.

Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
March 25, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32665

c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests funding for the procurement of nine new battle
force ships (i.e., ships that count against the Navy’s goal for achieving and maintaining a fleet of
308 ships). The nine ships include two Virginia-class attack submarines, two DDG-51 class Aegis
destroyers, three Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), one LPD-17 class amphibious ship, and one
TAO(X) class oiler. The Navy’s proposed FY2016-FY2020 five-year shipbuilding plan includes a
total of 48 ships, compared to a total of 44 ships in the FY2015-FY2019 five-year shipbuilding
plan.
The planned size of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective
affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been matters of concern for the congressional
defense committees for the past several years. The Navy’s FY2016 30-year (FY2016-FY2045)
shipbuilding plan, like many previous Navy 30-year shipbuilding plans, does not include enough
ships to fully support all elements of the Navy’s 308-ship goal over the entire 30-year period. In
particular, the Navy projects that the fleet would experience a shortfall in small surface
combatants from FY2016 through FY2027, a shortfall in attack submarines from FY2025 through
FY2036, and a shortfall in large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers) from FY2036
through at least FY2045.
The Navy delivered its narrative report on the FY2015 30-year shipbuilding plan to CRS on July
3, 2014. The Navy estimates in the report that the plan would cost an average of about $16.7
billion per year in constant FY2014 dollars to implement, including an average of about $15.7
billion per year during the first 10 years of the plan, an average of about $19.7 billion per year
during the middle 10 years of the plan, and an average of about $14.6 billion per year during the
final 10 years of the plan.
A December 2014 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2015 30-year
shipbuilding plan estimates that the plan will require about 13% more funding to implement than
the Navy estimates, including about 6% more than the Navy estimates during the first 10 years of
the plan, about 14% more than the Navy estimates during the middle 10 years of the plan, and
about 20% more than the Navy estimates during the final 10 years of the plan. Over the years,
CBO’s estimates of the cost to implement the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan have generally
been higher than the Navy’s estimates. Some of the difference between CBO’s estimates and the
Navy’s estimates, particularly in the latter years of the plan, is due to a difference between CBO
and the Navy in how to treat inflation in Navy shipbuilding. The program that contributes the
most to the difference between the CBO and Navy estimates of the cost of the 30-year plan is a
future destroyer that appears in the latter years of the 30-year plan.
Potential issues for Congress in reviewing the Navy’s proposed FY2016 shipbuilding budget, its
proposed FY2016-FY2020 five-year shipbuilding plan, and its FY2016 30-year (FY2015-
FY2045) shipbuilding plan include the following:
• the potential impact on the size and capability of the Navy of limiting DOD
spending through FY2021 to the levels set forth in the Budget Control Act of
2011, as amended;
• the appropriate future size and structure of the Navy in light of budgetary and
strategic considerations; and
Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

• the affordability of the 30-year shipbuilding plan.
Funding levels and legislative activity on individual Navy shipbuilding programs are tracked in
detail in other CRS reports.

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Navy’s Ship Force Structure Goal ............................................................................................. 1
March 2015 Goal for Fleet of 308 Ships ............................................................................. 1
Goal for Fleet of 308 Ships Compared to Earlier Goals ..................................................... 1
Navy’s Five-Year and 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans ................................................................... 3
Five-Year (FY2016-FY2020) Shipbuilding Plan ................................................................ 3
30-Year (FY2016-FY2045) Shipbuilding Plan ................................................................... 5
Navy’s Projected Force Levels Under 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan ............................................ 7
Comparison of First 10 Years of 30-Year Plans ......................................................................... 8
Oversight Issues for Congress for FY2016 .................................................................................... 13
Potential Impact on Size and Capability of Navy of Limiting DOD Spending to BCA
Caps Through FY2021 ......................................................................................................... 13
Appropriate Future Size and Structure of Navy in Light of Strategic and Budgetary
Changes ................................................................................................................................ 17
Affordability of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan ............................................................................ 25
Estimated Ship Procurement Costs ................................................................................... 25
Future Shipbuilding Funding Levels ................................................................................. 27
Legislative Activity for FY2016 .................................................................................................... 29
FY2016 Funding Request ........................................................................................................ 29
CRS Reports Tracking Legislation on Specific Navy Shipbuilding Programs ....................... 29

Figures
Figure 1. Navy Table on Mission Impacts of Limiting Navy’s Budget to BC Levels ................... 17

