Key Issues OCX ACV fielding 'Single-sensing grid'
House appropriators want an assessment of the ability of public shipyards to support wartime battle damage, according to a provision within the House Appropriations Committee's military construction spending bill directing the Navy to deliver a report on the issue within 180 days of the legislation's passage.
Pointing to the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program -- the Navy’s 20-year, $21 billion effort to modernize the nation’s four public shipyards -- the spending bill instructs Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command to produce a joint report “summarizing the ability of existing shipyard infrastructure to support wartime battle damage requirements.”
This report would also detail “how SIOP is incorporating any shortfalls in meeting battle damage requirements into its long-term infrastructure plan at the naval public shipyards, and any possible benefits of coordinating these efforts with the U.S. Coast Guard’s SIOP,” the legislative language continues.
The Navy requested $513 million for SIOP in fiscal year 2025. During a June industry day, Navy officials said $6 billion has already been committed to various projects under SIOP. The program was launched in 2018 to modernize and upgrade aging shipyard infrastructure and reduce maintenance delays.
Though the Navy has reported some improvement in maintenance performance since then, in early FY-24, then-Naval Submarine Forces Commander Vice Adm. William Houston said maintenance backlogs remain the greatest challenge to submarine fleet readiness.
In the MILCON spending bill, House appropriators also endorse drydock improvement efforts underway in the four yards under SIOP. The spending bill directs an additional report on installing a floating drydock at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility.
This report, to be completed by the assistant Navy secretary for energy, installations and environment within 180 days of the bill’s signing, would detail “potential locations for mooring a floating drydock, (2) a list of the individual major military construction projects needed to support a floating drydock, (3) the earliest a floating drydock could be brought into service given the timelines associated with the required military construction, and (4) how a floating drydock would be used to ensure extra capacity for potential crisis and conflict in the Indo-Pacific.”
Though the legislation doesn’t expressly link these two reports to concerns over a possible armed conflict with China, it states “the committee recognizes the importance of fleet maintenance on the west coast to ensuring mission readiness in the Indo-Pacific region and is aware the Navy is already facing maintenance delays.”