GovernmentExecutive.com

The Navy this week sent a $5.7 billion list of unfunded priorities to Capitol Hill, asking for three additional ships and several aircraft that did not make the cut for the Pentagon's fiscal 2008 budget request.

As has been the case this year with the Army and Marine Corps, the Navy's fiscal 2008 unfunded list is significantly higher than previous years, indicating an up-tick in the services' equipment demands despite near-record defense spending levels.

The Navy's fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2007 budgetary wish lists totaled $3.7 billion and $4.6 billion, respectively.

In a Monday letter to House Armed Services ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., Chief of Naval Operations Michael Mullen acknowledged that increases in defense spending requests in the last several years have given "some budgetary relief."

But Mullen, who has outlined an ambitious 30-year shipbuilding plan for the Navy, stressed that significant shortfalls remain in the services' equipment coffers.

"Persistent operations related to the global war on terrorism and attaining our shipbuilding and aircraft procurement objectives continue to stretch the Navy's resources," Mullen wrote. "As [the] Navy continues to focus on our new defense strategy and on the emerging challenges of the 21st century, fiscal choices have resulted in some important programs being underfunded."

In particular, the service wants an additional $1.7 billion to buy another LPD-17 amphibious transport dock ship next year, a move that would fulfill their stated requirement of 10 ships.

The Pentagon's fiscal 2008 budget request includes money for the Navy's ninth LPD-17, but the service's six-year budget projections do not reveal any plans to seek funding for a 10th ship. The fleet has been built at Northrop Grumman Ship System's Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., and Avondale shipyard in New Orleans.

The Navy also would like another $1.2 billion to buy two more T-AKE dry cargo carriers, built by the San Diego-based National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. The FY08 budget proposal contains funding for only one, bringing the T-AKE fleet to 11 ships.

The Senate last summer balked at the Navy's fiscal 2007 request for funds for a single T-AKE ship, asserting that the Navy had yet to begin construction of five previously funded ships or spend $2.4 billion already appropriated by Congress. But in the end, House and Senate Defense appropriations conferees agreed to restore the money cut by the Senate.

Looking ahead to fiscal 2008, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., and House Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss., already have discussed adding five ships to the Navy's budget. But the two Democratic allies have spoken informally about boosting accounts for Virginia-class submarines and surface destroyers -- neither of which made the Navy's unfunded list.

Meanwhile, the Navy, which plans to make fairly significant cuts to its aircraft procurement accounts, included in its unfunded list $1.4 billion for 33 new planes, including 12 F/A-18 fighter jets to replace older airplanes and four MH-60R Seahawk helicopters to increase the production-line capacity to more efficient manufacturing rates.

The unfunded list also includes $430 million to buy out the Navy's lease on nine remaining Maritime Prepositioning System vessels. Additionally, the Navy would like another $73 million to buy 72 additional Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, and $77 million to fund aircraft depot maintenance.

COMMENTS

• I agree with Tip but he assumes one thing that is not necessarily the case. All the spending must be in the USA. We cannot contract to build ships in Japan, Norway or Korea and increase our economic activity. Also, the economic action generated by war tends to be inflationary and not real. We increase money to make and blow up arms that increase incomes but do not generate any products that consumers may purchase. With higher incomes and no increase in goods, we get inflationary increases but no real growth. I think the war part of economic growth is far over stated. It is a basis for inflation that results in higher tax payments and eats up asset values of savers. That may be a large part of the reason that this country has such a low savings rate. As for Tom, I think what you refer to as negativity is simply the fact that I say government spending of our money is not as efficient or as good as allowing the private sector to grow and prosper. The government spending in the USA totally is out of control and should be reversed. The private sector may earn 13% over the long run on its money but the government sector tends to earn nothing. My negativity is to stop government spending and enforce a discipline on government operations that is lacking but that is faced everyday by the private sector. I do not think of that as negativity but I can see how anyone in government could see it that way. taxpayer Posted February 23, 2007 9:11 AM
• To quote the infamous Taxpayer, "Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all want whatever they can get, even if it helps destroy the country they are supposed to protect! Who is going to protect us from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines? They spend far too much money and provide almost nothing of value any more." No value huh? How do you like your freedom to spew all your negativity, as you do on a daily basis? Tom Posted February 21, 2007 10:36 AM
• Far be it for me to dream of changing Taxpayer's stance on anything, but, with no regard or reference to the morality aspects, one of the best ways of rejuvenating a declining economy is to sponsor a wartime economy, especially if you don't actually declare war. Economically speaking, please consider that plane, ship, tank, what-have-you and their costs, and exactly where their construction funds are spent. For every multi-million dollar piece of equipment, 95 percent of those funds are spent in manufacturing in the United States, supporting the heavy-metals, heavy-machinery, automotive, ship and aircraft industries of America. When such a piece of machinery gets lost in the sand box, what have we lost? A lot of metal, many yards of wire, some circuit boards, etc. A couple thermite bombs usually make sure that we leave nothing of value -- most of the value was in manufacturing and operations, not in the remains left behind. Scientifically speaking, R&D also makes great leaps during times like these. Government fiscal injections grease the wheels of science and, subsequently, industry yet again. This is such a lucrative business we've even made deals with our allies swapping component production. We do not need to do this; many argue it loses American jobs. But it encourages international/political cooperation and interdependence. If you don't think arms manufacturing isn't a big business in America, please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_jet_fighters, especially the sections: "Operators," "Unit Cost," and "Current sales proposals." When's the last time you heard about the "Rust Belt"? Pools of wealth are like rivers; they can be stagnant or forces of change, declining or causing growth. And remember, every dollar Uncle Sam spends changes hands five times. Americans are known for emerging from conflict with a flourish and fortune. Please remember, I speak only of the economics herein. Tip off Posted February 21, 2007 12:06 PM