DDG 1000 Destroyer Program Facing Major Cuts

DDG 1000 Destroyer Program Facing Major Cuts 15 July 2008: Indications are growing that the U.S. Navy is poised to forgo further construction of the advanced but very expensive DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers and end the program at two ships. Eliminating five DDG 1000s could save as much as $25 billion. (Northrop Grumman) Those first two destroyers were authorized in the 2007 budget, and shipbuilders General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman will begin construction of each ship this summer. A third ship is in the 2009 budget request, and current plans call for a total of seven Zumwalts. But the price tag for the ships is staggering: $3.3 billion per copy according to Navy planners, over $5 billion and more by outside estimates. Even at the lower price, they would be the most expensive surface combatants ever built. With the Navy's shipbuilding program considered unaffordable by budget analysts at the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office (GAO), eliminating five ships could save as much as $25 billion. On the record, Navy officials are mum about their plans. Service support for the DDG 1000 program has been lukewarm at best, and while publicly supporting the ships, Navy leaders behind the scenes have worked halt further production. The move still awaits blessing from on high, sources said, including approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the White House. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead "holds his cards real close," said one Congressional source. "But read the body language. He knows he's in trouble with the DDG 1000s. That ship is going to cost anywhere from $1.5 billion to $3 billion more than advertised. And when that happens there's no slush fund. The only billpayer is Navy shipbuilding." The Navy, said the congressional source, needs to protect other programs such as submarine and littoral combat ships from being cut to pay for potential DDG 1000 cost overruns. Instead of the big destroyer, the Navy also hopes to protect the CG(X) cruiser, a bigger combatant designed to protect aircraft carrier battle groups and provide ballistic missile defense. Roughead, the Congressional source said, "has his eyes on the cruiser. He's trying to make sure that ship is a national asset," the source said. But the cruiser won't be ready to build anytime soon. Navy plans officially call for the first ship to be funded in 2011, but no design has been chosen and leaders admit the CG(X) will be delayed - at least to 2015, some say, and maybe beyond. In the meantime, the Navy and its shipbuilding partners need more ships to build, and Congress - particularly House Seapower subcommittee chairman Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who's district includes the sprawling Northrop Grumman Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula - has urged construction of more DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers. The Navy in past years steadfastly argued against more DDG 51s, but service leaders seemingly have had a change of heart. In March, then-Navy acquisition chief John Thackrah confirmed the service was analyzing the construction of more DDG 51s, and Roughead - in private - seems to have embraced the idea as well. Northrop's Ingalls yard and the General Dynamics shipyard at Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, currently build DDG 51s, the last of which is to be completed in 2013. A Navy official would not confirm the moves to curtail DDG 1000 production at two ships, but noted the need to protect other shipbuilding programs. "We need traction and stability in our combatant lines to reach 313 ships, and we should not raid the combatant line to fund other shipbuilding priorities," Lt. Clayton Doss, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said July 14. Doss noted the program of record remains in place for DDG 1000, and Congress has yet to pass a new defense bill. "Until the 2009 National Defense Act is signed by the president it is inappropriate to comment," Doss said. Work on the new Program Objective Memorandum for 2010 - a key budget-planning document - is ongoing, Doss said. "Service inputs are to be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense later this month. While it would be inappropriate to discuss internal budget discussions, it is fair to say that, as one would expect, the Navy is discussing all options to develop the surface ship force for the future that will meet all identified requirements." Congress already is split on whether to authorize the third DDG 1000, requested in the 2009 budget. Senate authorizers have approved the request, while the House wants to delay the ship. The issue now awaits resolution in conference. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, whose district includes Bath Iron Works, is perhaps the DDG 1000's strongest supporter on Capitol Hill. Aware of faltering Navy support for the ship, she and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., sent a letter July 10 to Navy Secretary Donald Winter urging him to continue support "without restriction," for the ships. Collins has been trying to beat back the House move to delay the Zumwalts. "The decision by the House Armed Services Committee to slash funding for the DDG 1000 has triggered a review within the Department of Defense on the future of the new destroyer," she said July 14 in a statement released by her office. "During the past several weeks, I have had extensive discussions with CNO Roughead, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, and Defense Assistant Secretary John Young about the future of the program, which Navy officials have repeatedly testified provides much-needed capabilities." But Collins also seems to be accepting that additional DDG 1000s won't be built. "If the Navy is considering changing its shipbuilding requirements, I would expect the CNO to work with me and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to ensure a stable, well-funded shipbuilding plan that meets the need for expanded capabilities and keeps our skilled shipbuilding workforce strong." A scheduled July 10 meeting between England, Winter, Roughead and Young to discuss DDG 1000 was postponed when Young was called to testify before Congress on an Air Force tanker program. Sources on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon said the meeting was to be a discussion of staying "on message," and not getting ahead of official decisions. The meeting has been rescheduled for later this month. The DDG 1000 issue will get a further airing when Taylor holds a Seapower subcommittee hearing on July 31, and the GAO is at work on another critical review of the program