Order Code RL32513
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime
Prepositioning Ship Programs: Background and
Oversight Issues for Congress
Updated June 29, 2005
Ronald O’Rourke
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime
Prepositioning Ship Programs: Background and
Oversight Issues for Congress
Summary
As of the end of FY2004, the Navy operated 35 amphibious ships, and the
Military Sealift Command operated 16 maritime prepositioning force (MPF) ships
for the Marine Corps. The Navy is currently building a new amphibious assault ship
called LHD-8 and is also procuring new LPD-17 class amphibious ships. A total of
12 LPD-17s were originally planned, but the FY2006-FY2011 Future Years Defense
Plan (FYDP) proposes reducing that figure to nine, with the final two to be procured
in FY2006 and FY2007. The FY2006-FY2011 FYDP also calls for procuring new-
design amphibious assault ships called LHA(R)s in FY2007 and FY2010, for starting
procurement of a new type of MPF ship called the MPF(F) in FY2009, and for
starting procurement of two new types of sealift “connector” ships in FY2009 and
FY2010.
Three developments have caused the Navy to reconsider its plans for procuring
amphibious ships and maritime prepositioning ships. One is a new concept of
operations for conducting expeditionary operations ashore, called enhanced
networked sea basing, or sea basing for short. A second is a new concept for crewing
and deploying Navy ships called Sea Swap. A third is the rising Navy ship
procurement costs.
These developments have led to changes in Navy plans for procuring
amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships. In June 2005, the Navy submitted a
report to Congress on the MPF(F) program that was required by the conference report
(H.Rept. 108-622 of July 20, 2005) on the FY2005 defense appropriations bill (H.R.
4613/P.L. 108-287 of August 5, 2004). The report effectively cancels the MPF(F)
program and converts the term MPF(F) into a generic term that refers to the future
collection of ships of other types that will implement the sea basing concept.
Although this report details the composition of the Navy’s new preferred MPF(F)
squadron, several other aspects of the Navy’s plans for procuring amphibious and
maritime prepositioning ships remain unclear.
Changes and uncertainty in Navy plans for procuring amphibious ships and
maritime prepositioning ships can contribute to business-planning uncertainty for the
firms that build (or might build) these ships, and can make it potentially more
difficult for Congress to conduct effective oversight of these programs. The issue for
Congress is how to respond to changes in, and uncertainty regarding, Navy plans for
procuring amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships.
Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following: the clarity of the
sea basing concept; the potential affordability and cost-effectiveness of the sea basing
concept; Navy and Marine Corps coordination with other services in developing the
sea basing concept; the applicability of the Sea Swap concept to entire amphibious
groups; and the role of industrial-base considerations in Navy planning for procuring
amphibious ships, maritime prepositioning ships, and connector ships. This report
will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Current Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Amphibious Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Maritime Prepositioning Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Planned Ship Procurement in FY2006-FY2011 FYDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Amphibious Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Maritime Prepositioning Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sealift Connector Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sea Basing Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sea Swap Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Resulting Uncertainty in Ship-Acquisition Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Oversight Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Clarity of Sea Basing Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness of Sea Basing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Coordination with Other Services on Sea Basing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Applicability of Sea Swap to ESGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Industrial Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2006 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1815/S. 1042) . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2006 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2863) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
FY2005 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4200/P.L. 108-375) . . . . . 30
FY2005 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 4613/P.L. 108-287) . . . . 32

---

Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and
Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs:
Background and Oversight Issues
for Congress
Introduction
The Marine Corps uses amphibious ships and maritime prepositioning ships to
deploy to distant sea areas, to position combat equipment and supplies in those areas,
and to conduct expeditionary operations ashore. The Navy is currently building a
new amphibious assault ship called LHD-8 and is also procuring new LPD-17 class
amphibious ships. A total of 12 LPD-17s were originally planned, but the FY2006-
FY2011 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) proposes reducing that figure to nine,
with the final two to be procured in FY2006 and FY2007. The FY2006-FY2011
FYDP also calls for procuring new-design amphibious assault ships called LHA(R)s
in FY2007 and FY2010, for starting procurement of a new type of MPF ship called
the MPF(F) in FY2009, and for starting procurement of two new types of sealift
“connector” ships in FY2009 and FY2010.
Three developments have caused the Navy to reconsider its plans for procuring
amphibious ships and maritime prepositioning ships. One is a new concept of
operations for conducting expeditionary operations ashore, called enhanced
networked sea basing, or sea basing for short. A second is a new concept for crewing
and deploying Navy ships called Sea Swap. A third is the rising Navy ship
procurement costs.
These developments have led to changes in Navy plans for procuring
amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships. In June 2005, the Navy submitted a
report to Congress on the MPF(F) program that was required by the conference report
(H.Rept. 108-622 of July 20, 2005) on the FY2005 defense appropriations bill (H.R.
4613/P.L. 108-287 of August 5, 2004). The report effectively cancels the MPF(F)
program and converts the term MPF(F) into a generic term that refers to the future
collection of ships of other types that will implement the sea basing concept.
Although this report details the composition of the Navy’s new preferred MPF(F)
squadron, several other aspects of the Navy’s plans for procuring amphibious and
maritime prepositioning ships remain unclear.
Changes and uncertainty in Navy plans for procuring amphibious ships and
maritime prepositioning ships can contribute to business-planning uncertainty for the
firms that build (or might build) these ships, and can make it potentially more
difficult for Congress to conduct effective oversight of these programs.

---

CRS-2
The issue for Congress is how to respond to changes in, and uncertainty
regarding, Navy plans for procuring amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships.
Congress’s decisions regarding procurement of these ships could significantly affect
future U.S. military capabilities, funding requirements, and the shipbuilding
industrial base.
The next section of this report provides background information on amphibious
ships, maritime prepositioning ships, connector ships, the sea basing concept, and
Sea Swap. (For more on the issue of rising Navy ship procurement costs, see CRS
Report RL32914.)1 The following section of the report presents some potential
oversight questions for Congress relating to the Navy’s plans for procuring
amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships. The final section shows recent
legislative activity in this area. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Background
Current Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ships
Amphibious Ships. Amphibious ships are one of four principal categories
of combat ships that traditionally have helped define the size and structure of the U.S.
Navy. The other three are aircraft carriers,2 surface combatants (e.g., cruisers,
destroyers, and frigates),3 and submarines.4
The primary function of amphibious ships is to transport Marines and their
equipment to distant operating areas, and enable Marines to conduct expeditionary
operations ashore in those areas. Amphibious ships have berthing spaces for
Marines, flight decks and hangar decks for their helicopters and vertical/short take-
off and landing (VSTOL) fixed-wing aircraft, well decks for storing and launching
1 CRS Report RL32914, Navy Ship Acquisition: Options for Lower-Cost Ship Designs —
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
2 For more on Navy aircraft carriers, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy CVN-21 Aircraft
Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke, and CRS
Report RL32731, Navy Aircraft Carriers: Proposed Retirement of USS John F. Kennedy —
Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
3 The category of surface combatants also includes battleships (which the Navy currently
does not operate), corvettes (i.e., light frigates, which the Navy also currently does not
operate), and patrol craft. For more on Navy surface combatants, see CRS Report RS21059,
Navy DD(X) and CG(X) Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
O’Rourke; CRS Report RS21305, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS): Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke; and CRS Report RL32109, Navy DD(X), CG(X), and
LCS Ship Acquisition Programs: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress, by Ronald
O’Rourke.
4 For more on Navy submarines, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Attack Submarine
Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
O’Rourke, and CRS Report RS21007, Navy Trident Submarine Conversion (SSGN)
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. The Navy also
includes mine warfare ships and a variety of auxiliary and support ships.

---

CRS-3
their landing craft,5 and storage space for their wheeled vehicles, their other combat
equipment, and their supplies. Although amphibious ships are designed to support
Marine landings against opposing military forces, they can also be used for Marine
landings in so-called permissive or benign situations where there are no opposing
forces.
U.S. amphibious ships are Navy ships operated by Navy crews, with the Marines
as passengers. They are built to survivability standards similar to those of other U.S.
Navy combat ships,6 and are included in the total number of battle force ships in the
Navy, which is the commonly cited figure for the total number of ships in the fleet.7
Amphibious ships are procured in the Navy’s shipbuilding budget, known as the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account. Designations of
amphibious ship classes start with the letter L, as in amphibious landing.
Today’s amphibious ships can be divided into two main groups — the so-called
“big-deck” amphibious assault ships, designated LHA and LHD, which look like
medium-sized aircraft carriers, and the smaller (but still sizeable) LSD- and LPD-
type amphibious ships.8 The LHAs and LHDs have large flight decks and hangar
decks for embarking and operating numerous helicopters and VSTOL fixed-wing
aircraft, while the LSDs and LPDs have much smaller flight decks and hangar decks
for embarking and operating smaller numbers of helicopters. The LHAs and LHDs,
as bigger ships, in general can embark more Marines and equipment than the LSDs
and LPDs. As of the end of FY2004, the Navy included 35 amphibious ships:
! 7 Wasp (LHD-1) class ships, commissioned between 1989 and
2001, each displacing about 40,500 tons;9
! 5 Tarawa (LHA-1) class ships, commissioned between 1976 and
1980, each displacing about 40,000 tons;
5 A well deck is a large, garage-like space in the stern of the ship. It can be flooded with
water so that landing craft can leave or return to the ship. Access to the well deck is
protected by a large stern gate that is somewhat like a garage door.
6 To enhance their survivability in battle — their ability to absorb damage from enemy
weapons — U.S. Navy ships are built with features such as extensive interior
compartmentalization and increased armor protection of certain critical interior spaces.
7 Battle force ships are ships that are readily deployable overseas and which contribute to
the overseas combat capability of the Navy. They include both active duty and Naval
Reserve Force combat ships as well Navy- and Military Sealift Command-operated
auxiliaries — such as oilers, ammunition ships, dry cargo ships, and multiproduct resupply
ships — that transport supplies from shore to Navy combat ships operating at sea.
8 LHA can be translated as landing ship, helicopter-capable, assault. LHD can be translated
as landing ship, helicopter-capable, well deck. LSD can be translated as landing ship, well
deck. LPD can be translated as landing ship, helicopter platform, well deck. Whether noted
in the designation or not, all these ships have well decks.
9 For comparison, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier displaces about 100,000
tons, and a cruiser or destroyer displaces about 9,000 tons.

