Congress Wants To Force Pentagon To Buy Ships Against Its Will

Since its commission in November 2008, the Littoral Combat Ship has received a mixed reception. The Navy, select lawmakers, and the ship’s producers—Austal USA and Lockheed Martin—have thrown support behind the ship, while the Pentagon has been more than critical toward produced models.

Voyages marred by cracked hulls, technical failures and rusting are only a selection of the ship’s issues. The ship has also faced criticisms regarding how vulnerable it is to an attack. As the Pentagon’s test and evaluation director bluntly put it in January, “The ship is not reliable.”

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has also expressed unease about the Littoral Combat Ship, ordering a cut in the number of new ships from 52 to 40. Department leaders also ordered a reduction of the manufacturing of the ships from three to two in 2017 adding work should move to just one of the two shipyards that produce the ship.

This caught the attention of lawmakers, who responded by obliviously going forward with more ship-building. As Lauren Chadwick and R. Jeffrey Smith write in Politico:

A defense appropriations bill moving toward Senate approval in coming days or weeks directs that $475 million be spent by the Navy to procure an extra Littoral Combat Ship next year. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation ordering that $384 million be spent on the extra ship. So it’s virtually certain to happen, a prospect that cheers the Navy greatly but has evoked dismay among the ships’ many critics.

The extra spending is a direct repudiation of the secretary of defense, putting the Navy back on track with its original three-ship production schedule for 2017—and pushing the decision about the fate and total size of the LCS fleet off to the next president.

The Obama administration “strongly objects” to buying the extra ship, the White House said in a budget message to Congress on June 14. It said just two are needed now to preserve a competition that “ensures the best price for the taxpayer on the remaining ships” and that spending more would needlessly drain funds from other military priorities, including undersea, surface and aviation programs. Carter made clear at the time he cut back the program that there’s no love lost between his office and the Navy’s command, which he accused in a blunt letter of ignoring technical risks, neglecting warfighting needs and prioritizing warship “quantity over lethality.”

This extra ship is part of a larger program with a price tag of $45 billion, and is just part of a list of equipment the Pentagon will be forced to buy in the future. Other armaments include a modern “amphibious” warship, four C-40 aircraft, and a Coast Guard ship capable of breaking ice in the Arctic and Antarctica. None of these vessels were requested by the Defense Department.

Myriad forces are pushing for this increase in production. In March, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the House Armed Services Committee the branch had a “validated need” for 52 Littoral Combat Ships.

Representatives Bradley Byrne (R–Ala.) and Reid Ribble (R–Wis.)—who represent districts with naval shipyards—led 40 House members in signing a letter arguing against the reductions, saying it would “hinder the Navy’s ability to respond to threats around the globe.” Byrne also successfully inserted a provision in the House’s bill that would block Carter’s plan to give all the work to just one shipyard.

Given that these ships are known for breaking down, the idea that the Navy actually needs more of them seems dubious. But there is also one factor worth mentioning: the influence of the military industrial complex. As Chadwick and Smith note:

The shipyards in question—Austal USA, in Mobile, Alabama, and Lockheed Martin’s Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisconsin—reinforced this message with hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of lobbying from January to March 2016, according to reports they filed with the House and Senate clerks. Lockheed said it spent $3.65 million to lobby Congress on all issues between January and March, with an unspecified portion related to shipbuilding. Austal USA spent $189,096 lobbying just on the shipbuilding provisions in House and Senate defense appropriations bills.

While supporters of the program say future ships will be different than those produced now, these changes will not be monumental. They will be rebranded as frigates and are supposed to be outfitted with better equipment. Yet these alterations may be for nothing. A report from the Government Accountability Office said despite all of this, the ship’s chance of surviving an attack is unlikely to be greatly improved. All of this thanks to parties unwilling to stop and make responsible decisions regarding the nation’s defense spending.