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 December 13, 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
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 new LPD-17 class amphibious ships.
The Navy is also planning to procure a collection of amphibious and maritime
prepositioning ships called the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F).
The MPF(F) ships are to be used to implement a new operational concept called sea
basing, under which forces would be staged at sea and used to conduct expeditionary
operations ashore with little or no reliance on nearby land bases.
In December 2005, it was reported that the Navy plans to maintain in coming
years a fleet of 313 ships, including 31 amphibious ships and a 14-ship squadron of
MPF(F) ships that includes 12 new ships — 3 additional amphibious ships and 9
sealift-type ships — and 2 existing, older-generation MPF ships.
As part of the FY2007 budget and FY2007-FY2011 Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP) to be submitted to Congress in February 2006, the Navy will submit a new
shipbuilding plan that will include plans for procuring new amphibious and MPF(F).
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, modify, or reject the Navy’s FY2007-
FY2011 plans for procuring amphibious and MPF(F).
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 outlined a planned 14-ship MPF(F) squadron, including 12 new-
construction amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships and 2 existing (i.e.,
legacy) MPF ships. The Navy estimates the total procurement cost of the 12 new-
construction ships at $14.5 billion.
Although some elements of the Navy’s plans for amphibious and maritime
prepositioning ships have been clarified, others remain uncertain, including the
designs, costs, and numbers of specific amphibious and MPF(F) ships.
Potential oversight issues for Congress include the potential affordability and
cost-effectiveness of the sea basing concept and Navy and Marine Corps coordination
with other services in developing the sea basing concept. Skeptics of the Navy’s plan
for implementing the sea basing concept could argue that the capability to be
provided by the MPF(F) squadrons is more than what is be needed for the Navy’s
contribution to the global war on terrorism (GWOT), and of uncertain relevance to
U.S. participation in a conflict with China in the Taiwan Strait area. Navy and
Marine Corps officials argue in return that seabasing is relevant to a spectrum of
potential future operations, ranging from humanitarian and disaster-relief operations
to stability operations and major combat operations (MCOs). 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
New Navy Ship Force Structure Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sea Basing Concept of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Concept in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
MPF(F) Squadron For Implementing Sea Basing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Additional Ships For Implementing Sea Basing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ship Procurement Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
LPD-17 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
LHD-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
LHA(R) Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
MPF Lease Buyout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
MPF(F) Ship Class (Terminated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Rapid Strategic Lift Ship (RSLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sea Base-to-Shore Connector (SSC) Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Current Areas of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Oversight Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness of Sea Basing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Coordination with Other Services on Sea Basing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Legislative Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
FY2006 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1815/S. 1042) . . . . . . . . . . 22
FY2006 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2863) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
FY2005 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4200/P.L. 108-375) . . . . . 27
FY2005 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 4613/P.L. 108-287) . . . . 29
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated Procurement Cost Of MPF(F) Squadron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 new LPD-17 class amphibious ships.
The Navy is also planning to procure a collection of amphibious and maritime
prepositioning ships called the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F).
The MPF(F) ships are to be used to implement a new operational concept called sea
basing, under which forces would be staged at sea and used to conduct expeditionary
operations ashore with little or no reliance on nearby land bases.
In December 2005, it was reported that the Navy plans to maintain in coming
years a fleet of 313 ships, including 31 amphibious ships and a 14-ship squadron of
MPF(F) ships that includes 12 new ships — 3 additional amphibious ships and 9
sealift-type ships — and 2 existing, older-generation MPF ships.1
As part of the FY2007 budget and FY2007-FY2011 Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP) to be submitted to Congress in February 2006, the Navy will submit a new
shipbuilding plan that will include plans for procuring new amphibious and MPF(F).
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, modify, or reject the Navy’s FY2007-
FY2011 plans for procuring amphibious and MPF(F). Congress’s decisions on this
issue 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
and maritime prepositioning ships, and the Navy-Marine Corps sea basing concept
for staging forces at sea and conducting expeditionary operations ashore. The
following section of the report presents some potential oversight questions for
Congress relating to the Navy’s plans for procuring amphibious and maritime
1 Christopher P. Cavas, “U.S. Ship Plan To Cost 20% More,” Defense News, December 5,
2005: 1, 8. This news article does not mention the 2 existing MPF ships, but as discussed
later in this CRS report, the Navy’s planned MPF(F) squadron includes these 2 ships along
with the 12 news ships. See also David S. Cloud, “Navy To Expand Fleet With New
Enemies in Mind,” New York Times, December 5, 2005.
