Posted on 02/08/2005 6:36:06 AM PST by Fido969
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
Warship reductions likely to hurt BIW
By MATT WICKENHEISER, Portland Press Herald Writer
Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. E-mail this story to a friend
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADVERTISEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff photo by Derek Davis
Cuts in spending on naval destroyers, as proposed by President Bush, could have a severe impact on Bath Iron Works.
President Bush would cut the fiscal 2006 budget for the next generation of naval destroyers by nearly a quarter - or $586 million - under a plan released Monday. If approved, the cuts could lead to a major drop in future work and employment at Bath Iron Works.
Some military analysts warned that cuts of that magnitude, coming on top of previous reductions in the warship program, could even have BIW fighting for survival against the Mississippi shipyard that is its sole competitor for the construction of destroyers.
On Monday, a BIW official said it's too early to say exactly what impact the cuts might have, and Maine senators said they will fight the proposal in Congress.
The budget proposal calls for construction of five DD(X) destroyers from 2007 to 2011. A year ago, the Navy was projecting 12 ships for that period, and in August, the Navy reduced the plan to seven.
The cuts proposed by Bush would push construction of the first DD(X) warship farther into the future and add to a gap between the end of existing destroyer work and the start of the new program. That would leave many workers idle.
"At the end of 2007, if we're not going on to a DD(X), we're going to have an incredible issue," said Mike Keenan, president of Local S6 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, BIW's largest union with 4,150 members.
BIW spokesman Dirk Lesko wouldn't comment on future job cuts.
"We intend to structure ourselves in whatever way it takes to survive. We intend to be here to build ships when the Navy needs them. To that end, we are evaluating what our alternatives are," Lesko said. "Our workload is relatively stable as we approach the end of this decade, but it's the gap between the DDG and the DD(X) that has the potential to cause us a dip."
An internal Navy budget chart prepared for the White House projects a 25 percent job loss nationwide in the shipbuilding industry from 2004 to 2008, said Loren B. Thompson, industry analyst for the Lexington Institute, a public-policy research group based in Arlington, Va. The biggest hit is in New England, said Thompson, with a projected 34 percent loss at BIW and Electric Boat in Connecticut.
"What that reflects is that the Navy's shipbuilding budget is not going to be coming back anytime soon," he said.
Thompson said early cuts would be from positions in the design process of shipbuilding. That's already happened to an extent; BIW cut 137 production jobs in January and cut another 51 designer jobs Monday.
Further cutbacks at BIW, which is one of Maine's largest employers, would ripple across the state's economy. BIW has an annual payroll of $300 million and 6,200 workers. BIW also spends about $40 million yearly with 470 Maine suppliers.
Nobody is saying the shipyard itself is in immediate danger. However, some analysts are wondering whether the DD(X) cuts will cause the Navy to consider choosing either Ingalls or BIW as the sole supplier of destroyers.
"This is a sad spectacle. Bath Iron Works has a better work culture and better management than any other shipyard in North America, but it is at such a profound geographic disadvantage. The simple reality is Bath is just in a difficult location for building ships compared with Ingalls in Mississippi," Thompson said. "Frankly, it would have to have had a world-class management just to survive this long."
Thompson said he believes it's important to have two shipyards competing for bids, to maintain performance on price and efficiency, but the view isn't shared at the Navy.
And the single-source concept is surfacing more frequently. The change has already happened with aircraft carriers, and the Navy is considering it with surface combat ships and submarines, Thompson said.
The head of Northrop Grumman, parent company of Ingalls, has floated publicly the idea of having a single supplier of destroyers, said Jay Korman, defense analyst with DFI International.
"The fact that Northrop Grumman raises it tells me they're in a good position," Korman said.
But the fact that the Navy is only building four ships in fiscal year 2006 pushes the industry into a corner, Korman said. "You can't expect the industry to sustain itself on four ships per year," he said.
Korman said it was a slim chance, near-term, that a shipyard would close, but "if this continues, that's probably the only outcome."
Thompson said BIW has done all it can to make itself more efficient.
