Back to news

May 14, 2020 | International, Naval

DoD asks Congress for a two-sub Columbia-class buy

By: , , and

WASHINGTON ― The Pentagon is asking Congress for authority to buy two of its new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, a potential mega-deal worth as much as $17.7 billion with far-reaching implications for the ailing submarine industrial base.

If approved, the proposal would potentially lower the price by promising General Dynamics a steady stream of work at its shipyard as the Pentagon and its network of suppliers grapple with COVID-19's economic shocks. General Dynamics and the Navy have been negotiating the terms of a two-ship purchase, but nothing can be finalized until Congress authorizes the block buy.

As the House and Senate Armed Services committees ready their drafts of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, it's customary for the Defense Department to send legislative proposals for the annual policy bill. It was unclear how Congress will ultimately react to this one, but at least one key lawmaker would “seriously consider” the proposal.

Senate Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee Chairman David Perdue, R-Ga., “certainly supports and has been working toward better business practices in the Department of Defense. He would seriously consider any proposal that achieves cost savings or increases efficiency,” said his spokesperson, Jenni Sweat.

The Columbia-class program is meant to design and build 12 new ballistic missile submarines to replace the Navy's current force of 14 aging Ohio-class boats. The president's budget estimated the cost of the lead Columbia-class sub at $14 billion, the second at $9.3 billion, and total procurement costs for all 12 at $110 billion.

The Navy wants to procure the first Columbia-class boat in fiscal 2021, the second in fiscal 2024, and the remaining 10 at a rate of one per year from 2026 through 2035. The Navy has already spent about $6.2 billion in advanced procurement for the Columbia, which leaves about $8.2 billion remaining for the first boat.

A summary of its new legislative proposal, obtained by Defense News, said the move is intended to “permit the Navy to enter into one block buy contract for up to two Columbia-class submarines (SSBN 826 and SSBN 827), providing industrial base stability, production efficiencies, and cost savings when compared to an annual procurement with options cost estimate.”

Complicating matters is the potential for the coronavirus pandemic to create construction or funding issues that delay SSBN 826's first scheduled patrol in 2031, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report. To boot, it was unclear whether the Navy had accurately projected costs or whether stable funding would be available across the Navy's procurement portfolio.

The Navy is confident the program is on track and negotiations are ongoing in line with what the Navy has previously disclosed, said Capt. Danny Hernandez, spokesman for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition.

“The Columbia program is on track, it is our top acquisition priority,” Hernandez said in an email. "Per the Navy's Budget Submission, the Navy plans to award a contract modification for construction of the first two Columbia-Class ships as a priced option in FY20.

"Formal option exercise and SSBN 826 construction start are planned for October 2020, following required Congressional authorizations and appropriation of funds.”

This week, the Navy and General Dynamics were still negotiating on the terms of the two-ship buy, but what the ultimate savings would be for contracting for two together was not clear yet, according to a source familiar with the talks. No final deal can be negotiated until Congress has authorized the contract.

Also unclear is how perturbations in the system from the COVID-19 outbreak might impact the supply and labor system, the source said.

Indeed, the potential impact of COVID-19 on an already stressed submarine industrial base is one reason the strategy could be important, said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer a senior fellow at the Conservative Hudson Institute think tank.

“There has already been advanced procurement money provided by Congress that has been used to build missile tubes, nuclear reactors and propulsion plants,” Clark said. "But there is a bunch of other equipment on the ship that you would like to buy in quantities: Pumps, valves, fans, a lot of habitability systems.

“If you double the number of ships, you double the number that you buy and maybe you reduce your costs, but more importantly you support your industrial base.”

To date, disruptions to the submarine supplier base and the Electric Boat shipyard have been comparatively mild, two sources familiar with the situation said.

General Dynamics is interested in locking in a larger block buy for the remaining ten boats, and a source familiar with the company's thinking said the precise savings would be clear once the company gets further along with construction of the first boat. The third ship will officially be procured in 2026, so it gives the parties time to understand the program better.