CRS-2
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
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
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 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.
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
(continued...)
CRS-3
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 FY2005, the Navy included 34 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;
! 12 Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry (LSD-41/49) class ships,
commissioned between 1985 and 1998, each displacing about
16,000 tons; and
! 10 Austin (LPD-4) class ships, commissioned between 1965 and
1971, each displacing about 17,000 tons.10
6 (...continued)
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.
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 one other fleet command ship — the Coronado
(AGF-11), which is a converted LPD.
CRS-4
These 34 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). A MEB is a Marine force that
includes 14,500 Marines and their equipment. The 34-ship amphibious force in place
as of the end of FY2005 exceeds 2.5-MEB requirement in four regards but falls short
in a fifth.12
Maritime Prepositioning Ships. Today’s 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-
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 has converted its ARGs into ESGs, using surface
combatants transferred from carrier strike groups (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. Major General Gordon Nash, the Director of the
Expeditionary Warfare Division within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, stated:
The 3.0 requirement remains, but in 1994 the Secretary of the Navy
established that the requirement was fiscally constrained to 2.5 MEBs, and that
remains our requirement today. Each brigade numbers approximately 14,500
Marines and a 2,500 personnel naval support element. Lift is based on what we
call its five fingerprints: the number of troops the ships may carry, square feet of
vehicle storage, cubic feet of cargo storage, number of LCAC [landing craft air
cushion] landing spots, and the number of vertical takeoff-and-landing spots
measured in CH-46 helicopter equivalents.
Our current amphibious fleet today meets the overall 3.0 MEB-life
requirements in three of the five fingerprints and exceeds the fiscally constrained
requirement of 2.5 MEBs in a fourth fingerprint. The Navy has been working
hard to close this gap in the remaining shortfalls, and with the LPD-17 [“San
Antonio” class amphibious transport dock] this gap will continue to close.
(“Expeditionary Warfare: ‘Taking The Fight To The Enemy’,” Naval Forces,
No. 5, 2005: 10. Bracketed material as published.)
CRS-5
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.13
Today’s 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).
Today’s 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
13 The maritime prepositioning ships serving the other military services are located
principally at Diego Garcia.
CRS-6
number of battle force ships in the Navy.14 Today’s 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 FY2005, 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.
! 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.
14 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 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 1997.15
! 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.16
New Navy Ship Force Structure Plan
In December 2005, it was reported that the Navy plans to maintain in coming
years a fleet of 313 ships, including 31 amphibious ships and a 14-ship squadron of
MPF(F) ships that includes 12 new ships — 3 additional amphibious ships and 9
sealift-type ships — and 2 existing, older-generation MPF ships.17
Sea Basing Concept of Operations
The Concept in General. The Navy and Marine Corps are developing a new
concept of operations for staging forces at sea and conducting expeditionary
operations ashore called enhanced networked sea basing, or sea basing for short.
Implementing the sea basing concept would require procuring amphibious ships that
are beyond those in the Navy’s regular amphibious fleet, as well as a new generation
of maritime prepositioning ships. The additional amphibious ships and the new
maritime prepositioning ships would collectively be called Maritime Prepositioning
Force (Future), or MPF(F), ships.
15 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.
16 Another LMSR was built as a new-construction LMSR and named the Soderman (TAKR-
317).
17 Christopher P. Cavas, “U.S. Ship Plan To Cost 20% More,” Defense News, December 5,
2005: 1, 8. This news article does not mention the 2 existing MPF ships, but as discussed
later in this CRS report, the Navy’s planned MPF(F) squadron includes these 2 ships along
with the 12 news ships. See also David S. Cloud, “Navy To Expand Fleet With New
Enemies in Mind,” New York Times, December 5, 2005.
