GovernmentExecutive.com

Navy officials held firm Wednesday to a decision to buy only one submarine annually for the next several years, despite a strong reaction from lawmakers concerned that the limited procurement would exacerbate problems in the struggling shipbuilding industry.

During their annual budget presentation to the House Armed Services Committee, Navy leaders argued increasing submarine purchases in the short term would throw the service's carefully balanced shipbuilding plan off kilter, forcing substantial cuts elsewhere.

At more than $2 billion each, submarines are one of the priciest items on the Navy procurement menu. Current plans call for the service to increase buys to two subs a year in 2012 -- but not before then.

Chief of Naval Operations Michael Mullen, who has been pushing his ambitious shipbuilding agenda hard on Capitol Hill, warned a major divergence would cause the plan to "unravel." It also would deny the shipbuilding industry what it has been clamoring most for: stability and an end to erratic budgets.

But lawmakers with submarine interests in their districts countered the one-per-year schedule would force the industry to lay off hundreds of highly skilled submarine designers just as China emerges as a significant naval power.

Losing the domestic industrial base amounts to a "serious strategic liability ... at a time when others around the world are rapidly deploying and rapidly building" submarines, said Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn.

Simmons' district includes General Dynamics' Electric Boat operation, as well as the New London Submarine Base. A perennial election target for Democrats, Simmons successfully campaigned last year to save New London from closure, securing more than 4,000 jobs in eastern Connecticut.

The Navy "cannot just reconstitute [the industrial base] overnight," added Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I. Electric Boat has a submarine outfitting facility in Quonset Point in Langevin's district.

Navy Secretary Donald Winter, who has been in office just two months, vowed to work with industry leaders to protect critical jobs.

But aside from economic concerns, Simmons argued that the Navy, which has been retiring older submarines, will soon have its fleet dip below the 48 subs deemed operationally necessary by the Pentagon's recent Quadrennial Defense Review.

"This isn't your fault, but it seems to me we need more subs," he said.

Navy officials acknowledged the temporary decline in the size of the sub fleet, but said it does not pose any immediate operational risk. "I accept that there is risk out there and clearly the task is how to manage that," Mullen said.

The submarine issue feeds into a growing financial debate this year between Congress and the Pentagon over whether the military's budget request adequately addresses and funds all of its operational needs.

Over the last several weeks, lawmakers have engaged Pentagon and service leaders over plans to cut personnel funding for the Army National Guard, retire the Air Force's venerable fleet of B-52 aircraft and end production of the C-17 cargo plane after the 180th aircraft rolls off production lines next year.

Last month, eight key Republican senators, along with Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, called on Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., to restore $3.7 billion to the Defense Department budget to pay for several unfunded service priorities. That amount would bring the base defense budget to $443 billion -- the Bush administration's projected funding level for the department as of last spring.

COMMENTS

• I believe some of the respondents to this article are missing the point. First of all, the argument is not over submarines that carry nuclear missiles (SSBNs). Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, most SSBNs have been retired. Many other OHIO class submarines are being retrofit to a new class: SSGN. These subs, instead of nukes, will carry lots and lots of cruise missiles and also have the capability to deliver Special Forces on clandestine missions. It has been 10 years since the United States built an SSBN. That last one, USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) had her maiden voyage on July 27, 1996. It is agreed that SSBNs have less value than they used to. However, there are still a great many nuclear weapons in the stockpiles of the former Soviet Union. Korea, China and Iran either already have or are trying to get their hands on nukes. If the United States were ever to do a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike on countries like this, SSBNs would be the ideal platform. They're still, even in the post cold-war world, the most effective deterrent against an enemy firing on the United States first. The submarines that the Navy is manufacturing now (and the ones discussed in this article) are SSNs. They are attack subs that carry torpedoes and cruise missiles. They are also good platforms for delivering SEALS to designated targets around the globe. Some are even specially fit to carry SEAL mini subs and other equipment. Perhaps even more importantly, these subs are the most stealthy weapons platform in the U.S. arsenal. They are able to eavesdrop on intelligence gathering operations and can sneak up close to enemy shorelines for surveillance missions. I am not arguing that the Navy should manufacture more than 1 submarine per year. I am not a naval analyst and I do not know the correct answer to the question of how many subs the U.S. Navy really needs. What I am saying is that the United States submarine fleet is not so irrelevant in the post Cold War world than many may think. Indeed, it offers a great many features that are effective in the war on terrorism. David Posted March 7, 2006 12:33 PM
• Good going Navy. This isn't about protecting America. This is about a few who want to create pork barrel projects in their own districts, so they can ensure their reelection. The American military needs to stand up to these fat cats who use them for political purposes. Bush is doing it every day when he uses the troops as "back drops" in his say-nothing speeches. Charlie (retired Navy) Posted March 2, 2006 9:57 PM
• Wait just a minute. Are we buying subs to protect us from our enemies, or are we buying them just to please the constituents of certain congressional representatives? Our country could have half as many subs as we do now and still be sitting pretty. There would still be enough nuclear devices to destroy the world many times over. Sub launched missiles can travel very long distances these days. So we don't have to keep large numbers of them in the oceans. They really aren't that practical for dealing with terrorists since we probably won't sink any passenger ships just to get at the terrorists. Submarine designers are engineers. They can design other things besides submarines. Foundries can cast other parts and iron workers can build other things besides submarines. So, why can't we find other peacetime work for these people to do when they are not building submarines? If we hope to stay ahead of the Chinese, our country needs an efficient infrastructure and efficient sources of energy. Why can't sub builders build nuclear power plants that sit under the ocean? What about high speed electric trains? Real security requires more than just being able to blow up our enemies. Robert M. Posted March 3, 2006 9:02 AM