---

CRS-4
! 12 Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry (LSD-41/49) class ships,
commissioned between 1985 and 1998, each displacing about
16,000 tons; and
! 11 Austin (LPD-4) class ships, commissioned between 1965 and
1971, each displacing about 17,000 tons.10
These 35 amphibious ships are notionally organized into 12 expeditionary strike
groups (ESGs). Each ESG notionally includes one LHA or LHD, one LSD, and one
LPD. The amphibious ships in an ESG together can embark a Marine expeditionary
unit (MEU) consisting of about 2,200 Marines, their aircraft, their landing craft, their
combat equipment, and about 15 days worth of supplies. Each ESG also notionally
includes three surface combatants (some or all armed with Tomahawk cruise
missiles), one submarine, and perhaps one or more P-3 long-range, land-based
maritime patrol aircraft. ESGs are designed to be independently deployable, strike-
capable naval formations, but they can also operate in conjunction with carrier strike
groups (CSGs) to form larger naval task forces.11 On average, two or three ESGs
might be forward-deployed at any given time.
For many years, the fiscally constrained requirement for the amphibious fleet
has been for the force collectively to be able to lift (i.e, transport) the assault echelon
of 2.5 Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs).12 A MEB is a Marine force that
includes 15,000 to 17,000 Marines and their equipment. The 35-ship amphibious
force in place as of the end of FY2004 meets 2.5-MEB requirement in some regards
but not others. In particular, it does not satisfy the requirement in terms of space for
the Marines’ ground vehicles.13
10 The Navy also operates two Blue Ridge (LCC-19) class command ships. As their
designation suggests, these ships were originally built as amphibious command ships. In
recent years, they have evolved into general fleet command ships. Some listings of U.S.
Navy ships include the two LCCs as amphibious ships, while others list them in a separate
category of command ships, along with two other fleet command ships — the La Salle
(AGF-3) and the Coronado (AGF-11), which themselves are converted LPDs.
11 The ESGs is a new kind of naval formation. Prior to the ESG concept, the Navy’s
amphibious ships were notionally organized into 12 amphibious ready groups (ARGs). Each
ARG included one LHA or LHD, one LSD, and one LPD. Because ARGs lacked surface
combatants, submarines, and P-3 aircraft, they were not considered suitable for independent
operations in high-threat areas. The Navy is now converting its ARGs into ESGs, using
surface combatants transferred from CSGs. (CSGs were previously called aircraft carrier
battle groups, or CVBGs.)
12 For many years, the fiscally unconstrained requirement has been for a fleet that can lift
the assault echelons of 3.0 MEBs.
13 An August 2003 report on sea basing by the Defense Science Board (DSB) states: “The
current 36-ship amphibious force has the resources to embark two [Marine expeditionary]
brigades of approximately 13,100 Marines each. U.S. Defense Science Board, Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Defense Science
Board Task Force on Sea Basing, Aug. 2003, p. 15.

---

CRS-5
Maritime Prepositioning Ships. Maritime prepositioning ships are large
military cargo ships that are loaded with combat equipment and supplies and
forward-located to sea areas that are close to potential U.S. military operating zones.
They are essentially forward-located, floating warehouses. Most have a roll-on/roll-
off (RO/RO) capability, which means that they are equipped with ramps that permit
wheeled or tracked vehicles to quickly roll on or off the ship when the ship is at pier.
A total of 36 U.S. prepositioning ships, controlled by the Military Sealift
Command (MSC), store equipment and supplies for various parts of DOD. The 16
ships used primarily for storing Marine Corps equipment and supplies are called
Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) ships. The 10 ships used primarily for storing
equipment and supplies for the Army are called the Combat Prepositioning Force.
The remaining 10 ships used primarily for storing equipment and supplies for the Air
Force, Navy, and Defense Logistics Agency are called Logistics Prepositioning
Ships. This report focuses on the 16 MPF ships.
The 16-ship MPF fleet is organized into three squadrons of five or six ships
each. Each squadron stores enough combat equipment and supplies to equip and
support a MEB for a period of 30 days. One squadron is normally forward-located
in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, one is normally forward-located in the Indian Ocean
at Diego Garcia, and one is normally forward-located in the Western Pacific at Guam
and Saipan.14
The MPF ships are designed to support Marine landings at friendly ports or
ports that Marines or other U.S. or friendly forces have previously seized by force.
Under the basic MPF concept of operations, the MPF ships would steam into such
a port, while Marines would be flown into a nearby friendly or seized airbase. The
Marines would then travel to the port, help unload the MPF ships, unpack and “marry
up” with their equipment and supplies, and begin conducting their operations ashore.
MPF operations can be used to reinforce an initial Marine presence ashore that was
created by a Marine landing against opposing forces, or to establish an initial Marine
presence ashore in a permissive or benign landing environment.
The MPF concept permits a MEB-sized Marine force to be established in a
distant operating area more quickly than would be possible if the MEB’s equipment
and supplies had to be transported all the way from the United States. Unlike
prepositioning of equipment and supplies on the soil of foreign countries, maritime
prepositioning in international waters does not require permanent host nation access.
The MPF concept also provides a degree of inter-theater operational flexibility, since
an MPF squadron can be moved from one theater (e.g., the Mediterranean) to an
adjoining theater (e.g., the Indian Ocean) relatively quickly if needed to respond to
a contingency. DOD used the Mediterranean and Western Pacific MPF squadrons
to supplement the Indian Ocean MPF squadron in the 1991 Gulf War (Operation
Desert Storm) and the more recent Iraq War (Operation Iraqi Freedom).
14 The maritime prepositioning ships serving the other military services are located
principally at Diego Garcia.

---

CRS-6
MPF ships are DOD sealift ships operated with civilian crews. They are built
to survivability standards similar to those of commercial cargo ships, which are lower
than those of U.S. Navy combat ships. They are not included in the total number of
battle force ships in the Navy.15 MPF ships are designated TAKs. The “T” means
the ships are operated by the MSC; the “A” means auxiliary; and the “K” means
cargo.
The MPF force was established in the mid-1980s. It includes 13 ships (TAK-
3000 through TAK-3012) that entered service with the MPF in 1984-1986, and three
ships (TAK-3015 through TAK-3017) that were added to the MPF fleet in 2000-2003
under the MPF Enhancement, or MPF(E), program, so as to increase the storage
capacity of the MPF force in accordance with lessons learned during the 1991 Gulf
War. One MPF(E) ship was added to each squadron.
The 13 earlier MPF ships, which each displace between about 44,000 and
49,000 tons, are owned and operated by private companies under 25-year charters
(i.e., leases) to MSC. The three more recently added MPF(E) ships, which each
displace between about 50,000 and 55,000 tons, are owned by the U.S. government
and are operated by private companies under contract to MSC.
Since FY1993, new-construction DOD sealift ships similar to the MPF ships
have been procured not in the SCN account, but rather in the National Defense
Sealift Fund (NDSF), a DOD revolving fund that is outside both the Department of
the Navy budget and the procurement title of the annual DOD appropriation act.
NDSF funding is used for acquiring, operating, and maintaining DOD sealift ships
and certain Navy auxiliary ships.
As of the end of FY2004, the MPF fleet included the following ships:
! 5 Cpl. Louis J Hauge Jr. (TAK-3000) class ships, which were
originally built in Denmark in 1979-1980 as civilian cargo ships for
Maersk Line Ltd. Their conversions into MPF ships began in 1983-
1984. The ships are owned and operated by Maersk.
! 3 Sgt. Matej Kocak (TAK-3005) class ships, which were originally
built in the United States in 1981-1983 as civilian cargo ships for the
Waterman Steamship Corporation. Their conversions into MPF
ships began in 1982-1983. The ships are owned and operated by
Waterman.
! 5 2nd Lt. John P. Bobo (TAK-3008) class ships, which were built
in the United States in 1985-1986 as new-construction ships for the
MPF. They are owned and operated by American Overseas Marine.
15 In contrast to Navy auxiliaries that are counted as battle force ships because they transport
supplies from land to Navy ships operating at sea, MPF ships, like most other DOD sealift
ships, transport supplies from one land mass to another, primarily for the benefit of a service
(in this case, the Marine Corps) other than the Navy.

---

CRS-7
! 1 1st Lt. Harry L. Martin (TAK-3015) class ship, which was
originally built in Germany in 1980 as a civilian cargo ship. Its
conversion into an MPF ship began in 1999.
! 1 LCPL Roy M. Wheat (TAK-3016) class ship, which was
originally built in Ukraine as a Soviet auxiliary ship. It was acquired
for conversion in 1997.16
! 1 Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham (TAK-3017) class ship, which
was originally built in Denmark in 1980 as a commercial cargo ship.
In the early 1990s, it was acquired for conversion into a kind of
DOD sealift ship called a large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off
(LMSR) ship. It was used by MSC as an LMSR under the name
Soderman (TAKR-299) until 2000, when it was converted into an
MPF(E) ship, and renamed the Stockham.17
Planned Ship Procurement in FY2006-FY2011 FYDP
Amphibious Ships.
LPD-17 Program. As a replacement for the 11 aging LPDs and other
amphibious ships that have already been decommissioned, the Navy is currently
procuring new San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships. A total procurement
of 12 LPD-17s — one for each ESG — was originally planned. A force of 36
amphibious ships that includes 12 LPD-17s would meet the longstanding 2.5-MEB
lift requirement for the amphibious fleet in all respects, including space for ground
vehicles.
The first LPD-17 was procured in FY1996. A total of seven have been procured
through FY2005. The FY2006-FY2011 FYDP reduces planned procurement of
LPD-17s to a total of nine ships, with the final two ships to be procured in FY2006
and FY2007. The Navy’s FY2006 budget requests $1,353.4 million for procurement
of the eighth ship.
The first LPD-17, which encountered a roughly two-year delay in design and
construction, was to be delivered to the Navy in May 2005. Since the start of the
program, the estimated unit procurement cost of the follow-on ships in the program
has grown from roughly $750 million to about $1.2 billion to $1.35billion — an
16 The conversion of this ship took considerably longer than expected and was the subject
of a lawsuit. For discussion, see Christopher J. Castelli, “MSC Names and Deploys MPF(E)
Vessel, While Bender Pursues Lawsuit,” Inside the Navy, Oct. 13, 2003; Christopher J.
Castelli, “Finally, MSC Plans to Name Converted Cargo Ship This October,” Inside the
Navy, Aug. 25, 2003; Christopher J. Castelli, “MSC: Beleaguered Cargo Vessel to Make
First Deployment This Year,” Inside the Navy, June 2, 2003; Christopher J. Castelli, “MSC
Postpones Wheat Christening, Citing Current Military Ops,” Inside the Navy, Feb. 17,
2003; Christopher J. Castelli, “Cargo Ship Mired in Conversion Process to Reach Fleet In
2003,” Inside the Navy, Jan. 6, 2003.
17 Another LMSR was built as a new-construction LMSR and named the Soderman (TAKR-
317).