The Navy has been public about its desire to buy the first two submarines as a block but given that it's a new start program, that seemed premature, said Project On Government Oversight military analyst Dan Grazier. He noted that a multi-year procurement, under the law, would require a stable design, while a block buy would not.

“The Navy claims the Columbia's design is much further along in the process than the Ohio was at this point, but the Navy's track record of designing and building ships recently is quite poor," Grazier said.

"The Zumwalts, LCSs, and the Ford-class ships were designed using similar methods and the results have proven to be both costly and disappointing. It would be better to build the first boat and make sure the design actually works as intended because if it doesn't, then the money we save now will actually cost us much more in the future.”

Clark, on the other hand, argued that while early multi-ship buys on new classes of ships are usually a bad idea, Columbia might be a special case where the risks associated with early block buys are sufficiently offset.

“You wouldn't want to do a block buy if you thought the design was going to change significantly, as in you were going to buy one or two hulls and then revise it based on the results of testing or production issues,” Clark said. “On this one, more of the design is more complete so they are confident it is mature.

"And with the experience General Dynamics has with submarine construction, they are confident in their path to build it without significant design changes.”

The Navy is aiming to have more than 80 percent of the Columbia's design complete prior to construction starting later this Fall, double where they were at the start of construction on the lead boat of the Virginia class.

The Columbia class is not the only big-ticket weapons program where the Pentagon is seeking latitude from Congress in pursuit of savings. For the Lockheed-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, DoD has separately proposed to use department funds to again bulk buy F-35 components ― “material and equipment” in “economic order quantities,” the proposal synopsis says ― for Lot 15 in fiscal 2021 through Lot 17 in 2023.

Lawmakers have historically been supportive of such moves, and Congress authorized the purchase of F-35 economic order quantity buys in the fiscal 2020 defense policy bill.

In October, the Defense Department and Lockheed finalized a deal for F-35 lots 12, 13 and 14, but the order is structured so that lot 13 and 14 fall under separate contract options, differentiating it from a block buy.

Lt. Gen. Eric Fick, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the government, has said that arrangement would likely continue over the next several production lots.

"To date, we are pursuing a base-plus-options production contract vehicle for [lots] 15 to 17,” Fick said in March at the McAleese and Associates conference. “The business case that supports a three year multi year has not been there. We have not seen from Lockheed a business case that merits tying up three years of appropriated funds.”

Clarification: The story has been updated to clarify the specific transaction for which the Navy is seeking authority from Congress.

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/13/dod-asks-congress-for-columbia-submarine-block-buy/

On the same subject

  • NSA approves tablet and communicator for Five Eyes special forces

    August 23, 2018 | International, C4ISR

    NSA approves tablet and communicator for Five Eyes special forces

    By: Kelsey Atherton At the moment it's most needed, every aspect of close air support comes down to communication. Close air support is essentially air strikes against targets when friendly forces are nearby. But to get there requires a long tail of set-up: the training for the pilot and the special operator calling in the strike, the decades of aircraft development that created the summoned plane or helicopter, the entire political and military rationale that went into the forward-basing of aircraft close enough to a potential crisis point that enables this all to happen. None of that matters, though, if the moment is lost, if the signal doesn't get through, if the support is too far away to make a difference. Viasat's new BATS-D AN/PRC-161 device is designed to close that gap, to make communication happen when it needs to happen, and today, the company is announcing that the device has been approved by the National Security Agency for use with all Five Eyes nations. Let's break this down into pieces. BATS-D stands for “Battlefield Awareness and Targeting System – Dismounted,” an acronym that invokes the Batman of comic and cinematic fame, and clarifies that this is a portable machine, one that can be used by people on foot and without vehicles (though maybe access to horses). The BATS-D is designed for use by U.S. Special Operations Forces and JTACs, or Joint Terminal Attack Controller (the people who call in close air support. Think the old-school radio operator in a pack of plastic army men, but modern). Now, calling in an airstrike involves more touching a location on a miniature tablet and then transferring that image to the pilot who will make the strike. Gone, in theory, are the days of shouting coordinates into an oversized radio and hoping the pilot can match the same spot on a paper map. Five Eyes, also abbreviated FVEY, is the intelligence sharing alliance of five major English-speaking nations: The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. By having an approved communication device with these five specific nations, it means that forces from these nations fighting alongside one another can, in theory, communicate with the closest available aircraft, even if it's not flying the same flag. Full article: https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2018/08/22/nsa-approves-tablet-and-communicator-for-five-eyes-special-forces

