supply ships. The "pause" on DDG-1000 construction also would free up $400 million that Navy leaders could apply to refine the new destroyer's design or use as a down payment on two more Arleigh Burke destroyers, Taylor said. Northrop Grumman's Pascagoula yard, which is in Taylor's district, is one of two that builds the Burke ships.
The House plan endorsed the administration's proposal for construction of an additional Virginia-class attack submarine next year but recommended two subs - one more than the Pentagon plans - in 2010. The boost would be offset by a drop to one sub in 2011 before moving to a two-per-year schedule in 2012.
Northrop Grumman's Newport News yard shares sub contracts with a General Dynamics yard in Connecticut. While the revised construction schedule would not change the number of subs to be built, House staffers said it would smooth out the workload in both yards.
The House subcommittee's proposal also would continue to push the Navy toward using nuclear propulsion for its surface combatants, ordering that designs for a next-generation amphibious ship provide for nuclear power. The Navy's submarines and aircraft carriers are all nuclear, but service leaders have resisted using atomic power on other ships, citing high construction costs.
With oil supplies uncertain and prices passing $125 per barrel and headed higher, the "break-even" point for nuclear power is rapidly approaching, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., told colleagues.
"It is time for us to act," he said.
May 9, 2008 By Dale Eisman, The Virginian-Pilot
WASHINGTON--A key U.S. House subcommittee wants to overhaul the Navy's shipbuilding program, pausing development of a futuristic new destroyer and shifting its $2.5 billion cost to a variety of other ships already in production.
The plan, unveiled in a meeting Thursday morning, could permit the Pentagon to build or begin work on as many as 12 ships next year, four more than the Bush administration requested in February.
The proposal gives Navy leaders considerable flexibility in deciding how to reallocate the money, however, so it might end up adding just two ships to the administration plan, staffers of the seapower subcommittee acknowledged.
The House plan, expected to reach the floor later this month, contrasts sharply with a Senate Armed Services Committee proposal released last week. Senators want to continue the DDG-1000 destroyer program, which has been a top priority for Navy leaders since the mid-1990s.
The DDG-1000 ships are to be loaded with a variety of computer-controlled systems and designed to operate with crews less than half as large as the 330 needed for today's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
None of the ships in dispute is built in Hampton Roads, but Northrop Grumman, which builds submarines and aircraft carriers in Newport News, has a major stake in the new destroyer through its yard in Pascagoula, Miss.
Lawmakers already have funded two of the new ships, but Rep. Gene Taylor, the Mississippi Democrat who chairs the House panel, argued Thursday that the program depends on unproven technologies and is likely to experience cost overruns that "will cripple the Navy shipbuilding account."
Taylor said that by withholding funds for a third DDG-1000 sought by the Pentagon, the Navy could build an additional San Antonio-class amphibious transport and commit to two additional supply ships. The "pause" on DDG-1000 construction also would free up $400 million that Navy leaders could apply to refine the new destroyer's design or use as a down payment on two more Arleigh Burke destroyers, Taylor said. Northrop Grumman's Pascagoula yard, which is in Taylor's district, is one of two that builds the Burke ships.
The House plan endorsed the administration's proposal for construction of an additional Virginia-class attack submarine next year but recommended two subs - one more than the Pentagon plans - in 2010. The boost would be offset by a drop to one sub in 2011 before moving to a two-per-year schedule in 2012.
Northrop Grumman's Newport News yard shares sub contracts with a General Dynamics yard in Connecticut. While the revised construction schedule would not change the number of subs to be built, House staffers said it would smooth out the workload in both yards.
The House subcommittee's proposal also would continue to push the Navy toward using nuclear propulsion for its surface combatants, ordering that designs for a next-generation amphibious ship provide for nuclear power. The Navy's submarines and aircraft carriers are all nuclear, but service leaders have resisted using atomic power on other ships, citing high construction costs.
With oil supplies uncertain and prices passing $125 per barrel and headed higher, the "break-even" point for nuclear power is rapidly approaching, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., told colleagues.
"It is time for us to act," he said.