---

CRS-8
increase of roughly 60% to 80%. The ships are built primarily at Northrop
Grumman’s Avondale shipyard near New Orleans, LA.18
LHD-8. To replace one of its five aging LHAs, the Navy in FY2002 procured
LHD-8 — an eighth Wasp-class ship19 — at a total budgeted cost of about $2.06
billion. At the direction of the FY2000 and FY2001 defense appropriation bills, this
ship is being incrementally funded in the SCN account, with the final increment of
funding scheduled for FY2006. This ship is scheduled to enter service in October
2007. This ship is being built by Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard at
Pascagoula, MS, the builder of all previous LHAs and LHDs. The Navy’s FY2006
budget requests $197.8 million as the final funding increment for the ship.
LHA(R) Program. To replace other aging LHAs, the Navy plans to procure
a new-design amphibious assault ship called the LHA Replacement ship, or LHA(R).
The FY2006-FY2011 FYDP calls for procuring the first LHA(R) in FY2007 and the
second in FY2010. The LHA(R) design has changed over time. The Navy at one
point appeared to have settled on a so-called “plug-plus” design — a design based
on a longer and wider version of the basic Wasp-class hull. This design, however,
reportedly would have cost an estimated $3.7 billion to procure, including $800
million in design and engineering costs.
The Navy announced in 2004 that it was dropping the plug-plus design in favor
of a less expensive design based on the current Wasp class hull. This new design, the
Navy stated, would have enhanced aviation features compared to the basic Wasp-
class design, but would lack a well deck, making it the first amphibious ship in
decades built without a well deck. The sacrifice of the well deck appears to be, in
part at least, a consequence of building enhanced aviation features and other
improvements into the design while staying within the envelope of the Wasp-class
hull. The estimated cost to design and build this ship is about $2.7 billion. This ship,
if procured, would almost certainly be built at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard.
Maritime Prepositioning Ships.
MPF Lease Buyout. The FY2006 budget requests $749.8 million in the
National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) to buy out (i.e., exercise the purchase options
on ) the leases on the 13 older MPF ships. Buying out the leases means DOD would
purchase the 13 ships from the private companies that currently lease them to DOD.
DOD estimates that buying out the leases on the 13 ships would save about $840
million in payments between FY2006 and FY2020 (when the last of the 13 ships is
to be phased out of service). Since five of these 13 ships (the TAK-3000 class ships)
were built in a foreign country (Denmark), DOD needs, and has requested, legislative
18 LPD-17-related work is also done at Northrop’s Ingalls shipyard at Pascagoula, MS, and
at a third Northrop facility at Gulfport, MS. The Avondale, Ingalls, and Gulfport facilities
together make up Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS).
19 LHD-8 will differ from the earlier LHDs in terms of propulsion plant and other respects.

---

CRS-9
authority to spend NDSF funds to purchase these five ships.20 The owners of some
of these 13 ships reportedly believe that the Navy has underestimated the market
value of their ships, and that buying out the leases on them would cost at least $500
million more than the Navy has budgeted.21
MPF(F) Program. As an eventual replacement for the current MPF ships, the
FY2006-FY2011 FYDP includes a next-generation MPF ship called the MPF
(Future), or MPF(F). The FYDP calls for procuring the first MPF(F) in FY2009, a
second MPF(F) in FY2010, and two more in FY2011. Navy officials stated at one
point that they might require as many as 18 MPF(F)s.
MPF(F)s were to have three capabilities lacking in today’s MPF ships. First,
consistent with the sea basing concept (see discussion below), the MPF(F) ships were
to have features permitting Marines to marry-up with their equipment and supplies
at sea rather than in a friendly port — so-called at-sea arrival and assembly of forces.
Second, unlike today’s MPF ships, which are somewhat like a loading van in that
they sometimes must be fully unloaded to gain access to desired items that are loaded
behind other things, MPF(F) ships were to be more like a grocery store with isles, so
that they would support selective unloading at sea of specific items that are wanted
for transport ashore. And third, the MPF(F) ships were to be capable of more rapid
reloading than today’s MPF ships, so that they could be more quickly deployed to a
potential subsequent contingency elsewhere.
MPF(F)s, being more capable than today’s MPF ships, were to have been
considerably larger than today’s MPF ships — with displacements possibly
exceeding 100,000 tons22 — and considerably more expensive to procure than
today’s MPF ships, costing possibly more than $1 billion each,23 compared to less
than $500 million to build a ship like today’s MPF ships.24
Although the FY2006-FY2011 FYDP submitted to Congress in February 2005
calls for the procurement of MPF(F)s starting in FY2009, a Navy report on the
20 Christopher J. Castelli, “Pentagon Seeks Authority on Carl Vinson, LHA(R),
Prepositioning Ships,” Inside the Navy, May 2, 2005; Geoff Fein, “Navy Underestimated
Cost to Buyout Leases on MSC Ships, Source Says,” Defense Daily, May 10, 2005.
21 Geoff Fein, “Navy Underestimated Cost to Buyout Leases on MSC Ships, Source Says,”
Defense Daily, May 10, 2005.
22 Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, op. cit., p. 53.
23 Ibid., p. 85.
24 For press reports with additional discussion on potential MPF(F) design features, see
Jason Ma, “Clark: STOVL Joint Strike Fighter Could Surge from Future MPF Ships,” Inside
the Navy, June 21, 2004; Lorenzo Cortes, “Navy Could Start Work on MPF (Future) by
2007, Official Says,” Defense Daily, Apr. 26, 2004; Jim Wolf, “Navy Seeking More Muscle
at Sea,” Boston Globe, Apr. 24, 2004; Jason Sherman, “A Cargo Ship with a JSF Runway?”
Defense News, Mar. 15, 2004, pp. 1, 8; Christopher J. Castelli, “Budget Anticipates
Developing MPF(F) Aviation Variant from LMSR,” Inside the Navy, Jan. 19, 2004; Hunter
Keeter, “Clark, Hagee Sound Off about MPF (Future) Program,” Defense Daily, Apr. 7,
2003, p. 10; Christopher J. Castelli, “Pentagon Launches Study for Yet-to-Be-Developed
MPF(F) Ships,” Inside the Navy, Feb. 3, 2003.

---

CRS-10
MPF(F) program submitted to Congress in June 2005 effectively cancels the MPF(F)
program and converts the term MPF(F) into a generic term that refers to the future
collection of ships of other types of ships that will implement the sea basing concept.
(See discussion below on the sea basing concept.)
Sealift Connector Ships. As part of its plan for implementing its sea basing
concept (see discussion below), the Navy plans to procure two new types of sealift
“connector” ships called intratheater connectors and sea-shore connectors. The
purpose of these ships would be to transport equipment and personnel within a sea
base’s theater of operations, and from the sea base to an operating area ashore.
Intratheater Connectors. The FY2006-FY2011 FYDP calls for procuring
the first of these ships in FY2009, another in FY2010, and a third in FY2011.
Sea-Shore Connectors. The FY2006-FY2011 FYDP calls for procuring the
first of these ships in FY2010 and four more in FY2011.
Sea Basing Concept
The Navy and Marine Corps are developing a new concept of operations for
conducting expeditionary operations ashore called enhanced networked sea basing,
or sea basing for short. Under the current concept of operations for conducting
expeditionary operations ashore, the Navy and Marine Corps would establish a
foothold ashore, and then use that foothold as a base from which to conduct
operations against the desired ashore objective. Under sea basing, the Navy and
Marine Corps would launch, direct, and support expeditionary operations directly
from a base at sea, without necessarily establishing an intermediate base ashore.
Many of the details of the sea basing concept have yet to be worked out; Navy and
Marine Corps officials are currently working to produce a more refined notion of the
concept.25
A key rationale for the sea basing concept is that in the future, fixed land bases
ashore will become vulnerable to enemy attack from weapons such as cruise missiles
or short-range ballistic missiles, and that launching the operation directly from a base
at sea will enhance the survivability of the attacking Navy-Marine Corps force by
putting the base out of the range of shorter-range enemy weapons and targeting
sensors, and by permitting the sea to be used as a medium of maneuver for evading
detection and targeting by longer-range enemy weapons and sensors.
A second rationale for sea basing is that by eliminating the intermediate land
base — the logistical “middleman” — sea basing will permit the Marine Corps to
initiate and maintain a higher pace of operations against the desired objective, thus
enhancing the effectiveness of the operation. A third rationale for sea basing is that
25 For an in-depth discussion of the sea basing concept, see Defense Science Board Task
Force on Sea Basing, op. cit. See also Otto Kreisher, “Sea Basing,” Air Force Magazine,
July 2004, p. 64; Scott C. Truver, “Sea Basing: More Than the Sum of Its Parts?” Jane’s
Navy International, Mar. 2004, pp. 16-18, 20-21; Art Corbett and Vince Goulding, “Sea
Basing: What’s New?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Nov. 2002, pp. 34-39.

---

CRS-11
it could permit the Marine force, once the operation is completed, to reconstitute and
redeploy — that is, get back aboard ship and be ready for conducting another
operation somewhere else — more quickly than under the current concept of
operations.
The Defense Department has expressed some interest in sea basing as a potential
joint concept that could involve Army and Air Force forces as well as the Navy and
Marine Corps.26 The Defense Science Board (DSB) in August 2003 issued a report
on sea basing which concluded that “sea basing represents a critical future joint
military capability for the United States.”27
The sea base being referred to is not a single ship, but rather a collection of
amphibious ships, maritime prepositioning ships, and intratheater and sea-shore
connector ships that is supported by an aircraft carrier strike group. Under sea
basing, certain functions previously carried out from the intermediate land base,
including command and control and logistics, would be transferred back to the ships
at sea that collectively make up the sea base.
In June 2005, the Navy submitted a report to Congress on the MPF(F) program28
that was required by the conference report (H.Rept. 108-622 of July 20, 2005) on the
FY2005 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4613/P.L. 108-287 of August 5, 2004).29
As mentioned earlier, the June 2005 Navy report effectively cancels the MPF(F)
program and converts the term MPF(F) into a generic term that refers to the future
collection of ships of other types that will implement the sea basing concept.
26 Jason Sherman and David Brown, “Pentagon to Create Multiservice Sea Basing
Requirements Office,” Defense News, Dec. 8, 2003, p. 30; Catherine MacRae, “Aldridge
Wants Top Defense Scientists to Study Future of Seabasing,” Inside the Pentagon, Nov. 14,
2002, p. 1. For articles discussing the potential joint aspects of sea basing, see Otto
Kreisher, “Sea Basing,” Air Force Magazine, July 2004, p. 64; Ann Roosevelt, “Army,
Navy Collaborating on Sea Basing Concept,” Defense Daily, June 30, 2004, p. 3; Lisa
Troshinsky, “Army Logistics Using Sat Network, Planning for Sea-Based
Capability,”Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, June 30, 2004, pp. 3-4; Scott C. Truver,
“Seabasing: More Than the Sum of Its Parts?” Jane’s Navy International, Mar. 2004, pp.
16-18, 20-21; John J. Klein, “Sea Basing Isn’t Just about the Sea,” U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings, Jan. 2004, pp. 32-35;
27 Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, op.cit., p. xi. Italics as in the original.
Similar statements are made in two cover memos included at the front of the report, and on
p. 87. For press reports about this study, see John T. Bennett, “Marine Corps Commandant,
DSB Describe Visions of Seabasing Concept,” Inside the Pentagon, Oct.r 30, 2004; Jason
Ma, “DSB Study, Conference Examine Seabasing Needs and Challenges,” Inside the Navy,
Oct. 27, 2003; Jason Sherman, “Pentagon Group Details Sea Base Concept,” Defense News,
Oct. 27, 2003.
28 U.S., Department of Defense Department of the Navy, Report to Congress, Maritime
Prepositioning Force, Future, MPF(F). Washington, 2005, 8 pp. (Prepared by Program
Executive Officer, Ships, Washington DC 20376, June 2005.) A 20-page appendix to the
report provides supporting budget details. Letters of transmission to Congress
accompanying the report are dated June 6, 2005.
29 The requirement for the report on the MPF(F) program is on page 360 of H.Rept. 108-622.
For details, see the Legislative Activity section of this CRS report.

