By Richard Abott
Defense Daily
Lawmakers are strongly opposing the Navy’s plans to fund eight new ships in fiscal 2021, including only one Virginia-class submarine, a decrease from 12 in the current fiscal 2020.
When the fiscal 2021 budget request was first released on Monday, asking for eight ships at $20 billion, House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee Chairman Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) immediately denounced the idea as dead on arrival and particularly opposed only building one Virginia-class attack submarine.
“This weak, pathetic request for eight ships – of which two are tugboats – is not only fewer ships than 2020, but fewer ships than the Navy told us last year it planned for 2021,” the lawmaker said in a statement.
The fiscal 2020 budget funded two Virginia-class submarines, but the Pentagon had to dial that back to one after nuclear hawks in Congress leaned on President Donald Trump to provide a larger-than-anticipated budget for the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration.
Courtney’s counterpart on the seapower subcommittee, Ranking Member Rob Wittman (R-Va.), also opposed the plan for strategic reasons.
“Simply put, the budget published today does not invest nearly enough in shipbuilding. It is clear to me—and it should be clear to everyone at this point—that we are in a full-scale strategic competition. And, while China is on track to reach a 420-ship Navy by 2035, we are struggling to stay on track with our 355-ship Navy shipbuilding plan,” Wittman said Monday.
Wittman underscored that the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program, at a cost of $128 billion, “will be dominating the shipbuilding accounts in the coming years, edging out new projects. A decrease in the shipbuilding account is the opposite direction we need to be going if we are to compete.”
Wittman added that he will work to get the fiscal 2021 defense authorization bill numbers “back where it needs to be to continue to build and maintain our Fleet; I won’t allow us to lose ground.”
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, agreed the ship request is too low but highlighted the Columbia budgetary issue.
“Obviously, we need more ships, and eight ships in a year is clearly not enough. But one thing I’d just remind you all, for the last several years, we have tried to put the Columbia submarine in a separate account, because the problem is when it costs $6 or 8 billion per ship, it eats up all the rest of the shipbuilding,” Thornberry said during a media roundtable on Wednesday.
He noted this year’s request has the first Columbia-class submarine that is authorized even after it was prefunded for work for years. “It’s for some odd billion dollars. That’s a big chunk. And I don’t think it’s fair for the Navy to absorb all of that out of their shipbuilding budget,” Thornberry continued.
The Navy plans to acquire 12 nuclear-armed Columbia-class submarines to replace the current fleet of Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The new boats would go on patrols starting in the 2030s and remain in service into the 2080s.
The service is requesting $4 billion in fiscal 2021 for the first three years of incremental full funding for the first Columbia. It is also requesting another $1.1 billion to continue detailed design efforts, continuous missile tube production, and advanced construction and procurement of major components for the second vessel.
During a budget briefing Monday, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Budget Rear Adm. Randy Crites noted Columbia is the Navy’s highest priority. The service xpects to start funding the second ship in fiscal 2024 and start serial production in fiscal 2026.
The Navy expects the Columbia-class submarines to consume over 20% of the shipbuilding account toward the end of the five-year Future Years Defense Program. At peak production it will consume over 30% of the shipbuilding account.
Crites also said Columbia adds about 146 percent increase in the submarine shipbuilding load and the lower Virginia count was done to “release some pressure as builder performance has slipped and we were trying to de-risk our first Columbia in that.”
This story first appeared in Nuclear Security & Deterrence Monitor affiliate publication Defense Daily.
