Table Of Content.
[H.N.S.C. No. 104-16]
Y4.SE2/1 995-96/16
A:
(H.K.S.C. Ho. 104-16): Keu Attack S. .
NEW ATTACK SUBMARINE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 7, 1995
1
off
OCT
3
1 1998
in*
io. -
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1996
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-053506-9
.
J\
[H.N.S.C. No. 104-16]
Y 4.SE2/1 A: 995-96/16
(H.H.S.C. Ho. 104-16): Keu Attack S. .
NEW ATTACK SUBMARINE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
HEARING HELD
SEPTEMBER 7, 1995
9/7/
OCT
3
/ 1996
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON 1996
:
ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington,DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-053506-9
MILITARY PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
FLOYD SPENCE, South Carolina IKE SKELTON, Missouri
BOB STUMP, Arizona RONALD V. DELLUMS, California
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LANE EVANS, Illinois
PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts JOHNTANNER, Tennessee
JAMES TALENT, Missouri GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland CHET EDWARDS, Texas
HOWARD "BUCK" McKEON, California PETE GEREN, Texas
RON LEWIS, Kentucky PETE PETERSON, Florida
J.C. WATTS, JR., Oklahoma WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine
STEVE THOMPSON, Professional StaffMember
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Professional StaffMember
STEVE Ansley, Professional StaffMember
KAREN STEUBE, StaffAssistant
(ID
CONTENTS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Chairman, Military
ProcurementSubcommittee 1
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES WHO APPEARED FN PERSON OR SUBMITTED
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
Battista, Tony, Private Consultant, Former Professional StaffMember, Com-
mittee onArmed Services, House ofRepresentatives:
Statement 5
Prepared statement 10
Foster, Dr. John, Jr., Private Consultant, Former Director, Defense Research
andEngineering, CurrentMember, Defense Science Board:
Statement 19
Prepared statement 24
Frick, Rear Adm. Robert E., Program Executive Officer, Submarines, Office
ofthe Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy, (Research, Development & Acquisi-
tion):
Statement 69
Prepared statement 72
Jones, Rear Adm. Dennis A., Director, Submarine Warfare Division, Office
ofthe ChiefofNaval Operations
Statement 68
O'Rourke,Ron, In-House Submarine Expert
Statement 65
Polmar, Norman, Naval Analyst, Author/Columnist, Lecturer, Consultant to
three formerSecretaries ofthe Navy:
Statement 29
Prepared statement 33
Wood, Dr. Lowell, Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University:
Statement 54
Prepared statement 56
(HI)
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TO THE NEW ATTACK
SUBMARINE
House of Representatives,
Committee on National Security,
Military Procurement Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, September 7, 1995.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in room 2118,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REP-
RESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY
PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Hunter. The subcommittee will come to order. As we pre-
DOD
pare to begin the conference on the fiscal year 1996 author-
ization bill this afternoon, one of the most contentious issues to be
resolved will be the issue of nuclear attack submarines. As mem-
bers may recall from our earlier hearing in March, the Navy's No.
1 priority in its fiscal year 1996 procurement budget request are
submarines, the third and final Seawolf, SSN-23, and its follow-on,
the new attack submarine, the so-called NAS. The Navy requested
$1.5 billion to complete the SSN-23 and $705 million for advanced
procurement ofthe NAS.
The administration's Bottom-Up Review plan was to construct
both the Seawolf and the entire NAS class of 30 submarines at
Electric Boat, the EB Division of General Dynamics in Groton, CT.
The committee did not authorize the SSN-23, which the Navy
has admitted for the last 2 years is not required for operational
purposes but rather is needed as an industrial bridge to keep EB
in business until 1998 when the NAS is to begin serial production.
Furthermore, the committee rejected the notion of having one
shipyard produce the next-generation submarine at the expense of
having the skills to build such submarines atrophy at the Nation's
other nuclear-capable shipyard, Newport News Shipbuilding,
known as NNS.