CRS-8
Under the traditional concept of operations for conducting expeditionary
operations ashore, the Navy and Marine Corps would establish a base ashore, and
then use that base 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, with little or no reliance on a
nearby land base.18
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. Launching the operation directly from a base at sea,
advocates of sea basing argue, 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 nearby base ashore
— 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
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 traditional concept of
operations.
The sea base being referred to is not a single ship, but rather a collection of
amphibious ships, maritime prepositioning ships, and intertheater and sea base-to-
shore connector ships that is supported by an aircraft carrier strike group. Under sea
basing, certain functions previously carried out from the nearby base ashore,
including command and control and logistics, would be transferred back to the ships
at sea that collectively make up the sea base.
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.”19
18 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.
19 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. 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.
CRS-9
In August 2005, the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously approved a Joint
Integrating Concept (JIC) document for sea basing.20 Approval of the JIC gives
seabasing DOD recognition as a key future U.S. military capability, and creates a
more formal requirement for seabasing to be implemented in a way that satisfies joint
requirements rather than those of the Navy and Marine Corps alone. The seabasing
concept must still complete DOD’s Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System (JCIDS) process and obtain acquisition milestone approvals.21
MPF(F) Squadron For Implementing Sea Basing. In June 2005, the
Navy submitted a report to Congress on the MPF(F) program22 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).23 The report states
that each MPF(F) squadron is to consist of 14 ships, including 12 new-construction
ships and 2 existing MPF ships. The 2 existing MPF ships are now referred to as
“dense pack” ships.
The report states that operational requirements for an MPF(F) squadron 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 ships (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.
20 Christopher J. Castelli, “Joint Chiefs Endorse Pentagon’s Proposed Seabasing Concept,”
Inside the Navy, September 19, 2005. See also David W. Munns, “Forward Progress,”
Seapower, September 2005: 14-16, 18.
21 Jason Ma, “Navy Weighted U.S. Shipbuilding Capabilities When Crafting MPF(F) Plan,”
Inside the Navy, September 19, 2005.
22 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.
23 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-10
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].24
The report states that the 12 new-construction ships are as follows:
! 2 modified LHA(R)s equipped with Marine Expeditionary Brigade
(MEB) command and control (C2) facilities;
! 1 modified 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.25
The report states that “This squadron composition will take advantage of
existing product lines where possible minimizing new ship design requirements and
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.”26
Industrial-base considerations reportedly played a role in the selection of the
newly planned 14-ship squadron. An earlier press report suggested that the Navy
rejected an alternative proposed combination of LHD/LHA(R)-type ships and
modified San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships at least in part because all
these ships are built by Northrop Grumman, leaving no role in the program for
General Dynamics (GD).27 In a later press report, DOD officials distanced
themselves from the idea that the new squadron was selected to guarantee each firm
a role in the program, and argued that the 14-ship squadron was selected to minimize
development risk and cost, and because the earlier design for the MPF(F) ship was
24 Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force, Future, MPF(F), op cit, p. 6.
25 Ibid., p. 6 and p. 8.
26 Ibid., p. 6.
27 Jason Ma, “Navy Aims To Balance Industrial Base Needs In New Seabasing Plan,” Inside
the Navy, May 2, 2005.
CRS-11
so large that it could not be built in a U.S. yard, or at least not in enough U.S. yards
to permit competition between shipbuilding firms.28
Whatever the role of industrial-base considerations, the new 14-ship squadron
will give both Northrop and GD a role in the program. Northrop would build the
modified amphibious assault ships, and GD, which is currently building TAKEs for
Navy use, would build the modified TAKEs. The two firms would compete for the
LMSRs, which they have both built in the past, and could also compete, potentially
with other U.S. shipbuilding firms, for the MLPs.29
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).
An August 1, 2005, press report stated that the Marine Corps, in a July 28, 2005,
presentation to a conference of industry officials, explained that the planned 14-ship
MPF(F) squadron would have an estimated combined procurement cost of about
$14.5 billion, as detailed in Table 1.
28 Jason Ma, “Navy Weighed U.S. Shipbuilding Capabilities When Crafting MPF(F) Plan,”
Inside the Navy, September 19, 2005.
