Inside Defense
The Pentagon is heading back to the drawing board to redefine a key element of the seabasing concept, a move that will delay plans to deliver a new logistics ship to the fleet that is intended to be a centerpiece of the Navy’s Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) group of vessels, according to Defense Department officials.
The move is part of a wider review of amphibious capabilities Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered in the spring that is set to be briefed to senior Pentagon leaders this week.
“We’re reconceptualizing that program,” said a senior Pentagon official, referring to MPF(F).
MPF(F) is intended to be a collection of ships meant to support more permanent sea bases in the future.
The program of record -- which Navy and Marine officials have said may change -- calls for a squadron of: two LHA-R large-deck amphibious ships, one LHD large-deck amphibious ship, three Mobile Landing Platform transport ships, three Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off vessels, three T-AKE cargo ships and two TAK legacy ships. The goal has been to buy the ships in increments.
The integral element of MPF(F) is the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), a pier ship that will serve as the interface between other ships for the transfer of vehicles and other equipment. In April, Gates announced plans to scrutinize the requirement for MLP and other amphibious capabilities such as the 11th LPD-17 dock ship, to “assess costs and analyze the amount of these capabilities the nation needs” over the summer in preparing the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
That assessment is nearing completion, according to Pentagon sources.
Sources said it is likely the Pentagon will opt for an existing alternative to building the MLP.
In February, the Navy awarded San Diego-based General Dynamics’ National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) a $3.5 million initial design contract for MLP with an option for a second phase. Delivery of the first MLP is slated for 2015, the Navy said at the time of the award.
“At sea functionality remains an imperative [for the Defense Department],” a source noted. “But it may not be an MLP, it may be an MLP-like capability.”
In its version of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee cut one of the two requested T-AKE auxiliary vessels in the department’s budget request. The House opted to fund the request.
The $400 million cut by Senate authorizers was appealed by the Defense Department in a recent package of appeals sent to Capitol Hill.
“The Navy has awarded a contract for $100 million of long-lead time material in December 2008 with funding authorized and appropriated in FY-08,” the Pentagon writes. “Removing the T-AKE-14 would result in excess material to the government, although some of the material could be delivered to Military Sealift Command as spares. Also, the T-AKE program is in full-rate production and the president’s budget request to fund T-AKEs-13-14 detail design and construction in FY-10 will yield the most efficient build plan for this class. Delaying award of the T-AKE-14 will result in production inefficiencies, and an increased risk of exceeding target costs for T-AKE-14 as well as other ships under construction.”
The difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill will be resolved in the conference process this fall.
Sources said last week the Navy and Marine Corps would make use of the additional T-AKE ships regardless of the fate of MPF(F).
The Senate Appropriations Committee supported the authorizers’ cut in its version of the FY-10 defense spending bill.
“The committee supports the recommendation of the Senate Armed Services Committee to reduce the request by $400,000,000 [for T-AKE] to delay exercising the option for the second of the two ships until after the department completes the QDR reviews of the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) concept,” the lawmakers write in the report accompanying the bill.
House appropriators supported the two T-AKE vessels requested by the Pentagon. The difference will be resolved in the conference process. -- Zachary M. Peterson with additional reporting by Jason Sherman
NAVY-22-37-1