• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

House Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee Chairman Taylor's opening statement--March 08, 2007

"In order to meet the combatant commanders' requirements, the Chief of Naval Operation's shipbuilding plan sets forth a goal of maintaining 66 submarines. Forty-eight of those submarines are fast-attack submarines.

"While this number matches the Navy's stated force structure requirement, this subcommittee finds it troubling that the Navy's inventory of fast-attack submarines drops below 48 beginning in the year 2020. In fact, the fast-attack submarine fleet will bottom out at 40 before slowly edging its way back up to 48 in the year 2034.

"In contrast, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a report in 1999 that cited gaps in fulfilling top national priority requirements if the fast-attack submarine force fell below 55 in the year 2015, and 62 in the year 2025. The report concluded that a depleted fast-attack force would leave combatant commanders with insufficient capability to respond to urgent demands.

"These force structure numbers differ substantially from the Navy's current plan, especially in light of the increased operational tempo experienced since 1999.

"The subcommittee is also troubled by the disconnect between the CNO's current procurement plans for the fast-attack submarine and statements the Navy made to the full Committee just last year. On March 28, 2006, the Navy testified that the current inventory of 52 fast-attack submarines met only 25 percent of combatant commanders' high-priority requirements in 2004; only 50 percent in 2005, and only 34 percent in 2006.

"Another area of concern for the subcommittee is the need to reduce submarine construction costs while retaining design expertise. The subcommittee understands that the fast-attack submarine force-level goal, once determined, is a primary factor in assessing the level at which Virginia-class submarines should be procured in coming years.

"However, it is just as important to consider the effect annual procurement rates will have on unit procurement costs. Shipyards and suppliers can reduce overhead costs and diminish the loss of learning between submarines if the Navy and Congress commit to buying fast-attack submarines at a rate of two or more per year. In fact, the Navy estimates that multi-sub procurement of two or more per year could reduce unit procurement costs by $200 million per hull.

"The Navy and Industry share a common goal to cut the cost of the Virginia-class submarine from $2.4 billion to $2 billion, in fiscal year 2005 dollars, by the year 2012. At that time, the Navy plans to procure two Virginia-class submarines per year.

"The subcommittee is concerned the Navy's current Virginia-class submarine procurement rate is being driven by budgetary limitations, at the expense of future requirements and the ability to adequately respond to potential threats.

"Finally, the subcommittee is concerned with the nation's ability to retain its invaluable industrial capability, especially the professionals who design and engineer submarines. Currently, Virginia-class design work is winding down, and no other major projects are on the way. For the first time in 50 years, the submarine design and engineering base is facing the prospect of not actively working on a major submarine project.

"Today, we will receive testimony from the U.S. Navy, the Congressional Research Service, and members of the Industry. They will address the Navy's future submarine force structure requirements and the challenges associated with maintaining a viable and responsive submarine design, engineering, and construction industrial base. The hearing will focus on three areas:

• the submarine force structure set forth in the Chief of Naval Operations' long-range shipbuilding plan to support the National Military Strategy and regional combatant commander submarine requirements;
• efficiency and design strategies being reviewed by the Navy and industry to reduce the cost of submarine construction; and,
• accelerating the procurement of Virginia-class submarines to reduce submarine construction costs and retain the expertise of submarine designers and engineers.

"Let me call on my friend, the gentleman from Maryland and Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Roscoe Bartlett, for any remarks he would like to make."