The committee focused its attention on the Seawolf not on the
Seawolf, but on the NAS. Its objectives were, one, to avoid produc-
tion of a scaled-down, less-capable version of the Seawolf in rec-
ognition of the fact that despite an economy experiencing great dif-
ficulty, Russia's defense policy continues to emphasize submarine
technology, and the fact that the Russians currently operate the
quietest submarine in the world; and, two, to avoid the prospects
of an unaffordable next-generation submarine by introducing com-
petition into its acquisition.
(1)
Thus, the committee decided that a national priority program
was needed to achieve a next-generation submarine design which
represents an improvement over the NAS design and that a key
feature of this program should be technological competition be-
tween Electric Boat and Newport News.
However, realizing that competition could not be introduced in
the short term, the committee chose to provide EB with $850 mil-
lion to demonstrate such innovation on the design of two outfitted
submarine hull sections, the first of which would be incorporated
on the second Seawolf currently under construction at EB and the
second of which would be installed on a one-of-a-kind NAS which
would begin construction at EB as scheduled in 1998. These hull
sections might be optimized for Special Operations Forces, mine
warfare, land attack missiles, other missions, or some combination
as determined by the Navy.
The committee also chose to provide NNS with an analogous op-
portunity to demonstrate its talents as an innovative submarine
designer and builder by authorizing $150 million to be used as ini-
tial funding for an effort at NNS to design, develop, and build pro-
totype versions of submarine components which have the potential
for achieving substantial improvement in capability and afford-
ability over the current NAS design.
The committee plan envisions that these innovative efforts by
both shipyards would provide the basis for either a follow-on sub-
marine that could be completed for serial production in 1999 or
production of the first of a series of operational prototype sub-
marines, each of which would incorporate accelerated technology
improvements, leading to serial production of a next-generation
submarine several years hence. The United States built several
one-of-a-kind submarines from the 1950's through the 1970's to
rapidly test new technologies and made rapid strides in the proc-
ess. Since then, however, the United States has built only minimal-
risk, series-production submarines rather than path-breaking pro-
totypes.
Recognizing that the other body appears comfortable with and is
poised to endorse the Navy's proposal for serial production of the
current NAS design, the purpose of today's hearing is to elicit ex-
pert opinion on this decision versus the committee's proposal to
build operational prototypes rather than proceeding to produce a
platform which may not be a true next-generation submarine capa-
ble ofpreserving or regaining U.S. undersea superiority.
We have some extraordinary witnesses with us this morning, and
we have tried to retrieve and have successfully retrieved for this
hearing two of the members of Les Aspin's blue ribbon panel, Dr.
John Foster, Jr., and Dr. Lowell Wood. We have with us also Mr.
Norman Polmar, a world-recognized authority on maritime issues
and on submarines and well-known author and prolific writer on
the issue, and Ron O'Rourke, who is our resident submarine expert
from CRS is with us this morning.
Ron, we appreciate this endurance, this great marathon that you
have been engaged in on the submarine issue this year with this
committee. You have been a very valuable asset to the Congress.
So we have some witnesses this morning who will comment on
the Navy's new attack submarine program. We have with us also
Rear Adm. Dennis Jones and Rear Adm. Robert Frick to describe
the Navy's position with respect to the new attack submarine, and
we have had some interesting sessions on airlift, on sealift, on sub-
marines, in which this committee puts the Navy at the panel with
other experts, from the Air Force in some cases; and we have had
some good dialog and some good back and forth. I think it has been
a little departure from the way hearings are usually conducted, but
I think it has resulted in good interchanges. Let me give a little
background on the path that we hav—e taken to reach this point.
We also have another gentleman kind of a legend on the Hill,
who was here when I arrived in Washington in 1980; that is Mr.
Tony Battista, who is a former professional staff member on the
House Armed Services Committee.
And, Tony, it is awfully nice to have you with us. You have been
a tremendous asset to this committee and to this country for many,
many years, and it is nice to have you with us and to have your
beautiful wife Doris attending here, too. I am sure this will be very
entertaining for her to hear you testify today. Thank you for com-
ing back.
Mr. Battista. Thank you. I think everything I say she is enter-
tained by.