"If they are going to thrive over the long run, it's going to require political clout," Thompson said. "I honestly don't know if the state can field the kind of political influence it needs to protect Bath. If it doesn't try, the workers there are in trouble."
Politicians who normally battle to secure bids for their shipbuilding constituencies will likely band together to fight cuts to the industry, said Christopher Hellman, director of the Project on Military Spending Oversight at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
"I suspect they'll be working together. There's an understanding that the industry as a whole is at stake here," Hellman said. "They may decide they want to all hang together, because they're definitely going to all hang separately."
Members of Maine's congressional delegation were quick to slam the budget cuts.
"I continue to vehemently oppose any cuts in the Navy's shipbuilding budget, especially during a time of increased demands on our armed forces as they prosecute the global war on terror," Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe said in a written statement. "We simply must find the resources to bring DD(X) production up to acceptable levels and to ensure a steady workload at Bath Iron Works."
Republican Sen. Susan Collins said in a written statement that the effectiveness of the Navy relies on the continued enhancement of the fleet.
"We must not jeopardize our country's ability to counter current and future threats to our national security, particularly at a time when we face critical defense and humanitarian challenges around the world," Collins said.
Hellman echoed some of Collins' comments, particularly in light of lessons learned in the Iraq war.
"One of the things we've learned is force projection is very important. One of the things we did learn in Iraq is you can't always rely on even your friends supporting you when you feel the need to act," said Hellman, referring to issues the United States faced in staging forces in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said no one is claiming the United States needs fewer ships.
"What they are saying is we don't have the money to pay for them. We don't have the money because we're spending $1 billion, $1.5 billion a week in Iraq. That's basically a destroyer a week," Allen said.
Hellman said there is some question in the defense sector as to whether these cuts are simply budget-driven or are a part of a changing Pentagon defense strategy. The latest quadrennial defense plan hasn't been issued yet, he said, and the strategy would be laid out in that document.
Also, broad defense-policy reviews - especially the ongoing base-closure process - could cause economic problems beyond BIW, said Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
"Frankly, my concern in the near term is Brunswick Naval Air Station and (the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery)," Thompson said. "The 2005 base closure round could be quite a shock to Maine. If you stand back and look at the general trend in the private and public sectors, it appears Maine is going to suffer a series of really severe economic blows during the second Bush administration."
Staff Writer Bart Jansen contributed to this report.
Staff Writer Matt Wickenheiser can be contacted at 791-6316 or at: mwickenheiser@pressherald.com
Not going to do Tidewater VA much good either...thousands of jobs expected to be lost, just from the JFK alone.
We need to keep our eye on China. If they get aggressive, and we need to go to war, the navy will be very important. Diminishing out ability to build a navy just seems dumb.
Possibly an opening "suggestion" to Maine's two senators, the "Pigeon sisters" to get with W's other programs..
I was a Tin Can Sailor whose service unfortunately crossed over into, but fortunately past Jimmy Carter's presidency. He was another one who didn't seem to have money to keep the Destroyer Fleet, manned, ready and on the line.
Once upon a time when I was the Mount Captain of a Forward 5"/54 Gun on an Adams Class out of Tin Can Alley in San Diego, one of the right loading cradles got busted into an inrepairable state. When I went to order an new one I was told that our boat "didn't have the budget dollars to order the part." God's honest truth.
So with The Chief's and GAMO's tacit blessing we borrowed the ships truck and me and my Gun Gang broke into the new shiny 5" /54 that belonged to the on of the Fleet training schools at the head of the quay and "took what we needed", while making sure to remove all of the safety switches and leave notes so no one would unknowingly light off the Gun Mount.
The NIS (Naval Investigative Service) was called in and tracked down every damn Gunner's Mate at 32nd Street and unfortunately, ultimately found me at the end. They wanted to burn my ass and put me in the brig. Fortunately our old man got on the horn to the Commander of Pacific Fleet and was able to buy me a walk since I was acting only in the best interest of the Navy - something Carter a former Naval Officer should have done.
I can still see the old man snickering as he pinned on my Good Conduct Medal two months later, then asking me if I could comshaw him a Train Warning Bell with a couple of cans of coffee and some foul weather jackets.
