June 11, 1974
Page 18731
PATROL FRIGATE
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, while the military procurement bill is still on the floor, there is one particular item authorized in the legislation that I wish to say a few words about – the patrol frigate program. I would like to address the following comments, on behalf of my colleague from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY) and myself, to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, in late 1970, faced with a growing obsolescence of many of its ships, a declining willingness on the part of the American people to spend large percentages of the GNP on defense, and a virtually unparalleled Soviet maritime construction program, the Navy directed that study begin toward development of a new class of ocean escort, the patrol frigate – or PF as it is commonly called. It was the Navy's intention to have this new class of ships take over the antisubmarine and antiaircraft duties of the World War II destroyers as those 25-year-old ships were retired from the active fleet. It was also the Navy's intention to develop a relatively large number of these new ships – between 30 and 50 – at low cost, to meet the projected military needs of this country into the 1980's in the face of a growing Soviet naval capability.
Over the past 3 years, the Navy has presented to Congress a ship acquisition program for PF's that has been successful in holding procurement and life cycle costs to a minimum without sacrifice in mission effectiveness. The rate of ship deliveries has been matched to the capabilities of the shipbuilding industry and its supporting suppliers to produce complex products most efficiently. The procurement system of component parts has been built into the program in such a way as to permit manufacturers to produce at their most economical rate and overcome extended lead times. Work has been spread to several shipyards to reduce risks to the Government and to enhance competition to keep costs to a minimum.
As a result of these acquisition policies, the threshold unit cost for follow-on PF's, originally established by the Pentagon to be $50 million in fiscal year 1973 dollars, is currently $47.7 million in constant dollars, well within the $50 million threshold.
Last October, the contract for the lead PF was awarded to Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine. Construction of that ship is now due to begin in October of this year, with completion anticipated by the fall of 1977. For fiscal year 1975, the administration requested and the House approved an authorization for seven follow-on ships in the amount of $436.5 million. In explaining its decision to support full funding for the PF program, the House Armed Services Committee emphasized in its report the necessity of the Navy's having "a considerable number of smaller ocean escort destroyers."
The Senate Armed Services Committee, after a great deal of careful deliberation, decided to fund three PP's for fiscal year 1975, recommending $186.5 million in authorizations. The committee has had to work under unusually severe budgetary constraints in the present inflationary period, and I am sure that this had something to do with its funding decision.
Another factor in its thinking concerned the planned fire control system for the PP's. In this regard, the committee noted in its report:
The Mark-92 fire control system is still in development and will require extensive testing to assure that all requirements are achieved. The committee directs that the contract for the three ships recommended for approval not be awarded until such time as the Mark-92 system has successfully completed the required test and evaluation.
Mr. President, during the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to discuss the Mark-92 fire control system with the responsible Navy officials, and I would briefly like to bring my colleagues up to date on the latest test results concerning this system. The Mark-92 is a piece of equipment that is Dutch in design. Its acquisition for the PF program, along with that of an Italian gun, is in accordance with the policy of the Secretary of Defense that we buy available foreign equipment when we do not produce such systems ourselves, in order to forego research and development costs whenever possible. But the fire control system and the gun have to be Americanized in accordance with the congressionally mandated policy that once we decide on a given piece of equipment, we must begin to make it.
The Americanization of the Dutch fire control system is being done at Sperry Gyroscope in Great Neck, N.Y. Sperry has already Americanized a similar fire control system. Earlier this year, Sperry encountered some minor difficulties in their tests of the Mark-92, but I am pleased to report that the Americanization of the fire control system is now on schedule and in the final checkout stages. And the Navy now has every confidence that this system will be completed and tested successfully to meet its scheduled delivery date of August of this year.
Mr. President, it is not very often that we in Congress have an opportunity to authorize moneys for a weapons system that is, on the one hand, relatively inexpensive and on the other hand, vital to our national defense. The PF is just such a program. For the Navy has a critical need to replace those overage destroyers that have been retired en masse during the past 3 years.
I would hope, therefore, that the Congress would go ahead with full funding of the PF program for fiscal year 1975. I am fearful that if we delay the program in the manner recommended by the Armed Services Committee – with the price of materials climbing so rapidly – the construction of the follow-on ships will only cost the taxpayer considerably more in the long-run. So, as the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and his colleagues prepare to go to conference on this bill, I hope they will keep these thoughts in mind and look favorably on the House's decision to fund fully the PF program.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I assure the Senator that the committee supports the patrol frigate program. I appreciate having the benefit of the Senator's views as we take the bill to conference.