Tables
Table 1. Current 308 Ship Force Structure Goal Compared to Earlier Goals .................................. 2
Table 2. Navy FY2016 Five-Year (FY2016-FY2020) Shipbuilding Plan ....................................... 4
Table 3. Navy FY2015 30-Year (FY2016-FY2045) Shipbuilding Plan .......................................... 6
Table 4. Projected Force Levels Resulting from FY2015 30-Year (FY2016-FY2045)
Shipbuilding Plan ......................................................................................................................... 7
Table 5. Ship Procurement Quantities in First 10 Years of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans ................. 9
Table 6. Projected Navy Force Sizes in First 10 years of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans ................. 11
Table 7. Recent Study Group Proposals for Navy Ship Force Structure ....................................... 20
Table 8. Navy and CBO Estimates of Cost of FY2014 and FY2015 30-Year Shipbuilding
Plans ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Table B-1. Comparison of Navy’s 308-ship goal, Navy Plan from 1993 BUR, and Navy
Plan from 2010 QDR Review Panel ........................................................................................... 35
Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table D-1. Total Number of Ships in the Navy Since FY1948 ..................................................... 40
Table D-2. Battle Force Ships Procured or Requested/Programmed, FY1982-FY2020 ............... 41

Appendixes
Appendix A. Comparing Past Ship Force Levels to Current or Potential Future Ship Force
Levels.......................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix B. Independent Panel Assessment of 2010 QDR .......................................................... 33
Appendix C. U.S. Strategy and the Size and Structure of U.S. Naval Forces ............................... 37
Appendix D. Size of the Navy and Navy Shipbuilding Rate ......................................................... 39

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 41

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction
This report provides background information and presents potential issues for Congress
concerning the Navy’s ship force-structure goals and shipbuilding plans. The planned size of the
Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy’s
shipbuilding plans have been matters of concern for the congressional defense committees for the
past several years. Decisions that Congress makes on Navy shipbuilding programs can
substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements, and the U.S. shipbuilding
industrial base.
Background
Navy’s Ship Force Structure Goal
March 2015 Goal for Fleet of 308 Ships
On March 17, 2015, in response to language in H.Rept. 113-446 (the House Armed Services
Committee’s report on H.R. 4435, the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act),1 the Navy
submitted to Congress a report presenting a goal for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 308
ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships.2 The goal for a 308-ship fleet is the
result of a force structure assessment (FSA) that the Navy completed in 2014. The 2014 FSA and
the resulting 308-ship plan reflect the defense strategic guidance document that the
Administration presented in January 20123 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
Goal for Fleet of 308 Ships Compared to Earlier Goals
Table 1 compares the 308-ship goal to earlier Navy ship force structure plans. Compared to the
Navy’s previous 306-ship goal, the differences consist of a requirement for one additional
amphibious ship (specifically, a 12th LPD-17 class amphibious ship) and a requirement for one
additional Mobile Landing Platform/Afloat Forward Staging Base (MLP/AFSB) ship (a ship
included in Table 1 in the “Other” category).

