How to Fix Shipbuilding: Rep. Taylor to Gates

How to Fix Shipbuilding: Rep. Taylor to Gates

Members of Congress, especially members of the president’s party, don’t usually shout out advice on what the defense budget should be before it comes out, but Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, effectively did just that this morning about his portion of the budget.

“For far too many years I have watched as the size of the Navy fleet has decreased. Each year the Navy changes its plan on how many ships will be built and delays the procurement of ships to future years. The Bush administration’s failed strategy of trying to build ‘transformational’ ships, such as the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the DDG 1000 destroyer, has crippled the Navy shipbuilding budget and forced years of delays in providing needed capability to the Fleet,” he said in a statement issued by the committee.

He singled out LCS as a particularly egregious example of the “Bush administration’s strategy that was neither well envisioned nor properly executed.” But he also noted “continued resistance from outgoing Bush administration officials to the common sense strategy of restarting the DDG 51 destroyer class is not helpful to the Navy and the nation. The shipbuilding plan needs less meddling, not more.”


He called for the administration to press ahead with the DDG 51 destroyer and urged it not to redesign the DDG 1000, saying “there is absolutely no value in spending even more precious shipbuilding funds to re-design the DDG 1000 as a ballistic missile capable platform.”

Taylor went further and offered his own shipbuilding plan. Here it is:

* Restructure the LCS program with common combat and propulsion systems between the two variants of ships. Divorce from the use of the defense firms as Lead Systems Integrators and bid a fixed price contract directly on a “build to print” basis with any shipyard that possesses the industrial capability to build the vessels.

* Truncate the DDG 1000 program. The ship is unaffordable.

* Restart the DDG 51 program. Not only is it the finest destroyer in the world but it possesses the capability for strategic missile defense, area air defense, and highly capable anti-submarine defense. Build these ships in quantity. If it improves efficiency to computerize the ship’s design into a 3-D modern ship design tool, then Navy should request that non-recurring engineering funding.

* Build combatant amphibious assault vessels, vice the non-combatant versions of the proposed Maritime Pre-Positioning Force (Future) or MPF(F). Use the basic LPD or LHD hull form for any other future large ship, including the next generation cruiser, instead of designing a new hull.

* Build a frigate on the common hull of the Coast Guard National Security Cutter. This is an affordable ship (without Navy making wholesale changes in the design) which is exactly the type of vessel necessary for 80% of the Navy’s core missions, including anti-piracy and homeland defense.

Watch to see whether the Bush administration defense team, which is fundamentally in charge of the Pentagon as we careen toward the first Obama administration defense budget, can make new policy and change its course under a new commander in chief or if it will stick with what it has argued was the right course for the last few years.

Share |

Join the Conversation

Sounds like Mr. Taylor is asking to keep his district shipyards alive more than anything (as all Congressmen do). Although he does have good points.

I don’t think we should be building the LCS. This ship is about the size of a corvette and we have never kept any ship smaller than a frigate around for very long. They either end up going to the Coast Guard, Spec Ops, or mothballed.

The DDG1000 should definitely be scrapped at the two or three ships already budgeted. And yes we need more DDG-51 Flight III destroyers. We could even sell our older Flight I and II DDG-51s to other countries so that we can get fully capable ships on line.

I think the MPF is vital and they do not need to be created as combat capable ships. That is what we have our amphibious fleet for. The MPF is designed to offload their equipment as a secure pier after the Marines have already taken the beach. Or they offload in a friendly port as we have done a couple of times in Kuwait. Having combat capable amphibs sitting chained to the pier for years does not make sense.

I don’t see how we can take the flat bottomed hull of an amphib and use it as a baseline for a ship that is supposed to do upwards of 40 knots. The amphibs also aren’t equiped with sonar. The latest amphibs have the commercial style bulbous nose.

We do need a new frigate to replace the FFG-7s. I get so sad looking at how they have neutered those poor ships.

Interesting how he didn’t mention carrier or sub construction requirements. Probably because Mississippi shipyards aren’t capable of building these boats.

DC2

The Navy needs to figure out what its maritime strategy is supposed to be. In one document, they say they need a big blue water navy with 12 supercarriers to patrol the world. In the next document, they say the future navy battles will be fought in the littorals (close to shore) which requires smaller ships. Neither of these strategies match with shipbuilding and budgets. And they definitely don’t match up with the Marine Corp’s future expeditionary plans.

Coastal Defense Plans call for new ships, joint ops, fast speed and firepower. Coast Guard and Spec Ops are a new fundamental dynamic needed for our sea services. Before we give anything away to a foreign country, we must think of it’s utilization for national resources first.
NOAA, NASA, FEMA, etc.. Design elements of our vessels should be studied by NASA labs to enable productive procurement. Set your sights and build what you need. If the design does not fit the need, find a need that it does fit. We need to move now of alot of issues, so put them thinking caps on folks and let us make it work!

Dear Sir /Madam:

Recently a former seaman who served aboard the “DD 676 USS HICKOX” in the pacific during WWII ASKED ME A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION. hE WANTS TO KNOW WHAT THE FIRST LETTER “D” STANDS STAND FOR? .aS IN THE EXAMPLE ABOVE.i PROMISED i WOULD TRY TO FIND OUT for him. I would really appreciated if you could me a reply to pass to him.Thank you

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement