House Armed Services Committee: Navy Shipbuilding Costs: Panel 2

The House Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee met on Tuesday to discuss the topic of surface combatant construction. As usual, there were submitted statements by all sides, with questions and answers. While the submitted information is interesting, the questions and answers were revealing.

The second panel consisted of VADM Paul Sullivan, Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, Ms. Allison Stiller, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Shipbuilding, RADM Barry McCullough, Director, Warfare Integration, and Mr. Dub Summerall, Executive Director for Surface Combatants, Program Executive Officer, Ships.

Unlike the first panel, the Navy's submitted statement ultimately had nothing to do with the Q&A; that followed, although there is some interesting information contained. Among the topics in the Q&A were the Navy reasons behind shipbuilding problems with the LCS specifically, and all programs in general. Additionally, nuclear power was a topic including the recent discussion of the upcoming Analysis of Alternatives that includes a CGN(X). For now I just want to focus on shipbuilding though.

While specific technical reasons compounded the problems in the LCS construction which ultimately has skyrocketed the cost, there was a point raised regarding shipbuilding I think need to be focused on, specifically manpower reductions in Program Executive Offices and its direct relationship to reduction in shipbuilding.

I think it is noteworthy the Navy is casually discarded manpower on the warfighter side as a cost saving benefit today while at the same time claims the cuts to manpower since 1992 in Program Executive Office's is a primary factor for failure in the shipbuilding program.

Specifically during the Q&A, it is stated for the record that since 1992, there has been at least a 50% reduction in staff related to earned value management. Earned value management staff reduction includes the staff necessary to estimate shipbuilding cost effectively and insure cost verification for programs. Given this staff reduction, is it an accident that shipbuilding costs have increased so much?

If someone would agree that it isn't a coincidence, and I think most people would agree, then why wouldn't manpower reduction at the war fighter level not also decrease war fighter capability? Yes, I understand technology 'can' reduce manpower requirements for war fighting, but it must be considered that manpower reduction on a ship might also reduce a ships total war fighting capability, regardless of technology. The LCS is not that much smaller than the FFG-7. How is it then the LCS with 1/3 the total manpower of the FFG-7 can be expected to be as capable in all critical war fighter requirements (like damage control, among others) as the FFG-7 was?

I find the suggestion that technology can substitute for 2/3s of a crew for a ship the size of a FFG-7 unrealistic, and I don't believe there is any empirically derived data that can support such a suggestion. Manpower reductions as a cost saver in regards to shipbuilding appears to be a proven loser in shipbuilding for the Navy today. I think the Nation should be concerned whether manpower reductions at the war fighter level as a cost saver is going to be a loser at the war fighter level tomorrow.