By Emelie Rutherford
A leading shipbuilding voice in Congress said he has questions about the Navy’s proposed new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) acquisition plan, which appears stalled on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), the co-chair of the House’s shipbuilding caucus and a member of the party that will control the chamber next year, echoed several other lawmakers in saying he has critical questions about the Navy’s new proposal to buy LCSs from both competing shipbuilders.
“I have some reservations and some concerns about it,” Wittman told Defense Daily last week. “I want to understand how costs are going to be controlled, how having these two platforms is going to meet our strategic needs, why the change in direction.”
The Navy early this month asked Congress for permission, by mid-December, to halt its previous strategy to buy 10 LCS from either a Lockheed Martin [LMT]-Marinette Marine team or Austal USA, and instead buy 10 ships from each company. The service had been weighing which LCS builder to choose to make the next 10 ships and planned to hold a competition for another company to build five more of the ships based in the winning design.
The Navy said if Congress does not approve the new LCS acquisition plan by mid-December it will stick with its standing plan to select one shipbuilder.
Congressional aides said yesterday it is not clear if lawmakers will be able to address the legislation by that deadline during the current lame-duck session of Congress. Key Navy-overseeing lawmakers–including House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.)–said they have questions about the LCS proposal that would need to be answered before they can grant their approval (Defense Daily, Nov. 18).
Each LCS builder made early versions of the littoral ships, which ran over budget. Austal USA was teamed with General Dynamics [GD] previously with the LCS program, though the two companies split for the current competition.
“I want to understand what has changed, not only from a strategic standpoint about why you believe there’s a need for these two platforms, but also how do you believe that you can produce both of these ships at a reduced cost,” said Wittman, the No. 2 Republican on the Seapower subcommittee. “The focus has been getting the cost per copy down here. It seems illogical to me to say that somehow we’re going to get costs per copy down where we’re now maintaining two shipyards with two copies, lower numbers of ships being built, so you’re not going to get the economies as you would with a larger build. All those things kind of run counter to what we’ve talked about in getting that cost curve down.”
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead has said the Navy wants to change its LCS plans because Lockheed Martin and Austal USA’s bids were affordable and the service realized it could buy more ships with a dual procurement.
Wittman said he wants the Navy to answer questions related to funding and controlling costs with the two-LCS strategy.
“I thought about a year ago (Navy acquisition chief) Sec. (Sean) Stackley made a very compelling argument about the downselect, and now that’s been completely abandoned,” the congressman said.
“We’e got a very short time frame to ask what I think are some very compelling questions,” he said, noting Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ push to save money in the Pentagon budget through efficiencies.
“Our question should then be, if this (new LCS strategy) is going to add to cost, how does that increase capability?”
Wittman said he wants to hear what the new LCS plan would mean for overall shipbuilding funding. He has filed legislation to boost the size of the shipbuilding budget from $16 billion up to $20 billion per year. He said he hopes the shipbuilding caucus will help “ensure there’s an adequate budget presence” for building and increased number of Navy vessels.
“We have so many challenges in shipbuilding,” he said. “If we’re going to be spending more money for the less-expensive versions of out fleet, then where does that leave us elsewhere? Where are the resources going to come from to build things like the SSBN(X) (next-generation ballistic missile submarine), like the SSN (submarine), where we’re going to two boat per year build. When you look at those things, those numbers just don’t add up, especially within a realm of $16 billion in this year’s shipbuilding budget.”
Wittman said he hopes the caucus can generation discussions about boosting the shipbuilding budget by taking about the “strategic needs” for more vessels as opposed to the budget restrictions.
“What we’ve got to do is exactly what (House Armed Services Committee) Ranking Member (Howard “Buck”) McKeon (R-Calif.) says, and that is get the discussion back to the strategic needs of this nation, and then let Congress debate where the tough budgeting decisions will be made,” Wittman said. “That’s really where the decision needs to be.”
McKeon is poised to chair the full committee in January, when Republicans will assume majority control of the House.
The shipbuilding caucus will receive a new Democratic co-chair next year, because current co-chair Taylor lost his reelection bid on Nov. 2.