.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
May 2October 19, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32665
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
The planned size of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective
affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been matters of concern for the congressional
defense committees for the past several years.
The Navy in February 2006 presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of
313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. Since then, the Navy has The Navy in subsequent years
changed its
desired quantities for some of those ship types, and the Navy’s goals now add up to a desired fleet
of 328 shipscertain ship types, and by mid-2011 the Navy’s desired fleet
appeared to have grown to a total of 328 ships. In September 2011, the Navy began briefing
congressional offices on a new 313-ship plan that incorporates some of the changes that the Navy
made over the years to the 313-ship plan of February 2006 while staying within the overall total
of 313 ships. Among other things, the 313-ship plan of September 2011 reduces the planned
number of Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs) to 10, compared to a previously planned total of 21.
Press reports in September and October 2011 state that the Navy, in response to anticipated
reductions in planned levels of defense spending, is examining options for maintaining a fleet
with considerably fewer than 300 ships; for retiring certain ships in the near term, well before the
ends of their expected service lives; and for deferring or cancelling certain planned procurements.
The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requests funding for the procurement of 10 new battle force
ships (i.e., ships that count against the 328313-ship goal). The 10 ships include two Virginia-class
attack submarines, one DDG-51 class Aegis destroyer, four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), one
LPD-17 class amphibious ship, one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship (i.e., a maritime
prepositioning ship), and one Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV). The Navy’s five-year (FY2012FY2016) shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress in conjunction with the Navy’s proposed
FY2012 budget, includes a total of 55 new battle force ships, or an average of 11 per year. Of the
55 ships in the plan, 27, or almost half, are relatively inexpensive LCSs or JHSVs.
The Navy’s FY2011FY2012 30-year (FY2011-FY2040FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress in
February 2010 in conjunction with its proposed FY2011 budget late
May 2011, includes 276 ships. The FY2011
FY2012 30-year plan does not include enough ships to fully
support all elements of the Navy’s de facto
328313-ship goal over the long run. Among other things, the Navy
projects that the cruiser-destroyer
and attack submarine forces would drop substantially below
required levels in the latter years of
the 30-year plan.
The Navy last year estimated that executing the FY2011 30-year shipbuilding plan would require
an average of $15.9 billion per year in constant FY2010 dollars. A May 2010 Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) report estimated that the plan would require an average of $19.0 billion per
year in constant FY2010 dollars, or about 19% more than the Navy estimated.
Issues for Congress include the sufficiency of the Navy’s FY2011 30-year shipbuilding plan for
achieving and maintaining the Navy’s 328-ship goal, the affordability of the FY2011 30-year
shipbuilding plan, and proposals that some study groups have made for Navy ship force structure.
Congressional Research Service
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction the 30-year plan.
A June 2011 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the cost of the Navy’s FY2012 30year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan estimates that the plan would cost an average of $18.0
billion per year in constant FY2011 dollars to implement, or about 16% more than the Navy
estimates. CBO’s estimate is about 7% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the first 10 years of
the plan, about 10% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the second 10 years of the plan, and
about 31% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the final 10 years of the plan. Some of the
difference between CBO’s estimate and the Navy’s estimate, particularly in the latter years of the
plan, is due to a difference between CBO and the Navy in how to treat inflation in Navy
shipbuilding.
Issues for Congress include the appropriate future size and structure of the Navy in light of
changes in strategic and budget circumstances, the sufficiency of the Navy’s FY2012 30-year
shipbuilding plan for achieving and maintaining the Navy’s 313-ship goal, and the affordability of
the FY2012 30-year shipbuilding plan.
Congressional Research Service
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................1
Background ... 1
Background...................................................................................................................................... 1
Navy’s De Facto 328313-Ship Force Structure Plan of September 2011 ....................................................................1
Navy’s 5-Year, 10-Year, 1
Navy’s FY2012 Five-Year and 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans .......................................................3
FY2012 3
Five-Year (FY2012-FY2016) Shipbuilding Plan ................................................................ 3
303
FY2012 10-Year (FY2012-FY2021FY2041) Shipbuilding Plan ................................................................... 5
Navy’s Projected Force Levels Under5
FY2011 30-Year (FY2011-FY2040FY2012-FY2041) Shipbuilding Plan....................................................6
Navy’s Projected Force Levels 7
Press Reports of Navy Examining Options for Force Structure and Procurement
Reductions .............................................................................................................................. 8
Oversight Issues for Congress ................................................................................................7
Projected Force Levels Under FY2012 10-Year Plan....... 12
Future Size and Structure of Navy in Light of Changes in Strategic and Budgetary
Circumstances .......................................................7
Projected Force Levels Under FY2011 30-Year Plan ............................................................... 12
Issues Relating to Current 313-Ship Force-Level Objective................................................... 15
Sufficiency of FY2012 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan.......................................................8
Oversight Issues for Congress .................................. 15
Affordability of FY2012 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan ........................................................ 16
Efficacy of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan..................................................................... 10
Official Replacement for 313-Ship Plan of 2006............... 18
Legislative Activity for FY2012 ................................................................................................. 10
Sufficiency of FY2011 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan... 18
FY2012 Funding Request.......................................................................................... 10
Affordability of FY2011 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan ............................................................ 11
Recent Study Group Proposals for Navy Ship Force Structure ............................................. 12
Legislative Activity for FY2012 .............. 18
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1540/S. 1253)........................................ 18
House (Committee Report) ............................................................................................... 18
House (Floor Consideration)............................................................................................. 21
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 21
FY2012 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2219) ...................................................................... 23
House....................................................................................................................... 14
FY2012 Funding Request.......... 23
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 1424
CRS Reports Tracking Legislation on Specific Navy Shipbuilding Programs ....................... 1525
Tables
Table 1. Navy Ship Force Structure Plans Since 2001 ..................................................................... 2
Table 2. Navy FY2012 Five-Year (FY2012-FY2016) Shipbuilding Plan ....................................... 3
Table 3. Navy FY2012 1030-Year (FY2012-FY2021FY2041) Shipbuilding Plan .......................................... 6
Table 4. Navy FY2011 30-Year (FY2011-FY2040) Projected Force Levels Resulting from FY2012 30-Year (FY2012-FY2041)
Shipbuilding Plan .........................................7
Table 5. Projected Force Levels Resulting from FY2012 10-Year Plan .........................................8
Table 6. Projected Force Levels Resulting from FY2011 30-Year Plan..........................................9 7
Table 7. Navy and CBO Estimates of Cost of FY2011 30-Year (FY2011-FY2040)
Shipbuilding Plan5. Recent Study Group Proposals for Navy Ship Force Structure ....................................... 14
Table 6. Navy and CBO Estimates of Cost of FY2012 30-Year (FY2012-FY2041)
Shipbuilding Plan ............................................................................. 12
Table 8. Recent Study Group Proposals for Navy Ship Force Structure.......................................... 1317
Table B-1. Comparison of Navy’s 328313-ship goal, Navy Plan from 1993 BUR, and Navy
Plan from 2010 QDR Review Panel ........................................................................................... 3230
Table DC-1. Total Number of Ships in the Navy Since FY1948 ................................................... 37... 33
Table DC-2. Battle Force Ships Procured or Requested, FY1982-FY2016 .................................... 38
Appendixes
Appendix A. Legislative Activity for FY2011............................................................................ 16. 34
Congressional Research Service
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendixes
Appendix A. Using Past Ship Force Levels to Assess Proposed Force Levels ............................. 26
Appendix B. Independent Panel Assessment of 2010 QDR............ ............................................ 30
Congressional Research Service
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix C. Comparing Past Ship Force Levels to 328-ship goal.............................................. 34.............. 28
Appendix DC. Size of the Navy and Navy Shipbuilding Rate......................................................... 32 36
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................... 3834
Congressional Research Service
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
This report provides background information and presents potential issues for Congress
concerning the Navy’s ship force-structure goals and shipbuilding plans. The planned size of the
Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy’s
shipbuilding plans have been matters of concern for the congressional defense committees for the
past several years. Decisions that Congress makes on Navy shipbuilding programs can
substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S. shipbuilding
industrial base.
Background
Navy’s De Facto 328313-Ship Force Structure Plan of September 2011
The Navy in February 2006 presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of
313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. Since then, the Navy has The Navy in subsequent years
changed its
desired quantities for some of thosecertain ship types, and the Navy’s goals now add up to a desired fleet
of 328 ships. Although the 313-ship plan of 2006 is no longer a fully accurate representation of
current Navy ship force-structure goals, the Navy has not presented to Congress an official
replacement for the 313-ship plan. Many observers continue to refer to the Navy’s planned fleet
as a 313-ship fleet. by mid-2011 the Navy’s desired fleet
appeared to have grown to a total of 328 ships. In September 2011, the Navy began briefing
congressional offices on a new 313-ship plan that incorporates some of the changes that the Navy
made over the years to the 313-ship plan of February 2006 while staying within the overall total
of 313 ships. Among other things, the 313-ship plan of September 2011 reduces the planned
number of Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs) to 10, compared to a previously planned total of 21.
Navy officials sometimes refer to the figure of 313 ships as a “floor.” This
CRS report treats the Navy’s desire for a fleet of 328 ships as the service’s de facto ship force
structure plan.
Table 1 compares the current 328-ship goal to the 313-ship plan of 2006 and earlier Navy ship
force structure plans.
Congressional Research Service
1
,” meaning a minimum
required number. The Navy states that the new 313-ship plan of 2011 “will provide the capability
and capacity to meet projected future missions with acceptable risk.”1
Table 1 compares the new 313-ship goal of September 2011 to earlier Navy ship force structure
plans.
1
Source: Navy briefing slide on new (2011) 313-ship plan provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs on
October 7, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 1. Navy Ship Force Structure Plans Since 2001
2006
Navy plan
for 313ship fleet
260-ships
325ships
Ship type
De facto
328-ship
goal
reflecting
changes
since 2006
to the 313ship planShip type
New 313ship plan of
September
2011
Changes to
February
2006 313ship plan
announced
through
mid-2011
February
2006
Navy plan
for 313ship fleet
Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
12b
14
1412b
Cruise missile submarines (SSGNs)
0c
44
0c
Attack submarines (SSNs)
48
Aircraft carriers
11e
Cruisers and destroyers
Early-2005 Navy
plan for fleet of 260325 ships
260-ships
325ships
20022004
Navy
plan for
375-ship
Navya
2001 QDR
plan for
310-ship
Navy14
14
14
14
14
4
4
4
4
2 or 4d
48
48
37
41
55
55
11e
11f
10
11
12
12
94
94g
88
67
92
104
Frigates
0
0
0
0
0
0
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs)
55
55
55
63
82
56
0
Amphibious ships
33
33h
31
17
24
37
36
MPF(F) shipsi
0j
0j
12i
14i
20i
0i
0i
Combat logistics (resupply) ships
30
30
30
24
26
42
34
30
30
24
26
42
34
16
shipsi
MPF(F)
Combat logistics (resupply) ships
Dedicated mine warfare ships
1160
0
0
0
0
26k
16
Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs)
10l
21l
3
0
0
0
0
Otherm
16
24n
17
10
11
25
25
Total battle force ships313
328
313
260
325
375
310 or 312
Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Navy dataTotal battle force ships
2001 QDR
plan for
310-ship
Navy
116
Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Navy data. Source for new 313-ship plan of September 2011:
Navy briefing slide on new (2011) 313-ship plan provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs on
October 7, 2011.
Note: QDR is Quadrennial Defense Review.
a.
Initial composition. Composition was subsequently modified.
b.
The Navy plans to replace the 14 current Ohio-class SSBNs with a new class of 12 next-generation SSBNs.
For further discussion, see CRS Report R41129, Navy SSBN(XOhio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine
Program: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
c.
Although the Navy plans to continue operating its four SSGNs until they reach retirement age in the late
2020s, the Navy does not plan to replace these ships when they retire, and the 328-ship presentation
reflected the post-2020s force level of zero SSGNs.
d.
The report on the 2001 QDR did not mention a specific figure for SSGNs. The Administration’s proposed
FY2001 Department of Defense (DOD) budget requested funding to support the conversion of two
available Trident SSBNs into SSGNs, and the retirement of two other Trident SSBNs. Congress, in marking
up this request, supported a plan to convert all four available SSBNs into SSGNs.
e.
With congressional approval, the goal will temporarily be reduced to 10 carriers during 33-month period
between the retirement of the carrier Enterprise (CVN-65) in November 2012 and the scheduled entry
into service of the carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) in September 2015.
f.
For a time, the Navy characterized the goal as 11 carriers in the nearer term, and eventually 12 carriers.
g.
The 94-ship goal was announced by the Navy in an April 2011 report to Congress on naval force structure
and missile defense.
h.
The Navy acknowledges that meeting a requirement for being able to lift the assault echelons of 2.0 Marine
Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs) would require a minimum of 33 amphibious ships rather than 31. For further
the 31 ships
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
shown in the February 2006 plan. For further discussion, see CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious
Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and
Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
2
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
i.
Today’s Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) ships are intended primarily to support Marine Corps
operations ashore, rather than Navy combat operations, and thus are not counted as Navy battle force
ships. The MPF (Future) ships, however, would contributehave contributed to Navy combat capabilities (for example, by
by supporting Navy aircraft operations). For this reason, the ships in the planned MPF(F) squadron were
counted by the Navy as battle force ships.
j.
The Navy no longer plans to acquire an MPF(F) squadron. The Navy, however, has procured or plans to
procure six ships that were previously planned for the MPF(F) squadron—three modified TAKE-1 class
cargo ships, and three Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships. These six ships are now included in the 46-ship
total total
shown for “Other” ships.
k.
The figure of 26 dedicated mine warfare ships includes 10 ships maintained in a reduced mobilization status
called Mobilization Category B. Ships in this status are not readily deployable and thus do not count as
battle force ships. The 375-ship proposal thus implied transferring these 10 ships to a higher readiness
status.
l.
The 21 JHSVs include 16 ships dedicated to Navy missions andTotals shown include 5 ships transferred from the Army to the
Navy and operated by the Navy primarily
for the performance of Army missions.
m.
This category includes, among other things, command ships and support ships.
n.
The increase in this category from 17 ships under the February 2006 313-ship plan to 24 ships under the
apparent 328-ship goal
includes the addition of one TAGOS ocean surveillance ship and the transfer into
this category of six
ships—three modified TAKE-1 class cargo ships, and three Mobile Landing Platform
(MLP) ships—that were
previously intended for the planned (but now canceled) MPF(F) squadron.
Navy’s 5-Year, 10-Year,FY2012 Five-Year and 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans
FY2012 Five-Year (FY2012-FY2016) Shipbuilding Plan
Table 2 shows the Navy’s FY2012 five-year (FY2012-FY2016) shipbuilding plan.
Table 2. Navy FY2012 Five-Year (FY2012-FY2016) Shipbuilding Plan
(Battle force ships—i.e., ships that count against 328313-ship goal)
Ship type
FY12
Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
1
Total
1
Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarine
2
2
2
2
2
10
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer
1
2
2
2
1
8
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
4
4
4
4
3
19
San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship
1
1
LHA(R) amphibious assault ship
1
Fleet tug (TATF)
1
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship
1
1
Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV)
1
2
TAO(X) oiler
TAGOS ocean surveillance ship
TOTAL
1
2
2
2
1
8
1
1
1
3
1
10
13
1
1
11
12
9
55
Source: FY2012 Navy budget submission.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Notes: The FY2012-FY2016 shipbuilding plan also includes, in FY2012, an oceanographic ship that does not
count against the 328313-ship goal. JHSVs are being procured by both the Navy and the Army. The Army is
procuring a second JHSV in FY2012; this ship is included in the Army’s budget.
Congressional Research Service
3
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Observations that can be made about the Navy’s proposed five-year (FY2012-FY2016)
shipbuilding plan include the following:
•
The FY2012-FY2016 plan includes a total of 55 battle force ships, or 5 more
than the FY2011-FY2015 plan. The net increase of five ships includes the
addition of six ships and the subtraction of one previously planned ship. The six
added ships include a second DDG-51 in FY2014, a fourth Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) in FY2012, three TAO(X) oilers in FY2014-FY2016, and a TAGOS ocean
surveillance ship in FY2013. The ship that was subtracted was a second JHSV
that was previously planned for FY2016.
•
The FY2012-FY2016 plan includes an average of 11 battle force ships per year,
making this the second year in a row that the Navy has presented a five-year
shipbuilding plan showing an average of 10 or more battle force ships per year.
Given the single-digit numbers of battle force ships that have beenwere procured each
year since FY1993from
FY1993 through FY2010, shipbuilding supporters for some time have wanted to
increase the shipbuilding rate to 10 or more battle force ships per year. A rate of
10 battle force ships per year is above the steady-state replacement rate for a fleet
of 328313 ships with an average service life of 35 years, which is about 9.28.9 ships per
year. The average shipbuilding rate since FY1993 has been substantially below
9.28.9 ships per year (see Appendix DC).
