Lawmakers Weigh Workforce Implications of Changing Navy's DDG-1000 Destroyer Plans

Defense Daily, July 17, 2008

By Emelie Rutherford

As questions swirl on Capitol Hill about whether the Navy will halt its nascent DDG-1000 destroyer program and build more of the older and cheaper DDG- 51s, an outspoken DDG-1000 backer in the Senate said she is concerned about jobs dipping at Bath Iron Works shipyard if the program is terminated.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said that while Bath builds both the venerable DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and the new Zumwalt-class DDG- 1000, she believes the larger number of jobs at Bath, which is in Maine and owned by General Dynamics [GD], would be more secure if the newer destroyer program is continued.

"From my perspective, the best way to meet the Navy's future needs and to ensure a steady, strong workload for Bath Iron Works is to continue with the DDG-1000," she said Tuesday in a brief interview.

Yet her point of view is not universally shared. Rep. Tom Allen (D- Maine)--who is trying to unseat Collins in this November's election--said from what he has been told it appears the number of jobs at Bath would be similar if the DDG-51 program is continued past its planned shutdown or the new DDG-1000 is given the green light to proceed with five ships beyond the first two.

Still, Collins and Allen, like other lawmakers and officials on both sides of the destroyer debate, acknowledge they do not have irrefutable data on the jobs impact of the proposed shipbuilding change.

That's because it's not known, if the Navy opts to continue the DDG-51 production line, how the contracts for the expected 11 ships would be competed and allocated between Bath and Northrop Grumman's [NOC] Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss. The two yards share the DDG-51 and DDG-1000 efforts.

The Navy said earlier this year that for each of the first two DDG-1000s, the ships would require approximately 2.5 times as much shipyard labor to build as would be required to build a DDG-51, according to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report updated June 5. However, the report says this 2.5-to-1 ratio would decrease for subsequent ships beyond the first two. CRS still estimates building the DDG-1000 would require roughly twice the labor the DDG-51 would.

"As a general rule of thumb, a DDG-1000 provides between two and two and a half times the number of manhours that a DDG-51, so you would have to have three DDG-51s potentially to compensate for a DDG-1000," Collins said. If the DDG-51 program were continued to build 11 more ships, instead of building five more DDG-1000s, she said she has no way to know if Ingalls would receive a greater share of the ship effort.

She also noted the reduced crew size the DDG-1000 would enable and the cost of restarting subcontractor production lines for DDG-51 that no longer exist.

Allen said Wednesday in an interview that he is neutral over which shipbuilding program the Navy picks, noting at least one school of thought that believes Bath would have roughly the same number of jobs whether the Navy orders five more DDG-1000s or 11 more DDG-51s.

"I think there are plusses and minuses both ways," said the congressman, whose district includes the shipyard. "But if there is going to be a shift back to the [DDG-]51s, then we at Bath need to know when does the shift occur, how many ships will be built, how many will be built by Bath, what is the plan. All of those things have to be worked out."

He said Bath has "done a remarkable job with the [DDG-]51 program," reducing manhours and costs at the end of the program that is winding down. And he acknowledged rising cost estimates for the DDG-1000 that have created anxiety in Congress and the Navy.

"So my concern has really been, Bath needs to build ships," he said. "As these uncertainties have arisen I've been worried that decisions should be made sooner rather than later."

The Navy requested $2.5 billion for a third DDG-1000 in FY '09. The House-passed defense authorization bill calls for pausing procurement of DDG- 1000s and directing the Navy to spend $400 million for restarting the DDG-51s--a setup House Armed Services seapower subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) prefers--or for continuing development work on the DDG-1000 program. The Senate Armed Services Committee-- on which Collins sits--backs the Navy's DDG-100 request in its version of the bill, which the Senate is expected to debate in the coming weeks.

Navy and Pentagon leaders are expected to hold a pivotal meeting on the DDG-1000 program's fate next week. Sources say the Navy is moving toward publicly supporting the House plan to continue DDG-51 production. Navy officials and pundits then are slated to testify before the HASC seapower subcommittee July 31, when observers hope to receive more clarity on the service's plans (Defense Daily, July 14).

Bath Iron Works "won't speculate on how the outcome of the current debate may or may not affect us," spokesman Jim DeMartini said in a statement. He noted the compay is focused on delivering the five remaining DDG-51s under contract to the Navy.