---

CRS-12
The report states that MPF(F) operational requirements include, among other
things, an ability to employ two Marine battalions from the sea base — one by
surface transportation and the other by air transportation (i.e., “vertically”) — in a
period of 8 to 10 hours. The report states:
In accordance with DoD guidance, the Navy conducted an Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA) that investigated alternative means to provide required
MPF(F) operational capabilities. It investigated using new construction ships,
existing ship classes, modified existing ships and other product lines. The initial
result of the AOA was that new construction ships provide the most capability
at least cost with the earliest operational capability. The AoA examined two
variations on the new construction ships concept: (1) distributed capability
(squadrons of ships of the same hull form which combined the surface and air
launched battalion capabilities); and (2) the family of shps (squadrons of
logistic/Roll-on Roll-off (RO-RO) ships for the surface launched battalion and
aviation support ships for the air launched battalion). [Neither approach could
meet] the required delivery timeline of 8 to 10 hours for the first surface
battalion.
Following the completion of the AOA, the Navy conducted additional design and
sea basing studies to explore various [MPF(F)] squadron configurations in order
to arrive at potential squadrons which met all requirements, leveraged the skills
resident in the industrial base, increased the optimization of each ship for their
respective missions, and reduced cost and production risk for the squadron. One
other product of this effort was the development of a Mobile Landing Platform
(MLP) [ship concept] that provides sufficient surface interface points to permit
meeting the above identified 8-10 hours surface assault organically (without
external or aviation support). The squadron configuration selected for the
MPF(F) consists of 14 ships: 12 new construction ships and two existing dense
packed [MPF ships].30
The report states that the 12 new-construction ships are as follows:
! 2 LHA(R)s equipped with Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB)
command and control (C2) facilities;
! 1 LHD equipped with aviation C2 facilities;
! 3 modified Large, Medium-Speed, Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) sealift
ships;
! 3 ships modified Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and
ammunition resupply ships; and
! 3 MLPs. with troops.31
The report states that “This squadron composition will take advantage of
existing product lines where possible minimizing new ship design requirements and
30 Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force, Future, MPF(F), op cit, p. 6.
31 Ibid, p. 6 and p. 8.

---

CRS-13
overall production risk for our shipbuilding industry. Additionally, this new
squadron may offer considerable force structure flexibility, as ships assigned to
perform the MPF(F) role might be used to augment or support ESG operations and
perform other dual roles.”32
The report states that the MPF(F) squadron will be able to, among other things:
! accommodate the 2015 version of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade
(MEB) consisting of three Marine battalions — two surface
battalions and one vertical battalion;
! preposition the 2015 MEB at sea in the desired forward operating
area within 10 to 14 days;
! permit that force to arrive and assemble itself at the sea base in 24
to 72 hours;
! employ the vertical battalion and one of the surface battalions in 8
to 10 hours;
! provide accommodations and maintenance capability for vehicles
and aircraft;
! sustain the forces ashore from the sea base;
! provide medical support, including resuscitative surgery;
! accommodate and operate surface connectors;
! provide MEB-level C2 capability; and
! operate in sea conditions up to Sea State 3 (a moderate sea with
waves of 3 feet to 5 feet).
Sea Swap Concept
Sea Swap is the term the Navy uses to refer to the concept of sending ships on
extended (e.g., 12-, 18-, or 24-month) overseas deployments during which they are
operated by multiple crews that are rotated out to the ships in succession. The
concept differs considerably from the traditional practice of sending out ships for six-
month deployments during which they are operated by single crews.
The goal of Sea Swap is to permit the Navy to maintain a given number of
forward-deployed on a day-to-day basis with a smaller total number of ships in the
fleet. Under the traditional practice of six-month deployments by single crews, the
stationkeeping multiplier — the total number of ships of a certain kind required to
keep one ship of that kind continuously in an overseas operating area — can be
32 Ibid, p. 6.

---

CRS-14
roughly 6 to 1. By eliminating time-consuming transits of individual ships from
home port to operating area and back, shifting to Sea Swap might reduce that
stationkeeping multiplier by as much as a third, to roughly 4 to 1, potentially
permitting a reduction in the size of the Navy needed to meet national needs.
Although the concept of extended deployments with crew rotation has been
studied by the Navy since the mid-1990s, if not earlier, the Navy for many years
appeared unenthusiastic about the concept. More recently, however, the Navy has
become more open to the idea of implementing it and has conducted some
experiments in applying the concept to surface combatants. Navy officials have
stated that they are now interested in applying the Sea Swap concept to other kinds
of Navy ships, including entire ESGs.33 Navy officials reportedly have suggested that
applying the concept to ESGs could permit a reduction in the number of ESGs from
12 to as few as 8.34
Resulting Uncertainty in Ship-Acquisition Plans
Although the Navy’s June 2005 report to Congress on its new MPF(F) concept
details the composition of the Navy’s preferred MPF(F) squadron, ambiguity over
aspects of this new plan, plus additional questions raised by the Sea Swap concept,
create uncertainty regarding the following aspects of Navy plans for procuring
amphibious, maritime prepositioning, and connector ships:
! Number of MPF(F) squadrons, and thus numbers of new-
construction MPF(F) ships. The June 2005 Navy report to
Congress is not clear on how many MPF(F) squadrons are to be
procured. Although today’s 16 MPF ships are organized into three
squadrons, press reports have suggested that the Navy, in part for
affordability reasons, may replace this force with two MPF(F)
squadrons (i.e., 24 new-construction ships) or one MPF(F) squadron
(i.e., 12 new-construction ships).
! Total numbers and types of non-MPF(F) amphibious ships and
status of 2.5-MEB amphibious lift goal. Due in part to the Sea
Swap concept, the total number of non-MPF(F) amphibious ships
33 For additional discussion of Sea Swap, which is a potential element of Navy
transformation, see CRS Report RS21338, Navy Ship Deployments: New Approaches —
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
34 Jason Ma, “LaFleur: Sea Swap Could Keep Amphibious Ship at Sea for 12 Months,”
Inside the Navy, July 19, 2004; Christopher J. Castelli, “Navy Wants to Cut Number of
Strike Groups, Slash LPD-17 Shipbuilding,” Inside the Navy, Apr. 26, 2004; David Brown,
“Expeditionary Strike Groups Could Be Trimmed,” Navy Times.com, Apr. 23, 2004; Malina
Brown, “LaFleur: Navy Working on Applying Sea Swap to an Entire ESG,” Inside the
Navy, Apr. 5, 2004; Ron Laurenzo, “Sea Swap Could Become the Norm,” Defense Today,
Apr. 1, 2004; David Brown, “Saw Swap Experiment Surges Ahead,” Navy Times.com, Mar.
31, 2004; Lorenzo Cortes, “Navy Surface Chief Would Eventually Like to Swap an Entire
ESG,” Defense Daily, Apr. 1, 2004; Malina Brown, “Expeditionary Strike Groups to Join
Naval Sea Swap Experiment,” Inside the Navy, Mar. 22, 2004; David Brown, “Sea Swap
Could Spread to Expeditionary Strike Groups,” NavyTimes.com, Mar. 17, 2004.

---

CRS-15
that the Navy plans to maintain in future years is not clear. In March
2005, the Navy submitted a report to Congress providing projections
of potential future Navy force levels out to FY2035 that showed two
potential fleets for FY2035 — a 260-ship fleet and a 325-ship fleet.35
The report showed a total of 17 amphibious in the 260-ship fleet and
a total of 24 amphibious ships in the 325-ship fleet. Navy officials
have made few public comments on whether the long-standing 2.5-
MEB lift goal for the amphibious fleet will be retained, modified, or
dropped. A force of 17 to 24 amphibious ships could well have a
combined lift capacity of less than 2.5 MEBs.
! Design, unit cost, and total number of LHA(R)s. Although Navy
officials have settled on a design for LHA(R) that is based on the
Wasp-class hull, but with enhanced aviation capabilities and no well
deck, it is possible that ongoing study of the sea basing concept,
combined with more precise estimates of the cost to procure the
LHA(R), could lead to further changes in the design (and thus cost)
of the ship. The total number of LHA(R)s that the Navy plans to
procure is not clear. The March 2005 Navy report to Congress on
potential future Navy force levels showed a total of eight LHA(R)s
and LHD(X)s for both the 260- and 325-ship fleets. The LHD(X)s
would appear to be a new kind of amphibious assault ship that the
Navy plans to procure following completion of LHA(R)
procurement. The report did not divide the total of eight ships into
specific numbers of LHA(R)s and LHD(X)s. The total number of
LHA(R)s to be procured may have been affected by the Navy
decision, announced in its June 2005 report on the MPF(F), to
include LHA(R)s in its preferred MPF(F) squadron.
! Total number of LPD-17s. Although the FY2006-FY2011 FYDP
proposes to reduce planned procurement of LPD-17s to a total of
nine ships, it is possible that this number might change again as a
result of further DOD or Navy analysis of available shipbuilding
funding and the applicability of the Sea Swap concept to amphibious
ships. Marine Corps officials testified in March 2005 that they
would prefer a total of ten LPD-17s.36
! Design and unit cost of MLP ships. The Navy’s June 2005 report
on the MPF(F) introduces the MLP as a new ship concept but
provides few details on the design and cost of the ship.
! Design, unit cost, and number of connector ships. The designs,
unit procurement costs, and total numbers of intratheater and sea-
35 U.S. Department of the Navy, An Interim Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan
for the Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2006.
36 See, for example, Jason Ma, “Hagee Prefers 10 LPD-17s, Declares Nine the ‘Absolute
Bare Minimum,’” Inside the Navy, Mar. 14, 2005; and Jason Ma, “Hagee Notes Need for
Future Big-Deck Amphibious, Prepositioning Ships,” Inside the Navy, Mar. 21, 2005.

---

CRS-16
shore connector ships is not clear. The March 2005 Navy report on
potential future Navy force levels showed, for FY2035, two “HSS”
ships and three “High-Speed Connector” (HSC) ships for either the
260- or 325-ship fleet. The report does not make clear whether these
HSSs and HSCs are simply alternate names for the intratheater and
sea-shore connector ships shown in the FY2006-FY2011 FYDP, or
different ships. One possible translation for HSS is high-speed
sealift. It is not clear whether the numbers of these ships shown in
the March 2005 Navy report on potential future force levels has been
affected by the June 2005 Navy report on the MPF(F).
The Navy’s June 2005 report to Congress on the MPF(F) concept, and the
associated uncertainty over aspects of the Navy’s plans for procuring amphibious,
maritime prepositioning, and connector ships, suggests that the plan for procuring
these ships in the FY2007-FY2011 FYDP to be submitted to Congress in February
2006 will differ from the plan shown in the FY2006-FY2011 FYDP submitted to
Congress in February 2005. The line item in the FY2006-FY2011 FYDP for
procuring a specific new class of ships called MPF(F)s starting in FY2009 will
presumably be eliminated, new line items for procuring LMSRs, MLPs, and one or
more LHDs might be inserted, and the line item for procuring TAKEs might be
amended to include one or more additional ships.
Oversight Issues for Congress
The current situation regarding Navy plans for amphibious, maritime
prepositioning, and connector ships raises potential oversight issues for Congress on
the following issues:
! the clarity of the sea basing concept;
! the potential affordability and cost-effectiveness of the sea basing
concept;
! Navy and Marine Corps coordination with other services in
developing the sea basing concept;
! the applicability of the Sea Swap concept to entire ESGs; and
! the role of industrial-base considerations in Navy planning for
procuring amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships.
Clarity of Sea Basing Concept
One potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the clarity of the sea basing
concept. Although the Navy’s June 2005 report to Congress on the MPF(F) concept
provides some details for implementing the sea basing concept, other details remain
unclear. Potential oversight and policy questions for Congress include the following:
! When does DOD plan to present to Congress a more comprehensive
description of the sea basing concept that includes, for example,
information on numbers and types of connector ships required, or