29 Ibid.
CRS-12
Table 1. Estimated Procurement Cost Of MPF(F) Squadron
(billions of dollars)
Ship type
Qty
Unit procurement cost
Total procurement cost
Modified LHA(R)
2
$2.35
$4.7
Modified LHD
1
2.2
2.2
Modified LMSR
3
0.98
2.94
Modified TAKE
3
0.63
1.89
MLP
3
0.92
2.76
Existing MPF
2
0a
0
TOTAL
14
$14.49
Source: Inside the Navy, August 1, 2005.
a. These two ships already exist.
The press report stated:
The amphibious ships in the future MPF squadron would be built without
their full complement of combat systems, said Magnus. The ships would have
systems for self-defense, flight operations, communications with other elements
of the squadron as well as command and control, he told Inside the Navy in a
brief interview. But missing from the ships would be “basic point missile
defense” systems, anti-surface ship weapons and undersea warfare systems, he
added.
Carrier strike groups or expeditionary strike groups that deploy with MPF
squadrons could provide protection, or the MPF ships would stay in safer waters
at least 25 miles offshore, he said.
“These ships are going to stay in the protected commons of the sea,” he
said.
The LMSR designs would be different too, enabling forces to arrive and
prepare for operations while at sea, instead of at a port, Magnus said. But
additional work remains in developing an automated cargo handling system for
the interior, he noted. Commercial cargo handlers already use such systems, and
the Office of Naval Research is developing a selective retrieval machine, which
could be tested within the next year, he said.
The future MPF squadron also will carry about 12,000 Marines, including
800 humvees and 106 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles. During the first day of
an operation, about 4,000 Marines would go ashore, followed by another 4,000
over the next few days, he said. The rest would remain on the ships to perform
command and control, intelligence, maintenance and logistics duties, he added.30
30 Jason Ma, “Future MPF Squadron For Seabasing Expected To Cost $14.5 Billion,” Inside
the Navy, Aug. 1, 2005. See also Christopher P. Cavas, “New U.S. Navy Sea Base Plan
Includes Assault Ships,” DefenseNews.com, July 14 2005; Christopher P. Cavas, “Big
Changes For Sea Base,” Navy Times, Aug. 1, 2005; and Geoff Fein, “Fleet of 14 MPF(F)
Ships Provides Lower Cost/Schedule Risk, Navy Says,” Defense Daily, July 12, 2005.
CRS-13
Additional Ships For Implementing Sea Basing. In addition to the
MPF(F) squadron ships, the Navy plans to procure one Rapid Strategic Lift Ship
(RSLS) per MPF(F) squadron for transporting equipment and personnel from the
U.S. mainland to the MPF(F) squadron, at an additional potential cost of $1.0 billion
to $1.3 billion per ship,31 and additional sea base-to-shore connector (SSC) ships for
transporting personnel and equipment from the sea base to the shore area of
operations. SSCs would replace the Navy’s current LCAC air-cushioned landing
craft.
Ship Procurement Programs
The Navy will release a new FY2007-FY2011 shipbuilding plan as part of the
FY2007 budget and FY2007-FY2011 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) that will
be submitted to Congress in February 2006. The Navy’s FY2007-FY2011
shipbuilding plan will differ from the FY2006-FY2011 shipbuilding plan discussed
below.
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 reduced 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 presented to the Navy for acceptance in late June 2005. A Navy
inspection of the ship conducted June 27-July 1, 2005 found numerous construction
deficiencies.32 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
31 Jason Ma, “Officials Consider Potential Role Of Notional Rapid Sealift Ship,” Inside the
Navy, October 31, 2005; and Andrew Koch, “US Navy Explores Joint High-Speed Cargo
Ship,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, August 10, 2005.