1 See pages 205-206 of H.Rept. 113-446 of May 13, 2014.
2 Department of the Navy, Report to Congress [on] Navy Fore Structure Assessment, February 2015, 5 pp. The cover
letters for the report are dated March 17, 2015.
3 For more on this document, see CRS Report R42146, Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance
(DSG): In Brief, by Catherine Dale and Pat Towell.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 1. Current 308 Ship Force Structure Goal Compared to Earlier Goals
Changes
Early-2005
2002-
to
Navy plan
2004
2001
Revised
February
February
for fleet of
Navy QDR
308-
306-
~310-
313-ship
2006 313-
2006
260-325
plan
plan
ship
ship
316 ship
plan of
ship plan
Navy
ships
for
for
plan of
plan of
plan of
Septem-
announced
plan for
375-
310-
March
January
March
ber
through
313-ship
260-
325-
ship
ship
Ship type
2015
2013
2012
2011
mid-2011
fleet
ships ships Navya Navy
Ballistic missile submarines
12b 12b
12-14b 12b 12b
14 14 14 14 14
(SSBNs)
Cruise missile submarines
0c
0c
0-4c
4c
0c 4
4
4
4
2
or
(SSGNs)
4d
Attack submarines (SSNs)
48 48 ~48 48
48
48 37 41 55 55
Aircraft carriers
11e 11e
11e 11e 11e 11f 10 11 12 12
Cruisers and destroyers
88 88 ~90 94 94g 88
67
92
104
116
Frigates
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs)
52 52 ~55 55 55 55 63
82
56
0
Amphibious ships
34 33 ~32 33 33h
31 17 24 37 36
MPF(F) shipsi
0j
0j
0j
0j
0j 12i 14i 20i
0i
0i
Combat logistics (resupply) ships
29 29 ~29 30
30
30 24 26 42 34
Dedicated mine warfare ships
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
26k 16
Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs)
10l 10l
10l 10l 21l 3
0
0
0
0
Otherm
24 23 ~23 16 24n
17 10 11 25 25
Total battle force ships
308
306
~310-
313
328
313
260
325
375
310
316
or
312
Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Navy data.
Note: QDR is Quadrennial Defense Review. The “~” symbol means approximately and signals that the number
in question may be refined as a result of the Naval Force Structure Assessment currently in progress.
a. Initial composition. Composition was subsequently modified.
b. The Navy plans to replace the 14 current Ohio-class SSBNs with a new class of 12 next-generation SSBNs.
For further discussion, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
c. Although the Navy plans to continue operating its four SSGNs until they reach retirement age in the late
2020s, the Navy does not plan to replace these ships when they retire. This situation can be expressed in a
table like this one with either a 4 or a zero.
d. The report on the 2001 QDR did not mention a specific figure for SSGNs. The Administration’s proposed
FY2001 DOD budget requested funding to support the conversion of two available Trident SSBNs into
SSGNs, and the retirement of two other Trident SSBNs. Congress, in marking up this request, supported a
plan to convert all four available SSBNs into SSGNs.
e. With congressional approval, the goal has been temporarily be reduced to 10 carriers for the period
between the retirement of the carrier Enterprise (CVN-65) in December 2012 and entry into service of the
carrier Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), currently scheduled for September 2015.
f.
For a time, the Navy characterized the goal as 11 carriers in the nearer term, and eventually 12 carriers.
g. The 94-ship goal was announced by the Navy in an April 2011 report to Congress on naval force structure
and missile defense.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

h. The Navy acknowledged that meeting a requirement for being able to lift the assault echelons of 2.0 Marine
Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs) would require a minimum of 33 amphibious ships rather than the 31 ships
shown in the February 2006 plan. For further discussion, see CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious
Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
i.
Today’s Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) ships are intended primarily to support Marine Corps
operations ashore, rather than Navy combat operations, and thus are not counted as Navy battle force
ships. The planned MPF (Future) ships, however, would have contributed to Navy combat capabilities (for
example, by supporting Navy aircraft operations). For this reason, the ships in the planned MPF(F) squadron
were counted by the Navy as battle force ships. The planned MPF(F) squadron was subsequently
restructured into a different set of initiatives for enhancing the existing MPF squadrons; the Navy no longer
plans to acquire an MPF(F) squadron.
j.
The Navy no longer plans to acquire an MPF(F) squadron. The Navy, however, has procured or plans to
procure some of the ships that were previously planned for the squadron—specifical y, TAKE-1 class cargo
ships, and Mobile Landing Platform (MLP)/Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) ships. These ships are
included in the total shown for “Other” ships.
k. The figure of 26 dedicated mine warfare ships included 10 ships maintained in a reduced mobilization status
cal ed Mobilization Category B. Ships in this status are not readily deployable and thus do not count as
battle force ships. The 375-ship proposal thus implied transferring these 10 ships to a higher readiness
status.
l.
Totals shown include 5 ships transferred from the Army to the Navy and operated by the Navy primarily
for the performance of Army missions.
m. This category includes, among other things, command ships and support ships.
n. The increase in this category from 17 ships under the February 2006 313-ship plan to 24 ships under the
apparent 328-ship goal included the addition of one TAGOS ocean surveillance ship and the transfer into
this category of six ships—three modified TAKE-1 class cargo ships, and three Mobile Landing Platform
(MLP) ships—that were previously intended for the planned (but now canceled) MPF(F) squadron.
Navy’s Five-Year and 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans
Five-Year (FY2016-FY2020) Shipbuilding Plan
Table 2 shows the Navy’s FY2016 five-year (FY2016-FY2020) shipbuilding plan.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 2. Navy FY2016 Five-Year (FY2016-FY2020) Shipbuilding Plan
(Battle force ships—i.e., ships that count against 308-ship goal)
Ship type
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
Total
Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier


