The Burke Era Returns

Emelie Rutherford's article in Defense Daily on Thursday (subscription only) has some details on the The Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee (SAC-D) marked-up bill, including one detail we think is very important.

The defense authorization bill the Senate is currently debating includes the $2.55 billion for the DDG-1000. The House-passed defense authorization bill, though, does not include the funding and instead gives the Navy the option of using $400 million to either restart DDG-51 production or use for DDG-1000 advance procurement.

The Navy told lawmakers in July it wanted to truncate the DDG-1000 destroyer line at the two ships on contract and instead restart production of the older and cheaper DDG-51 destroyers. Yet in August the service reversed course slightly and said it once again wants a third DDG-1000 in FY '09, though it hopes to stop at that ship and will seek support for restarting the DDG-51 line in FY '10.

The SAC-D yesterday added $397 million above the White House's request in advance-procurement funds for one DDG-51 destroyer. Its mark also adds $273 million to the Bush administration's request in advance- procurement monies for buying a LPD-17 amphibious ship, which would be the Navy's 10th.

If the Senate has committed $397 million for one DDG-51 destroyer. then that means the DDG-1000 is dead after FY09. If you recall, the House bill authorized $400 million for use either to buy components that could be used to build an additional DDG-1000 or to resume production of the much less expensive DDG-51-class destroyers. Think about it, the House presented the option to side with the Navy's revised plan for DDG-51s or continue with the current plan, but the Senate made the decision to go forward only with the Navy's plan for DDG-51s.

Roughead's plan to cancel the DDG-1000 and build more DDG-51s has worked, and it now appears the first DDG-51 will be built in FY10.

The Senate wants the 3rd DDG-1000. The House, in particular Gene Taylor and John Murtha, want a LPD-17. The Navy got what it wanted, DDG-51s starting in FY10. Now the fight comes down to building a DDG-1000 the Navy doesn't want under conditions of cost uncertainty, or build a LPD-17 which has not exactly been blazing the headlines with good news lately, but is a program that is building on time and budget.

We tend to think this is an interesting debate. The Senate can claim shipbuilding stability but cost uncertainty with the DDG-1000, while the House can claim cost certainty while creating shipbuilding instability with the LPD-17. That is not an easy decision, because the Navy can't afford the hit to shipbuilding of a DDG-1000 that goes well over budget, but the shipbuilding industry is already taking a hit to retool for the DDG-51, and could use the extra work of a third DDG-1000 to bridge the gap in the retool effort. In our opinion, the LPD-17 is the option for FY09 that meets a strategic requirement, after all, the #1 unfunded priority for the Marines is the 10th LPD-17, which Murtha would prefer to build. At the same time though, we recognize that sound maritime strategy starts with a healthy shipbuilding industry.

There are a lot of interesting ways to look at this, but the debate is fascinating. The Navy has won its fight to get back to building DDG-51s, and has left the House and the Senate to fight it out between the DDG-1000 and LPD-17 with the remaining shipbuilding money in FY09.