---

CRS-17
required changes in Marine Corps aviation assets or ground combat
equipment?
! How does the current lack of a more comprehensive description of
sea basing affect Congress’s ability to conduct effective oversight of
programs that might be affected by the concept, including
amphibious and maritime prepositioning ship programs?
! Should Congress direct DOD to present a more comprehensive plan
on sea basing by a date certain?37
Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness of Sea Basing
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the affordability and
cost effectiveness of sea basing. As discussed in the 2003 DSB report on sea basing,
implementing the concept would involve a variety of significant development and
procurement efforts for ships, air and surface transport (i.e., connector) vehicles,
C4ISR systems, supporting satellite bandwidth capacity, and other items.38 The costs
of most of these development and procurement efforts are currently not well
understood, making it difficult to assess the potential affordability of the sea basing
concept.
The 2003 DSB report states that “The funding challenges presented by the
[efforts needed to implement sea basing] are significant.”39 A supporting background
paper on sea basing that was printed in the 2003 DSB report as an appendix states:
In a world of pure number crunching, sea basing is vulnerable on two counts.
First, even in its present form, it is expensive in terms of the manpower and
resources it consumes in procurement and maintenance. It is certainly more
expensive than land basing. With the probability that defense budgets will
decline in the near future, the costs of sea basing will inevitably confront
challenges from within the Department [of Defense], as well as from critics of
military spending on the outside. It may well become increasingly difficult not
only to achieve higher levels of support for the research and development
necessary to test and procure the technologies and equipment required by new
and innovative concepts, but even to defend current levels of spending for sea-
basing capabilities.40
37 See also Ann Roosevelt, “Sea Basing Concept Needs Refinement, SASC, Some Experts
Say,” Defense Daily, May 27, 2005.
38 Other new items that might be need to be developed and acquired to fully implement sea
basing include C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems and additional secure military satellite bandwidth
capability.
39 Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, op. cit., p. 85.
40 Williamson Murray, “Thoughts on Sea Basing in the Twenty-First Century,” printed as
Appendix D in Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, op. cit., pp. 113-114. The
second vulnerability, Williamson stated, “will come from those who argue for massive
(continued...)

---

CRS-18
Robert Work, a naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments (CSBA),41 has characterized sea basing as “a rich man’s approach to
solving the [access denial] problem.”42
A November 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s
amphibious and maritime prepositioning ship forces states the following:
Carrying out the Navy’s plan for amphibious and maritime prepositioning
forces would require spending an average of $2.4 billion a year (in 2005 dollars)
on ship construction between 2005 and 2035, CBO estimates — more than twice
the Navy’s average annual spending to build amphibious and maritime
prepositioning ships between 1980 and 2004....
That planned increase in spending comes at a time when Navy officials are
envisioning other modernization programs — for surface combatants,
submarines, aircraft carriers, and support ships — that would also require greater
spending on ship construction. Building the proposed 375-ship fleet would cost
an average of about $19 billion annually through 2035, CBO estimates,
compared with average funding of less than $12 billion a year since 1980.
Spending on amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships would represent
about 12 percent of total shipbuilding costs, up from an average of 9 percent
between 1980 and 2004....
Many questions remain about the future size of the Navy’s amphibious
forces and the viability of the sea-basing concept. The Navy may find that
modernizing its amphibious warfare force and purchasing new MPF(F) vessels
are difficult to afford simultaneously. Some Navy officials have suggested
reducing the number of L-class ships in order to buy the MPF(F)s....
CBO constructed four alternative plans for the future of amphibious and
maritime prepositioning forces that would lessen the funding challenge the Navy
is facing with its shipbuilding budget as a whole and with those forces in
particular. All of the alternatives would result in a smaller amphibious force than
exists today, and some would result in a smaller prepositioning force as well....
CBO found no alternative that could do more with less. Saving money on
the amphibious warfare and maritime prepositioning forces, relative to the
Navy’s plan, requires buying fewer ships and thus having less capability. Unless
the Navy can provide a level of resources equivalent to that required to
implement its current plan, choices will have to be made about how to structure
those forces in the future.43
40 (...continued)
reliance on the technological revolution in communications and computing power that is so
rapidly altering the face of the First World.”
41 CSBA is an independent organization that conducts research and writes reports on military
issues.
42 As quoted in Otto Kreisher, “Sea Basing,” Air Force Magazine, July 2004. Material in
brackets as in the article.
43 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Future of the Navy’s Amphibious and Maritime
(continued...)

---

CRS-19
Although sea basing offers potential advantages in terms of eliminating
vulnerable intermediate land bases, enabling higher-paced operations ashore, and
permitting more rapid reconstitution and redeployment of the expeditionary force,
uncertainty regarding the total potential cost to implement sea basing makes it
difficult to assess its potential cost-effectiveness compared to alternative concepts for
conducting future expeditionary operations ashore or compared to programs for
meeting other, unrelated defense priorities. Potential alternative concepts for
conducting future expeditionary operations include making improvements to today’s
capabilities for conducting amphibious operations and making improvements to
Army capabilities for inserting airborne forces.44
Potential oversight and policy questions for Congress include the following:
! What is the estimated total procurement cost of the sea basing
squadron set forth in the Navy’s June 2005 report to Congress on the
MPF(F) concept? More broadly, when does DOD intend to present
to Congress an estimate of the potential total cost to fully implement
all aspects of the sea basing concept?
! How does the current absence of an estimate of the potential total
cost to fully implement sea basing affect Congress’s ability to assess
the potential affordability of sea basing or its potential cost
effectiveness compared to potential alternatives for conducting
future expeditionary operations ashore or compared to programs for
meeting other defense priorities?
! Would an ability to employ one surface Marine battalion and one
vertical Marine battalion from a sea base in a period of 8 to 10 hours
be worth the cost to field this capability? What are the potential
costs and merits of alternatives to sea basing for conducting future
expeditionary operations ashore? How do land bases and sea bases
compare in terms of vulnerability to attack and cost to defend against
potential attacks of various kinds?
! What other defense programs might need to be reduced to finance
the implementation of sea basing?
! What are the potential operational risks of not implementing sea
basing?
43 (...continued)
Prepositioning Force, Nov. 2004, pp. xiii-xv. See also Aarti Shah, “Unclear Seabasing
Concept, High Costs Worry Military Officials,” Inside the Navy, Feb. 14, 2005.
44 See also John P. Patch, “Sea Basing: Chasing the Dream,” U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings, May 2005: 38-43.

---

CRS-20
Coordination with Other Services on Sea Basing
A third potential oversight issue for Congress is whether development of the sea
basing concept should be led by the Navy and Marine Corps or by a joint DOD
office. The 2003 DSB report on sea basing repeatedly expressed the view that sea
basing should be developed as a joint (rather than Navy-Marine Corps) operational
concept and recommended the creation of a joint DOD office to lead the effort. The
foreword to the DSB report states:
A central authority must orchestrate the development of sea basing
concepts, systems and concepts of operation. History suggests that sea basing
has never been exclusively limited to Navy and Marine operations. The Air
Force and particularly the Army must participate in the development and use of
this joint military operational capability which lies at the intersection of
traditional special operations forces, Marine and Army operations. Sea basing
represents a crucial option for future warfare by all the Services and an important
element in the transition between early entry and follow-on operations. A joint
program authority must lead the effort.45
The report’s executive summary states:
The complexity and difficulty of developing the “system of systems” that will
enable robust sea basing necessitates a coordinated development effort to ensure
a consistent set of goals, requirements and priorities. The [DSB] Task Force sees
this as a joint effort to produce a capability for joint use — a Department-level
responsibility that involves all Services. Achieving both interoperability and
intermodality transfer demands a seamless, rapid and efficient design that is fully
joint.46
The main body of the report states that the strategic and political environment
“suggests the need for sea basing to become something more than just the property
of the Navy and Marine Corps.”47 At a later point, the report states:
What is crucial to moving the seabase beyond its Navy and Marine Corps
antecedents is the need for other services to tailor their seaborne prepositioning
concepts to those of the maritime prepositioning force. Moreover, the tailoring
of at least part of the [Army’s] 101st [Airborne Division] to operate off a seabase,
as it did during the Haiti crisis, would substantially increase the nation’s ability
to project power from the sea.48
45 Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, op. cit., p. v.
46 Ibid., p. viii.
47 Ibid., p. 8.
48 Ibid., p. 28. Editorial note: The Army unit that operated from a sea base (a Navy aircraft
carrier) during the 1994 Haiti crisis was the Army’s 10th Mountain Division rather than the
101st Airborne Division. (Source: Background information on the 10th Mountain Division
presented on the internet at:[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/
10mtn.htm]. The identity of the division does not materially alter the point made in the DSB
report.

---

CRS-21
A few pages later, the report states:
U.S. military doctrine requires that sea, land and air forces form joint task
forces. Thus, the seabase must be designed with joint operations in mind. While
the Army, Marines, and Navy may directly employ sea basing techniques, all
services, including the Air Force, must operate in close cooperation. Land, air
and joint command and control systems must be integral to seabases.
The sea basing concept aims at expanding existing Navy/Marine Corps
capabilities to encompass joint operations. The seabases of the future will serve
the functions of air- and seaports. In other words, it will be an in-theater base for
prolonged warfare operations. Such operations can involve the Air Force and
particularly the Army, in addition to the Navy and Marine Corps; the brigade-
sized operational focus of the conceptual seabase is at the “sweet spot” between
the expeditionary operations traditional performed by the MEB and 101st
Airborne and larger military operations that involve divisions or corps.49
The report concludes that
Developing a system of systems, as complex as a seabase, necessitates
careful coordination among the myriad projects required for implementing the
system. Seabase realization must be guided by an overall architecture which
coordinates diverse developments, including concepts of operation, ships,
aircraft, cargo handling systems, logistics and communications. All the Services
must participate to ensure compatibility.
Managing such a wide ranging, multi-Service program will require a
leadership structure that spans diverse disciplines and that endures for the length
of the seabase development activity. After discussing alternatives at length, the
Task Force concludes that a Joint Program Office is the best choice to manage
seabase development.50
Naval officials have expressed support for the notion of sea basing as a joint
concept and at times have promoted it in part on that basis. Admiral Vernon Clark,
the Chief of Naval Operations, has said, “We need to think about sea basing in a very
joint construct and what it does for the entire military structure.51 Admiral Clark said
that creating a joint DOD office on sea basing “makes so much sense.”52
49 Ibid., p. 34.
50 Ibid., p. 47. For additional instances of where the report expresses the view that sea
basing should be developed as a joint (rather than Navy-Marine Corps) operational concept,
see pp. 9, 88, and 89. A computer scan shows, in total, 87 instances of the words “joint” or
“jointness” in the report.
51 As quoted in Sherman, “Jason. Pentagon Group Details Sea Base Concept,” Defense
News, Oct. 27, 2003. See also “Kelly: Sea Basing Presents ‘Infinite Number Of Problems’
for the Enemy,” Sea Power, June 2004, p. 22 (interview with Rear Admiral John Kelly
conducted by Hunter C. Keeter); Scott C. Truver, “Sea Basing: More Than the Sum of Its
Parts?” Jane’s Navy International, Mar. 2004, pp. 18, 20; and Jason Ma, “Seabasing
Concept Pursued as a Way to Support Entire Joint Force,” Inside the Navy, Nov. 25, 2002.
52 As quoted in Jason Sherman and David Brown, “Pentagon to Create Multiservice Sea
(continued...)

