GovernmentExecutive.com

The Navy's long-term submarine plans came under fire Tuesday from House lawmakers, who raised concerns that sharp reductions in the size of the subsurface fleet pose national security risks.

Navy officials, who have spent the last several months selling their shipbuilding plan on Capitol Hill, acknowledged that the submarine acquisition strategy poses "moderate" risks to the force.

But the officials emphasized that increasing submarine purchases in the short term would throw the service's broader shipbuilding plan off balance, endangering the stability craved by the domestic shipbuilding industry.

That broader plan, with its target of fielding a total of 313 surface ships and submarines, "builds the Navy the nation needs," Adm. Charles Munns, commander of naval submarine forces, told the House Armed Services Projection Forces Subcommittee.

The Navy intends to decrease the size of its fast-attack sub fleet from 56 today to 48, in part due to the greater capabilities offered by a new generation of nuclear submarines. But the rate at which the Navy intends to buy the boats and retire older subs would bring the fleet down to fewer than 48 submarines between 2020 and 2034.

At Tuesday's hearing, lawmakers pressed the Navy to buy two subs a year instead of only one annually, beginning in 2009, three years earlier than planned.

"The waters aren't getting any smaller," said Republican Rep. Jo Ann Davis, whose southern Virginia district includes Northrop Grumman's Newport News shipyard.

Retired Vice Adm. Albert Konetzni, who campaigned last summer to save Connecticut's New London Submarine Base, voiced similar concerns that reducing the submarine fleet to 40 boats -- the lowest number in the Navy's plan -- poses high operational risks.

"It's past a crisis," said Konetzni, who commanded the Pacific submarine fleet. "It's an emergency."

Aside from the operational concerns, Davis and other panel members questioned the effect the submarine purchasing plan would have on the highly skilled submarine workforce. General Dynamics' Electric Boat unit, in particular, is facing thousands of layoffs over the next several years.

"Our capability to design and build submarines is in crisis," said Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., whose district includes the main Electric Boat plant.

The Navy has initiated a RAND study of its submarine workforce needs. RAND is expected to finish the study this fall, in time to influence the Pentagon's fiscal 2008 budget discussions, said Allison Stiller, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for ships.

But for Electric Boat, the fall might be too late to stem as many as 3,000 possible layoffs by the end of the year.

"The study I don't think will be of much use," Simmons said.

COMMENTS

• Again, how is Congress going to pay for them? They won't raise taxes. We cut other programs. Can't afford them, folks. Somewhere in the Pacific Posted March 30, 2006 8:10 PM
• It wasn't that long ago the Navy tried to get permission to build two subs a year and Congress balked. Then Rummy and his Iraq legacy put the squeeze on, and now the GOFOs are pushing the corporate line and Congress is suddenly concerned. Ted Posted March 31, 2006 6:05 AM
• Here comes the pressure on the Navy to buy boats they don't even need and you talk about shrinking the budget. These people are only worried about the votes they can gain by hanging on to shipyards, etc., they don't need. It is time the politicians let the Navy decide what is needed to protect this country, not some politician's job. If some retired Admiral wants to give his opinion that is fine, but people in uniform were put in position to recommend and determine this country's military needs. It is time they were left alone by politicians so they can do their job. This country is in enough problems right now without letting some politician determine those needs. Look at the mess they have us in over in the Middle East right now. Charlie Posted March 29, 2006 9:55 PM