...just good stuff to report, really...
One day, and that day may never come, there will be an easy search mechanism for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Until then, the best a humble citizen from the provinces can do is take a low pass, bite a nibble at the most attractive bits, and then head off to digest what you got.
Speeches, orders, and policy statements from the Executive Branch are important, but if you really want to drive change or correct error, you have to do it through the legislative branch.
Yes, this is not finished and work must be done in the Senate, but let’s take a moment to see what the House has put on the table.
I first got a bit too ambitious when I started digging in, and then pulled myself back to focus on just one part of the NDAA. As we like to focus as much as possible on maritime matters, I decided to scope down to the House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
We’re going to do a “Five and Ten” report.
From their print, there are five items that brought a raised eyebrow.
(1) A firm, “hold your horses” on the battleship:
Sec. 129—Limitation On Construction of Battleship Pending Certification On Technology Readiness Levels
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to certify that the systems planned for inclusion on the BBG(X) program are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level before award of a construction contract for the first of class vessel.
The long pole in this tent will be the railgun. As you’ll see later, there is concern on the nuclear side of the house, but I’ve had some knowledgeable people tell me that really this isn’t a problem. Everything else, except for the hull form, already exists well enough for a Flight I.
(2) FF(X) seems to be heading in an approved Salamander direction:
Sec. 130—Strategy for Iterative Development and Flight Modifications for FF(X) Class Frigates
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to develop a strategy for iterative flight development of the new FF(X) vessel class. The Secretary of the Navy would be required to provide a briefing on the development of the strategy to congressional defense committees.
(3) My punchline about “building Burke DDG until the crack of doom” seems to be policy now:
Sec. 122—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers
This section would provide multi-year procurement authority for up to fifteen Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
(4) That is because, DDG(X) is being written out of law:
Sec. 216—Modification to Test Program for Engineering Plant of Certain Vessels
This section would apply previous requirements for DDG(X) land based testing and reserve power to subsequent classes of large surface combatants.
No, I’m not exaggerating. From the text:
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘Senior Technical Authority for the DDG(X) destroyer class of vessels’’ and inserting ‘‘Senior Technical Authority for the class of vessels involved (as designated pursuant to section 8669b of title 10, United States Code)’’;
(4) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘for the DDG(X) destroyer class of vessels’’ and inserting ‘‘for the class of vessels involved’’;
(5) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘by not later than the delivery date of the lead ship in the DDG(X) destroyer class of vessels’’ and inserting ‘‘for a class of vessels by not later than the delivery date of the lead ship in that class of vessels’’;
…and so on. Sigh. I guess my “Three Flights” Plan-B is DOA.
(5) As Senator Sheehy (R-MT) said,
Tim Sheehy@TimSheehyMT
We need hulls in the water as soon as possible. I am less concerned where they are built vice when they are built. But if we want ships made in America in the next decade, we have to start today. China lays keels 230 times faster than we do. Time to catch up.
Looks like the House will take one from off yonder there if we build two here.
(b) REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF TWO NEW UNITED STATES-CONSTRUCTED VESSELS FOR EACH FOREIGN-CONSTRUCTED USED VESSEL PURCHASED IN EXCESS OF 12.—Subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subsection (f) of such section is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(C) For each foreign-constructed vessel purchased by the Secretary under the authority of this paragraph in excess of 12, the Secretary shall contract for the purchase of two new vessels each of which is to be constructed in a shipyard located in the United States.’’.
For the ten items that put a grin on my face, let’s look at the amendments that have passed.
I like the Amendment Tracker, BTW. Nice format.
BZ to Rep. Scott (R-GA), Rep. Kiggans (R-VA), and Rep. Courtney (D-CT) for making the Salamander Top-10 from the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee En Bloc:
There are some serious items here, and BZ to the subcommittee for what they did not approve. Look at some of the amendments that failed, designed to do little more than give people a chance to grandstand on their pet issues unrelated to seapower.
Now, let’s see what makes it across the finish line.
