Comments on: Gene Taylor (D-MS) Fires A Broadside:

By: A review of two years of USNI blogging:

A review of two years of USNI blogging: — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 02:49:58 +0000

[...] Feb 5, 2009: Gene Taylor (D-MS) Fires a broadside [...]

By: Sailor

Sailor — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:55:07 +0000

The 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.

By: springbored

springbored — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:59:09 +0000

That’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?

By: andrew lubin

andrew lubin — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:12:12 +0000

While 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.

By: combatchop

combatchop — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:35:54 +0000

My 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?

By: leesea

leesea — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:13:58 +0000

While 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.

By: Moose

Moose — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:11:58 +0000

I 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.

By: Galrahn

Galrahn — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:37:15 +0000

I 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.

By: Football, Basketball, Hockey, NASCAR » Blog Archive » The Dish: Super Bowl Blah. | Saritana’S Blog

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:11:07 +0000

[...] Gene Taylor (D-MS) Fires A Broadside: | USNI Blog [...]

By: Defense Springboard

Defense Springboard — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:07:57 +0000

Exactly. And it’s tearing me apart.