---

CRS-22
Army and Air Force officials have expressed support for sea basing. General
Peter Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said, “Not only do I subscribe to
it now, ... I have for years.” Lieutenant General Duncan McNabb, the Air Force
Deputy Chief of Staff for plans and programs, said sea basing “is obviously a great
concept,” that “the Navy and Marines are betting on the Air Force support that is
needed,” and that “We will work out how we will support that mission.”53 In June
2004, it was reported that the Army and Navy had begun collaborating on sea basing,
particularly in terms of the Army’s future logistical system.54
Some observers do not support the idea of pursuing sea basing as a joint
concept. An April 2003 article, for example, stated that
retired Marine Corp[s] Col. Vince Goulding, director of Sea Viking at the
Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory,55 cautioned the naval services should not
allow too many “cooks to get involved with creating this critical warfighting
broth called seabasing.” Sea Viking is part of an experimentation program
designed to transform the [Marine Corps’] 1997 “Ship-to-Objective Maneuver”
concept into an operational reality.
“It has unfortunately — in my opinion — become vogue to talk about the
seabase in joint terms. Seabase is not a joint requirement. Seabase is a joint force
enabler, and there is a difference. Seabasing is a naval core competency and we
need to keep it one,” Goulding said during a panel discussion.
If the Navy and Marine Corps allow the other services to have too much
influence in how the seabase evolves, they will either develop something
unusable to the tactical warfighter or something that is “so expensive it will
never happen,” he said. The seabase cannot be all things to everyone, he advised,
adding, “seabasing is and must remain a naval joint expeditionary capability, not
an intermediate staging base.”56
52 (...continued)
Basing Requirements Office,” Defense News, Dec. 8, 2003, p. 30.
53 Statements from both Schoomaker and McNabb as quoted in Otto Kreisher, “Sea Basing,”
Air Force Magazine, July 2004, p. 64. Similar versions of these quotes appear in Scott C.
Truver, “ Sea Basing: More Than the Sum of Its Parts?” Jane’s Navy International, Mar.
2004, pp. 18, 20; and Jason Sherman and David Brown, “Pentagon to Create Multiservice
Sea Basing Requirements Office,” Defense News, Dec. 8, 2003, p. 30.
54 Ann Roosevelt, “Army, Navy Collaborating on Sea Basing Concept,” Defense Daily, June
30, 2004, p. 3; Lisa Troshinsky, “Army Logistics Using Sat Network, Planning for Sea-
Based Capability,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, June 30, 2004, pp. 3-4. For
additional discussion of Army interest in sea basing, see John J. Klein and Rich Morales,
“ Sea Basing Isn’t Just About the Sea,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Jan. 2004, pp. 32-
35.
55 The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory is the service’s center for innovation and
transformation.
56 Malina Brown, “Navy, Marine Officials Argue Iraq War Validates Need for
Seabasing,”Inside the Navy, Apr. 14, 2003.

---

CRS-23
In December 2003, it was reported the acting DOD acquisition executive had
issued an internal memorandum in November 2003 directing the establishment, by
March 2004, of a joint requirements office on sea basing that would involve all the
military services.57 In January 2004, a Navy official said the new joint office would
be established sometime in 2004.58 In July 2004, it was reported that
Pentagon leaders have approved a three-month initiative that could help
defense officials figure out what capabilities are needed to launch military strikes
from floating bases at sea.
A plan approved late last month by the Defense Department’s Joint
Requirements Oversight Council [JROC] calls for the “seabasing joint
integrating concept” [JIC] effort to focus on the “‘seize-the-initiative’ phase of
a major combat operation around the 2015 time frame,” Navy spokeswoman Lt.
Pauline Pimentel said July 27. With the Navy as the lead service, the project,
which was kicked off earlier this month, is slated to run into October....
In addition to the sea service, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Staff and the military’s combatant commanders will have a hand in the
seabasing JIC work....
While the Navy will lead the seabasing JIC work, some defense and naval
analysts have questioned the wisdom of handing the Navy and Marine Corps the
primary role in developing the concept. They warn doing so could lead the Army
and Air Force to devote scant resources and personnel based on a belief that most
of the work still needed to cultivate the concept should be done by the Navy and
Marines.59
57 Jason Sherman and David Brown, “Pentagon to Create Multiservice Sea Basing
Requirements Office,” Defense News, Dec. 8, 2003, p. 30.
58 Christopher J. Castelli, “Dawson: OSD to Create New Joint Seabasing Concept,” Inside
the Navy, Jan. 19, 2004.
59 John T. Bennett, “JROC Green Lights Effort to Integrate Joint Seabasing Concepts,”
Inside the Pentagon, July 29, 2004, p. 3. The story explained the JIC process as follows:
“The seabasing JIC will provide a vignette to present a quick mental image
of the concept — present an overview of how the [combined joint task force] will
integrate desired capabilities to achieve desired effects,” Pimentel said in written
responses to questions posed by Inside the Pentagon.
The final JIC that emerges from the three-month initiative will be used by
the department’s new Force Management Functional Capabilities Board [FCB].
Each FCB plays a key role in the Pentagon’s new Joint Capabilities Integration
and Development System [JCIDS], which is geared toward making sure
capabilities proposed by the services are examined in terms of how they bolster
joint operations, defense officials have said. The JCIDS process also is designed
to promote interoperability at the earliest stages of program development.
JCIDS last year replaced a Pentagon requirements generation system that
was accused of being too service-centric....
(continued...)

---

CRS-24
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
! Should development of the sea basing concept be led by a joint DOD
office, or by the Navy and Marine Corps (while still incorporating
input from the Army and Air Force)? What are the potential
strengths and weaknesses of each approach?
! Is the Pentagon’s approach to developing the sea basing concept
appropriate? Does it feature too much, not enough, or about the
right amount of interservice coordination and top-level DOD
direction?
! To what degree, if any, does sea basing conflict with any emerging
Army or Air Force concepts of operation for conducting future
expeditionary operations?
! How might the Army’s new plan for reorganizing itself into
modular, brigade-sized entities called units of action (UAs)60 affect,
or be affected by, the sea basing concept? How might the Army’s
plans for procuring its own next-generation maritime prepositioning
ships affect, or be affected by, the sea basing concept?
! How might the numbers and designs of amphibious and maritime
prepositioning ships to be procured be affected by who leads the sea
basing development effort, and by the amount of interservice
coordination that is achieved? If sea basing is developed primarily
59 (...continued)
JICs — aimed at painting a picture of how a joint force commander would
integrate capabilities to achieve specific battlefield effects — will be used by
FCB officials in making decisions about proposals for new weapon systems and
other warfighting tools....
The seabasing JIC will aim to integrate work on that topic already
conducted by the Navy and other military components, including U.S. Joint
Forces Command’s “Joint Seabasing Concept,” the Naval Warfare Development
Command- and Marine Corps Combat Development Command-developed
“Enhanced Network Seabasing Concept,” and a draft version of a seabasing
concept of operations drawn up by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.
Those documents will be used as the “foundational documents for the
development of the joint concept,” Pimentel said.
The concept development effort is slated to run through the fall, after which
officials will brief the JROC on the results. A follow-on capabilities-based
assessment is scheduled to begin in early October, Pimentel said.
See also Christopher J. Castelli, “Admiral Sees Need for More Dialogue Between Services
On Seabasing,” Inside the Navy, Apr. 18, 2005.
60 For more on this plan, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues
for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.

---

CRS-25
by the Navy and Marine Corps, and is then subsequently modified
by DOD to take Army and Air Force needs into greater account, will
this lead to instability in announced plans for procuring amphibious
and maritime prepositioning ships?
Applicability of Sea Swap to ESGs
A fourth potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the applicability of the
Sea Swap concept to entire ESGs. Although the Navy has judged its first Sea Swap
experiments to be successes, these experiments involved individual surface
combatants with crews of 300 to 350 personnel. Navy officials have acknowledged
that applying the concept to an entire ESG, which can have a total of about 5,000
personnel, including about 2,200 Marines embarked on the amphibious ships, could
pose different challenges.61 Potential oversight questions for Congress include the
following:
! In what ways would the application of Sea Swap to ESGs be similar
to, or different than, the application of Sea Swap to individual
surface combatants? In particular, what new issues might arise in
applying Sea Swap to amphibious ships carrying large numbers of
Marines and their equipment?
! To what degree is current Navy thinking about the future number of
required ESGs based on a judgment or anticipation concerning the
application of Sea Swap to ESGs? If the Navy bases planned
requirements for amphibious ships in part on a such a judgment or
anticipation, and then subsequently modifies its understanding of
this issue, will this lead to instability in announced plans for
procuring amphibious ships?
Industrial Base
A fifth potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the shipbuilding
industrial base. The Navy is currently procuring ships at a relatively low rate,
resulting in relatively low workloads, revenues, and employment levels for the
shipyards that build major ships for the Navy. In addition to uncertainty over future
procurement of amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships, these yards currently
face uncertainty about future procurement rates for other kinds of ships as well.62
Particularly in a situation of constrained funding, decisions made about future
procurement of amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships could affect, or be
affected by, decisions made about future procurement of submarines and surface
combatants. Ship-procurement plans featuring various combinations of ship types
61 Malina Brown, “LaFleur: Navy Working on Applying Sea Swap to an Entire ESG,”
Inside the Navy, Apr. 5, 2004; Ron Laurenzo, “Sea Swap Could Become the Norm,”
Defense Today, Apr. 1, 2004, pp. 1, 4; Lorenzo Cortes, “Navy Surface Forces Chief Would
Eventually Like to Swap an Entire ESG,” Defense Daily, Apr. 1, 2004.
62 For a discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RL32665, Potential Navy Force Structure
and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

---

CRS-26
and quantities are possible, and some of these combinations could further reduce
prospective workloads, revenues, and employment levels at one or more of these
yards, possibly putting these yards, and their surrounding communities, under
financial stress. Potential questions for Congress include the following:
! How is the Navy taking industrial-base considerations into account
in assessing its future plans for procurement of amphibious and
maritime prepositioning ships?
! How is the current uncertainty about Navy plans for procuring
amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships affecting shipyard
decisions on facilities modernization, worker training, or other
issues, and how might this in turn affect the potential future
procurement cost of amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships?
! What is the Navy’s position on where the MLPs and connector ships
might be built?
Legislative Activity
FY2006
FY2006 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1815/S. 1042).
House Report. Sec. 122 of H.R. 1815 as reported by the House Armed
Services Committee (H.Rept. 109-89) would limit the procurement cost of the
LHA(R) to $2.0 billion, about $700 million less than the estimated cost of the
LHA(R) to be procured in FY2007. Reducing the cost of the ship to $2.0 billion
might well require a significant redesign of the ship. Section 122 would also prevent
Navy ship-procurement funds from being obligated or expended for the procurement
of the LHA(R) until after the Secretary of Defense certifies in writing that DOD’s
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has approved a detailed Operational
Requirements Document (ORD) for the program and that there is a stable design for
the LHA(R) class. The report recommends $418 million in advance procurement
funding for LHA(R), a $267.6-million increase over the requested amount of $150.4
million. This increase appears intended to help accelerate the delivery of the LHA(R)
scheduled for procurement in FY2007..
The report recommends approval of the $198.8 million in FY2006 procurement
funds requested for LHD-8, and the $1,344.7 million in procurement funds requested
for the LPD-17 program.
With regard to the $749.8 million requested in the National Defense Sealift
Fund (NDSF) for buying out the leases of the 13 older MPF ships, the report stated:
The budget request, within the National Defense Sealift Fund, contained
$749.8 million to exercise purchase options on 13 Maritime Prepositioning Ships
(MPS). Because of the continuing need for these ships beyond the original
25-year lease term, the committee recommends the purchase of six ships in this

