Page 27: of Maritime Reporter Magazine (December 1987)
programs is summarized in Ex- hibit 1. 2. FUTURE FUNDING OF
The Navy proposed to build 16 ships and perform four major con- versions in FY 1988. At time of pre- paring this article there had been no resolution of the FY 1988 budget.
But the actions taken thus far by
Congress clearly indicate a reduc- tion is expected.
The House and Senate authoriza- tion bills provide for construction of 13 ships. Major change is in the
Aegis surface combatant program.
The President requested a program of two CG 47 Aegis cruisers and three DDG 51 Aegis destroyers.
Both House and Senate deleted the
DDG 51's from the program—but instead authorized five CG 47's.
In late October the House ap- proved a defense appropriations bill. It makes cuts in funding for ship construction. The House bill provides funding for two Aegis ships—denying the request for three DDG 51's. It also denies fund- ing for the MCM minesweeper in
FY 1988 and cuts the crane ships conversion plan.
The House appropriations bill contains some interesting items. It orders a study to be made by Navy of a build and charter program for strategic sealift tankers. The bill also requires the Navy to conduct "a full and open competition for the
WANT TO LEARN MORE
ABOUT THE $38-BILLION
ANNUAL NA VY MARKET?
IMA's two quarterly business re- views will help keep you informed.
One covers Navy ship maintenance and modernization. Another covers ship and equipment procurement.
Both deal with contract opportuni- ties, long term spending plans and key points of buying power. More than 300 companies selling to Navy subscribe to these reports. • U.S. Navy Ship Mantenance and Modernization
Four quarterly reviews
Nov. 1987-Oct. 1988 $380.00 • U.S. Navy Ship Procurement
Four quarterly reviews
Oct. 1987-Sept. 1988 $380.00
To order please contact Interna- tional Maritime Associates, Inc., 3050 K Street, N.W., Washing- ton, DC 20007, Telephone (202) 333-8501, Telex 64325
IMA, Telefax (202) 333-8504. fiscal year 1989 DDG 51 ships and the awarding of at least one ship to a third shipyard." Navy can be ex- pected to oppose this requirement and attempt to have it deleted in the final House/Senate appropria- tions bill language. Another inter- esting item in the House bill is a request that the Navy consider an alternative design for the LSD 41 cargo variant. It requests that the
Navy "examine the viability and cost effectiveness of a modified SL- 7 design, with LM 2500 engines as a cargo variant."
Details on the FY 1988 shipbuild- ing funding request and Congres- sional action to date are shown in
Exhibit 2. Note that the Senate had not yet acted on a defense appro- priations bill—and cuts resulting from deficit reduction negotiations are expected to affect the final de- fense budget. 3. FUNDING OF SHIP
SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
The President's budget requested $22 billion to fund weapons, other procurement and provide funds for research and development in FY 1988. Both House and Senate have authorized reduced programs.
In late October the House passed a defense appropriations bill mak- ing serious cuts in this portion of the
Navy budget. The total was cut from $22 to $19 billion.
The House appropriations bill contains some items of particular interest to marine suppliers. It in- cludes an additional $10 million to be used "solely for the purchase of
U.S.-built, totally enclosed survival systems." These will be state-of- the-art survival systems for use on civilian manned T-ships operated by MSC. Another item is an addi- tional $12 million for the continued dual source procurement of sea- sheds and adapters.
A new buy American provision is also contained in the House appro- continued)
Legislative Status Of Funding
For Navy Ship Maintenance
And Modernization In FY 1988 ($ in millions)
And Modernization $2,775 $1,291 $178
Bills $1,291 $174 o ^ en » g
Source: Navy Budget Request
House Defense Appropriation Bill
Legislative Status of FY1988 Funding for
Navy Weapons, Equipment and Systems (in millions of $)
Research & Development
Request $6,502 4,984 10,490
Authorization Bill $6,482 5,254 9,292
Authorization Bill $6,220 4,968 10,269
Appropriations Bill $5,366 5,012 8,635
Source FY1988 Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bill
The Seaward dock fender.
If the U.S. Navy thinks it's good enough for the 1990's maybe it's good enough for your facility now.
Circle 230 on Reader Service Card
The U.S. Navy chose Seaward dock fenders to protect Pier Zulu, in Charleston, S.C.This new 20 million dollar pier is the prototype of the
Navy's pier designs for the 1990's. Seaward's fenders have also been installed on new
Navy berthing facilities in California,
Florida, Virginia, Iceland, and the Philip- pines. These fenders are being included in the design of new home port facilities and are being used in the upgrading of Navy docks around the world.
Seaward dock fenders are constructed of a tough, snag-free elastomer coating. And
Seaward's closed-cell foam center has a very high energy absorption capacity but a low reaction force.These fenders provide stand-off and safely cushion the impact of approaching vessels, whether they're tugboats or battleships. Yet Seaward dock fenders are as easy to install as they are rugged.
The U.S. Navy didn't settle for an ordinary fender to protect Pier Zulu. So why should you?
For more information contact Seaward International, RO. Box 98, Clear- SEAWARD
brook, Virginia 22624. Telephone: (703) 667-5191, Telex: 275034 SEWARD UR. ,N™<™" December, 1987 35
December, 1987 35