•
Although LCSs and JHSVs account for about 2421% of the ships in the Navy’s
planned force structure (7865 of 328313 ships), they account 49% of the ships in the
FY2012-FY2016 shipbuilding plan (27 of 55 ships). In this sense, these relatively
inexpensive ships are overrepresented in the five-year shipbuilding plan relative
to their portion of the 328313-ship goal, making it easier to procure an average of 11
ships per year within available resources. Starting a few years from now, when
the LCS and JHSV programs are no longer overrepresented in the shipbuilding
plan, and particularly when procurement of next-generation SSBN(X) ballistic
missile submarines begins, procuring an average of 10 or more ships per year
will become a considerably more expensive proposition. In this sense, the
FY2012-FY2016 shipbuilding program’s average of 11 ships per year does not
necessarily imply that the Navy has solved the challenge it faces concerning the
long-term affordability of its shipbuilding plans.
•
The addition of the fourth LCS in FY2012 brings planned annual LCS
procurement quantities into line with those called for in the dual-award
acquisition strategy that Congress approved in December 2010 for the LCS
program. 12
•
The San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship planned for FY2012 is to be
the 11th and final ship in the class. The 33-ship force-structure goal for
amphibious ships includes 11 LPD-17s.2
•
The first of three planned Mobile Landing Platform ships (MLPs) was requested
in the Navy’s FY2011 budget. The FY2011-FY2015 plan scheduled the second
13
2
For further discussion, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues,
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
23
For further discussion, see CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues,
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
•
The FY2011-FY2015 plan requested the first of three planned Mobile Landing
Platform ships (MLPs) in FY2011, and the second and third MLPs in FY2012
and FY2013. As part of its action on the FY2011 defense budget, Congress
funded the procurement of two MLPs in FY2011 (i.e., one more than requested).
Congress completed its action on the FY2011 budget after the Navy submitted its
proposed FY2012 budget, and the FY2012 budget submission does not account
for the funding of a second MLP in FY2011. The Navy states that since two
MLPs were funded in FY2011, the Navy no longer plans to request an MLP in
FY2013.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
and third ships for FY2013 and FY2015. The FY2012-FY2016 plan accelerates
the second and third ships to FY2012 and FY2013. The procurement profile for
the three MLPs has thus been changed from 1-0-1-0-1 to 1-1-1. Last year, some
supporters of the MLP program proposed making this change (or, at a minimum,
accelerating the third MLP from FY2015 to FY2014), on the grounds that it
would permit a more efficient production profile for the three ships. The Navy
last year was presumably aware of the potential production-line advantages of
procuring the ships in consecutive years, but may have nevertheless stretched out
the procurement profile to 1-0-1-0-1 to help bridge the builder of these ships—
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) of San Diego—to the
planned start of the TAO(X) oiler and LSD(X) amphibious ship programs in
FY2017. As noted in the next point below, the planned start of the TAO(X)
program has now been accelerated from FY2017 to FY2014. The Navy plans to
compete the TAO(X) program; NASSCO is generally considered to be a likely
competitor for the program.
•
The addition of the three TAO(X) oilers in FY2014-FY2016 reflects an
acceleration of the start of this program from FY2017 to FY2014. This
acceleration was one of a series of measures that the Navy announced on
September 17, 2010, for sustaining the shipbuilding capability in Louisiana. 3 As
mentioned above, the 4 The
Navy plans to compete the TAO(X), so it is not certain that
the program will be
awarded to a shipyard in Louisiana, such as the Avondale
shipyard near New
Orleans that forms part of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII),
which until recently was part of Northrop Grumman.
FY2012 10-Year (FY2012-FY2021) Shipbuilding Plan
Table 3 shows the Navy’s proposed FY2012 10-year (FY2012-FY2021) shipbuilding plan. The
first five years of this plan include the same ships as those in the FY2012 five-year (FY2012FY2016) shipbuilding plan shown in the previous section.
3
For the text of the Navy’s announcement, see http://www.wwltv.com/news/Sec-of-Navy-remarks-on-shipyard-inAvondale-103150169.html.
Congressional Research Service
5
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 3. Navy FY2012 10-Year (FY2012-FY2021) Shipbuilding Plan
(Battle force ships—i.e., ships that count against 328-ship goal)
Ship type
FY12
Aircraft carriers
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
1
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
1
Large surface combatants
(i.e., destroyers)
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Small surface combatant
(i.e., LCSs)
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
Attack submarines
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Ballistic missile submarines
Amphibious ships
1
1
Combat logistics force
(i.e., resupply) ships
Support ships
TOTAL
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
3
1
3
3
2
2
10
13
11
12
9
12
10
12
8
1
9
Source: FY2012 Navy budget submission.
Notes: Tables does not include ships, such as oceanographic ships, that do not count against the 328-ship goal.
FY2011 30-Year (FY2011-FY2040) Shipbuilding Plan
The Navy did not submit an FY2012 30-year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan. 4 Table 4
shows the FY2011 30-year (FY2011-FY2040) shipbuilding plan that the Navy submitted to
Congress in February 2010, in conjunction with its proposed FY2011 budget. Because this 30year plan reflects the Navy’s FY2011 budget submission rather than the Navy’s FY2012 budget
submission, the figures it shows for FY2012-FY2021 do not match those in the FY2012 5-year
(FY2012-FY2016) and FY2012 10-year (FY2012-FY2021) shipbuilding plans shown in the
previous two sections. The FY2011 30-year (FY2011-FY2040) plan includes a total of 276 ships.
4
. National Steel and
Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) of San Diego, CA, is generally considered to
be a likely competitor for the program.
30-Year (FY2012-FY2041) Shipbuilding Plan
The Navy did not submit an FY2012 30-year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan in February
2011, in conjunction with the proposed FY2012 budget.5 At the request of the House Armed
Services Committee, the Navy submitted the FY2012 30-year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding
plan in late May 2011.6 Table 3 shows the Navy’s proposed FY2012 30-year (FY2012-FY2041)
shipbuilding plan. The first five years of this plan include the same ships as those in the FY2012
(...continued)
and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
4
For the text of the Navy’s announcement, see http://www.wwltv.com/news/Sec-of-Navy-remarks-on-shipyard-inAvondale-103150169.html.
5
Section 1023 of the FY2011 defense authorization act (H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-383 of January 7, 2011) amended the law
(10 U.S.C. 231) that had required DOD to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan each year. As amended by Section 1023,
10 U.S.C. 231 now requires DOD to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan once every four years, in the same year that
DOD submits a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Regarding the three years between each QDR, the joint
explanatory statement of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on H.R. 6523 stated:
The committees expect that, following the submission of the President’s budget materials for a
fiscal year, the Secretary of the Navy, at the written request of one of the congressional defense
committees, will promptly deliver the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan used to develop the
President’s budget request for that fiscal year, as well as a certification from the Secretary of the
Navy that both the President’s budget request for that fiscal year and the budget for the future-years
defense program is sufficient to fund the construction schedule provided in that plan. The
committees expect that such a plan would include the quantity of each class of ship to be
constructed in that fiscal year and the nine following fiscal years.
6
The Navy’s cover letter for the plan is dated May 23, 2011. CRS received the plan on May 24, 2011. The Navy’s
cover letter states that the plan was submitted in response to a letter dated February 15, 2011, from Representative
Todd Akin, the chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services
Committee, requesting a 30-year plan.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Congressional Research Service
6
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 4. Navy FY2011 30-Year (FY2011-FY2040) Shipbuilding Plan
FY
11
five-year (FY2012-FY2016) shipbuilding plan shown in Table 2. The FY2012 30-year (FY20122041) plan includes a total of 276 ships.7
Table 3. Navy FY2012 30-Year (FY2012-FY2041) Shipbuilding Plan
FY
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
CVN
1
1
1
1
1
1
LSC
SSC
SSN
2
1
2
12
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
34
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
SSBN
AWS
CLF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Supt
Total
2
1
3
2
4
2
3
1
3
3
2
2
10
13
113
3
4
2
3
3
2
1
9
8
12
9
12
9
12
9
13
9
11
1010
12
8
9
9
11
8
8
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
11
8
10
7
10
9
10
7
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Source: Navy FY2011 budget submission10
8
8
9
10
7
9
8
11
9
8
7
8
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
Source: U.S. Navy data provided to CRS on May 24, 2011.
Key: FY = Fiscal Year; CVN = aircraft carriers; LSC = surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers); SSC
= small surface combatants (i.e., Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs]); SSN = attack submarines; SSGN = cruise
missile submarines; SSBN = ballistic missile submarines; AWS = amphibious warfare ships; CLF = combat
logistics force (i.e., resupply) ships; MPF(F) = Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) ships; Supt = support
ships.
Navy’s Projected Force Levels
Projected Force Levels Under FY2012 10-Year Plan
Table 5 shows the Navy’s projection of force levels for FY2012-FY2021 that would result from
implementing the FY2012 10-year (FY2012-FY2021) shipbuilding plan shown in Table 3. This
table, unlike Table 6, includes five JHSVs transferred from the Army to the Navy and operated
by the Navy primarily for the performance of Army missions.
Congressional Research Service
7
Supt = support ships.
7
The total of 276 ships includes a Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship in FY2013. The Navy says that, as a result of
Congress funding two MLPs in FY2011, or one more than the Navy requested for FY2011, the Navy no longer plans to
request an MLP in FY2013. Subtracting this MLP from the plan would leave a total of 275 ships.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 5. Projected Force Levels Resulting from FY2012 10-Year Plan
CVN
LSC
SSC
SSN
SSGN
SSBN
AWS
CLF
Supt
Total
Goal in 328-ship plan
11
94
55
48
0
12
33
30
45
328
FY12
11
84
41
54
4
14
30
31
21
290
FY13
10
84
35
55
4
14
30
30
25
287
FY14
10
85
30
55
4
14
30
30
28
286
FY15
11
86
26
54
4
14
30
30
31
286
FY16
11
90
31
52
4
14
31
30
34
297
FY17
11
91
32
50
4
14
33
29
37
301
FY18
11
93
36
50
4
14
33
30
40
311
FY19
11
95
36
51
4
14
33
30
42
316
FY20
12
97
40
49
4
14
33
30
43
322
FY21
12
97
40
49
4
14
34
30
44
324
Source: Navy FY2012 budget submission.
Note: Unlike Table 6, figures in this table include, in the category for support ships, five JHSVs transferred from
the Army to the Navy and operated by the Navy primarily for the performance of Army missions.
Key: FY = Fiscal Year; CVN = aircraft carriers; LSC = surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers); SSC
= small surface combatants (i.e., frigates, Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs], and mine warfare ships); SSN = attack
submarines; SSGN = cruise missile submarines; SSBN = ballistic missile submarines; AWS = amphibious
warfare ships; CLF = combat logistics force (i.e., resupply) ships; MPF(F) = Maritime Prepositioning Force
(Future) ships; Supt = support ships.
Projected Force Levels Under FY2011 30-Year Plan
Table 6Navy’s Projected Force Levels Under 30-Year (FY2012-FY2041)
Shipbuilding Plan
Table 4 shows the Navy’s projection of force levels for FY2011-FY2040FY2012-FY2041 that would result from
implementing the FY2011FY2012 30-year (FY2011-FY2040) shipbuilding plan shown in Table 4. This
table, unlike Table 5, does not include five JHSVs transferred from the Army to the Navy and
operated by the Navy primarily for the performance of Army missions.
Congressional Research Service
8
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 6FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan shown in Table 3.
Table 4. Projected Force Levels Resulting from FY2011 30-Year FY2012 30-Year (FY2012-FY2041)
Shipbuilding Plan
CVN
LSC
SSC
SSN
SSGN
SSBN
AWS
CLF
Supt
Total
Goal in 328313-ship plan
11
94
55
48
0
12
33
30
45
328
FY11
11
84
42
53
4
14
29
29
18
2844
12
33
30
26
313
FY12
11
84
41
54
4
14
30
29
20
28731
21
290
FY13
10
85
3784
35
55
4
14
30
29
2330
25
287
FY14
10
86
3285
30
55
4
14
30
30
24
28528
286
FY15
11
88
2886
26
54
4
14
3130
30
25
28531
286
FY16
11
90
32
5131
52
4
14
3331
30
27
29234
297
FY17
11
91
33
5132
50
4
14
33
30
31
29829
37
301
FY18
11
93
3736
50
4
14
33
30
33
30540
311
FY19
11
94
3795
36
51
4
14
33
30
37
31142
316
FY20
12
96
3997
40
49
4
14
33
30
38
31543
322
FY21
12
96
3997
40
49
4
14
34
31
39
31830
44
324
FY22
12
95
4196
42
48
4
14
34
29
41
31830
45
325
FY23
11
94
3995
40
48
4
14
35
29
45
31936
30
47
325
FY24
11
94
4095
41
46
4
14
36
2830
47
320324
FY25
12
92
4193
42
45
4
14
35
28
46
31736
30
45
321
FY26
12
89
4390
44
44
42
14
36
28
45
31330
44
316
FY27
12
87
4588
46
43
2
13
35
26
46
3081
13
36
30
45
314
FY28
11
85
4686
47
41
10
13
36
26
46
30430
45
309
FY29
11
81
4882
49
40
0
13
34
25
44
29635
30
45
305
FY30
12
77
4978
50
39
0
12
33
25
44
29130
45
299
FY31
12
73
5174
52
41
0
12
33
24
44
29034
30
45
300
FY32
11
71
5272
53
41
0
12
32
25
44
28830
45
296
FY33
11
69
5370
54
42
0
12
31
26
44
28832
30
45
296
FY34
11
6768
54
43
0
12
33
26
44
29030
45
296
FY35
12
6869
55
44
0
12
30
25
44
29031
30
45
298
FY36
11
70
5671
55
45
0
12
30
26
44
29430
45
299
FY37
11
72
5673
55
46
0
12
29
27
44
29730
30
45
302
FY38
11
74
5675
57
45
0
12
29
27
44
29830
45
304
FY39
11
76
56
45
0
12
29
28
44
301
FY40
11
76
55
45
0
12
30
28
44
301
Source: Navy FY2011 budget submission.
Note: Unlike Table 5, figures in this table do not include, in the category for support ships, five JHSVs
77
58
45
0
12
30
30
43
306
FY40
11
77
58
45
0
12
30
30
43
306
FY41
11
78
56
45
0
12
30
30
43
305
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Source: U.S. Navy data provided to CRS on May 24, 2011.
Note: Figures for support ships include five JHSVs transferred from the Army to the Navy and operated by the
Navy primarily for the performance of Army
missions.
Key: FY = Fiscal Year; CVN = aircraft carriers; LSC = surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers); SSC
= small surface combatants (i.e., frigates, Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs], and mine warfare ships); SSN = attack
submarines; SSGN = cruise missile submarines; SSBN = ballistic missile submarines; AWS = amphibious
warfare ships; CLF = combat logistics force (i.e., resupply) ships; MPF(F) = Maritime Prepositioning Force
(Future) ships; Supt = support ships.
Congressional Research Service
9
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Oversight Issues for Congress
Official Replacement for 313-Ship Plan of 2006
As mentioned earlier, although the 313-ship plan of 2006 is no longer a fully accurate
representation of current Navy ship force-structure goals, the Navy has not presented to Congress
an official replacement for the 313-ship plan. Consequently, a potential oversight issue for
Congress is whether and when the Navy plans to present to Congress an official replacement for
the 313-ship plan of 2006. Such a replacement presumably would take into account the changes
that have led to the 328-ship total shown in the first data column of Table 1, plus any other
changes the Navy might wish to announce.
The Navy’s February 2010 report on its FY2011 30-year (FY2011-FY2040) shipbuilding plan
stated that the Navy was undertaking a force structure assessment (FSA). Such an assessment
could lead to a new plan to replace the 313-ship plan of 2006, but the Navy’s report did not say
when the FSA might be completed, or when the Navy might present a new official ship force
structure plan to Congress. The Navy testified in March 2011 that
we in fact during the past year have done a force structure assessment. And what we are
currently doing is working through the leadership both on the Department of the Navy side
and the Department of Defense side. And I expect that we should be delivering that
[assessment] in the near future as soon as we go through the wickets with the leadership.5
Sufficiency of FY2011 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the sufficiency of the FY2011 30-year
(FY2011-FY2040) shipbuilding plan. As shown in Table 6, the plan does not include enough
ships to fully support all elements of the 328-ship goal over the long run:
•
The Navy projects that the attack submarine and cruiser-destroyer forces will
drop substantially below required levels in the latter years of the 30-year plan.
The projected number of cruisers and destroyers drops below the required level
of 94 ships in 2025, reaches a minimum of 67 ships in FY2034, and remains
below 88 ships through FY2040. The projected number of attack submarines
drops below the required level of 48 boats in FY2022, reaches a minimum of 39
boats in FY2030, and remains below 48 boats through 2040.
•
There would also be shortfalls in certain years in amphibious ships, combat
logistics force (i.e., resupply) ships, and support ships.
The projected shortfalls in cruisers and destroyers, attack submarines, and other ships could make
it difficult or impossible for the Navy to fully perform its projected missions during the latter
years of the 30-year plan. In light of the projected shortfalls in cruisers-destroyers and attack
submarines, policymakers may wish to consider two options:
5
Spoken remarks of Vice Admiral John Blake, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Integration of Capabilities and
Resources, at a March 9, 2011, hearing on Navy shipbuilding programs before the Seapower and Projection Forces
subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, as shown in the transcript of the hearing.