1


1
Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarine
2
2
2
2
2
10
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer
2
2
2
2
2
10
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
3
3
3
2
3
14
LHA(R) amphibious assault ship

1



1
LPD-17 class amphibious ship
1




1
LX(R) amphibious ship




1
1
Fleet tug/salvage ship (TATS)

1
1
2
1
5
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP)/Afloat Forward
1 1
Staging Base (AFSB)
TAO(X) oiler
1

1
1
1
4
TOTAL
9
10
10
9
10
48
Source: FY2016 Navy budget submission.
Notes: The MLP/AFSB is a variant of the MLP with additional features permitting it to serve in the role of an
AFSB. The Navy proposes to fund the TATFs and TAO(X)s through the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF)
and the other ships through the Navy’s shipbuilding account, known formally as the Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy (SCN) appropriation account.
Observations that can be made about the Navy’s proposed FY2016 five-year (FY2016-FY2020)
shipbuilding plan include the following:
• Total of 48 ships. The plan includes a total of 48 ships, compared to a total of 44
ships in the FY2015-FY2019 five-year shipbuilding plan.
• Average of 8.8 ships per year. The plan includes an average of 9.6 battle force
ships per year. The steady-state replacement rate for a fleet of 308 ships with an
average service life of 35 years is 8.8 ships per year. In light of how the average
shipbuilding rate since FY1993 has been substantially below 8.8 ships per year
(see Appendix D), shipbuilding supporters for some time have wanted to
increase the shipbuilding rate to a steady rate of 10 or more battle force ships per
year.
• DDG-51 destroyers and Virginia-class submarines being procured under
MYP arrangements. The 10 DDG-51 destroyers to be procured in FY2013-
FY2017 and the 10 Virginia-class attack submarines to be procured in FY2014-
FY2018 are being procured under multiyear procurement (MYP) contracts.4
• Flight III DDG-51 to begin with second ship in FY2016. The second of the
two DDG-51s requested for FY2016 is to be the first Flight III variant of the
DDG-51. The Flight III variant is to carry a new and more capable radar called
the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR).

4 For more on MYP contracting, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy Contracting
in Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Moshe Schwartz.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

• Modified LCS/Frigate to start in FY2019. The LCS program was restructured
in 2014 at the direction of the Secretary of Defense. As a result of the
restructuring, LCSs to be procured in FY2019 and beyond are to be built to a
more heavily armed design. The Navy has stated that it will refer to these
modified LCSs as frigates.
• 12th LPD-17 class ship added to FY2016. The LPD-17 class ship requested for
FY2016 is to be the 12th ship in the class. The Navy had planned on procuring no
more than 11 LPD-17s, but Congress has supported the procurement of a 12th
LPD-17 by providing unrequested funding for a 12th ship in FY2013 and
FY2015. Responding to these two funding actions, the Navy, as a part of its
FY2016 budget submission, has inserted a 12th LPD-17 into its shipbuilding plan,
and is requesting in FY2016 the remainder of the funding needed to fully fund
the ship.
• TAO(X) procurement to begin FY2016. The TAO(X) oiler requested for
procurement in FY2016 is to be the first in a new class of 17 ships.
30-Year (FY2016-FY2045) Shipbuilding Plan
Table 3 shows the Navy’s FY2016 30-year (FY2016-FY2045) shipbuilding plan.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 3. Navy FY2015 30-Year (FY2016-FY2045) Shipbuilding Plan
FY CVN LSC SSC SSN
SSBN
AWS
CLF
Supt Total
16
2 3 2
1
1
9
17
2 3 2
1
2 10
18
1 2 3 2
1
1 10
19
2 2 2
1
2 9
20
2 3 2
1
1
1 10
21
2 3 1
1
1
1 9
22
2 3 2
1
1
2 11
23
1 2 3 2
1
1
3 13
24
2 3 1
1
2
1
2 12
25
2 3 2
1
1
1 10
26
2 1
1
1
1
6
27
2 1
1
1
1
6
28
1 2 1
1
2
1
1 9
29
2 1
1
1
1
1 7
30
2 1 1
1
1
1
2 9
31
2 1
1
1
1
2 8
32
2 1 1
1
1
1
2 9
33
1 2 1 1
1
1
2 9
34
2 1 1
1
1 6
35
2 2 1
1
6
36
2 2 2
1
7
37
2 2 2
6
38
1 3 3 2
9
39
3 4 2
9
40
3 4 1
2
10
41
2 4 2
8
42
3 4 1
1
9
43
1 2 4 2
1
10
44
3 2 1
2
8
45
2 3 2
1
2
10
Source: FY2016 30-year (FY2016-FY2045) shipbuilding plan.
Key: FY = Fiscal Year; CVN = aircraft carriers; LSC = surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers); SSC
= small surface combatants (i.e., Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs]); SSN = attack submarines; SSGN = cruise
missile submarines; SSBN = ballistic missile submarines; AWS = amphibious warfare ships; CLF = combat
logistics force (i.e., resupply) ships; Supt = support ships.
In devising a 30-year shipbuilding plan to move the Navy toward its ship force-structure goal, key
assumptions and planning factors include but are not limited to the following:
• ship service lives;
• estimated ship procurement costs;
• projected shipbuilding funding levels; and
• industrial-base considerations.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Navy’s Projected Force Levels Under 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Table 4 shows the Navy’s projection of ship force levels for FY2016-FY2045 that would result
from implementing the FY2016 30-year (FY2016-FY2045) shipbuilding plan shown in Table 3.
Table 4. Projected Force Levels Resulting from FY2015 30-Year (FY2016-FY2045)
Shipbuilding Plan
Where two figures are shown, the first is the figure using existing rules for counting battle force ships,
and the second is the figure using the Navy’s proposed modified rules for counting battle force ships.