  • BAE Systems teams with AMS to reinforce support of artillery systems in Ukraine

    December 20, 2023 | International, Land

    BAE Systems teams with AMS to reinforce support of artillery systems in Ukraine

    Under the agreement, the BAE Systems and AMS team will offer repair and support services for artillery systems donated by the UK Government

  • Battle over Air Force’s $1,300 coffee cups heats up

    October 25, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    Battle over Air Force’s $1,300 coffee cups heats up

    By: Stephen Losey The Air Force, under fire for throwing down $1,280 apiece to replace in-flight reheating cups after their handles break, is pledging to use 3-D printing to get that replacement cost down to 50 cents. But Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is still wondering why these pricey water heaters are necessary in the first place, and plans to keep pushing the Air Force to find cheaper waysto warm up their coffee. The cups, which plug into outlets on cargo planes to reheat liquids such as water or coffee, have a faulty plastic handle that easily breaks when the cups are dropped. And because replacement parts for the cup are no longer made, the Air Force has had to order a whole new cup when the handle breaks. In an Oct. 2 letter to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, Grassley said that 25 replacement cups, each costing roughly $1,280 each, have been bought this year alone, for a total of roughly $32,000. The 60th Aerial Port Squadron at Travis Air Force Base in California spent nearly $56,000 to replace broken cups over the past three years. And the price is rising. Grassley noted that Travis said each cup cost taxpayers $693 in 2016. “Paying nearly $700 for a single cup is bad enough, but it's simply beyond reason to continue to pay ever-increasing prices for something as simple as a coffee cup that is so fragile that it needs to be constantly replaced,” Grassley said. “This latest example of reckless spending of taxpayer dollars gives me no confidence that the Air Force is taking real steps to reduce wasteful spending practices.” In an Oct. 17 letter to Grassley, Wilson said that “it is simply irresponsible to spend thousands of dollars on manufactured parts when we have the technology available to produce them ourselves,” once a supplier either stops producing those parts or goes out of business. Wilson said that in July, she ordered a new Air Force Rapid Sustainment Office to be created to find ways to develop and deliver parts at a fraction of the cost of traditional manufacturing methods. This office has recently shown it can 3-D print replacement handles for the reheating cup for about 50 cents each. Wilson told Grassley that this cup is specially manufactured to plug into aircraft systems, and because it connects to the aircraft, the replacements need to be certified as airworthy by the FAA. This has driven up the cost of buying 391 of these cups since 2016 to $326,785, Wilson said, or about $836 apiece. The water heaters are used on 59 KC-10s, 52 C-5s, and 222 C-17s, Wilson said. But with planes aging, and the average KC-10 at 34 years old, it's harder and harder to find replacement parts for those aircraft, she said. And the price tag for raw materials for those parts is also increasing, Wilson said, with copper and chrome plating costs have increased 180 percent since 2016. Wilson told Grassley that she and Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein have ordered the new sustainment office to look for items in the procurement process that it can self-produce, or other overpriced items that it can stop buying without hurting the Air Force's mission. Grassley was dissatisfied with Wilson's response, and said he will keep digging. “It leaves me with more questions,” Grassley said. “While I appreciate that the Air Force is working to find innovations that would help save taxpayer dollars, it remains unclear why it cannot find a cheaper alternative to a $1,280 cup. Government officials have the responsibility to use taxpayer dollars efficiently. Too often, that's not the case.” The Air Force also said that Air Mobility Command is no longer buying the heaters for large transport aircraft as they try to find more cost-effective solutions. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/10/22/battle-over-air-forces-1300-coffee-cups-heats-up

All news