Analyst: Lawmakers Don't Trust U.S. Navy Numbers
Unless top U.S. Navy officials behave more like the Air Force in asking forthrightly for the funding they think they need, lawmakers could "misperceive" the true costs for operating future fleets and not set aside enough money, a congressional budget expert said March 18.
Ron O'Rourke, a naval funding specialist with the Congressional Budget Office, said that senior Navy leaders are hurting themselves by not telling Congress explicitly how much money they need for shipbuilding.
Congressional leaders routinely hear the Air Force complain that it needs billions more dollars each year for the planes it wants, O'Rourke said. But lawmakers have seen so many big differences between the Navy's funding requests and its actual outlays that many of them no longer take the Navy's numbers seriously.
Some members are placing more stock on the cost estimates provided by CBO than by the Navy, O'Rourke said, and he referenced a comment March 14 by Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who called the Navy's estimates for its shipbuilding plan "pure fantasy."
O'Rourke appeared at a panel at the Navy League Sea Air Space exposition taking place through March 20 in Washington. Also on the panel were the Navy's Fleet Forces Commander, Adm. Jonathan Greenert; Marion Blakey, president of the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group; and Mike Petters, president of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding. The session was on "capability vs. affordability," and each member offered suggestions on how the Navy should strike the balance between the two in planning for its future fleet.
O'Rourke painted a grim picture of the Navy's reputation on Capitol Hill, where many members feel they can't take seriously what they hear at budget time. The Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan cuts corners in addressing the slacking numbers of attack submarines and amphibious ships, O'Rourke said, and doesn't take into account the costs involved if the Navy tries to build a dozen new-generation ballistic missile submarines in the middle of the 21st century.
The situation has reached the point that powerful committee members, including Taylor and Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, say they want to make their own changes to the Navy's shipbuilding plans - Taylor is committed to nuclear-powered surface ships, and Murtha wants to cancel the Navy's third Zumwalt-class destroyer and instead buy a 10th San Antonio-class amphibious ship and two T-AKE-class cargo ships.
This credibility problem comes at a time when the Navy will be "least well positioned" if Congress spends fewer defense dollars as the military situation in Iraq stabilizes, O'Rourke said. Lawmakers' most obvious priorities will be rebuilding the Army and Marine Corps, and because the Air Force has lobbied so hard for more funding, its leaders will have an easier time getting the ear of Congress, he said.
For his part, Greenert suggested the Navy could realize the most savings by re-evaluating its tactics at every level, from admirals to the deck plates, and operate more efficiently instead of continuously trying to acquire the newest weapons or systems.
"Maybe deception, jamming, a soft kill is the answer," Greenert said. "You have to look at the kill chain, look at how the process works and look holistically for solutions that are more cost-efficient."
Petters said the key to keeping shipbuilding costs down is to have consistently clear requirements from the Navy about the ships it wants, and confidence that funding levels will remain steady through the course of a program.
Help