CVN LSC SSC
SSN
SSGN
SSBN
AWS
CLF Supt Total
308 ship plan
11
88
52
48
0
12
34
29
34
308
FY16
11 87 22
53
4
14
31
29
31 282
FY17
11 90 26
50
4
14
32
29
28 284
FY18
11 91 30
52
4
14
33
29
30 294
FY19
11 94 33
50
4
14
33
29
32 300
FY20
11 95 33
51
4
14
33
29
34 304
FY21
11 96 34
51
4
14
33
29
34 306
FY22
12 97 37
48
4
14
34
29
34 309
FY23
12 98 36
49
4
14
34
29
34 310
FY24
12 98 40
48
4
14
35
29
35 315
FY25
11 98 43
47
4
14
35
29
36 317
FY26
11 97 46
45
2
14
37
29
36 317
FY27
11 99 49
44
1
13
37
29
36 319
FY28
11 100 52
42
0
13
38
29
36 321
FY29
11 98 52
41
0
12
37
29
36 316
FY30
11 95 52
42
0
11
36
29
36 312
FY31
11 91 52
43
0
11
36
29
35 308
FY32
11 89 52
43
0
10
36
29
36 306
FY33
11 88 52
44
0
10
37
29
36 307
FY34
11 88 52
45
0
10
37
29
36 306
FY35
11 88 52
46
0
10
36
29
37 309
FY36
11 86 53
47
0
10
35
29
37 308
FY37
11 85 53
48
0
10
35
29
36 307
FY38
11 84 54
47
0
10
34
29
35 304
FY39
11 85 56
47
0
10
34
29
32 304
FY40
10 85 56
47
0
10
33
29
32 302
FY41
10 85 54
47
0
11
34
29
32 302
FY42
10 83 54
49
0
12
33
29
32 302
FY43
10 83 54
49
0
12
32
29
32 301
FY44
10 82 54
50
0
12
32
29
32 301
FY45
10 82 57
50
0
12
33
29
32 305
Source: FY2016 30-year (FY2016-FY2045) shipbuilding plan.
Note: Figures for support ships include five JHSVs transferred from the Army to the Navy and operated by the
Navy primarily for the performance of Army missions.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Key: FY = Fiscal Year; CVN = aircraft carriers; LSC = surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers); SSC
= small surface combatants (i.e., frigates, Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs], and mine warfare ships); SSN = attack
submarines; SSGN = cruise missile submarines; SSBN = ballistic missile submarines; AWS = amphibious
warfare ships; CLF = combat logistics force (i.e., resupply) ships; Supt = support ships.
Observations that can be made about the Navy’s FY2016 30-year (FY2016-FY2045) shipbuilding
plan and resulting projected force levels included the following:
• Total of 264 ships; average of about 8.8 per year. The plan includes a total of
264 ships to be procured, the same as the number in the FY2015 30-year
(FY2015-FY2044) shipbuilding plan. The total of 264 ships equates to an
average of 8.8 ships per year, which is equal to the average procurement rate
(sometimes called the steady-state replacement rate) of 8.8 ships per year that
would be needed over the long run to achieve and maintain a fleet of 308 ships,
assuming an average life of 35 years for Navy ships.
• Projected shortfalls in amphibious ships, small surface combatants, and
attack submarines. The FY2015 30-year shipbuilding plan, like many previous
Navy 30-year shipbuilding plans, does not include enough ships to fully support
all elements of the Navy’s 308-ship goal over the entire 30-year period. In
particular, the Navy projects that the fleet would experience a shortfall in small
surface combatants from FY2016 through FY2027, a shortfall in attack
submarines from FY2025 through FY2036, and a shortfall in large surface
combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers) from FY2036 through at least FY2045.
• Ballistic missile submarine force to be reduced temporarily to 10 boats. As a
result of a decision in the FY2013 budget to defer the scheduled procurement of
the first Ohio replacement (SSBN[X]) ballistic missile submarine by two years,
from FY2019 to FY2021, the ballistic missile submarine force is projected to
drop to a total of 10 or 11 boats—one or two boats below the 12-boat SSBN
force-level goal—during the period FY2029-FY2041. The Navy says this
reduction is acceptable for meeting current strategic nuclear deterrence mission
requirements, because none of the 10 or 11 boats during these years will be
encumbered by long-term maintenance.5
Comparison of First 10 Years of 30-Year Plans
Table 5 and Table 6 below show the first 10 years of planned annual ship procurement quantities
and projected Navy force sizes in 30-year shipbuilding plans dating back to the first such plan,
which was submitted in 2000 in conjunction with the FY2001 budget. By reading vertically down
each column, one can see how the ship procurement quantity or Navy force size projected for a
given fiscal year changed as that year drew closer to becoming the current budget year.