Mr. Hunter. That is what I understand.
Doris, thanks for coming today.
But in 1988 our former House Armed Services Committee chair-
man, Les Aspin, commissioned a blue ribbon panel of specialists in
submarine development and antisubmarine warfare to prepare a
report for the committee outlining whether or not the then Soviet
Union's capability in these areas might be outstripping those ofthe
United —States. The members of that panel included Secretary of
Defense now Secretary of Defense Bill Perry; Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Paul Kaminski, Dr. John
Foster, and Dr. Lowell Wood, who are with us today. Mr. Battista
was the staff director of the R&D Subcommittee of the House
Armed Services Committee at the time, and he oversaw the cre-
ation of this panel for Chairman Aspin, so it is important, I think,
to have Tony here today, because he has some of the corporate
memory of the path that we followed at that point to get to the
present situation.
I wanted to mention also that Adm. Robert Frick is with us today
to testify as the program executive officer for submarines, Office of
the Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy for R,D&A [Research, Develop-
ment and Acquisition]; and Admiral Jones is the Director of the
Submarine Warfare Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Oper-
ations.
So, gentlemen, thank you for contributing and being with us this
morning.
In the interest of time, your written statements will be accepted
for the record, and I would like to ask each of you to take about
5 minutes to summarize those statements. And let me just say, es-
pecially for folks who don't know Dr. Foster, don't know Lowell
Wood, Lowell has been on many panels, and many issues have
been important to this committee, especially in missile defense
work and many other areas. He has worked on important programs
for the Navy. He is considered to be the father of Brilliant Pebbles
and the father of the x-ray laser. And, Lowell, we are going to get
a winner soon, and I assure you, believe me, it will happen.
Dr. John Foster is considered by many folks in the last 10 to 20
years to be one of the most valuable technical minds in defense for
this country. He is probably the best credentialed scientist in the
United States today, in my estimation, in weapons programs,
former head of research and engin—eering for two Presidents, Demo-
crat and Republican, chairman of former chairman of the Defense
Science Board, longest-serving member for the President's foreign
intelligence advisory board and just got finished chairing the Sum-
mer Studies Program for the Defense Science Board, so he came off
of that task and immediately launched into the submarine issue.
So, Dr. Foster, thank you for—taking your time to be with us.
So what I would like to do is Ike, let me recognize you for what-
ever comments you would like to make and then we will turn the
floor over to our witnesses.
The gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Skelton. Thank you. First, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman,
I am glad you are holding this hearing. I think it is very, very im-
portant that we delve into it.
For over 8 months this panel has been struggling to determine
the direction of our Navy's submarine capability. I, for one, am
deeply distressed by the future of our Navy and, of course, of our
military as a whole. As I have said, this year Congress will deter-
mine whether the United States remains a first-rate military power
by what we do in this committee. I am encouraged by many of the
recent recommendations from our committee, but I still remain
concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I am worried about the Russian Navy's continued
emphasis on submarines. Not only have the Russian designs im-
proved, but production has kept steady. My sources tell me, by the
year 2000, the Russian submarine force may significantly out-
number ours. Of course, this concerns me. It may be time to initi-
ate robust submarine productionjust to maintain parity on the sea.
It may be time to enter discussion about this —technology or that
technology, do the best we can and produce begin producing
boats, for we know when the time comes, our Nation's greatest ad-
vantage has been, and always will be, our people, particularly the
people ofthe sea. I remain confident in the ability ofour naval per-
sonnel to maintain our superiority.
Before us today is a very distinguished panel of witnesses with
expertise in submarine capability. I look forward to these gentle-
men not only to shed light on our strategic position in the world,
but to shed light on our apparent inability to make a decision with
regard to submarine technology. I look forward to the testimony.
In particular, I welcome our friend from yesteryear, Tony
Battista, who gave us thoughts, advice, those many days ago. We
appreciate you being with us. We look forward to hearin—g you, and
we also look forward to hearing what our gentlemen our folks
from the Navy have to say, because they are the ones who, after
all, have to sail these ships and make them do what they are sup-
posed to do.
Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the gentleman.