Congressional Research Service
10
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
•
increasing planned procurement rates of destroyers and attack submarines,
perhaps particularly in years prior to the start of SSBN(X) procurement, and
•
extending the service lives of older cruisers and destroyers to 45 years, and
refueling older attack submarines an extending their service lives to 40 or more
years.
Regarding the second option above, possible candidates for service life extensions include the
Navy’s 22 Aegis cruisers, the first 28 DDG-51 destroyers (i.e., the Flight I/II DDG-51s), the final
23 Los Angeles (SSN-688) attack submarines (i.e., the Improved 688s), and the 3 Seawolf (SSN21) class attack submarines—a total of 76 ships. Whether such service life extensions would be
technically feasible or cost-effective is not clear. Feasibility would be a particular issue for the
attack submarines, given limits on submarine pressure hull life.
Extending the service lives of any of these ships could require increasing funding for their
maintenance, possibly beginning in the near term, above currently planned levels, so that the
ships would be in good enough condition years from now to remain eligible for service life
extension work. Such funding increases would be in addition to those the Navy has recently
programmed for ensuring that its surface ships can remain in service to the end of their currently
planned service lives.
Affordability of FY2011 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the affordability of the FY2011 30-year
(FY2011-FY2040) shipbuilding plan. The Navy estimated that executing the FY2011 30-year
shipbuilding plan would require an average of $15.9 billion per year in constant FY2010 dollars
for new-construction ships. A May 2010 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimated
that the plan would require an average of $19.0 billion per year in constant FY2010 dollars for
new-construction ships, or about 19% more than the Navy estimates. The CBO report stated: “If
the Navy receives the same amount of funding for ship construction in the next 30 years as it has
over the past three decades—an average of about $15 billion a year in 2010 dollars—it will not be
able to afford all of the purchases in the 2011 plan.”6 Table 7 summarizes the Navy and CBO
estimates, as presented in the CBO report.
6
Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan, May 201, p. vii.
Congressional Research Service
11
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 7. Navy and CBO Estimates of Cost of FY2011 30-Year (FY2011-FY2040)
Shipbuilding Plan
Funding for new-construction ships, in billions of constant FY2010 dollars
First 10 years
(FY2011-FY2020)
Next 10 years
(FY2021-2030)
Final 10- years
(FY2031-FY2040)
Entire 30 years
(FY2011-FY2040)
Navy estimate
14.5
17.9
15.3
15.9
CBO estimate
15.2
20.4
21.4
19.0
% difference
between Navy and
CBO estimates
5%
14%
40%
19%
Source: Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan, May 2010, Table
2 (page 9). The CBO report calculates the percent difference between the Navy and CBO estimates for the
entire 30-year period as 20% rather than 19%. $19.0 billion is 19.497% greater than $15.9 billion.
As mentioned earlier, the Navy was able to assemble a five-year (FY2012-FY2016) shipbuilding
plan with a total of 55 ships, or an average of 11 per year, within available resources in part
because almost half of those ships are relatively inexpensive LCSs and JHSVs. Starting a few
years from now, when the LCS and JHSV programs are no longer overrepresented in the
shipbuilding plan, and particularly when procurement of next-generation SSBN(X) ballistic
missile submarines begins, procuring an average of 10 or more ships per year will become a
considerably more expensive proposition.
The Navy wants to procure 12 SSBN(X)s, and is working to reduce the estimated unit
procurement cost of ships 2 through 12 in the program to $4.9 billion in FY2010 dollars.7 To help
pay for the SSBN(X)s without reducing other shipbuilding programs, the shipbuilding funding
profile in the Navy’s FY2011 30-year shipbuilding plan includes a “hump” of approximately $2
billion per year in constant FY2010 dollars during the years (FY2019-FY2033) when the 12
SSBN(X)s are to be procured. The Navy’s report on the FY2011 30-year plan, however, contains
little explanation of how this $2-billion-per-year hump in shipbuilding funding will be realized,
particularly if the Navy’s budget experiences little or no real growth in coming years. If the $2billion-per-year hump is not realized, the total number of ships of various kinds procured in
FY2019-FY2033 could be less than the figures shown in the FY2011 30-year plan. If so, the
shortfalls projected for cruisers and destroyers, attack submarines, and other categories of ships
could be larger than those shown in Table 6.
Recent Study Group Proposals for Navy Ship Force Structure
Some study groups have recently made their own proposals for Navy ship force structure. Table 8
shows some of these proposals. For purposes of comparison, Table 8 also shows the Navy’s
current 328-ship goal. In assessing proposals for Navy ship force structures, Congress may
consider various factors, such as potential future defense spending levels in the context of the
federal budget and debt situation, U.S. interests and potential threats to those interests, the value
7
For more on the SSBN(X) program, see CRS Report R41129, Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
12
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
of naval forces in defending those interests, and the relative cost-effectiveness of various ship
types for performing various missions.8
Table 8. Recent Study Group Proposals for Navy Ship Force Structure
Sustainable
Defense
Task Force
(June 2010)
Center for a
New
American
Security
(CNAS)
(November
2008)
Center for
Strategic
and
Budgetary
Assessments
(CSBA)
(2008)b
Navy’s
current
328-ship
goal
Heritage
Foundation
(April
2011)
Cato
Institute
(September
2010)a
Independent
Panel
Assessment
of 2010
QDR
(July 2010)
SSBN
12
14c
6
14
7
14
12
SSGN
0Supt = support ships.
Press Reports of Navy Examining Options for Force Structure and
Procurement Reductions
Press reports in September and October 2011 state that the Navy, in response to anticipated
reductions in planned levels of defense spending, is examining options for maintaining a fleet
with considerably fewer than 300 ships; for retiring certain ships in the near term, well before the
ends of their expected service lives; and for deferring or cancelling certain planned procurements.
A September 1, 2011, press report stated that the Navy is considering the following options,
among others:
•
reducing the Navy to a 250-ship fleet that includes 10 aircraft carriers or a 240ship fleet that includes 8 aircraft carriers (a fleet with 9 carriers is another
option);
•
retiring (rather than performing a nuclear-refueling overhaul on) the aircraft
carrier George Washington (CVN-73), which would be one measure for reducing
the size of the carrier force;
•
delaying the procurement of the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) by
two years, to FY2015 (an option that was first reported in July 20118);
•
eliminating six aircraft squadrons;
•
retiring at least some of the Navy’s 22 Ticonderoga (CG-47) class Aegis cruisers;
•
reducing the planned number of next-generation Ohio replacement ballistic
missile submarines (SSBN[X]s) by two boats, from 12 to 10, and consequently
delaying the procurement of the first SSBN(X), perhaps by two years; and
•
maintaining funding for procurement of two Virginia-class submarines per year,
and for Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers and Littoral Combat
Ships (LCSs).9
An October 6, 2011, press report similarly stated that the Navy is examining the option of retiring
the rather than performing a mid-life refueling on the aircraft carrier George Washington (CVN73).10
8
See Christopher P. Cavas, “U.S. May Delay Next Carrier,” Defense News, July 11, 2011: 1.
Christopher J. Castelli, “Navy Of Tomorrow Could Have Fewer Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers,” Inside the Pentagon,
September 1, 2011.
10
Christopher P. Cavas, “U.S. Navy May Cut Carrier’s Life In Half To Save Money,” DefenseNews.com, October 6,
2011.
9
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
An October 14, 2011, press report stated that the Navy is considering retiring four Aegis cruisers
in FY2013, another five Aegis cruisers in FY2014, and three Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry
(LSD-41/49) class amphibious ships in FY2014. The report also mentioned the option of retiring
rather than performing a mid-life refueling on the aircraft carrier George Washington (CVN-73),
the option of delaying the procurement of the John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) to FY2015, and the
option of shifting carrier procurement generally to seven-year intervals.11
A September 4, 2011, press report concerning proposals such as those discussed above stated:
Pentagon leaders expect U.S. lawmakers to cleave up to $30 billion from the 2012 defense
budget request.
“We were originally thinking we would start at $553 billion in ‘12 and then go up, but we’ll
start potentially as much as $30 billion below that,” Navy Undersecretary Robert Work said
Sept. 1.
That’s just part of the uncertainty that has planners looking at hundreds of “what if”
scenarios, gearing up to move nimbly as new guidance comes in.
For one thing, the Obama administration’s goal for cutting defense spending over the next
decade recently took a big jump—to at least $464 billion, according to one knowledgeable
source. In April, the president set the savings goal at $400 billion over 12 years.
In an interview in his Pentagon office, Work acknowledged that the number had risen “When
you add it all up, it’s more than $450 billion over a 10-year period,” he said.
Moreover, planners have been instructed to base their 2013 spending plans on the 2012
budget, which Congress will take up after lawmakers return from summer recess on Sept. 6.
And yet more guidance will arrive in the form of DoD’s ongoing “comprehensive review,”
which is taking longer than expected and may not be completed for several months, the
knowledgeable source said.
That will leave little time before the 2013 budget proposal is due to Congress in February….
For now, Work said, worrying about the so-called Sword of Damocles cuts will have to wait.
Planners have enough to do preparing for the near term.
“It’s up to Congress to decide where those cuts will be taken” in the 2012 budget, Work said.
The need to know the 2012 numbers is crucial.
“Anything Congress does in ‘12 will have cascading effects that we will have to consider in
the fall,” Work said.
11
Carlo Munoz, “Navy Delays Carrier, Cuts Cruisers, Amphibs In Draft Budget,” AOL Defense
(http://defense.aol.com), October 14, 2011. A blog entry identified the four cruisers that would be retired in FY2013 as
Normandy (CG-60), Anzio (CG-CG-68), Vicksburg (CG-69), and Cape St. George (CG-71), the five cruisers that
would be retired in FY2014 as Princeton (CG-59), Cowpens (CG-63), Gettysburg (CG-64), Chosin (CG-65), and Hue
City (CG-66), and the four amphibious ships that would be retired in FY2014 as Whidbey Island (LSD-41), Fort
McHenry (LSD-43), and Tortuga (LSD-46). (“ALT POM Early Decommission Plans,” Information Dissemination
(www.information diseemination.net), October 17, 2011.)
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
“But now, in September, we’re trying to adjust to what-if numbers, and we’re waiting for the
final numbers” for the budget years from 2014 to 2017 from the Office of Management and
Budget in the White House, he said.
Those numbers, which will also apportion cuts for the various departments within the
Pentagon, “could come soon or they could come late in the game, like they generally do,” he
said.
The Navy department—like the other military service departments—has been examining
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scenarios to understand the impact of a vast array of
potential decisions.
“We’re doing what-if drills on ships, aircraft, munitions, force structure, people, every single
program in the department,” Work said.
Some scenarios could actually come true; others are being studied simply to inform potential
moves.
That the Navy is looking at particular scenarios does not necessarily indicate the move is
being considered, Work said.
“If we weren't doing what-if drills, they would accuse us of being idiots,” he said….
Press leaks of the discussions are expected, Work said, but he cautioned against quick
assumptions.
“I tell people all the time, when they see these leaks, they shouldn't get too excited,” Work
said. “Everything’s on the table, everything’s being discussed. There are all sorts of
scenarios. We’re looking at every aviation program, every shipbuilding program. We’re
trying to wring out cost wherever and whenever we can find it. “Everybody is focused,” he
said, “on maintaining the highest number of ships possible, the highest number of aircraft,
the highest number of sailors and Marines.”
That approach “is uniformly held, across the services.”
Work said leaders are striving to avoid mistakes of previous generations.
“We would much rather have a smaller force than a larger, hollow force. So what
everybody’s doing in these what-if drills is how we keep the best capability for the least
amount of money,” he said.
One program that received recent media attention is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The
Pentagon’s most expensive weapon program is working to field Air Force F-35A, Marine
Corps F-35B and Navy F-35C versions. In a July 7 memo, Work directed his planners to run
what-if studies on various JSF scenarios, including canceling one or more variants. “People
read the thing and said, ‘This is an attack against the F-35 program,’” Work said of the
memo. “But it’s nothing more than one of these long series of what-if drills.”
He acknowledged an easy way to save money would be to cancel the JSF program.
“That would save a lot of money, but nobody is arguing that,” Work said. “We need a fifthgeneration strike fighter. The question is not, ‘Are we going to buy the JSF?’ It’s ‘How many
are we going to buy?’” The Pentagon looked at buying only one JSF model, and the Navy
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Department looked at buying only the carrier-based Navy version or the Marine Corps
version, he said.
“You’d get all sorts of efficiencies on the learning curve and have one variant that everybody
flies. But the Department of the Navy isn't arguing that,” he said.
The whole effort, he said, was designed to “get the really smart aviators in the department—
Naval Air Systems Command, chief of naval air forces, the Marines’ deputy commandant for
aviation, the N88 requirements office, the guys who live and breathe aviation—to tell me the
best mix of F-35Bs, F-35Cs and F/A-18 Es, Fs, and Gs. What is the best capability we can
buy for the least amount of money?” Rather than buying fewer types of aircraft, Work said,
“the answer that kept coming back is that a mix of Bs, Cs, Es, Fs and Gs is the right way to
go. “The question is, ‘How many can you afford to buy? What’s the best mix?’ We’re still in
the process of trying to figure that out, and we'll continue to work this through the fall.”
The effort is not unique to strike aircraft, he said.
“This type of memo is being played out in the number of cruisers and destroyers we want to
buy. How many submarines. The number of air wings. How many V-22s, MH-60Rs and Ss?
How many P-8s? “Every single thing is being looked at. That’s why I say that people should
not get too upset [when they hear] that we're looking at every single thing.”
Media reports also have surfaced that the Navy may change its carrier force structure or build
rate.
“I can't talk to you about any specific shipbuilding program right now,” Work said. “But
carriers cost a lot of money, and they’re being looked at just like JSF. Submarines cost a lot
of money too.”
Consideration for the industrial base is a key element in the decisions, he said.
“We’re trying to meet the requirement at the minimum cost and with the minimum impact on
our industrial base. And it’s a hard juggling act. This is going to be tough.”…
Unlike the Air Force and Army, the Navy is not considering shrinking its civilian workforce
any further. The service already is working to freeze the number of civilians at 2010 levels.
“Right now, that is the focus of our effort,” Work said. “Re-adjusting our civilian workforce,
because we had planned on higher levels of growth in our civilian workforce.”
And while the service is actively looking for ways to consolidate commands and
operations—“Some of these things can add up to hundreds of millions” over five or six
years—no consideration is being given to base closures.
Work said the Navy was “really aggressive” in the last round of base closures.
“We had approximately 150 bases and we have about 70 now. The Marine Corps already has
an extremely lean infrastructure,” he said.
Savings from base closures often take years to take effect, he noted, and may show up
beyond the planning period.
“We’re really chasing a 10-year [savings] target,” he said….
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Taking a step back, Work noted that the severely compressed pace at which major decisions
are about to be made is a rare opening.
“Opportunities like this only happen only once every 20 years or so,” he said. “If you’re
going to be in government, this is the time to be in. The decisions we make over the next six
to eight months are going to have an enormous impact on the way the Department of
Defense looks over the next 10, 15, 20 years.
“It really is an exciting time,” he said. “A time for our best and brightest to come up with
good ideas, because we sure need them.”12
Oversight Issues for Congress
Future Size and Structure of Navy in Light of Changes in Strategic
and Budgetary Circumstances
Changes in strategic and budgetary circumstances have led to a broad debate over the appropriate
future size and structure of the military, including the future size and structure of the Navy.
Changes in strategic circumstances include, among other things, the winding down of U.S.
combat operations in Iraq, the planned winding down of such operations in Afghanistan, and the
growth of China’s military capabilities.13 Changes in budgetary circumstances center on
reductions in planned levels of defense spending resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011
(S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011).
The winding down of U.S. combat operations in Iraq, the planned winding down of such
operations in Afghanistan, and the growth of China’s military capabilities have led some
observers to anticipate or argue in favor of a shift in U.S. defense strategy toward a reduced
emphasis on planning for operations the Persian Gulf and Central Asia and an increased emphasis
on planning for operations in the Western Pacific. Since operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have
involved substantial numbers of ground forces, while the Western Pacific is, for the United States,
more of a maritime and aerospace theater, some of these observers argue that such a shift in U.S.
defense strategy would lead to a reduced emphasis on ground forces and an increased emphasis
on the Navy and Air Force. Other observers, however, disagree that such a shift in U.S. defense
strategy will or should occur, given continued concerns over Iran and the Persian Gulf region
generally, as well as past difficulties in predicting the location of future U.S. combat operations.
As mentioned earlier (see Press Reports of Navy Examining Options for Force Structure and ),
the Navy, in response to anticipated reductions in planned levels of defense spending, reportedly
is discussing options for maintaining a fleet with considerably fewer than 300 ships, such as a
250-ship fleet that includes 10 aircraft carriers or a 240-ship fleet that includes 8 aircraft carriers.
