Defense News- Lawmaker To U.S. Navy: Slow Down Ship Cuts

News Article

In an effort to grow the U.S. Navy faster than planned, one key lawmaker has proposed forcing the service to hold off taking ships out of service until more are ready to replace them.

"I want to put you on notice," Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., told the Navy's top officials Feb. 24. "Decommissioning 10 ships this year is unacceptable.

"It is my intention that for every three ships that are commissioned, we give permission to decommission two. We need to stop the bleeding this year."

Of the 10 ships the Navy is planning to remove from service in fiscal 2011, three are frigates, three are amphibious ships, three are civilian-manned ammunition ships and one is a nuclear submarine. Only about five ships are planned to enter service in the same time frame.

Taylor, during a voting recess, said he would leave it up to the Navy to decide which of the 10 should remain in service, but he expected the frigates to remain in commission.

"My recommendation to them is retire the sub," Taylor said. "They might say retire the three amphibs - they have a huge price tag. But as far as the logistical ships, the frigates, keep them in service.

"I'm trying to meet them halfway on the dollars. I realize the cost of keeping those amphibs around is enormous, the cost of keeping the sub is enormous. But if we're going to grow the fleet, we can no longer retire more than we commission."

Taylor, who chairs the House Seapower subcommittee, claimed he has the support of Armed Service Committee chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.

"I have tried to give them the benefit of the doubt over the years," Taylor said. "I've listened to three [chiefs of naval operations] and three Secretaries of the Navy tell me they want a 313-ship Navy, but their request doesn't match what they say. So if they won't match their own request in writing, if they won't do it administratively, then I am - with the support of Chairman Skelton - saying we'll do it legislatively. You're going to commission three for every two you retire."

Today's battle force counts 285 ships in service, up from a low of 275 in 2007. The Navy is building toward a 313-ship fleet and expects to reach a high of 320 ships in 2024.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, speaking to reporters after the hearing, didn't address Taylor's proposal head on, but he spoke confidently of the service's new 30-year shipbuilding plan and the new 2011 budget, submitted to Congress on Feb. 1.

"We think we've reached a pretty good balance between type of ships, numbers of ships and affordability of ships," Mabus said. "The [budget] and the longer plan are both realistic and will allow us to meet all the missions that we have.

"The ships we are planning to decommission have either reached or are right at the end of their service life," Mabus added. "But the ships we are decommissioning now are there, at the end of their service life. We've done a very detailed, very in-depth study of the difference between a service life extension for them versus buying new, more capable ships, and the case is pretty strong to buy the new ships and not try to extend those that we have."

Taylor did not specify how the costs for keeping the extra ships in service would be met, something Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, alluded to in speaking with reporters.

"I've been doing this for a while, and any time you talk about doing anything with ships, there's a cost," Roughead said.

The three frigates to be decommissioned in 2011 all were commissioned in 1983. Two of the amphibious ships date from 1967 while the assault ship Nassau entered service in 1979, and the ammunition ships date from 1971 and 1972. The submarine Memphis was commissioned in late 1977 and already has undergone one reactor refueling.

Skelton also signaled his interest in another ship the Navy is not planning to buy but has been offered by Northrop Grumman - a navalized version of the National Security Cutter now being built for the U.S. Coast Guard. Skelton said he had recently seen one of the new ships at Northrop's shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss.

"Why won't that ship do for the Navy?" he asked.

"We have looked at a variety of options for the type of capabilities we need to meet the needs of the maritime strategy," Roughead replied. "That ship is optimized for the Coast Guard mission. For Navy versatility and agility, it's important that we provide for a range of missions and not focus on one. We have to provide for a range of capabilities. For us speed becomes important, and that led us to the [littoral combat ship]. What we're building now meets the requirements for what we need."

Skelton nevertheless asked Roughead "for some bright shipbuilder" in the Navy "to give us the pros and cons regarding that ship, including the cost.

"No rush, three weeks will do," he added.

"I really scratched my head when I saw that ship," Skelton said. "Why can't we do that?"

Source