---

CRS-27
fiscal year, at a total cost of $414.0 million. The committee also recommends a
$103.0 million increase to the Navy’s operation and maintenance account for the
purpose of continuing the “capital hire payments” on the seven ships that are not
being purchased. The committee expects that the Navy will exercise these
options to purchase the following ships: MV SGT William R. Button, MV 1st LT
Jack Lummus, MV 1st LT Baldomero Lopez, MV PFC Dewayne T. Williams,
SS Maj Stephen W. Pless, and MV 2nd Lt John P. Bobo. The committee also
expects that the funds provided in this Act will not be used to purchase fewer
than the six ships enumerated above. The purchase of these ships will provide
the Navy with the newest vessels within the total complement of Maritime
Prepositioning ships, and ultimately provide the Navy with the greatest capability
until the new Marine Prepositioning Force (Future) ships come on line.
While the Navy negotiated for purchase options on all 13 of the MPS, the
exact option price is the greater of the termination value, which is set forth in the
lease, and the current fair market value. The contract language provides that the
“fair market value shall mean the price that a willing purchaser, that is not the
charterer (Navy) or an affiliate of the charterer would pay to purchase the vessel
in an arm’s-length transaction.” If negotiations do not result in an agreement on
the buy-out value, the market value is determined by an arbitration panel made
up of three appraisers. Thecommittee understands, on the first ships in the
purchase process, that the appraised market value will be determined before the
end of September 2005.
The committee expects, in the event that these appraised market values exceed
in any significant way the termination values in the leases, that the Navy will
withdraw its purchase notifications to the owners, and the congressional defense
committees will be notified immediately of the Navy’s future plans with respect
to the MPS. (Pages 75-76)
Senate Report. Sec. 123 of S. 1042 as reported by the Senate Armed
Services Committee (S.Rept. 109-69) authorizes $325.4 million (a $175-million
increase over the requested amount of $150.4 million) for design, advance
procurement, and advance construction for the first LHA(R), and authorizes the Navy
to contract for the detailed design and construction of the ship in FY2007 using split
funding (i.e., incremental funding ) in FY2007 and FY2008. The report states:
The Chief of Naval Operations has included additional funding for LHA(R) as
the number one priority on his unfunded priorities list. The committee
understands that additional funding would accelerate delivery of and reduce the
acquisition cost of this ship, and recommends an increase of $175.0 million in
SCN for the LHA(R). (Page 67)
The report recommends approval of the $198.8 million in FY2006 procurement
funds requested for LHD-8, and the $1,344.7 million in procurement funds requested
for the LPD-17 program.
With regard to the proposed MPF lease buyout, Sec. 323 of the bill as reported
states:
SEC. 323. USE OF FUNDS FROM NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
TO EXERCISE PURCHASE OPTIONS ON MARITIME PREPOSITIONING
SHIP VESSELS.

---

CRS-28
(a) USE OF FUNDS- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2218(f)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense may obligate and expend
any funds in the National Defense Sealift Fund to exercise options to purchase
three Maritime Prepositioning Ship (MPS) vessels under charter to the Navy as
of the date of the enactment of this Act, the contracts for which charters expire
in 2009.
(b) NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND DEFINED- In this section, the
term `National Defense Sealift Fund’ means the National Defense Sealift Fund
established by section 2218 of title 10, United States Code.
With regard to this section, the report states:
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary
of Defense to obligate and expend any funds in the National Defense Sealift
Fund to exercise options to purchase those three maritime prepositioning ships
(MPS) whose current charters expire in calendar year 2009. This authorization
is granted notwithstanding the provisions of section 2218(f)1 of title 10, United
States Code.
The budget request included $1,648.5 million for the National Defense
Sealift Fund, including $749.8 million for the buyout of 13 MPS leases in fiscal
year 2006.
The committee notes that the time remaining on the leases of these 13 ships
varies between four and six years, and does not see the urgency of buying out all
of the leases at this time. The committee recommends buyouts of only those
leases that expire in calendar year 2009, and recommends a decrease of $637.2
million from the National Defense Sealift Fund. The committee recommends an
increase of $127.6 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, for the
continued lease of the other 10 MPS vessels. (Pages 279-280)
With regard to the MPF(F) program and the sea basing concept, the report
states:
The committee is concerned about whether the concept of sea basing is
technically feasible and fiscally prudent. The committee is also concerned that
the requirement for sea basing has not been refined beyond a concept of
operations. The premise for the requirement for the sea base is that access to
ports or bases ashore may be denied, or that sea basing will reduce vulnerabilities
of large logistics bases ashore. The sea base concept is that a large ground force
can be assembled at sea, delivered on the surface and the air to an area of
conflict, and subsequently sustained from the sea base. The Navy is touting the
centerpiece of the sea base as being the Maritime Prepositioning Force, Future
(MPF(F)). The Mission Need Statement for MPF(F) was approved by the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council in May 2001, yet the Department of Defense
is still trying to define key performance parameters. The budget request included
$66.3 million [in research and development funding] in PE [program element]
48042N for the purpose of developing enabling technologies for MPF(F).
Enabling technologies include landing platforms, ship-to-ship cargo
transfer, automated cargo handling, underway replenishment in heavy seas, and
others. The committee believes it is important to ensure these technologies can
actually support the movement of supplies and equipment in heavy seas, at a rate

---

CRS-29
that will actually sustain a ground force engaged in combat, before the country
makes large investments in MPF(F) ships.
The Navy has made a number of proposals in this budget request. One is
to build only one surface combatant and one submarine a year through the years
included in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). Another is to delay the
completion of the first ship of the new class of aircraft carrier, the CVN — 78,
for the second time in two years. Finally, the Navy has proposed to reduce the
force of active aircraft carriers from 12 to 11. In testimony before the
Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services, one witness
who represented the shipbuilding industry stated that the single most important
factor in controlling costs of ships was to offer program stability. Constantly
changing budgets, acquisition strategies, and procurement profiles are as
disruptive to maintaining cost and schedule stability as constantly changing
technical requirements. The Navy’s shipbuilding budget is already underfunded,
and the addition of a new platform could only make the situation worse.
Section 1022(a)(1) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107 — 314) requires the Secretary of Defense
to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives that funding is adequate to support a 30 year shipbuilding plan,
with a discussion of the necessary naval vessel force structure to meet the
National Security Strategy of the United States or the most recent Quadrennial
Defense Review. The Navy has submitted an interim 30 year shipbuilding plan,
which does not yet appear to be endorsed by the Department, and does not appear
to be fully funded in the FYDP. In written testimony before the Subcommittee
on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services, a Congressional Research
Service analyst describes this plan in the following way: “The March 2005 report
does not present a 30 year shipbuilding plan. Instead, it presents a 30 year
projection of potential Navy force levels from which potential annual
shipbuilding rates can be only partially inferred.” The force structures in the
Navy plan are for either 260 ships or 325 ships, both of which include MPF(F)
ships, which are intended to enable the sea basing concept. While the committee
recommends authorization of the budget request for $66.3 million in PE 48042N
for development of technologies for MPF(F), the committee believes that the
Navy should not proceed to a shipbuilding program for MPF(F) before the
requirements for MPF(F) are more refined, and that enabling technologies have
demonstrated a high probability of achieving successful operations. (Pages 110-
111)
FY2006 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2863).
House Report. The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept.
109-119 of June 10, 2005) on H.R. 2863, recommended a $50-million increase in the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account for the first LHA(R). The report
stated: “The Committee supports the LHA(R) program, and directs the Navy to
reconsider its proposal to request split funding for LHA(R) over the FY2007 — 08
timeframe, and instead follow the full funding principle for this ship class, to ensure
an adequate budget is in hand before contract award.” (Page 146)
The report also recommended a $384-million increase in the National Defense
Sealift Fund to procure an additional TAKE-1 class ship (for a total FY2006
procurement of two ships), a $374.8-million reduction in the NDSF for the MPF

---

CRS-30
lease buyout, and a $7.3 million reduction in the NDSF for the MPF(F) program.
The report stated:
T-AKE DRY CARGO/AMMUNITION SHIP
The Committee recommends $714,143,000 for two T-AKE ships, which is
one ship and $334,000,000 more than the budget request. If enacted, the budget
proposal would cause termination of the existing contract options and
renegotiation of the prices under those options. Navy officials consider the
existing prices to be favorable to the Government as well as executable within
the overall program budget. The expected additional cost to the Government,
and potential program delay, is unacceptable to the Committee.
MPS LEASE BUYOUT
The Committee recommends $375,000,000 for the planned buyout of Maritime
Prepositioning System (MPS) leased vessels. The President’s budget proposed
$749,787,000 for the buyout of 13 vessels of the Amsea class, the Maersk class,
and the Waterman class. The Committee believes the Navy has made a good
business case for this program, but would support a program phased over the
next few years rather than entirely funded in fiscal year 2006. Although the
purchase price of these vessels is likely to be determined through negotiation, the
Committee believes the funding provided will be sufficient to procure
approximately 6 of these vessels.
MARITIME PREPOSITIONING FORCE (FUTURE)
The Committee recommends $59,000,000 for further development, concept
studies, and concept design for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or
MPF(F). This is more than twice the $28,000,000 provided for fiscal year 2005,
and a reduction of $7,301,000 from the budget request. The reduction should be
allocated to management, engineering, and acquisition overhead, which
otherwise would account for approximately 40 percent of the total program
budget. (Page 309)
FY2005
FY2005 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4200/P.L. 108-375).
House Report. The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept.
108-491) on H.R. 4200, recommended adding $150 million in advanced procurement
funding in the SCN account for LHA(R), and stated:
The committee understands that the LHA (R) will be based on the LHD —
1 Class hull combined with the latest propulsion and electric plant technology.
The committee further notes that, while the LHA (R) design is not yet finalized,
commonality with LHD-1 Class will be much greater than 50 percent. The
Secretary of the Navy is directed to report to the congressional defense
committees how the additional funding will be used prior to obligation of those
funds, since no description has been provided with the budget request.