12
Christopher P. Cavas, “DOD Braces for $30B Cut in ’12,” DefenseNews.com, September 4, 2011. Material in
brackets as in original.
13
For more on the growth in China’s military (particularly naval) capabilities and its potential implications for required
U.S. Navy capabilities, see CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy
Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
In addition to these reported Navy options, some study groups have made their own proposals for
Navy ship force structure. Table 5 shows some of these proposals. For purposes of comparison,
Table 5 also shows the Navy’s 313-ship goal of September 2011.
In assessing proposals for the future size and structure of the Navy, Congress may consider
various factors, such as potential future defense spending levels, U.S. interests and potential
threats to those interests, the value of naval forces in defending those interests, and the relative
cost-effectiveness of various ship types for performing various missions.14
14
Another possible method for assessing proposals for the future size and structure of the Navy is to compare them to
historical figures for total Navy fleet size. As discussed in Appendix A, however, historical figures for total fleet size
might not be a reliable yardstick for assessing the appropriateness of proposals for the future size and structure of the
Navy, particularly if the historical figures are more than a few years old, because the missions to be performed by the
Navy, the mix of ships that make up the Navy, and the technologies that are available to Navy ships for performing
missions all change over time.
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 5. Recent Study Group Proposals for Navy Ship Force Structure
Sustainable
Defense
Task Force
(June 2010)
Center for a
New
American
Security
(CNAS)
(November
2008)
Center for
Strategic
and
Budgetary
Assessments
(CSBA)
(2008)b
Navy’s 313ship goal of
September
2011
Heritage
Foundation
(April
2011)
Cato
Institute
(September
2010)a
Independent
Panel
Assessment
of 2010
QDR
(July 2010)
SSBN
12
14c
6
14
7
14
12
SSGN
4
4
0
4
4
0
2
SSN
48
55
40
55
37
40
41
CVN
11
11
8
11
9
8
11
CVE
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
94
88
22
n/a
18
14
65
n/a
56
73
14
n/a
0
0
9e
4
n/a
25
48
55
0
n/a
0
40
0f
Ship type
Submarines
Aircraft carriers
Surface combatants
Cruiser
Destroyer
Frigate
0
LCS
55
SSC
0
28d
0
85
Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF[F]) ships
Amphibious ships
33
37
23
n/a
27
36
33
MPF(F) ships
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
0
3g
LSD station ships
0
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
7h
0
0
0
36
40
230
300
Other: Mine warfare (MIW) ships; Combat logistics force (CLF) ships (i.e., at-sea resupply ships), and support ships
MIW
0
14
11
0
CLF ships
30
33
21
n/a
Support ships
4526
25
27
n/a
328313
309
241
346
TOTAL battle
force ships
31
31
326i
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on the following sources: For Heritage Foundation: A Strong National
Defense[:] The Armed Forces America Needs and What They Will Cost, Heritage Foundation, April 5, 2011, pp. 2526. For Cato Institute: Benjamin H. Friedman and Christopher Preble, Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint,
Washington, Cato Institute, September 23, 2010 (Policy Analysis No. 667), pp. 6, 8-10, and additional
information provided by Cato Institute to CRS by e-mail on September 22, 2010. For Independent Panel
Assessment: Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Perry, co-chairmen, et al., The QDR in Perspective: Meeting
8
For more on this larger debate, see CRS Report R41250, Quadrennial Defense Review 2010: Overview and
Implications for National Security Planning, by Stephen Daggett.
Congressional Research Service
13
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
America’s National Security Needs In the 21st Century, The Final Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent
Panel, Washington, 2010, Figure 3-2 on pages 58-59. For Sustainable Defense Task Force: Debt, Deficits, and
Defense, A Way Forward[:] Report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, June 11, 2010, pp. 19-20. For CNAS:
Frank Hoffman, From Preponderance to Partnership: American Maritime Power in the 21st Century. Washington,
Center for a New American Security, November 2008. p. 19 (Table 2). For CSBA: Robert O. Work, The US
Navy[:] Charting a Course for Tomorrow’s Fleet. Washington, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
2008. p. 81 (Figure 5).
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Notes: n/a is not addressed in the report. SSBN is nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine; SSGN is
nuclear-powered cruise missile and special operations forces submarine; SSN is nuclear-powered attack
submarine; CVN is large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier; CVE is medium-sized aircraft carrier; LCS is Littoral
Combat Ship; SSC (an acronym created by CRS for this table) is small surface combatant of 1,000+ tons
displacement—a ship similar to late-1990s Streetfighter concept; MPF(F) is Maritime Prepositioning Force
(Future) ship; LSD is LSD-41/49 class amphibious ship operating as a station ship for a formation like a Global
Fleet Station (GFS); MIW is mine warfare ship; CLF is combat logistics force (i.e., resupply) ship.
a.
Figures shown are for the year 2020; for subsequent years, reductions from these figures would be
considered.
b.
Figures shown are for the year 2028.
c.
The report calls for a force of 280 SLBMs, which appears to equate to a force of 14 SSBNs, each with 20
SLBM tubes.
d.
The report calls for a force of 28 small surface combatants, and appears to use the term small surface
combatants the same way that the Navy does in the 30-year shipbuilding plan – —as a way of collectively
referring to frigates and LCSs. The small surface combatants (SSCs) called for in the November 2008
CNAS CNAS
report are separate from and smaller than the LCS.
e.
Maritime Security Frigates.
f.
Plan includes 28 patrol craft (PCs) of a few hundred tons displacement each, as well as 29 boat detachments
and seven riverine squadrons.
g.
Plan shows three Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships that the Navy currently plans for the MPF(F)
squadron, plus 16 existing current-generation maritime prepositioning force (MPF) ships and 17 existing
prepositioning ships for Army and other service/agency equipment. Plan also shows 67 other DOD sealift
ships.
h.
T-LSDs, meaning LSDs operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC) with a partly civilian crew.
i.
The CSBA report shows a total of 488 units by including 162 additional force units that do not count
toward the 328313-ship goal under the battle force ships counting method that has been used since the early
1980s for public policy discussions of the size of the Navy. These 162 additional force units include 16
existing current-generation maritime prepositioning force (MPF) ships and 17 existing prepositioning ships
for Army and other service/agency equipment, 67 other DOD sealift ships, 28 PCs, 29 boat detachments,
and certain other small-scale units. The CSBA report proposes a new counting method for naval/maritime
forces that includes units such as these in the total count.
Legislative Activity for FY2012
FY2012 Funding Request
The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requests funding for the procurement of 10 new battle force
ships (i.e., ships that count against the 328-ship goal). The 10 ships include two Virginia-class
attack submarines, one DDG-51 class Aegis destroyer, four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), one
LPD-17 class amphibious ship, one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship (i.e., a maritime
prepositioning ship), and one Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV). The Navy’s five-year (FY2012FY2016) shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress in conjunction with the Navy’s proposed
Congressional Research Service
14
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
FY2012 budget, includes a total of 55 new battle force ships, or an average of 11 per year. Of the
55 ships in the plan, 27, or almost half, are relatively inexpensive LCSs or JHSVs.
CRS Reports Tracking Legislation on Specific Navy Shipbuilding
Programs
For funding levels and legislative activity on individual Navy shipbuilding, conversion, and
modernization programs, see the following CRS reports:
•
CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report R41129, Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine
Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement:
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
15
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Legislative Activity for FY2011
This appendix presents legislative activity on the Navy’s proposed FY2011 shipbuilding budget.
FY2011 DOD and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R.
1473/P.L. 112-10)
According to line-item funding tables posted by the House Rules Committee,9 the FY2011
Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R. 1473/P.L. 112-10 of
April 15, 2011) provides funding for the procurement of 10 new-construction battle force ships,
or one more than was requested in the FY2011 budget.
The nine new-construction ships that were requested in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
(SCN) account and the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) were two Virginia-class attack
submarines, two DDG-51 destroyers, two LCSs, one LHA-6 amphibious assault ship (which is to
be split-funded between FY2011 and FY2012), one Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), and (in the
NDSF) one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship. The funding tables show that H.R. 1473/P.L.
112-10 provides full or close-to-full funding for all nine ships. (A substantial reduction to the
requested funding level for the two LCSs reflects a reduction in the Navy’s estimated
procurement cost for these ships following the implementation of a new LCS acquisition
strategy.) In addition, the funding tables for H.R. 1473 show an increase of $500 million in the
NDSF for an additional MLP.
FY2011 DOD Appropriations Bill (S. 3800)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-295 of September 16, 2010) on
S. 3800 of the 111th Congress, recommends approval of the Navy’s FY2011 requests for
procurement and advance procurement funding for new ships, with two exceptions:
•
For the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, the report recommends $615.5
million for the procurement of one LCS, a reduction of $615.5 million and one
ship from the Navy’s request (pages 7, 86, and 87). For the text of the report’s
discussion of the LCS, see the CRS report on the LCS program. 10
•
For the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) program, which is funded through the
National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF), the report recommends an increase of
$100 million for advance procurement and advance construction activities (page
181).
9
The funding tables were posted at http://rules.house.gov/Legislation/legislationDetails.aspx?NewsID=244.
CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress,
by Ronald O'Rourke.
10
Congressional Research Service
16
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
FY2011 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-383)
House (H.R. 5136)
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-491 of May 21, 2010) on the
FY2011 defense authorization bill (H.R. 5136), recommends approval of the Navy’s request for
procurement and advance procurement funding for all of its shipbuilding programs (pages 73-74).
The report states: “Demonstrating the committee’s commitment to reverse the decline in the size
of the Navy fleet, the committee authorizes 9 new ships, including 2 Virginia-class submarines, 2
DDG 51 destroyers, and 2 Littoral Combat Ships.” (Page 20)
Section 121 of the bill as reported by the committee would broaden the Navy’s authority for
using incremental funding for procuring Navy ships.11
Section 123 would require the Navy to submit a report on, among other things, required numbers
of cruisers and destroyers, particularly in light of demands for these ships for ballistic missile
defense operations. 12
Section 1021 would amend the current law (10 U.S.C. 231) that requires DOD to annually submit
a 30-year shipbuilding plan.
Section 1022 states that the Secretary of the Navy may not decommission any battle force vessel
of the active fleet of the Navy unless the Secretary provides to the congressional defense
committees written notification of such decommissioning in accordance with established
procedures.
Section 1023 states that until the number of vessels in the battle force fleet of the Navy reaches
313 vessels, the Secretary of the Navy shall not decommission, in FY2011 or any subsequent
fiscal year, more than two-thirds of the number of vessels slated for commissioning into the battle
force fleet for that fiscal year.
Section 1024 states that the Secretary of the Navy shall retain the amphibious assault ships
Nassau (LHA-4) and Peleliu (LHA-5) in a commissioned and operational status until the delivery
to the Navy of the new amphibious assault ships America (LHA-6) and LHA-7, respectively.
The text of Section 121 is as follows:
SEC. 121. INCREMENTAL FUNDING FOR PROCUREMENT OF LARGE NAVAL
VESSELS.
(a) Incremental Funding of Large Naval Vessels- Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary of the Navy may use incremental funding for the procurement of a large naval
11
For more on incremental funding, particularly in the procurement of Navy ships, see CRS Report RL32776, Navy
Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches—Background and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke,
and CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background, Issues, and Options for
Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett.
12
For further discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RL33745, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
17
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
vessel over a period not to exceed the number of years equal to three-fourths of the total
period of planned ship construction of such vessel.
(b) LPD 26- With respect to the vessel designated LPD 26, the Secretary may use
incremental funding for the procurement of such vessel through fiscal year 2012 if the
Secretary determines that such incremental funding—
(1) is in the best interest of the overall shipbuilding efforts of the Navy;
(2) is needed to provide the Secretary with the ability to facilitate changes to the shipbuilding
industrial base of the Navy; and
(3) will provide the Secretary with the ability to award a contract for construction of the
vessel that provides the best value to the United States.
(c) Condition for Out-year Contract Payments- A contract entered into under subsection (a)
or (b) shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the
contract for a fiscal year after the fiscal year the vessel was authorized is subject to the
availability of appropriations for that purpose for that later fiscal year.
(d) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `large naval vessel’ means a vessel—
(A) that is—
(i) an aircraft carrier designated a CVN;
(ii) an amphibious assault ship designated LPD, LHA, LHD, or LSD; or
(iii) an auxiliary vessel; and
(B) that has a light ship displacement of 17,000 tons or more.
(2) The term `total period of planned ship construction’ means the period of years beginning
on the date of the first authorization of funding (not including funding requested for advance
procurement) and ending on the date that is projected on the date of the first authorization of
funding to be the delivery date of the vessel to the Navy.
The text of Section 123 is as follows:
SEC. 123. REPORT ON NAVAL FORCE STRUCTURE AND MISSILE DEFENSE.
(a) Report- Not later than March 1, 2011, the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the
Chief of Naval Operations, shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the requirements of the major combatant surface vessels with respect to missile defense.
(b) Matters Included- The report shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of whether the requirement for sea-based missile defense can be
accommodated by upgrading Aegis ships that exist as of the date of the report or by
procuring additional combatant surface vessels.
Congressional Research Service
18
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
(2) Whether such sea-based missile defense will require increasing the overall number of
combatant surface vessels beyond the requirement of 88 cruisers and destroyers in the 313ship fleet plan of the Navy.
(3) The number of Aegis ships needed by each combatant commander to fulfill ballistic
missile defense requirements, including (in consultation with the Chairman of the Joints
Chiefs of Staff) the number of such ships needed to support the phased, adaptive approach to
ballistic missile defense in Europe.
(4) A discussion of the potential effect of ballistic missile defense operations on the ability of
the Navy to meet surface fleet demands in each geographic area and for each mission set.
(5) An evaluation of how the Aegis ballistic missile defense program can succeed as part of a
balanced fleet of adequate size and strength to meet the security needs of the United States.
(6) A description of both the shortfalls and the benefits of expected technological
advancements in the sea-based missile defense program.
(7) A description of the anticipated plan for deployment of Aegis ballistic missile ships
within the context of the fleet response plan.
The text of Section 1021 is as follows:
SEC. 1021. REQUIREMENTS FOR LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
NAVAL VESSELS.
(a) In General- Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 231. Long-range plan for construction of naval vessels
`(a) Quadrennial Naval Vessel Construction Plan- At the same time that the budget of the
President is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31 during each year in which the
Secretary of Defense submits a quadrennial defense review, the Secretary of the Navy shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a long-range plan for the construction of
combatant and support vessels for the Navy that supports the force structure
recommendations of the quadrennial defense review.
`(b) Matters Included- The plan under subsection (a) shall include the following:
`(1) A detailed construction schedule of naval vessels for the ten-year period beginning on
the date on which the plan is submitted, including a certification by the Secretary that the
budget for the fiscal year in which the plan is submitted and the budget for the future-years
defense program submitted under section 221 of this title are sufficient for funding such
schedule.
`(2) A probable construction schedule for the ten-year period beginning on the date that is 10
years after the date on which the plan is submitted.
`(3) A notional construction schedule for the ten-year period beginning on the date that is 20
years after the date on which the plan is submitted.
`(4) The estimated levels of annual funding necessary to carry out the construction schedules
under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
Congressional Research Service
19
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
`(5) For the construction schedules under paragraphs (1) and (2)—
`(A) a determination by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation of the level
of funding necessary to execute such schedules; and
`(B) an evaluation by the Director of the potential risk associated with such schedules,
including detailed effects on operational plans, missions, deployment schedules, and
fulfillment of the requirements of the combatant commanders.
`(c) Naval Composition- In submitting the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
ensure that such plan—
`(1) is in accordance with section 5062(b) of this title; and
`(2) phases the construction of new aircraft carriers during the periods covered by such plan
in a manner that minimizes the total cost for procurement for such vessels.
`(d) Assessment When Budget Is Insufficient- If the budget for a fiscal year provides for
funding of the construction of naval vessels at a level that is less than the level determined
necessary by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation under subsection
(b)(5), the Secretary of the Navy shall include with the defense budget materials for that
fiscal year an assessment that describes and discusses the risks associated with the budget,
including the risk associated with a reduced force structure that may result from funding
naval vessel construction at such a level.
`(e) CBO Evaluation- Not later than 60 days after the date on which the congressional
defense committees receive the plan under subsection (a), the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office shall submit to such committees a report assessing the sufficiency of the
construction schedules and the estimated levels of annual funding included in such plan with
respect to the budget submitted during the year in which the plan is submitted and the futureyears defense program submitted under section 221 of this title.
`(f) Changes to the Construction Plan- In any year in which a quadrennial defense review is
not submitted, the Secretary of the Navy may not modify the construction schedules
submitted in the plan under subsection (a) unless—
`(1) the modification is an increase in planned ship construction;
`(2) the modification is a realignment of less than one year of construction start dates in the
future-years defense plan submitted under section 221 of this title and the Secretary submits
to the congressional defense committees a report on such modification, including—
`(A) the reasons for realignment;
`(B) any increased cost that will be incurred by the Navy because of the realignment; and
`(C) an assessment of the effects that the realignment will have on the shipbuilding industrial
base, including the secondary supply base; or
`(3) the modification is a decrease in the number or type of combatant and support vessels of
the Navy and the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a report on such
modification, including—
Congressional Research Service
20
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
`(A) an addendum to the most recent quadrennial defense review that fully explains and
justifies the decrease with respect to the national security strategy of the United States as set
forth in the most recent national security strategy report of the President under section 108 of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a); and
`(B) a description of the additional reviews and analyses considered by the Secretary after
the previous quadrennial defense review was submitted that justify the decrease.
