Press Releases

Today, Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower & Projection Forces, made the following remarks, as prepared for delivery, on the Subcommittee's hearing titled "Littoral Combat Ship and the Transition to Frigate."

"Today, we meet to discuss the Littoral Combat Ship and the transition to Frigate. Appearing before us to discuss this important topic are two esteemed Navy witnesses, Admirals Boxall and Neagley. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your service and just as important, thank you for appearing before this subcommittee on this most important issue.

The Navy has developed a broad fleet architecture that presumes a high/low mix of surface combatants. At the high end in terms of capabilities and costs, the Navy continues serial production of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. But at $1.8 billion for each destroyer, the overall shipbuilding plan cannot afford a fleet of destroyers and drives development of a small surface combatant. In response to cost efficiency, Navy developed a Littoral Combat Ship at a price point of $550 million that is less than a third of their more robust destroyer counterpart. The challenge before this committee is to ensure the correct high/low balance of surface combatants that best responds to fleet requirements in the most efficient manner.

My friends, this subcommittee is at a cross roads with the Littoral Combat Ship program. The eventual transition from the Littoral Combat Ship to Frigate may be the most difficult issue that our subcommittee needs to assess. The Littoral Combat Ship initially had a requirements foundation that was built on unstable ground. While costs have steadily improved with serial production, the issues of requirements stability, technology insertion, and anticipated employment of the Littoral Combat Ship still confound the Navy. For example, certain critical components of the mission modules associated with the Littoral Combat Ship continue to elude introduction to the fleet.

While there are many challenges with this program, there are also many bright areas. For example, the shipbuilders at both Austal and Marinette Marine are constructing the Littoral Combat Ship at a reduced cost and an ever increasing quality. When I visited the construction yards in Mobile and Marinette this year, the pride of construction and efficiency of effort was evident. These shipbuilders are regional job engines and serve as great examples of American innovation. But great shipbuilders can only construct ships that have a solid requirements foundation. Moving forward, requirements for the Littoral Combat Ship and the Frigate will likely pose the greatest challenge, and I find it imperative that the Navy clearly articulate its desires for each platform to industry.

I read the witnesses' opening statement and was pleased to note that Navy intends to review the requirements associated with the Littoral Combat Ship program and the eventual transition to Frigate. I am particularly pleased to note that significant support for the Fleet is being provided during this requirements review. From my assessment of the program, I believe that additional survivability, increased cruising range, and additional development margin for future expansion are needed improvements. I also believe a decrement in speed could be provided to best optimize these increased capabilities. I look forward to assessing Navy proposed requirements associated with the new Frigate program.

As to the current Littoral Combat Ship acquisition, I continue to be concerned about the Navy's intended strategy. Ship construction is rife with examples of an immature design being used before it is ready. Invariably, an immature design leads to cost growth. Navy appeared to be set toward repeating this hard learned lesson with the Frigate construction earlier this year but has since decided to review the Frigate requirements, allowing the ship construction yards valuable time to better develop complete designs. In my opinion, this was a wise decision.

Another problem with the acquisition strategy is the construction rate proposed by the last administration of only one ship in each of fiscal years 2018, 2019 and 2020. This construction rate simply does not support both yards. I am committed to keeping both yards operational until the down select to the Frigate occurs.

I think that we all can agree that we need to improve the Littoral Combat Ship acquisition strategy and better support the requirement for the transition to the Frigate.

To best review this issue, I am pleased to have two distinguished panel experts today.

This afternoon we have with us:

Rear Admiral Ronald A. Boxall
Director, Surface Warfare (N96)
and
Rear Admiral John P. Neagley, USN
Program Executive Officer, Littoral Combat Ships

Thank you both for testifying today and we look forward to your thoughts and insights on how to best improve the Littoral Combat Ship and the eventual transition to Frigate."