32 Associated Press, “Shipbuilder: Navy Will Accept New Vessel,” NavyTimes.com, July 21,
2005; Christopher J. Castelli, “Naval Inspection Report Finds Numerous Problems With
LPD-17,” Inside the Navy, Julu 18, 2005; Dale Eisman and Jack Dorsey, “Problems On New
Ship A Bad Sign, Analyst Warns,” Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, July 14, 2005; Nathan Hodge,
“Navy Inspectors Flag ‘Poor Construction’ On LPD-17,” Defense Daily, July 14, 2005. A
copy of the Navy’s inspection report, dated July 5, 2005, is posted online at
[http://www.coltoncompany.com/comment/lpd17insurv.htm]
CRS-14
$1.2 billion to $1.35 billion — an increase of roughly 60% to 80%. The ships are
built primarily at Northrop Grumman’s Avondale shipyard near New Orleans, LA.33
LHD-8. To replace one of its five aging LHAs, the Navy in FY2002 procured
LHD-8 — an eighth Wasp-class ship34 — 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 requested $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.
MPF Lease Buyout. The FY2006 budget requested $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
authority to spend NDSF funds to purchase these five ships.35 The owners of some
of these 13 ships reportedly believe that the Navy has underestimated the market
33 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).
34 LHD-8 will differ from the earlier LHDs in terms of propulsion plant and other respects.
35 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.
CRS-15
value of their ships, and that buying out the leases on them would cost at least $500
million more than the Navy has budgeted.36
MPF(F) Ship Class (Terminated). The FY2006-FY2011 FYDP included
a next-generation MPF ship called the MPF(F) as the replacement for today’s MPF
ships. The FYDP called 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 been considerably
larger and more expensive than today’s MPF ships.37
Although the FY2006-FY2011 FYDP submitted to Congress in February 2005
called for the procurement of MPF(F)s starting in FY2009, the June 2005 Navy
report to Congress on the MPF(F) program effectively terminated the planned
MPF(F) ship program and converted 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.
Rapid Strategic Lift Ship (RSLS). As mentioned earlier, the Navy plans
to procure one Rapid Strategic Lift Ship (RSLS) per MPF(F) squadron for
transporting equipment and personnel from the U.S. mainland to the MPF(F)
squadron, at an additional potential cost of $1.0 billion to $1.3 billion per ship.
Sea Base-to-Shore Connector (SSC) Ships. The Navy also plans to
procure some number of sea base-to-shore connector (SSC) ships for transporting
personnel and equipment from the sea base to the shore area of operations. SSCs
would replace the Navy’s current LCAC air-cushioned landing craft. The FY2006-
FY2011 FYDP called for procuring the a lead “intratheater connector” ship in
FY2009, another in FY2010, and a third in FY2011.
Current Areas of Uncertainty
Although some elements of the Navy’s plans for amphibious and maritime
prepositioning ships have been clarified, others remain uncertain, including the
following:
36 Geoff Fein, “Navy Underestimated Cost to Buyout Leases on MSC Ships, Source Says,”
Defense Daily, May 10, 2005.
37 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-16
! Status of 2.5-MEB amphibious lift goal. It is not clear whether the
fiscally constrained goal for having an amphibious fleet capable of
providing lift for 2.5 MEBs will be retained. A Marine Corps
official has stated that the goal has not been changed, but he also
suggested that the lift capabilities of ships in the MPF(F) force might
be counted toward satisfying the goal on an interim basis.38
! 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.39
! Design 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 of the ship. The ship is conceived as a floating pier,
and might be broadly similar to the Blue Marlin, the commercial
heavy-lift ship that transported the U.S. Aegis destroyer Cole back
to the United States after it was damaged by a terrorist boat-bomb
attack in 2000.40 One Navy official reportedly has said the ship
38 “Expeditionary Warfare: ‘Taking The Fight To The Enemy’,” Naval Forces, No. 5, 2005:
10.
39 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.
40 Jason Ma, “Future MPF Squadron For Seabasing Expected To Cost $14.5 Billion,” Inside
the Navy, August 1, 2005; Jason Ma, “Navy Plans To Use Active Production Lines For
(continued...)
CRS-17
might resemble a modified tanker with ballasting that would permit
it to lower and raise itself.41 Another press report stated that the ship
might be modified from a commercial design and have a speed of 20
knots and a length of 244 meters.42
! Design and exact unit cost of RSLS. The design and cost of the
RSLS may be influenced by Army requirements. The Army has
been working on its own concepts for future operations, including
one that it calls “operational maneuver from strategic distances.”