`(g) Definitions- In this section:
`(1) The term `budget’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the budget for that fiscal year that
is submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31.
`(2) The term `defense budget materials’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the materials
submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense in support of the budget for that fiscal
year.
`(3) The term `quadrennial defense review’ means the review of the defense programs and
policies of the United States that is carried out every four years under section 118 of this
title.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 9 of such title is
amended by striking the item relating to section 231 and inserting the following new item:
`231. Long-range plan for construction of naval vessels.’.
In summarizing Section 1021, the committee’s report states:
This section would amend section 231 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels with
each submission of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The long-range plan would be
required to have 3 distinct sections each spanning a period of 10 years. The first section
would be a detailed construction plan for the first 10 years, the second a probable
construction plan for the second 10 years, and the third a notional construction plan for the
last 10 years. This section would require that during the intervening years between
submissions of the QDR, the plan may not be modified unless the change is accompanied by
an addendum to the QDR which explains and justifies the decrease with respect to the
national security of the United States. This section would further require that the plan fully
comply with section 5062(b) of title 10, United States Code, to maintain a minimum of 11
operational aircraft carriers and to phase the construction of such carriers as to minimize the
total cost of procurement. (Page 363)
The text of Section 1022 is as follows:
SEC. 1022. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF NAVAL VESSELS.
(a) Notice of Decommissioning- The Secretary of the Navy may not decommission any
battle force vessel of the active fleet of the Navy unless the Secretary provides to the
congressional defense committees written notification of such decommissioning in
accordance with established procedures.
(b) Content of Notification- Any notification provided under subsection (a) shall include
each of the following:
Congressional Research Service
21
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
(1) The reasons for the proposed decommissioning of the vessel.
(2) An analysis of the effect the decommissioning would be likely to have on the deployment
schedules of other vessels in the same class as the vessel proposed to be decommissioned.
(3) A certification from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the decommissioning
of the vessel will not adversely affect the requirements of the combatant commanders to
fulfill missions critical to national security.
(4) Any budgetary implications associated with retaining the vessel in commission,
expressed for each applicable appropriation account.
The text of Section 1023 is as follows:
SEC. 1023. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SIZE OF THE NAVY BATTLE FORCE FLEET.
(a) Limitation on Decommissioning- Until the number of vessels in the battle force fleet of
the Navy reaches 313 vessels, the Secretary of the Navy shall not decommission, in fiscal
year 2011 or any subsequent fiscal year, more than two-thirds of the number of vessels slated
for commissioning into the battle force fleet for that fiscal year.
(b) Treatment of Submarines- For purposes of subsection (a), submarines of the battle force
fleet slated for decommissioning for any fiscal year shall not count against the number of
vessels the Secretary of the Navy is required to maintain for that fiscal year.
The text of Section 1024 is as follows:
SEC. 1024. RETENTION AND STATUS OF CERTAIN NAVAL VESSELS.
The Secretary of the Navy shall retain the vessels the U.S.S. Nassau (LHA 4) and the U.S.S.
Peleliu (LHA 5), in a commissioned and operational status, until the delivery to the Navy of
the vessels the U.S.S. America (LHA 6) and the vessel designated as LHA 7, respectively.
The committee’s report also states:
The committee notes that the Long-Range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels,
known as the 30–year shipbuilding plan, submitted in accordance with section 231 of title
10, United States Code, proposes an average of 10 new vessels per year during the 5-year
period of the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). While this is a positive step in shipbuilding
procurement, the total number of battle force vessels remains essentially constant during the
FYDP due to the high rate of ship retirements planned during the period. Only after the
FYDP, do the battle force levels begin to increase in real terms and the stated goal of a 313ship Navy is not achieved until fiscal year 2018. The committee further notes that a short
term solution to the stagnant number of battle force ships through the FYDP is to delay
retirement of vessels with useful service life and that a planned approach to retire no more
ships in any one fiscal year than are being delivered to the Navy would accomplish this goal.
(Page 75)
The report also states:
U.S. shipbuilding industrial base
The committee has reservations as to the continued health of the shipbuilding industrial base
and its ability to remain viable in its current form. The shipbuilding industrial base currently
Congressional Research Service
22
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
serving the needs of Navy and the nation is a legacy from the cold war when the size of the
Navy fleet, and the construction required to maintain that fleet, was significantly higher than
today. The committee is concerned that the relatively low orders for new ships as proposed
in the 30-year shipbuilding plan are not sufficient to maintain all shipyards currently
constructing naval vessels. This is a very difficult situation for the Navy since reducing the
number of shipyards constructing vessels could have the unintended consequence of driving
up cost due to limited or no competition for particular classes of ships, yet the current
industrial base adds increased costs due to the significant overhead rates that must be
charged to each vessel.
Perhaps even more significant than shipyard over-capacity for the current shipbuilding plan
is the reduction in vendors willing to provide equipment and materiel necessary for the
shipbuilding industry. Low orders coupled with significant government requirements for
testing, traceability, and financial controls have driven many former suppliers out of the
market altogether. The committee received testimony that the vendor supply base is currently
60 to 70 percent sole source. While this almost total lack of competition may be manageable
in terms of maintaining the ability to construct vessels, it is not a condition that is bringing
the best value to the taxpayer.
The committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy has embarked on a comprehensive
review of the industrial base, including the supply base. The committee requests the
Secretary of the Navy to inform the committee when the comprehensive review is complete
and to make available to the committee those officials who participated in the review to
testify before the committee at a hearing in open session aimed at oversight of this potential
threat to national security. (Page 78)
Senate (S. 3454)
The FY2011 defense authorization bill (S. 3454) as reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee (S.Rept. 111-201 of June 4, 2010) recommends approval of the Navy’s request for
procurement and advance procurement funding for all of its shipbuilding programs (see pages
677-678 of the printed version of S. 3454).
Section 124 of the bill states:
SEC. 124. INCLUSION OF BASIC AND FUNCTIONAL DESIGN IN ASSESSMENTS
REQUIRED PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST SHIP OF A
SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM.
(a) Inclusion in Assessments- Subsection (b)(1) of section 124 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181; 122 Stat. 28; 10 U.S.C. 7291 note) is
amended by inserting `(and in particular completion of basic and functional design)’ after
`completion of detail design’.
(b) Basic and Functional Design Defined- Subsection (d) of such section is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(5) BASIC AND FUNCTION DESIGN- The term `basic and functional design’, for a ship,
means design, whether in the form of two-dimensional drawings, three-dimensional models,
or computer-aided models, that fixes the hull structure of the ship, sets the hydrodynamics of
the ship, routes all major distributive systems (including electricity, water, and other utilities)
of the ship, and identifies the exact positioning of piping and other outfitting within each
block of the ship.’.
Congressional Research Service
23
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Regarding Section 124, the committee’s report states:
Inclusion of basic and functional design in assessments required prior to start of
construction of first ship of a shipbuilding program (sec. 124)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 124 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to tighten the
requirements under which the Secretary of the Navy is required to certify that a new
shipbuilding program has achieved sufficient design maturity at the time the Navy begins
construction on the first ship of any major shipbuilding program.
The Government Accountability Office, in its May 2009 report, “Best Practices: High Levels
of Knowledge at Key Points Differentiate Commercial Shipbuilding from Navy Shipbuilding
(GAO–09–322),” identified key steps that leading commercial shipbuilders and ship buyers
follow to ensure their vessels deliver on-time, within planned costs, and with a high degree
of innovation.
One critical step in this process is achieving design stability before start of fabrication.
Leading commercial firms assess a ship design as stable once all basic and functional design
activities have been completed (usually in the form of a complete 3D product model).
Section 124 as currently written does not specifically require that the assessment of design
maturity directly address the completeness of the 3D modeling or completion of the activities
that make up basic and functional design. This provision would add that requirement. (Page
13)
The committee’s report also states:
Surface ship construction and industrial base issues
The committee recognizes that the Navy’s most recent Long-Range Plan for the Construction
of Naval Vessels continues the Navy’s long stated goal of a minimum fleet of 313 battle
force ships. The committee notes that this plan is based on a 2005 Force Structure
Assessment and a new Force Structure Assessment is required to address expanded
requirements identified in the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review for irregular warfare
support, ballistic missile defense, intratheater lift, and humanitarian missions. The committee
encourages the Navy to complete this review as expeditiously as possible so the results can
be incorporated in the next Long-Range Plan.
The committee continues to have significant concerns regarding the implications of the plan
for the non-nuclear surface ship industrial base. If the Navy and industry, working together,
are unable to control requirement driven cost growth and deliver the ships in the plan for the
projected costs, the inevitable reductions in quantity will likely impact the Navy’s ability to
reach the required fleet size and further jeopardize the industrial base. The committee notes
that the current shipbuilding plan includes the cost of the SSBN (X) program and the
committee encourages the Navy to closely scrutinize requirements for this program in order
to minimize its impact on the recapitalization of the Navy’s battle force.
Furthermore, the committee urges the Navy and the contractors to negotiate as expeditiously
as possible fair and reasonable construction contracts for ships previously authorized in order
to reduce uncertainty and maintain and foster affordability in the procurement of large
surface combatants and other naval vessels.
Congressional Research Service
24
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
In reviewing the Long-Range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels in conjunction with
recent program performance highlights, the committee notes the following observations and
expectations:
The stated requirement for amphibious ships is 38 vessels; however, the Long-Range Plan
projects accepting moderate risk by having 33 ships by 2016, but then declining to 29 or 30
ships after 2034. Although there have been improvements in recently delivered ships, cost
and quality issues have been all too common in the procurement of large and medium
amphibious ships, making an already constrained shipbuilding budget more difficult to
execute. A new dock landing ship class, LSD(X), is important to the recapitalization of the
amphibious force. The requirements for this ship must be closely validated to ensure
affordability. The committee notes the Navy’s plan to have a gap year following the lead
ship of the class and believes that this may help alleviate cost, schedule, and performance
issues. Overall, the committee remains concerned with the Navy’s management of the
amphibious ship accounts and expects continued close scrutiny of these programs by Navy
leadership.
In large surface combatants, the Navy’s last official report stated that the industrial base can
only be effectively sustained if naval ship yards were building the equivalent of three DDG–
51 destroyers per year, with additional work assumed at one of the yards. Even if the Navy
fully executes both of the large surface combatant programs of record in the near-term, the
President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request and future-years defense program propose to buy
an average of 1.5 large surface combatants per year. Even at projected procurement rates, the
number of cruisers and destroyers falls below the required level of 88 ships in 2027 and
remains below that level for the following 13 years. At its worst, the number of large surface
combatants is 21 ships below the expected requirement in 2034.
The Navy has testified that continued demand for large surface combatants to meet forward
presence and strike operations requirements coupled with emerging ballistic missile defense
requirements drives the Navy to consider abandoning lesser priority missions for more
recent, higher priority ones. In light of the current pressure on the large surface combatant
force, the committee is concerned that the Navy’s projected rate of production is insufficient,
and anticipates that the Navy will closely assess future demand for large surface combatants,
and operational and additional risk to the industrial base of maintaining relatively low rates
of procurement for large surface combatants.
The committee remains concerned with the Navy’s ability to execute what it believes is an
overly optimistic procurement strategy for large surface combatants. The truncation of the
DDG–1000, the restart of the DDG–51 class and the proposed Flight III variant of the DDG–
51 inject a great deal of instability into the SCN accounts. The Navy’s testimony before
Congress has led this committee to identify six risk areas in the Navy’s plan for DDG–51s:
(1) the availability of the Air and Missile Defense Radar; (2) the extent and cost of
modifications to the underlying ship’s design package to support proposed changes to the
ship; (3) increased limitation on service life margins of the early restart ships; (4) combat
system software integration; (5) the overall complexity of various separate programs that
need to converge for successful completion of the restart and Flight III programs; and (6)
cost and schedule growth for the Aegis Combat System Modernization. The committee
expects the Navy to keep it closely apprised of developments in these risk areas so that it can
monitor appropriate risk mitigation efforts.
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program has made progress during the past year and the
recent decision to move to a single design should improve affordability. The LCS fleet is
expected to comprise 55 vessels of the Navy’s 313-ship fleet force structure. Even modest
cost growth in this large component of the fleet magnifies the problem of achieving that
objective. The committee notes that the Navy’s acquisition strategy for the LCS program
Congressional Research Service
25
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
introduces competition for this class of ships and is therefore cautiously optimistic that this
program is making progress.
In summary, the committee considers the specialized shipbuilding industrial base for large
surface combatants, amphibious ships, Navy auxiliary ships, and littoral vessels as a critical
component of national security and expects the Department of Defense to appropriately
sustain this industrial base. The committee expects the Department of the Navy to include
these considerations as it incorporates the updated force structure assessment in the
upcoming Long-Range Plan for the Construction of Naval Vessels.
The committee understands that the Navy is conducting a comprehensive review of the
shipbuilding industrial base and calls upon the Navy to update the committee on the scope
and timeline for such a study. The committee understands the objective of the study is to
identify the challenges facing the Navy and the associated shipbuilding industrial base and
the strategies for mitigating the effects of those challenges. The committee expects that this
study will inform its deliberations in connection with the fiscal year 2012 budget. As a
general proposition, the committee expects that the Department of Defense will provide the
Navy with the support it needs to focus on the matters referred to above. (Pages 40-42)
Final Version (H.R. 6523/P/L. 111-383)
Section 1023 of H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-383 of January 7, 2011, amends the current law (10 U.S.C.
231) that requires DOD to annually submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan. The text of Section 1023
is as follows:
SEC. 1023. REQUIREMENTS FOR LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
NAVAL VESSELS.
(a) In General- Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 231. Long-range plan for construction of naval vessels
`(a) Quadrennial Naval Vessel Construction Plan- At the same time that the budget of the
President is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31 during each year in which the
Secretary of Defense submits a quadrennial defense review, the Secretary of the Navy shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a long-range plan for the construction of
combatant and support vessels for the Navy that supports the force structure
recommendations of the quadrennial defense review.
`(b) Matters Included- The plan under subsection (a) shall include the following:
`(1) A detailed construction schedule of naval vessels for the 10-year period beginning on the
date on which the plan is submitted, including a certification by the Secretary that the budget
for the fiscal year in which the plan is submitted and the budget for the future-years defense
program submitted under section 221 of this title are sufficient for funding such schedule.
`(2) A probable construction schedule for the 10-year period beginning on the date that is 10
years after the date on which the plan is submitted.
`(3) A notional construction schedule for the 10-year period beginning on the date that is 20
years after the date on which the plan is submitted.
`(4) The estimated levels of annual funding necessary to carry out the construction schedules
under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
Congressional Research Service
26
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
`(5) For the construction schedules under paragraphs (1) and (2)—
`(A) a determination by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation of the level
of funding necessary to execute such schedules; and
`(B) an evaluation by the Director of the potential risk associated with such schedules,
including detailed effects on operational plans, missions, deployment schedules, and
fulfillment of the requirements of the combatant commanders.
`(c) Naval Composition- In submitting the plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
ensure that such plan is in accordance with section 5062(b) of this title.
`(d) Assessment When Budget Is Insufficient- If the budget for a fiscal year provides for
funding of the construction of naval vessels at a level that is less than the level determined
necessary by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation under subsection
(b)(5), the Secretary of the Navy shall include with the defense budget materials for that
fiscal year an assessment that describes and discusses the risks associated with the budget,
including the risk associated with a reduced force structure that may result from funding
naval vessel construction at such a level.
`(e) CBO Evaluation- Not later than 60 days after the date on which the congressional
defense committees receive the plan under subsection (a), the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office shall submit to such committees a report assessing the sufficiency of the
estimated levels of annual funding included in such plan with respect to the budget submitted
during the year in which the plan is submitted and the future-years defense program
submitted under section 221 of this title.
`(f) Changes to the Construction Plan- In any year in which a quadrennial defense review is
not submitted and the budget of the President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31
decreases the number of vessels requested in the future-years defense program submitted
under section 221 of this title, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on such decrease including—
`(1) an addendum to the most recent quadrennial defense review that fully explains and
justifies the decrease with respect to the national security strategy of the United States as set
forth in the most recent national security strategy report of the President under section 108 of
the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a); and
`(2) a description of the additional reviews and analyses considered by the Secretary after the
previous quadrennial defense review was submitted that justify the decrease.
`(g) Definitions- In this section:
`(1) The term `budget’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the budget for that fiscal year that
is submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31.
`(2) The term `defense budget materials’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the materials
submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense in support of the budget for that fiscal
year.
`(3) The term `quadrennial defense review’ means the review of the defense programs and
policies of the United States that is carried out every four years under section 118 of this
title.’.