---

CRS-31
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million in ship
construction Navy for advanced procurement of components common to LHD
— 9 and LHA (R). (Page 66)
Section 112 of H.R. 4200 as reported by the House directed the Navy to
accelerate and expand the scope of a program to modernize the Navy’s DDG-51 class
destroyers. In discussing this section, the report stated:
In fiscal year 2003, Congress approved and funded, above the President’s
request, a $300.0 million proposal that included a swap of DDG-51 and
amphibious transport dock (LPD) shipbuilding workload between two shipyards
handling the construction of these ships. At the time, the Navy indicated that
such a workload “swap” was in the best interests of the government, providing
workload stability and generally protecting a vital industrial base for the
construction of surface combatants.
This swap, implemented by Congress as a way of stabilizing the workload
at these yards, has been undermined by the Navy’s changing construction profile.
Starting in 2004 and continuing into 2005, the Navy has reduced the number of
DDG — 51s and LPDs in its shipyard construction plan. Each time this happens,
it creates instability within the surface combatant shipyards that see workload
shares decrease in both the short- and long-term. In both 2004 and 2005, the
Navy’s ship construction plan changed from the proposal presented in 2003,
negatively impacting the construction of surface combatants and thereby the
same shipyards that Congress, with approval of the Navy, attempted to stabilize
in 2003. (Page 123)
Senate Report. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in marking up the
FY2005 defense authorization bill (S. 2400), included a provision (Section 121) that,
as stated in its report on the bill (S.Rept. 108- 260), would
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to procure the first amphibious assault ship
of the LHA(R)-class, subject to appropriations for that purpose. The provision
would also make available $150.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
(SCN), for the advance procurement and advance construction of components for
that ship. The provision also would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter
into a contract or contracts with the shipbuilder and other entities for the advance
procurement and advance construction of those components.
The LHA(R)-class will replace the aging LHA-class amphibious assault
ship, which will begin reaching the end of service life in 2011. The advance
design work on LHA(R) began in fiscal year 2003 and continues to date. The
Future Years Defense Program submitted with the budget request included full
funding for the first LHA(R)-class amphibious assault ship in fiscal year 2008.
The committee understands that acceleration of this ship, by providing the first
increment of SCN funding in fiscal year 2005, would reduce the cost of this ship
by $150.0 million. The Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps have included this acceleration on their Unfunded Priority Lists.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million for advance
procurement and advance construction of components for the first amphibious
assault ship of the LHA(R)-class. (Page 74)

---

CRS-32
Conference Report. The conference report (H.Rept. 108-767) on the
FY2005 defense authorization bill (H.R. 4200/P.L. 108-375) contained a provision
(Section 123) which states:
SEC. 123. LHA(R) AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP PROGRAM.
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF SHIP. — The Secretary of the Navy is
authorized to procure the first amphibious assault ship of the LHA(R) class,
subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose.
(b) AUTHORIZED AMOUNT. — Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated under section 102(a)(3) for fiscal year 2005, $150,000,000 shall be
available for the advance procurement and advance construction of components
for the first amphibious assault ship of the LHA(R) class. The Secretary of the
Navy may enter into a contract or contracts with the shipbuilder and other
entities for the advance procurement and advance construction of those
components.
FY2005 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 4613/P.L. 108-287).
House Report. The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept.
108-553) on H.R. 4613, strongly criticized the Navy’s unsettled plans for procuring
amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships. In discussing the funding request for
the SCN account, the report stated:
The Committee remains deeply troubled by the lack of stability in the
Navy’s shipbuilding program. Often both the current year and outyear ship
construction profile is dramatically altered with the submission of the next
budget request. Programs justified to Congress in terms of mission requirements
in one year’s budget are removed from the next. This continued shifting of the
shipbuilding program promotes confusion and frustration throughout both the
public and private sectors. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that this
continual shifting of priorities within the Navy’s shipbuilding account indicates
uncertainty with respect to the validity of requirements and budget requests in
support of shipbuilding proposals.
This state of affairs reached a new level during consideration of this year’s
request when officials in the Navy actively pursued changing the President’s
budget request to accommodate an alternative option for the LHA Replacement
program. That the LHA(R) was subject to re-structure is not surprising. Indeed,
the Committee had proposed elimination of this program in fiscal year 2004
based on the inability of the Navy to adequately justify the program. However,
this out of cycle proposal for a new ship class (tantalizingly presented to the
press before Congress was provided with information) simply highlights the
overall instability of the shipbuilding program. (Page 164).
In discussing the funding request for the Navy’s research and development
account, the report stated:
The budget includes a request of $44,180,000 for the amphibious assault
ship (LHA) replacement, the LHA(R) program. The Committee recommends no
appropriation for the LHA(R), a reduction of $44,180,000 from the fiscal year
2005 request based on the uncertainty of proceeding with the LHA(R) program
of record.

---

CRS-33
In its fiscal year 2004 recommendations, the Committee eliminated funding
for LHA(R), only to be persuaded by the Navy that the program of record was
achievable. However, after submission of the fiscal year 2005 budget, the Navy
determined that the LHA(R) program required a major restructure. Owing to the
overall cost of the LHA(R) program, coupled with relatively little gain in
capability, the Navy now apparently advocates an alternative option based on
modifications to the LHD — 8 configuration. Funding and justification for this
option has not been included in the President’s request, nor has a budget
amendment been submitted which formally changes the program of record and
the amounts requested for fiscal year 2005. Moreover, the Navy’s new plan
presumes designing a ship that would alter the amphibious nature of the LHA,
and then, proposing an incrementally funded construction program. It is unclear
at this time whether this option would be the design and construction of the first
in a new class of ships, or a single ship for this mission.
While the Committee supports Marine Corps requirements for a new
amphibious assault ship, the Committee strongly believes that more time is
required to fully assess the appropriate way ahead, including a thorough review
of requirements and the likely availability of funding. This review should
emphasize fielding operational capability — not just the development and
construction of a new ship — consistent with projected warfighting requirements
and the availability of budget resources.
Should the Navy and Marine Corps determine that the re-structure of the
LHA(R) program is the way ahead for the future, a fully funded program for
design and construction of a ship to meet this requirement should be included in
a future budget request. The Committee will not support a proposal which
suggests that construction be incrementally funded.63
The Committee notes that Congress provided $64,100,000 in fiscal year
2004 for the LHA(R) program of record, that will potentially be replaced by the
alternative option of a modified LHD — 8. Since these funds remain available
through fiscal year 2005, the Navy may use the funds appropriated in fiscal year
2004 for the LHA(R) for costs associated with the development and design of an
alternative option. (Pages 289-290)
In discussing the funding request for the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF),
the report states:
The fiscal year 2005 budget [for the NDSF] includes a $117,000,000
request for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for Strategic Sealift, an
increase of $103,500,000 over the fiscal year 2004 level. Of the amount
requested, $92,626,000 is for concept development and lead hull research and
development efforts for the Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future), MPF(F).
63 To prevent the use in DOD procurement of incremental funding, which was viewed as
having the potential to lead to problems in defense procurement, Congress in the 1950s
instituted the full funding policy, which requires items acquired in the procurement title of
the DOD appropriation act to be fully funded in the year that they are procured. For more
discussion, see CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy —
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke and Stephen Daggett.

---

CRS-34
The Committee has provided a total of $34,326,000 for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation for Strategic Sealift, a reduction of
$82,626,000 from the request. This reduction is applied to the request for
MPF(F) for which the Committee provides a total of $10,000,000 for concept
development. None of the funds provided for MPF(F) concept development may
be obligated or expended until the Navy submits a detailed MPF(F) proposal and
expenditure plan to the Committee on Appropriations.
Budget documentation provided to Congress in support of the fiscal year
2005 budget request provided no information detailing how the MPF(F) funds
were to be spent. The only information provided states that lead hull
construction costs are to be incrementally funded beginning in fiscal year 2007.
Requests for additional information yielded no detail of the planned expenditures
due to a not yet completed study by the Center for Naval Analysis. The
Committee notes that while detail was not provided to Congress, the trade press
was provided some information and printed articles quoting senior Navy officials
on plans for the possible construction of a fleet of MPF(F) ships.
The Committee believes the Navy must provide sufficient justification of
its requests for appropriated funds. While the Committee appreciates that the
timing inherent in the budget process does not always favor rapid transition to
new ideas, it is not reasonable to request Congress provide funds for a program
with no justification except that which is printed in the trade press. Furthermore,
the Navy is well aware of the Committee’s views with respect to incremental
funding of programs. The Committee finds little humor in being asked to fund
an unjustified request of nearly $100 million, for what is intended upon its
maturation to become an incrementally funded program. (Pages 351-352)
Senate Report. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept.
108-284), recommended adding $175 million in advanced procurement funding in
the SCN account for LHA(R). The report stated:
The Committee is aware of the Navy and Marine Corps team’s desire to
accelerate the current fiscal year 2008 build plan for the next generation large
deck amphibious assault ship. The Committee’s understanding is that the
recently signed requirements plan calls for the construction of LHA(R) Flight
Zero or an affordable variant of the LHD Class that is designed to support
increased air operations and fuel capacity. The Committee recommends
$175,000,000 in funding for LHA(R) Flight Zero with the unwavering
expectation that the Navy will include follow-on funding for the ship in its fiscal
year 2006 budget request. Further, the Committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to submit a detailed report to the congressional defense committees on the
acquisition strategy and overall program plan for the LHA(R) by March 31,
2005. (Page 83)
The report recommends reducing the total FY2005 NDSF funding request of
$1,269.3 million to $441.9 million — a reduction of $827.3 million, or about 65%,
from the requested amount. In discussing this reduction, the report mentions only the
Navy’s Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class dry cargo ship program, which is a Navy
auxiliary ship program, not a maritime prepositioning ship program. (See page 183.)
Within the total NDSF funding request, $768.4 million was requested for the
construction of two TAKE-1 class ships. Rejecting the TAKE-1 program funding
request entirely would explain most but not all of the committee’s recommended

---

CRS-35
$827.3-million reduction. It is not clear from the committee report whether the
remaining $58.9 million of the recommended reduction would affect the funding
request for the MPF(F) program or activities within the NDSF not related to the
MPF(F) program.
Conference Report. The conference report (H.Rept. 108-622) on the
FY2005 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4613/P.L. 108-287) adds $150 million in
advanced procurement funding in the SCN account for LHA(R). With regard to
funding in the Navy’s research and development account for LHA(R), the report
states:
The conferees agree to provide $44,180,000 for the Amphibious Assault
Ship — LHA Replacement, LHA(R), program as requested and as proposed by
the Senate instead of no appropriation as proposed by the House.
The conferees agree that the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, a report within 90 days
of enactment of this Act that addresses a thorough review of the LHA(R)
requirement, the impact of the proposed ship on executing the Marine Corps
amphibious assault mission, the overall cost and acquisition objective of
LHA(R), and the acquisition strategy. (Page 310)
With regard to the NDSF, and to the request within the NDSF for the MPF(F)
program, the report states:
The conferees agree to provide a total of $1,204,626,000 for the National
Defense Sealift Fund instead of $1,186,990,000 as proposed by the House and
$441,936,000 as proposed by the Senate.
Within the funds provided, the conferees agree that $768,400,000 is for
construction of two T-AKE vessels as proposed in the fiscal year 2005 budget
request and $28,000,000 is for the Maritime Pre-positioning Fleet (Future),
MPF(F).
The conferees agree that none of the funds provided for the MPF(F) may
be obligated or expended until the Secretary of the Navy submits to the
congressional defense committees, a detailed report on the MPF(F) mission,
operational requirements, analysis of alternatives, expenditure plans, and overall
program congruence with ongoing forcible entry studies. (Page 360)

---