Subs Needed to Keep Seas Free
The Hartford Courant
Subs Needed to Keep Seas Free
1 December 2007
Recent letters dismissing the merits of increased submarine production do not hold water [Nov. 21, "Seagoing Pork"; Nov. 24, "Lawmakers Would Fail Civics Class"]. Connecticut's congressional delegation, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and The Courant are correct when they say that a healthy and productive submarine industry is good for the state's economy as well as the national defense.
Far from "wasteful spending" or "seagoing pork," Congress' recent decision to double submarine production comes after three years of debate that benefited from numerous hearings and independent studies. The members of Team Connecticut have long argued, correctly, that the Navy needs more fast-attack submarines to fulfill critical missions.
Our submarine force today cannot respond to two out of five mission requests because of insufficient numbers, a gap that is growing as dozens of ships from the Cold War era retire without replacement. Under a build rate of one per year, the submarine force would eventually decline to just 40 boats, well below the Navy's minimal requirement of 48. Building two submarines per year will help the Navy mitigate this shortfall, lowering the risk to our sailors and other service members.
With stealth and secrecy now at a premium, the nation needs these submarines to gather intelligence, deliver special operations forces, support counter-terrorism missions, and deter regional adversaries such as China, which buys its submarines literally by the dozen. We also need a higher build rate to keep shipbuilding costs low (through economies of scale) and to preserve unique skills and know-how at Electric Boat Corp., the nation's last prime contractor of nuclear submarines.
The Constitution says that "the Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy," but the old spending levels for fast-attack submarines failed to meet the real-world needs. Team Connecticut and Congress deserve enormous credit - not accusations of errant earmarks - for answering the call to close the submarine requirement gap.
Far from "wasteful spending" or "seagoing pork," Congress' recent decision to double submarine production comes after three years of debate that benefited from numerous hearings and independent studies. The members of Team Connecticut have long argued, correctly, that the Navy needs more fast-attack submarines to fulfill critical missions.
Our submarine force today cannot respond to two out of five mission requests because of insufficient numbers, a gap that is growing as dozens of ships from the Cold War era retire without replacement. Under a build rate of one per year, the submarine force would eventually decline to just 40 boats, well below the Navy's minimal requirement of 48. Building two submarines per year will help the Navy mitigate this shortfall, lowering the risk to our sailors and other service members.
With stealth and secrecy now at a premium, the nation needs these submarines to gather intelligence, deliver special operations forces, support counter-terrorism missions, and deter regional adversaries such as China, which buys its submarines literally by the dozen. We also need a higher build rate to keep shipbuilding costs low (through economies of scale) and to preserve unique skills and know-how at Electric Boat Corp., the nation's last prime contractor of nuclear submarines.
The Constitution says that "the Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy," but the old spending levels for fast-attack submarines failed to meet the real-world needs. Team Connecticut and Congress deserve enormous credit - not accusations of errant earmarks - for answering the call to close the submarine requirement gap.
Justin Bernier
Acting Executive Director, Office of Military Affairs, State of Connecticut, Hartford