Posted by Defense Springboard in UncategorizedYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The Congressman (D-MS) has released a statement that takes the LCS and DDG 1000 to the woodshed, yet, somehow, the LPD-17 and the NSC Cutter–both festering shipbuilding problems themselves–get promoted. The Congressman, doing his duty to his local Northrop Grumman shipyard, boils his action plan down to a handful of points. Let’s take a look:
• 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
Congress needs a naval shipbuilding advocate. Gene Taylor is angling for that role, but, to me, his proposals are far too parochial. A strategy based upon the tenet of “If the ship isn’t built in my district, the nation doesn’t need it” is no basis for good naval policy.
A real naval advocate, in my mind, will fight for good programs that, at times don’t directly benefit his district. Gene Talyor has yet to do that. If he took that road, he’d be a far more credible voice for naval shipbuilding–and both he and Northrop Grumman would benefit.
Posted by Defense Springboard in UncategorizedYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
10 Responses to “Gene Taylor (D-MS) Fires A Broadside:”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Subscribe
- Remembering the USS Franklin (CV-13) “The Ship That Wouldn’t Die” March 19, 201065 years ago today: Before dawn on 19 March 1945 the U.S.S. Franklin, who had maneuvered closer to the Japanese mainland than had any other U.S. carrier during the war, launched a fighter sweep against Honshu and later a strike against shipping in Kobe Harbor. Suddenly, a single enemy plane pierced the cloud cover and made a [...] […]Jim Dolbow
- Blog Alert: A Little Pink in a World of Camo March 19, 2010I will always be a Marine wife We are all family. […]admin
- China’s Navy: Hey, let’s not panic… March 16, 2010In Asia, America has gotta move away from a long-standing habit of engaging in simple, bilateral force measurements. Asia is a multi-polar place, and America’s penchant for strategic over-simplification is going to land the U.S. into serious trouble. Put bluntly, U.S. Navy-folk need to remember there are a few other countries over on the other [...] […]Defense Springboard
- Two Super Hornet Collide Over Central Nevada March 16, 2010Not many details yet, but the Navy is now confirming that two F/A-18E collided last night: One pilot ejected after the 10 p.m. incident and was recovered by a search-and-rescue team near the crash scene about 100 miles east of Fallon in the Mount Callaghan area, according to Fallon Naval Air Station spokesman Zip Upham. The pilot [...] […]Christopher Albon
- Aegis BMD: “Build a Little, Test a Little, Learn a Lot” March 16, 2010Rear Admiral Meyer’s philosophy of “Build a Little, Test a Little, Learn a Lot” drove the testing and milestones of the Aegis system. Having witnessed problems with existing missile systems related to a lack of testing, tests that incorporated too many objectives, and failed system integration efforts requiring massive “get well” [...] […]SteelJaw
“A real naval advocate, in my mind, will fight for good programs that, at times don’t directly benefit his district.”
And what you’ve said above is leadership. Lack of good, solid, altruistic leadership is slowly killing this country.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pmExactly. And it’s tearing me apart.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm[...] Gene Taylor (D-MS) Fires A Broadside: | USNI Blog [...]
February 5th, 2009 at 3:11 pmI saw his proposals as simply a guy trying to promote alternative solutions, and using his position as representative to his district as a way to offer solutions. I honestly see nothing wrong with that, his job is to represent his people as part of the process of addressing major national issues. For him clearly shipbuilding is an important aspect of his job.
His comments, which didn’t get posted, seem to me to be much more important than his specific alternatives offered up as solutions.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:37 pmI can’t really fault a US Rep for favoring his district, it’s his job. He’s not USN brass nor a member of the Administration, he’s a guy elected to look out for his district. I fully support criticism which points out the lack of altruistic leadership in the Legislature, but it should be a Senator which takes the Congressional mantle. They have 6-year terms specifically to allow them more leeway doing “what’s best” without having to babysit public opinion locally.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pmWhile his proposals sound good and have some merit, each is lacking due to technical details. He is not a shipbuilder, he is a congress man with a backyard shipyard. A shipyard which is having many problems building good ships consitently.
The Navy needs new designs and reformed contracting practices, but most of all the Navy needs to decide on the correct ship type before throwing money at the same old places.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pmMy initial reaction in reading this piece was to write, “it’s only pork in someone ELSE’s district.”
But in fairness to the other thoughtful bloggers, I heartily agree that our shipbuilding programs suffer from the tendency to jump in with both feet before the technology is mature enough to support these multi-billion dollar programs.
It is ironic that I recall that it was Adm Zumwalt who expoused the high-low mix of ships necessary to maintain our pressence on the world’s oceans. Now the USS Zumwalt is the high-end element that is breaking the back of our shipbuilding budget.
Multi-purpose, multi-mission ships are essential force multipliers, no doubt. But if there aren’t enough to meet the demand, is a coverage gap an acceptable alternative?
February 5th, 2009 at 6:35 pmWhile there is nothing wrong with a Congressman favoring her district, or a Senator favoring his state, there needs to be a modicum of common sense in said program. Currently the House and Senate are voting to fund a stimulus package that will (hopefully) stem the current economic side.
Look at the faulty planning and building on the USS San Antonio…the Marine Corps EVT…a host of Army “army of the future” programs…what a perfect time this would be to perform and honest analysis of the current – future threats to the United States and then plan the weapons systems accordingly.
It’s worth noting that during every Pentagon budgeting crisis, the Pentagon promptly threatens those programs that directly affect our ‘boots-on-the-ground’ doing all the real work long before their expensive futuristic weapons platforms.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pmThat’s true. The first stuff to get clipped is the personnel budget. Followed swiftly by the training budget…
Hey, and let’s not forget the nuke-power proposals! Whatever happened to Gene’s push for a nuclear surface fleet?
February 6th, 2009 at 2:59 pmThe Congressman’s comments express his frustration with a lack of vision and candor by the Department of the Navy. For several years, DON has been unable to explain the mismatch between the available SCN budget and the numbers & types of ships that are in the 30 year shipbuilding plan. The answer has always been it gets better in the out years and ship costs will be far less than PAE, GAO, CRS, or any other neutral observer predicts. Since the Navy isn’t responding, Congressman Taylor is giving them suggestions. If the Navy doesn’t start building a realistic plan they are going to be given one by Congress, which I don’t think anyone wants, including Congressman Taylor.
There is nothing parochial in the LCS suggestion. Neither LCS variant is built by NG.
The second and third suggestions involve both NG and GD but the net affect of returning to DDG-51s is probably a negative as far as the shipyards are concerned (there are fewer manhours required to build DDG-51s than DDG-1000s).
The fourth & fifth suggestions would benefit NG if LPD/LHD hulls were selected, but if it saved money, wouldn’t it be worth looking at? To realize cost savings we need to start serial production of ships. No more 7 or 11 ship classes unless we’re talking about aircraft carriers.
The frigate suggestion is probably only worth considering if LCS can’t be turned around. The NSC is a nice little ship. All it’s really missing for Navy use is the sensors and weapons needed to perform one major warfighting mission like ASW.
February 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm