8. maj 2008. godine
Kritičari sa Kapitol Hila predložili su Kongresu neke izmene u smislu plana izgradnje brodova američke mornarice. Izmedju ostalog, predloženo je otkazivanje izgradnje trećeg razarača klase DDG-1000 s tim da bi se novac od tog broda prebacio za izgradnju brodova klase "San Antonio"....
Cela vestOne of the Navy's top Capitol Hill critics was as good as his word Thursday and formally recommended that Congress make several changes to the Navy's near- and long-term shipbuilding plans.
Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's seapower subcommittee, passed up to the full committee a bill that would delete a third DDG 1000-class destroyer, for the time being, to pay for another San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock and two T-AKE-class cargo ships.
In one of his harshest indictments yet, Taylor blasted the DDG-1000 as incompletely designed, too expensive and unnecessary, given the success of the Navy's long-running Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The unfinished design and unproven systems on the ships would lead to inevitable cost overruns, he said, which would "cripple the Navy's shipbuilding account and drastically impact fleet size and capability."
Moreover, he said the Navy was not being an honest partner with Congress in discussions about how to reach a fleet of 313 ships over the next 30 years. Taylor had already called the Navy's shipbuilding plan "pure fantasy" in an earlier hearing, and on May 8 he said the Navy was not forthrightly budgeting the money it would need for the fleet it wants.
"The solution offered every year is that the solution will be delayed to future years," Taylor said. "I do not believe the plan to achieve a 313-ship fleet is achievable in its current form. I am convinced that the only path to a 313-ship fleet is to build ships of a proven design and build them in sufficient numbers to realize shipyard efficiency."
Taylor's remarks were the latest escalation in a three-way confrontation - between lawmakers, the Navy brass, and the shipbuilding industry - over the future fleet. Two days before, shipbuilding industry sources hinted to Navy Times that they might not bid on building the Navy's littoral combat ship, the small new craft that top commanders want to form the bulk of the future surface force.
Congress has imposed a $460 million cap on the cost per LCS, and although Taylor said May 8 he was recommending each ship be allowed cost up to $10 million more to account for inflation, industry sources said the government's hardball stance could force the companies to shoulder more risk than they considered worth it.
Compounding the money standoff for the next decade and beyond, Taylor's recommended legislation would require the Navy to make its next generation of amphibious ships nuclear powered, in addition to lawmakers' proposals that tomorrow's cruiser be nuclear-powered, and Taylor's call for nuclear-powered Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
Asked after the hearing, Taylor said he was "absolutely" still committed to a nuclear-powered Arleigh Burke and to nuclear-powered combatants in general. Their high initial cost will ultimately provide a savings over buying fuel in the era of expensive oil, Taylor said.
"I think Adm. [Hyman G.] Rickover was right all along, the nation got lazy when fuel was cheap - fuel is no longer cheap."
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead in March urged Congress not to change the Navy's shipbuilding plan, and he said he opposed a new generation of nuclear-powered ships. Not only would the ships themselves be too expensive, Roughead said, an increased demand for civilian nuclear power would make it more expensive to draw away nuclear-qualified engineers.
The seapower subcommittee's ranking Republican, Maryland Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, concurred with Taylor's recommendation to "rein in" the DDG 1000 program and issue requirements for future nuclear ships. He cited a 2007 Navy study that found the Pentagon would break even on life-cycle costs for nuclear-powered gators if the price of oil reached $178 per barrel.
"And guess what - oil hit a new record of over $120 a barrel this week and Goldman Sachs stated: 'The possibility of $150 to $200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six to 24 months.' We are there. It is time for us to act," Bartlett said.
Congress isn't likely to take final action for several months on the shipbuilding legislation or the other details passed up from Taylor's committee, and a separate process also is taking place in the Senate.