The Army wants a new high-speed strategic lift ship, which it calls
the Austere Access High Speed Sealift ship, to rapidly deliver Army
forces from the U.S. mainland to austere overseas ports. Merging
this sealift program with the RSLS effort could save money, but the
performance requirements for the Army ship differ from, and in
some ways are technically more challenging than, those for the
RSLS. The Navy reportedly envisions the RSLS as a 36- to 39-knot
ship with a 24-foot draft and a 5,000-ton payload. A program to
build such a ship reportedly would not require significant
development work. The Army reportedly wants a 45-knot ship with
a 20-foot arrival draft, an 8,000-ton payload, and 130,000 gross
square feet of cargo space. Such a ship could require significant
development work. The Navy and Army are drafting an Initial
Capabilities Document (ICD) that would merge requirements for the
two ships and create a single program office. One option for a joint
ship is a common hull form fitted out in two versions, one for each
service.43
! Design, unit cost, and number of sea base-to-shore connector
(SSC) ships. The Navy is drafting an ICD for these ships, which
would replace the Navy’s current LCAC air-cushioned landing craft.
The Navy expects the ICD to be approved in May 2006, and an
AOA to be conducted during FY2006.44 Another potential sea base-
40 (...continued)
Some Seabasing Ships,” Inside the Navy, August 29, 2005.
41 Jason Ma, “Navy Plans To Use Active Production Lines For Some Seabasing Ships,”
Inside the Navy, August 29, 2005.
42 Andrew Koch, “US Navy Explores Joint High-Speed Cargo Ship,” Jane’s Defence
Weekly, August 10, 2005.
43 Jason Ma, “Officials Consider Potential Role Of Notional Rapid Sealift Ship,” Inside the
Navy, October 31, 2005; Andrew Koch, “US Navy Explores Joint High-Speed Cargo Ship,”
Jane’s Defence Weekly, August 10, 2005; Christopher J. Castelli, “Navy, Army Discuss
Possibility Of Developing Joint Sealift Vessel,” Inside the Navy, August 8, 2005.
44 Christopher J. Castelli, “Navy Issues Announcement For New Seabasing Connecter
Program,” Inside the Navy, November 28, 2005; Jason Ma, “NAVSEA Seeks Studies On
Future ‘Sea Base To Shore Connector’,” Inside the Navy, October 10, 2005; Jason Ma,
“LCAC Follow-On To Perform Seabasing Missions and Other Tasks,” Inside the Navy,
(continued...)
CRS-18
to-shore connector ship is the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV),
which is to be a 35- to 45-knot, shallow-draft, intratheater transport
ship similar to the leased commercial high-speed ferries that DOD
has used experimentally in recent years. DOD’s Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) approved the ICD for the JHSV in early
November 2005, and an AOA for the ship is to be completed before
the end of the year. The relationship of the JHSV to other sea base-
to-shore connectors, however, is unclear.45
! Potential For Further Changes To Meet Joint Requirements.
Another uncertainty concerns how the seabasing concept might be
further altered, if at all, to meet the operational needs of other parts
of DOD, such as the Air Force and the Special Operations
Command.
Oversight Issues for Congress
The current situation regarding Navy plans for amphibious and maritime
prepositioning raises potential oversight issues for Congress regarding the potential
affordability and cost-effectiveness of the sea basing concept and Navy and Marine
Corps coordination with other services in developing the sea basing concept.
Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness of Sea Basing
The Navy, in conjunction with the Marine Corps, examined plans for procuring
one, two, or three MPF(F) squadrons. Many observers believed that the option of
three MPF(F) squadrons was unlikely to be chosen due to affordability
considerations, and that the Navy was therefore likely to choose either one or two
squadrons. The Navy’s reported choice to plan for one squadron makes the sea
basing concept roughly half as expensive to implement as would have been the case
had the Navy decided to plan for two.
One issue in assessing the cost of the sea basing concept concerns the accuracy
of the Navy’s procurement cost estimates for the new-construction sea basing ships
(see Table 1). If these estimates turn out to be too low, the sea basing concept would
be more difficult to afford. Navy ship construction costs in recent years have risen
more quickly than some anticipated. Several recent Navy ships procured in recent
years have turned out to be more expensive to build than the Navy originally
44 (...continued)
August 29, 2005.