Congressional Research Service
27
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 9 of such title is
amended by striking the item relating to section 231 and inserting the following new item:
`231. Long-range plan for construction of naval vessels.’.
Regarding Section 1023, the joint explanatory statement of the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees on H.R. 6523 stated:
The committees expect that, following the submission of the President’s budget materials for
a fiscal year, the Secretary of the Navy, at the written request of one of the congressional
defense committees, will promptly deliver the Navy’s long-term shipbuilding plan used to
develop the President’s budget request for that fiscal year, as well as a certification from the
Secretary of the Navy that both the President’s budget request for that fiscal year and the
budget for the future-years defense program is sufficient to fund the construction schedule
provided in that plan. The committees expect that such a plan would include the quantity of
each class of ship to be constructed in that fiscal year and the nine following fiscal years.
Section 113 of H.R. 6523 requires a report on the force structure requirements of major
combatant surface vessels (i.e., cruisers and destroyers) with respect to ballistic missile defense.
The text of Section 113 is as follows:
SEC. 113. REPORT ON NAVAL FORCE STRUCTURE AND MISSILE DEFENSE.
(a) Report- Not later than March 31, 2011, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the force structure requirements of the major combatant
surface vessels with respect to ballistic missile defense.
(b) Matters Included- The report shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of whether the requirement for sea-based missile defense can be
accommodated by upgrading Aegis ships that exist as of the date of the report or by
procuring additional combatant surface vessels.
(2) A discussion of whether such sea-based missile defense will require increasing the
overall number of combatant surface vessels beyond the requirement of 88 cruisers and
destroyers in the 313-ship fleet plan of the Navy.
(3) A discussion of the process for determining the number of Aegis ships needed by each
commander of the combatant commands to fulfill ballistic missile defense requirements,
including (in consultation with the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff) the number of
such ships needed to support the phased, adaptive approach to ballistic missile defense in
Europe.
(4) A discussion of the impact of Aegis Ashore missile defense deployments, as well as
deployment of other elements of the ballistic missile defense system, on Aegis ballistic
missile defense ship force structure requirements.
(5) A discussion of the potential effect of ballistic missile defense operations on the ability of
the Navy to meet surface fleet demands in each geographic area and for each mission set.
(6) An evaluation of how the Aegis ballistic missile defense program can succeed as part of a
balanced fleet of adequate size and strength to meet the security needs of the United States.
Congressional Research Service
28
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
(7) A description of both the shortfalls and the benefits of expected technological
advancements in the sea-based missile defense program.
(8) A description of the anticipated plan for deployment of Aegis ballistic missile defense
ships within the context of the fleet response plan.
National Shipbuilding Budget Policy Act (H.R. 5035)
H.R. 5035, which was introduced on April 15, 2010, and referred to the Seapower and
Expeditionary Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on April 28, 2010,
would authorize $20 billion per year for the period FY2011-FY2015 for the construction of Navy
ships to meet the ship force structure requirements presented in the Navy’s report on its 30-year
shipbuilding plan. (It would also authorize $60 million per year for the period FY2011-FY2015
for loan guarantees for the construction of commercial ships.) The text of H.R. 5035 states:
A BILL
To authorize appropriations for the construction of vessels for the Navy and to authorize
appropriations for loan guarantees for commercial vessels.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `National Shipbuilding Budget Policy Act’.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Navy- Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2011
through 2015 for the construction of vessels for the Navy to meet the force requirements of
the Navy (as described in the annual naval vessel construction plan required by section 231
of title 10, United States Code) in the amount of $20,000,000,000.
(b) The Merchant Marine- Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal
years 2011 through 2015 for loan guarantees and commitments authorized under chapter 537
of title 46, United States Code, for the construction of new vessels to replace and expand the
domestic fleet of commercial vessels (as that term is defined in that chapter) in the amount of
$60,000,000.
Congressional Research Service
29
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Independent Panel Assessment of 2010
QDR
The law that requires DOD to perform QDRs once every four years (10 U.S.C. 118) states that
the results of each QDR shall be assessed by an independent panel. The report of the independent
panel that assessed the 2010 QDR was released on July 29, 2010. The independent panel’s report
recommends a Navy of 346 ships, including 11 aircraft carriers and 55 attack submarines. 13 The
report statesIssues Relating to Current 313-Ship Force-Level Objective
Sufficiency of FY2012 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
One potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the sufficiency of the FY2012 30-year
(FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan. As shown in Table 4, the plan does not include enough
ships to fully support all elements of the 313-ship goal over the long run:
•
The Navy projects that if the 30-year shipbuilding plan were fully implemented,
the fleet would grow from 290 ships in FY2012 to a peak of 325 ships in
FY2022-FY2023, decline to 296 ships in FY2032-FY2034, and then increase
back to 305 ships by FY2041.
•
The Navy projects that the attack submarine and cruiser-destroyer forces will
drop substantially below required levels in the latter years of the 30-year plan.
The projected number of cruisers and destroyers drops below the required level
of 94 ships in 2025, reaches a minimum of 68 ships in FY2034, and remains
below 94 ships through FY2041. The projected number of attack submarines
Congressional Research Service
15
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
drops below the required level of 48 boats in FY2024, reaches a minimum of 39
boats in FY2030, and remains below 48 boats through 2041.
•
There would also be shortfalls in certain years in small surface combatants (i.e.,
frigates and LCSs) and amphibious ships.
The projected shortfalls in cruisers and destroyers, attack submarines, and other ships could make
it difficult or impossible for the Navy to fully perform its projected missions, particularly during
the latter years of the 30-year plan. In light of the projected shortfalls in cruisers-destroyers and
attack submarines, policymakers may wish to consider two options:
•
increasing planned procurement rates of destroyers and attack submarines,
perhaps particularly in years prior to the start of SSBN(X) procurement, and
•
extending the service lives of older destroyers to 40 or 45 years, and refueling
older attack submarines and extending their service lives to 40 or more years.
Regarding the second option above, possible candidates for service life extensions include the
first 28 DDG-51 destroyers (i.e., the Flight I/II DDG-51s), the final 23 Los Angeles (SSN-688)
attack submarines (i.e., the Improved 688s), and the 3 Seawolf (SSN-21) class attack submarines.
Whether such service life extensions would be technically feasible or cost-effective is not clear.
Feasibility would be a particular issue for the attack submarines, given limits on submarine
pressure hull life.
Extending the service lives of any of these ships could require increasing funding for their
maintenance, possibly beginning in the near term, above currently planned levels, so that the
ships would be in good enough condition years from now to remain eligible for service life
extension work. Such funding increases would be in addition to those the Navy has recently
programmed for ensuring that its surface ships can remain in service to the end of their currently
planned service lives.
Affordability of FY2012 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the prospective affordability of the
FY2012 30-year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan. In assessing this issue, a key factor to
consider is the estimated cost to implement the plan. In recent years, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) has estimated that the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan would cost more to
implement than the Navy has estimated, and this is again the case for the Navy’s FY2012 30-year
shipbuilding plan. A June 2011 CBO report on the cost of the Navy’s FY2012 30-year (FY2012FY2041) shipbuilding plan estimates that the plan would cost an average of $18.0 billion per year
in constant FY2011 dollars to implement, or about 16% more than the Navy estimates. CBO’s
estimate is about 7% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the first 10 years of the plan, about 10%
higher than the Navy’s estimate for the second 10 years of the plan, and about 31% higher than
the Navy’s estimate for the final 10 years of the plan.15 Some of the difference between CBO’s
estimate and the Navy’s estimate, particularly in the latter years of the plan, is due to a difference
between CBO and the Navy in how to treat inflation in Navy shipbuilding. Table 6 summarizes
15
Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2012 Shipbuilding Plan, June 2011, Table 2
(page 9).
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
the Navy and CBO estimates of the FY2012 30-year shipbuilding plan, as presented in the June
2011 CBO report.
Table 6. Navy and CBO Estimates of Cost of FY2012 30-Year (FY2012-FY2041)
Shipbuilding Plan
Funding for new-construction ships, in billions of constant FY2011 dollars
First 10 years
(FY2012-FY2021)
Next 10 years
(FY2022-2031)
Final 10 years
(FY2032-FY2041)
Entire 30 years
(FY2012-FY2041)
Navy estimate
14.6
17.2
14.7
15.5
CBO estimate
15.7
19.0
19.2
18.0
% difference
between Navy and
CBO estimates
7%
10%
31%
16%
Source: Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2012 Shipbuilding Plan, June 2011, Table
2 (Page 9).
The June 2011 CBO report also estimates the cost of a revised 30-year shipbuilding plan created
by CBO that would fully meet the various force-level goals in the apparent 328-ship force-level
objective of mid-2011. Compared to the Navy’s FY2012 30-year plan, this revised 30-year plan
would include 24 additional destroyers, 5 additional attack submarines, and 2 additional largedeck (i.e., LHA-type) amphibious assault ships. CBO estimated the cost of implementing this
revised plan at an average of $19.7 billion per year in constant FY2011 dollars, including an
average of $19.1 billion per year for the first 10 years of the plan, an average of $21.3 billion per
year for the second 10 years of the plan, and an average of $18.6 billion per year for the final 10
years of the plan.16
As mentioned earlier, the Navy was able to assemble a five-year (FY2012-FY2016) shipbuilding
plan with a total of 55 ships, or an average of 11 per year, within available resources in part
because almost half of those ships are relatively inexpensive LCSs and JHSVs. Starting a few
years from now, when the LCS and JHSV programs are no longer overrepresented in the
shipbuilding plan, and particularly when procurement of next-generation SSBN(X) ballistic
missile submarines begins, procuring an average of 10 or more ships per year will become a
considerably more expensive proposition.
The Navy wants to procure 12 SSBN(X)s, and is working to reduce the estimated unit
procurement cost of ships 2 through 12 in the program to $4.9 billion in FY2010 dollars.17 To
help pay for the SSBN(X)s without reducing other shipbuilding programs, the shipbuilding
funding profile in the Navy’s FY2011 30-year shipbuilding plan included a “hump” of
approximately $2 billion per year in constant FY2010 dollars during the years (FY2019-FY2033)
when the 12 SSBN(X)s are to be procured. The Navy’s report on the FY2011 30-year plan,
however, contained little explanation of how this $2-billion-per-year hump in shipbuilding
funding would be realized, particularly if the Navy’s budget experiences little or no real growth in
16
Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2012 Shipbuilding Plan, June 2011, Table 2
(page 9).
17
For more on the SSBN(X) program, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile
Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
coming years. If the $2-billion-per-year hump were not realized, the total number of ships of
various kinds procured in FY2019-FY2033 could be less than the figures shown in the FY2011
30-year plan. If so, the shortfalls projected for cruisers and destroyers, attack submarines, and
other categories of ships could be larger than those shown in Table 4.
Efficacy of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the efficacy of the 30-year shipbuilding
plan. On June 1, 2011, the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee held a hearing on the efficacy of the Department of Defense’s 30-year
aviation and shipbuilding plans. Witnesses at the hearing included representatives from the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps, CBO, CRS, and the
Heritage Foundation.18
Legislative Activity for FY2012
FY2012 Funding Request
The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requests funding for the procurement of 10 new battle force
ships (i.e., ships that count against the 313-ship goal). The 10 ships include two Virginia-class
attack submarines, one DDG-51 class Aegis destroyer, four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), one
LPD-17 class amphibious ship, one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship (i.e., a maritime
prepositioning ship), and one Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV). These ships are funded through
the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account, except for the MLP, which is funded
through the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF).
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1540/S. 1253)
House (Committee Report)
Funding for Shipbuilding
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 112-78 of May 17, 2011) on H.R.
1540, recommends approving, with two exceptions, the Navy’s requests for FY2012 procurement
and advance procurement funding in the SCN and NDSF accounts for construction of new battle
force ships. (See pages 345-346 and 460 of the report.)
One exception concerns LHA-7, an amphibious assault ship that was authorized in FY2011 but is
being partially funded in FY2012. The committee’s report recommends a net reduction of $50
million from the amount requested for LHA-7 for FY2012. The recommended net reduction of
$50 million includes a $200 million reduction for “contract delay” and a $150 million increase for
“program increase.” Section 1604 of H.R. 1540 as reported by the committee provides for the
18
Materials from the hearing are posted at http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/2011/6/the-efficacy-of-thedepartment-of-defense-s-thirty-year-aviation-and-shipbuilding-plans.
Congressional Research Service
18
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
recommended $150 million increase. Section 121 of H.R. 1540 as reported by the committee
would permit the final increment of procurement funding for LHA-7 to be provided in FY2013.
Regarding LHA-7, the committee’s report states:
The delivery of the first ship of the America-class, LHA-6, has been significantly delayed.
According to the Department of Defense “Selected Acquisition Report” of December 31,
2010, the delays are “due to changing conditions in the shipyard portfolio which are driving
labor demands in various trades”. These delays have had a cascading effect on LHA-7,
which was scheduled to go on contract for detail design and construction in November 2010,
but now the Navy estimates the contract will be delayed until the end of fiscal year 2011.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision that would authorize the Navy to
conclude funding for LHA-7 in fiscal year 2013. (page 33)
The second exception is that the committee’s report recommends an undistributed increase of
$150 million in the SCN account for advance procurement and economic order quantity (EOQ)
funding, and an offsetting undistributed reduction of $150 million in the SCN account for
“program decrease.”
The committee’s report also states:
The committee is pleased that the Navy has turned around the downward spiral in battle
force ship quantities, and the plan to achieve the floor of 313 ships appears to be achievable.
To obtain the required capability and to provide the required stability to the fragile
shipbuilding industrial base, the committee believes the following programs are crucial.
(page 33)
The report at this points goes on to discuss the CVN-78 aircraft carrier program, the Virginia class
attack submarine program, the Ohio replacement (SSBN[X]) ballistic missile submarine program,
the DDG-51 destroyer program, and amphibious ships.
30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Section 1021 of H.R. 1540 as reported by the committee would amend the provision in the code
(10 U.S.C. 231) pertaining to the 30-year shipbuilding plan. The text of Section 1021 is as
follows:
SEC. 1021. BUDGETING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL VESSELS.
(a) Annual Plan- Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 231. Budgeting for construction of naval vessels: annual plan and certification
`(a) Annual Naval Vessel Construction Plan and Certification- The Secretary of Defense
shall include with the defense budget materials for a fiscal year—
`(1) a plan for the construction of combatant and support vessels for the Navy developed in
accordance with this section; and
`(2) a certification by the Secretary that both the budget for that fiscal year and the futureyears defense program submitted to Congress in relation to such budget under section 221 of
this title provide for funding of the construction of naval vessels at a level that is sufficient
Congressional Research Service
19
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
for the procurement of the vessels provided for in the plan under paragraph (1) on the
schedule provided in that plan.
`(b) Annual Naval Vessel Construction Plan- (1) The annual naval vessel construction plan
developed for a fiscal year for purposes of subsection (a)(1) should be designed so that the
naval vessel force provided for under that plan is capable of supporting the national security
strategy of the United States as set forth in the most recent national security strategy report of
the President under section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a),
except that, if at the time such plan is submitted with the defense budget materials for that
fiscal year, a national security strategy report required under such section 108 has not been
submitted to Congress as required by paragraph (2) or paragraph (3), if applicable, of
subsection (a) of such section, then such annual plan should be designed so that the naval
vessel force provided for under that plan is capable of supporting the ship force structure
recommended in the report of the most recent quadrennial defense review.
`(2) Each such naval vessel construction plan shall include the following:
`(A) A detailed program for the construction of combatant and support vessels for the Navy
over the next 30 fiscal years.
`(B) A description of the necessary naval vessel force structure to meet the requirements of
the national security strategy of the United States or the most recent quadrennial defense
review, whichever is applicable under paragraph (1).
`(C) The estimated levels of annual funding necessary to carry out the program, together with
a discussion of the procurement strategies on which such estimated levels of annual funding
are based.
`(c) Assessment When Vessel Construction Budget Is Insufficient to Meet Applicable
Requirements- If the budget for a fiscal year provides for funding of the construction of
naval vessels at a level that is not sufficient to sustain the naval vessel force structure
specified in the naval vessel construction plan for that fiscal year under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall include with the defense budget materials for that fiscal year an assessment
that describes and discusses the risks associated with the reduced force structure of naval
vessels that will result from funding naval vessel construction at such level. Such assessment
shall be coordinated in advance with the commanders of the combatant commands.
`(d) CBO Evaluation- Not later than 60 days after the date on which the congressional
defense committees receive the plan under subsection (a)(1), the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office shall submit to such committees a report assessing the
sufficiency of the estimated levels of annual funding included in such plan with respect to
the budget submitted during the year in which the plan is submitted and the future-years
defense program submitted under section 221 of this title.
`(e) Definitions- In this section:
`(1) The term `budget’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the budget for that fiscal year that
is submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31.
`(2) The term `defense budget materials’, with respect to a fiscal year, means the materials
submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense in support of the budget for that fiscal
year.
Congressional Research Service
20
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
`(3) The term `quadrennial defense review’ means the review of the defense programs and
policies of the United States that is carried out every four years under section 118 of this
title.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 9 of such title is
amended by striking the item relating to section 231 and inserting the following new item:
`231. Budgeting for construction of naval vessels: annual plan and certification’.
Regarding Section 1021, the committee’s report states:
This section would repeal an amendment made by section 1023 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383). This section would
require that a 30-year shipbuilding plan be delivered to Congress periodically. The section
that would be repealed changed the periodicity from an annual requirement to once every 4
years to be delivered with the Quadrennial Defense Review.
The committee believes that returning to an annual submittal of the plan would promote
stability and continuity in the planning process, both in the plan itself, and in the
shipbuilding industrial base. One aspect of the section that would be retained is the
requirement that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, within 60 days of
submittal of the plan, provide an assessment of the sufficiency of funds to execute the plan in
the budget year and Future Years Defense Program to the congressional defense committees.
(page 208)
Number of Carrier Air Wings (CVWs) and CVW Headquarters
Section 1094 of H.R. 1540 as reported states:
SEC. 1094. NUMBER OF NAVY CARRIER AIR WINGS AND CARRIER AIR WING
HEADQUARTERS.
The Secretary of the Navy shall ensure that the Navy maintains—
(1) a minimum of 10 carrier air wings; and
(2) for each such carrier air wing, a dedicated and fully staffed headquarters.
House (Floor Consideration)
On May 26, 2011, as part of its consideration of H.R. 1540, the House rejected, 176-241,
H.Amdt. 335, which would have deleted Section 1604, which provides for $150 million in
procurement funding for LHA-7 (see “Funding for Shipbuilding” in “House (Committee Report)”
above).
Senate
S. 1253 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept. 112-26 of June 22, 2011)
recommends approving the Navy’s requests for FY2012 procurement and advance procurement
funding in the SCN and NDSF accounts for construction of new battle force ships. (See Sections
4101 and 4401 of the bill as reported by the committee. In the printed version of the bill as
Congressional Research Service
21
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
reported by the committee, the relevant tables within these two sections appear on pages 606 and
647.)
Section 1021 of S. 1253 as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 1021. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR PLACING MARITIME
PREPOSITIONING SHIP SQUADRONS ON REDUCED OPERATING STATUS.
No amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to place
a Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron, or any component thereof, on reduced operating
status until the later of the following:
(1) The date on which the Commandant of the Marine Corps submits to the congressional
defense committees a report setting forth an assessment of the impact on military readiness
of the plans of the Navy for placing such Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron, or
component thereof, on reduced operating status.
(2) The date on which the Chief of Naval Operations submits to the congressional defense
committees a report that—
(A) describes the plans of the Navy for placing such Maritime Prepositioning Ship squadron,
or component thereof, on reduced operating status; and
(B) sets forth comments of the Chief of Naval Operations on the assessment described in
paragraph (1).
(3) The date on which the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense
committees that the risks to readiness of placing such Maritime Prepositioning squadron, or
component thereof, on reduced operating status are acceptable.
Regarding this section, the committee’s report states:
Limitation on availability of funds for placing Maritime Prepositioning Ships
squadrons on reduced operating status (sec. 1021)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit funding to place a maritime
prepositioning ship squadron (MPSRON), or any component thereof, on reduced operating
status until: the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) submits a report to Congress
assessing the impact on military readiness for placing such MPSRON on reduced operating
status; the Chief of Naval Operations describes the Navy’s plan and comments on the CMC’s
report for placing such MPSRON on reduced operating status; and the Secretary of Defense
certifies to Congress that the risks to readiness of placing such MPSRON on reduced
operating status are acceptable. (Page 175)
Section 1022 of S. 1253 as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 1022. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS ON STATUS OF RETIRED AIRCRAFT
CARRIER EX-JOHN F. KENNEDY.
Section 1011(c)(2) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007 (P.L. 109-364; 120 Stat. 2374) is amended by striking `shall require’ and all that
follows and inserting `may, notwithstanding paragraph (1), demilitarize the vessel in
preparation for the transfer.’.
Congressional Research Service
22
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Regarding this section, the committee’s report states:
Modification of conditions on status of retired aircraft carrier ex-John F. Kennedy (sec.
1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1011 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to allow the
Navy to dispose of the ex-John F. Kennedy. The provision would amend section 1011 to
remove the requirement that the Navy ensure the ship is maintained in a status that would
permit the Navy to return the ship to active service in event of a national emergency. (Page
176)
FY2012 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2219)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 112-110 of June 16, 2011) on H.R.
2219, supports the procurement of the new-construction ships requested by the Navy for FY2012,
but recommends reductions to the Navy’s requested funding amounts for some of the ships.
(Pages 153-154 and, for the MLP program, page 255). As detailed on page 276 of the report,
Section 8040 of the bill as reported would rescind, among other funds, $110.351 million in
FY2011 advance procurement funding for the LCS program. Section 8072 of the bill as reported
details the use of $73.992 million in funding provided on page 153 of the committee’s report for
the completion of prior-year shipbuilding programs. The report also states:
SHIPBUILDING OVERSIGHT
The Committee understands that a number of issues related to quality have recently been
identified on Navy ships. Most recently, a failed weld joint caused structural damage to a
mast mounted antenna on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Incorrect installation of key
subsystems on several Virginia-class submarines required corrections to avoid jeopardizing
the mission performance of the submarines. Faulty welds were identified on a number of
ship classes, including at least four aircraft carriers. Additionally, several issues have arisen
regarding the LPD–17 class of amphibious transport dock ships. These issues were severe
enough to cause the USS San Antonio to miss a scheduled deployment.
The Committee directs the Comptroller General to review the Navy’s process for quality
assurance in shipbuilding. This review should identify the extent to which quality assurance
processes identified known quality problems, including an examination of what analyses the
Navy has performed and what actions have been taken to address identified problems. The
review should also examine the extent to which the American Bureau of Shipbuilding plays a
role in quality assurance in Navy shipbuilding and how this role complements or duplicates
reviews conducted by Navy Supervisor of Shipbuilding and Conversion personnel. As part
of this analysis, a comparison should be made between the Navy, commercial shipbuilders,
and commercial ship buyers’ approaches to quality assurance. The results of this review
should be provided to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act. (Page 155)
Congressional Research Service
23
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 112-77 of September 15, 2011) on
H.R. 2219, recommends fully funding all of the Navy ships requested for procurement in the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account (page 120), but recommends denying the
request for $425.9 million in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for the procurement of a
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship (page 221). Regarding the MLP, the committee’s report
states:
Mobile Landing Platform [MLP].—The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes
$425,865,000 to procure one Mobile Landing Platform [MLP]. The Navy has a requirement
for three MLPs, and the Committee notes that in its previous budget submission, the Navy
proposed procuring the three MLPs over the course of 5 years, beginning in fiscal year 2011.
The fiscal year 2012 budget submission proposes to condense this acquisition to 3 years,
concluding in fiscal year 2013. However, the Committee notes that the fiscal year 2012
budget submission does not take into account that Congress adjusted the MLP acquisition
profile in the Fiscal Year 2011 Department of Defense Appropriations Act by accelerating
the planned schedule by 2 years and procuring two MLPs in fiscal year 2011 instead of one.
The Committee notes that this acceleration, coupled with procuring an additional MLP in
fiscal year 2013, as the Navy has planned for the last two budget cycles, concludes the
program’s acquisition in 3 years, as the Navy proposes in its fiscal year 2012 budget
submission. The Committee believes that a further acceleration of the MLP acquisition
schedule is unwarranted and high-risk and does not allow for sufficient learning to occur, nor
cost efficiencies to be absorbed prior to initiating construction of the third and final ship of
the class. The Committee notes that Navy has already procured long lead materials for the
third ship to avoid shipyard production breaks prior to award of the fiscal year 2013 MLP.
Therefore, the Committee recommends denying the proposed additional acceleration of the
program and recommends that the Navy retain its original plan of procuring a MLP in fiscal
year 2013. (Pages 221-222)
The committee’s report also states:
Ballistic Missile Defense [BMD] Capable Ships.—The Committee notes that the Navy has
established a requirement for fiscal year 2024 of having a force of 94 multi-mission large
surface combatants (including ballistic missile defense [BMD] capability), but the Navy’s
fiscal year 2012 30-year shipbuilding plan projects that the Navy will achieve the 94-ship
goal for BMD-capable ships in 2020 and 2021, with force levels declining thereafter.
Specifically, the Navy projects that it will have, at most, 92 BMD-capable ships in 2024
before declining to 65 in 2034. The Committee is concerned about this projected shortfall
and believes that the Navy should begin to review and consider options to close this gap. The
Navy has indicated that it intends to pursue a multiyear procurement contract for DDG–51
vessels in fiscal year 2013 that could result in significant cost savings. Historic production
rates of three DDG–51s per fiscal year reflected substantial unit cost savings in the past and
would likely be realized by procuring DDG–51 ships at a more economical procurement rate
than currently planned. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report,
at the same time as the President submits the budget request for fiscal year 2013, which
provides options for closing this gap. (Page 121)
Congressional Research Service
24
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
CRS Reports Tracking Legislation on Specific Navy Shipbuilding
Programs
For funding levels and legislative activity on individual Navy shipbuilding, conversion, and
modernization programs, see the following CRS reports:
•
CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile
Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine
Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
•
CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement:
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
25
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Using Past Ship Force Levels to Assess
Proposed Force Levels
One possible method for assessing proposals for the future size and structure of the Navy is to
compare them to historical figures for total Navy fleet size. Historical figures for total fleet size,
however, might not be a reliable yardstick for assessing the appropriateness of proposals for the
future size and structure of the Navy, particularly if the historical figures are more than a few
years old, because the missions to be performed by the Navy, the mix of ships that make up the
Navy, and the technologies that are available to Navy ships for performing missions all change
over time.
The Navy, for example, reached a late-Cold War peak of 568 battle force ships at the end of
FY1987,19 and as of October 13, 2011, had declined to a total of 284 battle force ships. The
FY1987 fleet, however, was intended to meet a set of mission requirements that focused on
countering Soviet naval forces at sea during a potential multi-theater NATO-Warsaw Pact
conflict, while the October 2011 fleet is intended to meet a considerably different set of mission
requirements centered on influencing events ashore by countering both land- and sea-based
military forces of potential regional threats other than Russia, including improved Chinese
military forces and non-state terrorist organizations. In addition, the Navy of FY1987 differed
substantially from the October 2011 fleet in areas such as profusion of precision-guided airdelivered weapons, numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and sophistication of C4ISR systems.20
In coming years, Navy missions may shift again, and the capabilities of Navy ships will likely
have changed further by that time due to developments such as more comprehensive
implementation of networking technology and increased use of ship-based unmanned vehicles.
The 568-ship fleet of FY1987 may or may not have been capable of performing its stated
missions; the 284-ship fleet of October 2011 may or may not be capable of performing its stated
missions; and a fleet years from now with a certain number of ships may or may not be capable of
performing its stated missions. Given changes over time in mission requirements, ship mixes, and
technologies, however, these three issues are to a substantial degree independent of one another.
For similar reasons, trends over time in the total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a
reliable indicator of the direction of change in the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions. An
increasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to
perform its stated missions is increasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be
increasing more rapidly than ship numbers and average ship capability. Similarly, a decreasing
19
Some publications, such as those of the American Shipbuilding Association, have stated that the Navy reached a
peak of 594 ships at the end of FY1987. This figure, however, is the total number of active ships in the fleet, which is
not the same as the total number of battle force ships. The battle force ships figure is the number used in government
discussions of the size of the Navy. In recent years, the total number of active ships has been larger than the total
number of battle force ships. For example, the Naval Historical Center states that as of November 16, 2001, the Navy
included a total of 337 active ships, while the Navy states that as of November 19, 2001, the Navy included a total of
317 battle force ships. Comparing the total number of active ships in one year to the total number of battle force ships
in another year is thus an apples-to-oranges comparison that in this case overstates the decline since FY1987 in the
number of ships in the Navy. As a general rule to avoid potential statistical distortions, comparisons of the number of
ships in the Navy over time should use, whenever possible, a single counting method.
20
C4ISR stands for command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Congressional Research Service
26
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to perform stated
missions is decreasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be declining more rapidly
than numbers of ships, or because average ship capability and the percentage of time that ships
are in deployed locations might be increasing quickly enough to more than offset reductions in
total ship numbers.
Previous Navy force structure plans, such as those shown in Table 1, might provide some insight
into the potential adequacy of a proposed new force-structure plan, but changes over time in
mission requirements, technologies available to ships for performing missions, and other forceplanning factors suggest that some caution should be applied in using past force structure plans
for this purpose, particularly if those past force structure plans are more than a few years old. The
Reagan-era plan for a 600-ship Navy, for example, was designed for a Cold War set of missions
focusing on countering Soviet naval forces at sea, which is not an appropriate basis for planning
the Navy today.21
21
Navy force structure plans that predate those shown in Table 1 include the Reagan-era 600-ship plan of the 1980s,
the Base Force fleet of more than 400 ships planned during the final two years of the George H. W. Bush
Administration, the 346-ship fleet from the Clinton Administration’s 1993 Bottom-Up Review (or BUR, sometimes
also called Base Force II), and the 310-ship fleet of the Clinton Administration’s 1997 QDR. The table below
summarizes some key features of these plans.
Features of Recent Navy Force Structure Plans
Plan
Total ships
Attack submarines
Aircraft carriers
Surface combatants
Amphibious ships
600-ship
~600
100
15e
242/228g
~75h
Base Force
~450/416a
80/~55c
12
~150
51i
1993 BUR
346
45-55
11+1f
~124
41i
1997 QDR
~305/310b
50/55d
11+1f
116
36i
Source: Prepared by CRS based on DOD and U.S. Navy data.
a. Commonly referred to as 450-ship plan, but called for decreasing to 416 ships by end of FY1999.
b. Original total of about 305 ships was increased to about 310 due to increase in number of attack submarines to 55
from 50.
c. Plan originally included 80 attack submarines, but this was later reduced to about 55.
d. Plan originally included 50 attack submarines but this was later increased to 55.
e. Plus one additional aircraft carrier in the service life extension program (SLEP).
f. Eleven active carriers plus one operational reserve carrier.
g. Plan originally included 242 surface combatants but this was later reduced to 228.
h. Number needed to lift assault echelons of one Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) plus one Marine Expeditionary
Brigade (MEB).
i. Number needed to lift assault echelons of 2.5 MEBs. Changing numbers needed to meet this goal reflect in part
changes in the design and capabilities of amphibious ships.
Congressional Research Service
27
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Independent Panel Assessment of 2010
QDR
The law that requires DOD to perform QDRs once every four years (10 U.S.C. 118) states that
the results of each QDR shall be assessed by an independent panel. The report of the independent
panel that assessed the 2010 QDR was released on July 29, 2010. The independent panel’s report
recommended a Navy of 346 ships, including 11 aircraft carriers and 55 attack submarines.22 The
report stated the following, among other things:
•
“The QDR should reflect current commitments, but it must also plan effectively
for potential threats that could arise over the next 20 years.… we believe the
2010 QDR did not accord sufficient priority to the need to counter anti-access
challenges, strengthen homeland defense (including our defense against cyber
threats), and conduct post-conflict stabilization missions.” (Page 54)
•
“In this remarkable period of change, global security will still depend upon an
American presence capable of unimpeded access to all international areas of the
Pacific region. In an environment of ‘anti-access strategies,’ and assertions to
create unique ‘economic and security zones of influence,’ America‘s rightful and
historic presence will be critical. To preserve our interests, the United States will
need to retain the ability to transit freely the areas of the Western Pacific for
security and economic reasons. Our allies also depend on us to be fully present in
the Asia-Pacific as a promoter of stability and to ensure the free flow of
commerce. A robust U.S. force structure, largely rooted in maritime strategy but
including other necessary capabilities, will be essential.” (Page 51)
•
“The United States will need agile forces capable of operating against the full
range of potential contingencies. However, the need to deal with irregular and
hybrid threats will tend to drive the size and shape of ground forces for years to
come, whereas the need to continue to be fully present in Asia and the Pacific and
other areas of interest will do the same for naval and air forces.” (Page 55)
•
“The force structure in the Asia-Pacific needs to be increased. In order to
preserve U.S. interests, the United States will need to retain the ability to transit
freely the areas of the Western Pacific for security and economic reasons. The
United States must be fully present in the Asia-Pacific region to protect American
lives and territory, ensure the free flow of commerce, maintain stability, and
defend our allies in the region. A robust U.S. force structure, one that is largely
rooted in maritime strategy and includes other necessary capabilities, will be
essential.” (Page 66)
•
“Force structure must be strengthened in a number of areas to address the need to
counter anti-access challenges, strengthen homeland defense (including defense
against cyber threats), and conduct post-conflict stabilization missions: First, as a
Pacific power, the U.S. presence in Asia has underwritten the regional stability
that has enabled India and China to emerge as rising economic powers. The
1322
Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Perry, co-chairmen, et al, The QDR in Perspective: Meeting America’s National
Security Needs In the 21st Century, The Final Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel,
Washington, 2010, Figure 3-2 on page 58.