I like Bush and voted for him, but he's dead wrong on the Destroyer issue. These boats can get into places Cruisers and Carriers can't.
Be well,
Marked Man, Shell Back
HAIL DAVEY JONES! HAIL KING NEPTUNE!
Unfortunately, the Navy did too good a job under the presidency of Ronald Maximus... There is no great blue water fleet out there on the world's stage (seven seas) now to mount even a hint of a challenge; Osama doesn't have a Navy, Kim Il's is miniscule and the Ayatollah's is practically non-existent. A warship is basically a strategic offensive weapon so I can readily see W's decision to cut back on the DD(X) order. We will still need ships to "show the flag" and promote "gunboat diplomacy" but the future indeed looks dim for the sea services. I invision eventual carriers with no more than 100 or so sailors launching UAVs to do warfighting tasks. Sad!.
A former bubblehead and a "bluenose"
Most of Russia's ships are rusting in their northern fleet ports...China has mostly focused on small, fast guided missile FFGs (though I have heard rumors of a planned future CVN)
You always need to be prepared for the next military challenge. The folks looking into the crystal ball have determined that threats to the United States are more likely going to come from rogue states without ocean ports and/or rogue enemies without states. The need for sea superiority is, at least for now and the near future, waning. This is not my opinion, but merely the facts.
The supremacy of the sea is and always will be a part of the overall military strategy; however, it is hard to fight small bands of terrorist with sea power. The necessity for fast, mobile, and airborne recognizance, firepower, and manpower is of more importance in the global war on terror. In other words, it's not a matter of reducing capability, as Olympia Snowe likes to elude to, but more of a "shifting" of capability.
Also, BIW has not done a very good job of diversifying its portfolio of offerings. There are several factors for this, but most probable is the culture. There is no argument about BIW built ships. They truly are the best built naval ships in the world, period. Unfortunately, the Navy, which once took quality into consideration when purchasing ships for the fleet, have away from the business philosophy and now want quantity.
So where does that leave BIW? I don't know. Senator Snow and Collins are fighting the good fight, for that I commend them for it. From a political stand point, if the Dems pickup some Senate seats the next election and the margin of majority is one or two, then the ante will be upped tremendously. In a blue state like Maine, there maybe even pressure on them to jump ship to the democratic party to tip the balance of power back to the Dems.
The current administration has to tread lightly on this issue. Right now the President is firmly in charge and has a vision for America's military, regardless of what we all may think.
For me, I will continue to do my job as contracted. If I lose it because of changes in military need, so be it. I'll move on. To me, at least, the more important issue is, can America defend itself, not will the government buy unnecessary assets so I can keep my job. Frankly, that's welfare.
Where do I get one of those T-Shirts???!!!!
If we go to war with China they can shut down American retail trade in about a week. Therefore, we are not going to go to war with China and the Navy will not be important, at least not for that reason.
Made it myself.
The idea here is "emerging threats." China is, at this time, not a threat. The Chinese think long term. We will all be long dead and the current class of destroyers all decommisioned before this threat appears on the matrix.
LOL. I'll bet you're right. This is GW's shot across the bow that some Pubbies had best learn to be team players.
IOW, is the design philosphy flawed, to the extent that reducing the number of these craft in the pipeline might well be a good thing?
I'd welcome your comments, and any links you might suggest for further reading/research on my part. Regards..
I was near Bath Iron Works on vacation in Oct. 2000. The area was already depressed and the workers were on strike for their usual whiney greivances of not being handed every amenity of life for welding.
The Clinton years did more to hurt ship builders than anything Bush MIGHT do in the future.
"What they are saying is we don't have the money to pay for them. We don't have the money because we're spending $1 billion, $1.5 billion a week in Iraq. That's basically a destroyer a week," Allen said.
Hey liberal whiney Democrat...if you want more money for ships to keep jobs in your tax laden third world city in Maine then how about dumping those gazillion worthless social programs you waste billions and billions on each year?
Yeah, that's what I thought....silence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.