Notes From House FY 2010 Markup Bill

Several articles today highlight the House markup for the FY 2010 budget. A few interesting items. First, Defense News reports the Navy gets a Catapult Czar.

Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, "says he thinks this is the way future [carriers] should launch planes. I agree, but we are casing a $7 billion bet on that assessment," Taylor said. "If this fails to be ready on time, it could have us go down to nine or fewer carriers, and take what should be a $7 billion carrier and turn it into a $7 billion helicopter carrier."

The language calling for Taylor's EMALS czar was included in his subcommittee's markup of this year's defense authorization bill, which will next be considered by the full House Armed Services Committee.

Second key point, Gene Taylor (D-MISS) gives the Navy a starting point on the FA-18 discussion.

"It makes absolutely no sense to me that the department would pay $26 million to extend the flying life of an older plane by just 1,500 hours, when for $50 million they could buy a brand new, more capable plane that is good for 8,000 hours," he said.

In the markup, Taylor signals he supports new FA-18s instead of upgrading existing ones.

Defense Daily is reporting on the LCS cost cap.

The Seapower panel during its markup recommended restructuring the Littoral Combat Ship's (LCS) $460 million-per ship cost cap so that it adjusts for inflation and no longer counts non-procurement government costs for oversight and lifecycle management. Seapower subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) also included in the mark, as expected, language saying if the two LCS contractors--General Dynamics [GD] and Lockheed Martin [LMT]--cannot build each FY '10 ship under the cost cap the Navy must take steps to allow additional companies to bid on the program.

In case you don't know, those costs will remove about 14% of the LCS cost from the SCN budget, or around $62 million. Basically the Navy pays for those costs out of a different budget. That will likely be enough to get the LCS below the $460 million cap in multiyear.

Also from Defense Daily.

The Seapower panel in its mark supports funding the eight new Navy ships the administration requested, and grants all monies requested for the Marine Corps' closely watched Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) program. The subcommittee's proposal, though, calls on the Marine Corps to explore EFV design modifications.

The Seapower panel recommended granting the Navy two types of multiyear procurement authorities: for future unplanned F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from Boeing [BA], and for DDG-51 destroyers the service plans to start buying again from Northrop Grumman [NOC] and General Dynamics.

Granting such contracting authority, though, would not in itself compel the service to enter into the multiyear deals with industry.

The FA-18 discussion is interesting, and while there is no question that Boeing is offering a great price, I also think we should wait and see what the QDR says. If we don't increase the range of our naval carrier air power, then maybe we should reduce the number of aircraft carriers below 10 in favor of more longer range missiles and a new strategic bomber. The QDR will be asking those kinds of questions and looking into answers from a broader perspective of a single service.

One thing that keeps tugging on the back of my mind... the N-UCAS and other unmanned strike platforms have yet to be heard from in the FA-18 debate, and may influence the way ahead.