Congressional Research Service
30
28
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
United States should plan on continuing that role for the indefinite future. The
Panel remains concerned that the QDR force structure may not be sufficient to
assure others that the United States can meet its treaty commitments in the face
of China’s increased military capabilities. Therefore, we recommend an increased
priority on defeating anti-access and area-denial threats. This will involve
acquiring new capabilities, and, as Secretary Gates has urged, developing
innovative concepts for their use. Specifically, we believe the United States must
fully fund the modernization of its surface fleet. We also believe the United
States must be able to deny an adversary sanctuary by providing persistent
surveillance, tracking, and rapid engagement with high-volume precision strike.
That is why the Panel supports an increase in investment in long-range strike
systems and their associated sensors. In addition, U.S. forces must develop and
demonstrate the ability to operate in an information-denied environment.” (Pages
59-60)
•
“To compete effectively, the U.S. military must continue to develop new
conceptual approaches to dealing with operational challenges, like the Capstone
Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO). The Navy and Air Force‘s effort to
develop an Air-Sea Battle concept is one example of an approach to deal with the
growing anti-access challenge. It will be necessary to invest in modernized
capabilities to make this happen. The Chief of Naval Operations and Chief of
Staff of the Air Force deserve support in this effort, and the Panel recommends
the other military services be brought into the concept when appropriate.” (Page
51; a similar passage appears on page 67)
In recommending a Navy of 346 ships, the independent panel’s report cited the 1993 Bottom-Up
Review (BUR) of U.S. defense plans and policies. Table B-1 compares the Navy’s 328313-ship goal
of September 2011 to the 346-ship Navy recommended in the 1993 BUR (as detailed partly in
subsequent Navy
testimony and publications) and the ship force levels recommended in the
independent panel
report.
Congressional Research Service
31
29
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table B-1. Comparison of Navy’s 328313-ship goal, Navy Plan from 1993 BUR, and Navy
Plan from 2010 QDR Review Panel
Ship Type
Navy’s 328313-ship goal of
September 2011
Bottom-Up Review
(BUR)
(1993)
2010 QDR
Independent
Review Panel
(July 2010)
12
18
14
SSBNs
(SSBN force was later
reduced to 14 as a result of
the 1994 Nuclear Posture
Review)
SSGNs
04
0
4
(SSGN program did not yet
exist)
SSNs
48
45 to 55
55
(55 in FY99, with a long-term
goal of about 45)
Aircraft carriers
Surface combatants
11 active
11 active + 1
operational/reserve
11 active
149
124
n/a
(114 active + 10 frigates in
Naval Reserve Force; a total
of 110-116 active ships was
also cited)
Cruisers and
destroyers
Frigates destroyers
94
n/a
n/a
Frigates
0
n/a
n/a
0
n/a
(to be replaced by LCSs)
LCSs
55
(LCS program did not exist)
Amphibious ships
33
41
(33 needed to lift 2.0 MEBs)
(Enough to lift 2.5 MEBs)
0
26
(to be replaced by LCSs)
(LCS program did not exist)
CLF ships
30
43
n/a
Support ships
4526
22
n/a
328313
346
346
Dedicated mine
warfare ships
TOTAL ships
n/a
n/a
(numbers above add to
331-341)a
Source: Table prepared by CRS. Sources for 1993 Bottom-Up Review: Department of Defense, Report on the
Bottom-Up Review, October 1993, Figure 7 on page 28; Department of the Navy, Highlights of the FY 1995
Department of the Navy Budget, February 1994, p. 1; Department of the Navy, Force 2001, A Program Guide to the
U.S. Navy, 1994 edition, p. 15; Statement of VADM T. Joseph Lopez, U.S. Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements & Assessments), Testimony to the Military Forces and Personnel
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, March 22, 1994, pp. 2-5. Source for independent
panel report: Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Perry, co-chairmen, et al., The QDR in Perspective: Meeting
Congressional Research Service
32
30
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
America’s National Security Needs In the 21st Century, The Final Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent
Panel, Washington, 2010, Figure 3-2 on pages 58-59.
Notes: n/a is not addressed in the report. SSBN is nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine; SSGN is
nuclear-powered cruise missile and special operations forces submarine; SSN is nuclear-powered attack
submarine; LCS is Littoral Combat Ship; MPF(F) is Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) ship; CLF is combat
logistics force (i.e., resupply) ship; MEB is Marine Expeditionary Brigade.
a.
The Navy testified in 1994 that the planned number was adjusted from 346 to 330 to reflect reductions in
numbers of tenders and early retirements of some older amphibious ships.
In a letter dated August 11, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates provided his comments on
the independent panel’s report. The letter stated in part:
I completely agree with the Panel that a strong navy is essential; however, I disagree with
the the
Panel’s recommendation that DoD should establish the 1993 Bottom Up Review’s
(BUR’s)
fleet of 346 ships as the objective target. That number was a simple projection of
the then-planned the thenplanned size of [the] Navy in FY 1999, not a reflection of 21st century, steady-state
requirements. The fleet described in the 2010 QDR report, with its overall target of 313 to
321 ships, has roughly the same number of aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered attack
submarines, surface combatants, mine warfare vessels, and amphibious ships as the larger
BUR fleet. The main difference between the two fleets is in the numbers of combat logistics,
mobile logistics, and support ships. Although it is true that the 2010 fleet includes fewer of
these ships, they are all now more efficiently manned and operated by the Military Sealift
Command and meet all of DoD’s requirements….
I agree with the Panel’s general conclusion that DoD ought to enhance its overall posture and
capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. As I outlined in my speech at the Naval War College
in April 2009, “to carry out the missions we may face in the future… we will need numbers,
speed, and the ability to operate in shallow waters.” So as the Air-Sea battle concept
development reaches maturation, and as DoD’s review of global defense posture continues, I
will be looking for ways to meet plausible security threats while emphasizing sustained
forward presence – particularly in the Pacific.14
14
Letter dated August 11, 2010, from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the chairmen of the House and Senate
Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, pp. 3 and 4. The ellipsis in the second paragraph appears in the letter.
Congressional Research Service
33
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix C. Comparing Past Ship Force Levels to
328-ship goal
One possible method for assessing the Navy’s 328-ship goal is to compare it to historical figures
for total Navy fleet size. Historical figures for total fleet size, however, might not be a reliable
yardstick for assessing the appropriateness of the Navy’s 328-ship goal, particularly if the
historical figures are more than a few years old, because the missions to be performed by the
Navy, the mix of ships that make up the Navy, and the technologies that are available to Navy
ships for performing missions all change over time.
The Navy, for example, reached a late-Cold War peak of 568 battle force ships at the end of
FY1987,15 and as of May 2, 2011, had declined to a total of 288 battle force ships. The FY1987
fleet, however, was intended to meet a set of mission requirements that focused on countering
Soviet naval forces at sea during a potential multi-theater NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict, while the
February 2011 fleet is intended to meet a considerably different set of mission requirements
centered on influencing events ashore by countering both land- and sea-based military forces of
potential regional threats other than Russia, including non-state terrorist organizations. In
addition, the Navy of FY1987 differed substantially from the May 2011 fleet in areas such as
profusion of precision-guided air-delivered weapons, numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and
sophistication of C4ISR systems.16
In coming years, Navy missions may shift again, to include, for example, a greater emphasis on
being able to counter improved Chinese maritime military capabilities.17 In addition, the
capabilities of Navy ships will likely have changed further by that time due to developments such
as more comprehensive implementation of networking technology and increased use of shipbased unmanned vehicles.
The 568-ship fleet of FY1987 may or may not have been capable of performing its stated
missions; the 288-ship fleet of May 2011 may or may not be capable of performing its stated
missions; and a fleet years from now with a certain number of ships may or may not be capable of
performing its stated missions. Given changes over time in mission requirements, ship mixes, and
technologies, however, these three issues are to a substantial degree independent of one another.
For similar reasons, trends over time in the total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a
reliable indicator of the direction of change in the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions. An
15
Some publications, such as those of the American Shipbuilding Association, have stated that the Navy reached a
peak of 594 ships at the end of FY1987. This figure, however, is the total number of active ships in the fleet, which is
not the same as the total number of battle force ships. The battle force ships figure is the number used in government
discussions of the size of the Navy. In recent years, the total number of active ships has been larger than the total
number of battle force ships. For example, the Naval Historical Center states that as of November 16, 2001, the Navy
included a total of 337 active ships, while the Navy states that as of November 19, 2001, the Navy included a total of
317 battle force ships. Comparing the total number of active ships in one year to the total number of battle force ships
in another year is thus an apple-to-oranges comparison that in this case overstates the decline since FY1987 in the
number of ships in the Navy. As a general rule to avoid potential statistical distortions, comparisons of the number of
ships in the Navy over time should use, whenever possible, a single counting method.
16
C4ISR stands for command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
17
For a discussion, see CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
34
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
increasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to
perform its stated missions is increasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be
increasing more rapidly than ship numbers and average ship capability. Similarly, a decreasing
number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to perform stated
missions is decreasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be declining more rapidly
than numbers of ships, or because average ship capability and the percentage of time that ships
are in deployed locations might be increasing quickly enough to more than offset reductions in
total ship numbers.
Previous Navy force structure plans, such as those shown in Table 1, might provide some insight
into the potential adequacy of a proposed new force-structure plan, but changes over time in
mission requirements, technologies available to ships for performing missions, and other forceplanning factors suggest that some caution should be applied in using past force structure plans
for this purpose, particularly if those past force structure plans are more than a few years old. The
Reagan-era plan for a 600-ship Navy, for example, was designed for a Cold War set of missions
focusing on countering Soviet naval forces at sea, which is not an appropriate basis for planning
the Navy today.18
18
Navy force structure plans that predate those shown in Table 1 include the Reagan-era 600-ship plan of the 1980s,
the Base Force fleet of more than 400 ships planned during the final two years of the George H. W. Bush
Administration, the 346-ship fleet from the Clinton Administration’s 1993 Bottom-Up Review (or BUR, sometimes
also called Base Force II), and the 310-ship fleet of the Clinton Administration’s 1997 QDR. The table below
summarizes some key features of these plans.
Features of Recent Navy Force Structure Plans
Plan
600-ship
Base Force
1993 BUR
1997 QDR
a
346
~305/310b
~600
~450/416
Total ships
c
45-55
50/55d
100
80/~55
Attack submarines
12
11+1f
11+1f
15e
Aircraft carriers
g
~150
~124
116
242/228
Surface combatants
51i
41i
36i
~75h
Amphibious ships
Source: Prepared by CRS based on DOD and U.S. Navy data.
a. Commonly referred to as 450-ship plan, but called for decreasing to 416 ships by end of FY1999.
b. Original total of about 305 ships was increased to about 310 due to increase in number of attack submarines to 55
from 50.
c. Plan originally included 80 attack submarines, but this was later reduced to about 55.
d. Plan originally included 50 attack submarines but this was later increased to 55.
e. Plus one additional aircraft carrier in the service life extension program (SLEP).
f. Eleven active carriers plus one operational reserve carrier.
g. Plan originally included 242 surface combatants but this was later reduced to 228.
h. Number needed to lift assault echelons of one Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) plus one Marine Expeditionary
Brigade (MEB).
i. Number needed to lift assault echelons of 2.5 MEBs. Changing numbers needed to meet this goal reflect in part
changes in the design and capabilities of amphibious ships.
Congressional Research Service
35
23
23
Letter dated August 11, 2010, from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the chairmen of the House and Senate
Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, pp. 3 and 4. The ellipsis in the second paragraph appears in the letter.
Congressional Research Service
31
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix DC. Size of the Navy and Navy
Shipbuilding Rate
Size of the Navy
Table DC-1 shows the size of the Navy in terms of total number of ships since FY1948; the
numbers shown in the table reflect changes over time in the rules specifying which ships count
toward the total. Differing counting rules result in differing totals, and for certain years, figures
reflecting more than one set of counting rules are available. Figures in the table for FY1978 and
subsequent years reflect the battle force ships counting method, which is the set of counting rules
established in the early 1980s for public policy discussions of the size of the Navy.
As shown in the table, the total number of battle force ships in the Navy reached a late-Cold War
peak of 568 at the end of FY1987 and began declining thereafter.1924 The Navy fell below 300
battle force ships in August 2003 and included 288284 battle force ships as of May 2October 13, 2011.
As discussed in Appendix CA, historical figures for total fleet size might not be a reliable
yardstick yardstick
for assessing the appropriateness of the Navy’s 328-ship goal, proposals for the future size and structure of the Navy,
particularly if the
historical figures are more than a few years old, because the missions to be
performed by the
Navy, the mix of ships that make up the Navy, and the technologies that are
available to Navy
ships for performing missions all change over time. For similar reasons, trends
over time in the
total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a reliable indicator of the
direction of
change in the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions. An increasing number of
ships in the
fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions
is increasing,
because the fleet’s mission requirements might be increasing more rapidly than ship
numbers and
average ship capability. Similarly, a decreasing number of ships in the fleet might
not necessarily
mean that the fleet’s ability to perform stated missions is decreasing, because the
fleet’s mission
requirements might be declining more rapidly than numbers of ships, or because
average ship
capability and the percentage of time that ships are in deployed locations might be increasing
increasing quickly enough to more than offset reductions in total ship numbers.
1924
Some publications, such as those of the American Shipbuilding Association, have stated that the Navy reached a
peak of 594 ships at the end of FY1987. This figure, however,
is the total number of active ships in the fleet, which is
not the same as the total number of battle force ships. The battle
force ships figure is the number used in government
discussions of the size of the Navy. In recent years, the total
number of active ships has been larger than the total
number of battle force ships. For example, the Naval Historical
Center states that as of November 16, 2001, the Navy
included a total of 337 active ships, while the Navy states that as
of November 19, 2001, the Navy included a total of
317 battle force ships. Comparing the total number of active ships
in one year to the total number of battle force ships
in another year is thus an appleapples-to-oranges comparison that in this
case overstates the decline since FY1987 in the
number of ships in the Navy. As a general rule to avoid potential
statistical distortions, comparisons of the number of
ships in the Navy over time should use, whenever possible, a
single counting method.
Congressional Research Service
36
32
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table DC-1.Total Number of Ships in the Navy Since FY1948
FYa
Number
FYa
Number
FYa
Number
1948
737
1969
926
1990
547
1949
690
1970
769
1991
526
1950
634
1971
702
1992
466
1951
980
1972
654
1993
435
1952
1,097
1973
584
1994
391
1953
1,122
1974
512
1995
373
1954
1,113
1975
496
1996
356
1955
1,030
1976
476
1997
354
1956
973
1977
464
1998
333
1957
967
1978
468
1999
317
1958
890
1979
471
2000
318
1959
860
1980
477
2001
316
1960
812
1981
490
2002
313
1961
897
1982
513
2003
297
1962
959
1983
514
2004
291
1963
916
1984
524
2005
282
1964
917
1985
541
2006
281
1965
936
1986
556
2007
279
1966
947
1987
568
2008
282
1967
973
1988
565
2009
285
1968
976
1989
566
2010
2881970
769
1992
466
1949
690
1971
702
1993
435
1950
634
1972
654
1994
391
1951
980
1973
584
1995
373
1952
1,097
1974
512
1996
356
1953
1,122
1975
496
1997
354
1954
1,113
1976
476
1998
333
1955
1,030
1977
464
1999
317
1956
973
1978
468
2000
318
1957
967
1979
471
2001
316
1958
890
1980
477
2002
313
1959
860
1981
490
2003
297
1960
812
1982
513
2004
291
1961
897
1983
514
2005
282
1962
959
1984
524
2006
281
1963
916
1985
541
2007
279
1964
917
1986
556
2008
282
1965
936
1987
568
2009
285
1966
947
1988
565
2010
288
1967
973
1989
566
2011
284
1968
976
1990
547
2012
1969
926
1991
526
2013
Source: Compiled by CRS using U.S. Navy data. Numbers shown reflect changes over time in the rules
specifying which ships count toward the total. Figures for FY1978 and subsequent years reflect the battle force
ships counting method, which is the set of counting rules established in the early 1980s for public policy
discussions of the size of the Navy.
a.
Data for earlier years in the table may be for the end of the calendar year (or for some other point during
the year), rather than for the end of the fiscal year.
Shipbuilding Rate
Table DC-2 shows past (FY1982-FY2011) and requested (FY2012-FY2016) rates of Navy ship
procurement.
Congressional Research Service
37
33
.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
Table DC-2. Battle Force Ships Procured or Requested, FY1982-FY2016
(Procured FY1982-FY2011; requested FY2012-FY2015)
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
17
14
16
19
20
17
15
19
15
11
11
7
4
4
5
4
5
5
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
6
6
6
5
7
8
4a
5a
3a
8
7
10
10
13
11
12
9
Source: CRS compilation based on examination of defense authorization and appropriation committee and
conference reports for each fiscal year. The table excludes non-battle force ships that do not count toward the
328313-ship goal, such as certain sealift and prepositioning ships operated by the Military Sealift Command and
oceanographic ships operated by agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
a.
The totals shown for FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008, reflect the cancellation two LCSs funded in FY2006,
another two LCSs funded in FY2007, and an LCS funded in FY2008.
Author Contact Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
Congressional Research Service
3834