45 “Joint High Speed Vessel Program Speeding Ahead,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report,
November 21, 2005.
CRS-19
projected,46 and some analysts believe the Navy is currently underestimating the
procurement cost of proposed ships such as the DD(X) destroyer.47
In addition, as previously discussed, fully implementing the sea basing concept
will involve procuring RSLSs and SSCs, as well as research and development work
to develop supporting sea basing technologies. The costs of these development and
procurement efforts are currently unclear, making it difficult to assess the potential
overall affordability of the sea basing concept.
The 2003 DSB report stated that “The funding challenges presented by the
[efforts needed to implement sea basing] are significant.”48 Robert Work, a naval
analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA),49 has
characterized sea basing as “a rich man’s approach to solving the [access denial]
problem.”50 A November 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the
Navy’s amphibious and maritime prepositioning ship forces expressed concerns
about the Navy prospective ability to expressed concerns about the Navy’s potential
ability to afford desired numbers of both MPF(F) ships and ships for the regular
amphibious force.51
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.52
Skeptics of the Navy’s plan for implementing the sea basing concept could
argue that the capability to be provided by the MPF(F) squadron is more than what
46 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Improved
Management Practices Could Help Minimize Cost Growth in Navy Shipbuilding Programs.
(GAO-05-183, February 2005)
47 For a discussion, see CRS Report RL32109, op. cit.
48 Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, op. cit., p. 85.
49 CSBA is an independent organization that conducts research and writes reports on military
issues.
50 As quoted in Otto Kreisher, “Sea Basing,” Air Force Magazine, July 2004. Material in
brackets as in the article.
51 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Future of the Navy’s Amphibious and Maritime
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.
52 See also John P. Patch, “Sea Basing: Chasing the Dream,” U.S. Naval Institute
Proceedings, May 2005: 38-43.
CRS-20
is be needed for the Navy’s contribution to the global war on terrorism (GWOT), and
of uncertain relevance to U.S. participation in a conflict with China in the Taiwan
Strait area.53 Navy and Marine Corps officials argue in return that seabasing is
relevant to a spectrum of potential future operations, ranging from humanitarian and
disaster-relief operations to stability operations and major combat operations
(MCOs). In support of this argument, they note the recent use of U.S. naval forces
in providing disaster relief following the December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean
and Hurricane Katrina along the U.S. Gulf Coast. 54
Potential oversight and policy questions for Congress include the following:
! If the procurement costs of the new-construction ships in the
proposed MPF(F) squadron turn out to be higher than the Navy
estimates, how might this affect the affordability of the sea basing
concept?
! 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 such an estimate 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?
! What is the potential applicability of the capability to be provided by
the MPF(F) squadron to the GWOT or to other potential conflict or
non-conflict scenarios?
! 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?
53 For more discussion of potential U.S. Navy requirements for a conflict in the Taiwan
Strait, see CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy
Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
54 See, for example, Geoff Fein, “Relief Efforts In Gulf Demonstrate Sea Basing Capability,
CNO Says,” Inside the Navy, October 7, 2005; Nathan Hodge, “Marine Corps Commandant
Stumps For ‘Sea Basing’ Capability,” Defense Daily, August 19, 2005; John Liang, “Hagee:
Seabasing Can Contribute To More Than Just Combat Ops,” Inside the Navy, August 15,
2005.
CRS-21
! What are the potential operational risks of not implementing sea
basing?
Coordination with Other Services on Sea Basing
Regarding interservice coordination in the development of sea basing, one issue
to be resolved, discussed earlier, concerns the effort to merge the Navy RSLS and
Army Austere Access High Speed Sealift ship efforts.
A second issue concerns a new transport aircraft called the Joint Heavy Lift
aircraft. As a part of the process for making seabasing a joint capability rather than
simply a Navy-Marine Corps one, the MPF(F) squadron is also to be capable of
staging and deploying ashore an Army combat brigade team of about 6,000 soldiers
with heavy armor. Such an operation could involve flying the Joint Heavy Lift
aircraft from the MPF(F) ships. The Army is leading the effort to develop this
aircraft, and is currently examining potential options for it, including a quad tiltrotor
configuration. Such an aircraft, however, could take up a lot of deck space on an
MPF(F) ship, complicating operations.55
With regard to interservice coordination on sea basing in general, an October
2005 press article stated:
Cultural differences between the services are one of the stumbling blocks
holding up development of the U.S. Navy’s new Sea Basing concept, a former
officer told a group of industry representatives here last week.
Greg Cook, a U.S. Air Force colonel who retired in August after working
to develop Sea Basing plans and concepts for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the
“roles-and-missions debate” centered on how different services and commands
viewed the idea of a squadron of large ships gathered as an operating base about
100 miles off an enemy shore.
“If the Army operates from the sea, isn’t that what the Marines do?” Cook
asked an audience gathered here Oct. 26 to discuss future naval planning. “If the
Air Force operates from the sea, isn’t that what the Navy does?”
Cook said the services view the Sea Basing concept in light of their own
traditional missions. The Army looks at the idea as allowing for faster and
greater strategic access via the high-speed, shallow-draft connectors to transfer
troops, vehicles and gear between the ships and shore.
The Air Force doesn’t see the concept as supporting its core competencies
and is concerned about costs, said Cook, a former pilot for that service’s Air
Mobility Command.
“The Air Force is not that excited” about the idea, he said.
55 Jason Ma, “Admiral: Integrating Army Logistics In Sea Base Presents Challenges,” Inside
the Navy, November 21, 2005.
CRS-22
The Navy, he said, looks at Sea Basing as “a foundation of strategic access
and power projection,” but the Marine Corps is looking at it simply as a faster
means to deliver a Marine Expeditionary Brigade to the fight.
Special Operations Command sees it as a “high-speed mothership for rapid
access,” while joint commanders have a wider view, regarding it as a mobile base
that provides options and flexibility that increases global presence and provides
strategic access.
“These things have to be worked out,” Cook said. The question of who
should operate the ships is another issue, he said.56
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
! To what degree, if any, does the Navy-Marine Corps concept for sea
basing conflict with emerging Army or Air Force concepts of
operation for conducting future expeditionary operations? Are the
Navy and Marine Corps taking potential Army, Air Force, and
Special Operations Command requirements sufficiently into account
in developing the sea basing concept?
! How might the Army’s new plan for reorganizing itself into
modular, brigade-sized entities called units of action (UAs)57 affect,
or be affected by, the sea basing concept? How might the Army’s
plans for procuring its own next-generation sealift ships affect, or be
affected by, the sea basing concept?
Legislative Activity
FY2006
FY2006 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1815/S. 1042).
House Report. Section 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
56 Christopher P. Cavas, “‘Cultural Differences’ Slow USN Sea Basing Progress,”
DefenseNews.com, October 31, 2005.
57 For more on this plan, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues
for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
CRS-23
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
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. The committee 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. Section 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:
CRS-24
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.
(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:
CRS-25
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
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
CRS-26
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
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)
CRS-27
Senate Report. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept.
109-141 of September 29, 2005) on H.R. 2863, stated:
The President’s budget requests $749,797,000 for the buyout of 13 MPS
leases. The Navy justifies its budget request by claiming that buying out these
vessels will potentially save the Government money. The Committee questions
this assertion for two reasons. First, the useful life of these ships has not been
well-defined and second, the actual cost to procure the vessels is currently
unknown. The Navy reports that recent arbitration proceedings on the first two
ships affirmed Navy estimates; however, the Committee notes that negotiations
remain outstanding on 11 additional vessels. As such, the Committee finds the
Navy’s current cost savings estimates and thus its budget request imprecise. The
Committee believes however, that potential exists for the Government to realize
savings from the procurement of these vessels and recommends $127,000,000 in
funding to procure three of the 13 vessels, consistent with recommendations
contained in S. 1042, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006. (Page 237)
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.
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
CRS-28
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)
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.
CRS-29
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.
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.
CRS-30
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.58
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).
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
58 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-31
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
$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.
CRS-32
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)
crsphpgw