5 For further discussion of this issue, see CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile
Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

---

.

Table 5. Ship Procurement Quantities in First 10 Years of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans
Years shown are fiscal years
FY of 30-year plan
(year
submitted) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
FY01
plan
(2000) 8 8 8 8 7 5 6 6 6 7
FY02 plan (2001)

6
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a













FY03 plan (2002)


5
5
7
7
11 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a












FY04
plan
(2003) 7 8 7 7 9
14
15
13
14
15
FY05
plan
(2004) 9 6 8 9
17
14
15
14
16
15
FY06
plan
(2005) 4 7 7 9
10
12
n/a n/a n/a n/a









FY07
plan
(2006) 7 7
11
12
14
13
12
11
11
10
FY08
plan
(2007) 7
11
12
13
12
12
10
12
11
6
FY09
plan
(2008) 7 8 8
12
12
13
13
12
12
13
FY10
plan
(2009) 8
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a





FY11
plan
(2010) 9 8
12
9
12
9
12
9
13
9
FY12
plan
(2011) 10
13
11
12
9
12
10
12
8 9
FY13
plan
(2012) 10
7 8 9 7
11
8
12
9
12
FY14
plan
(2013) 8 8 7 9 9
10
10
10
11
14
FY15
plan
(2014) 7 8
11
10
8
11
8
11
11
13
FY16
plan
(2015) 9
10
10
9
10
9
11
13
12
10
Source: Navy 30-year shipbuilding plans supplemented by annual Navy budget submissions (including 5-year shipbuilding plans) for fiscal years shown. n/a means not
available—see notes below.
Notes: The FY2001 30-year plan submitted in 2000 was submitted under a one-time-only legislative provision, Section 1013 of the FY2000 National Defense
Authorization Act (S. 1059/P.L. 106-65 of October 5, 1999). No provision required DOD to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan in 2001 or 2002, when Congress
considered DOD’s proposed FY2002 and FY2003 DOD budgets. (In addition, no FYDP was submitted in 2001, the first year of the George W. Bush Administration.)
Section 1022 of the FY2003 Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4546/P.L. 107-314 of December 2, 2002) created a requirement to submit a 30-year
shipbuilding plan each year, in conjunction with each year’s defense budget. This provision was codified at 10 U.S.C. 231. The first 30-year plan submitted under this
CRS-9
c11173008

---

.

provision was the one submitted in 2003, in conjunction with the proposed FY2004 DOD budget. For the next several years, 30-year shipbuilding plans were submitted
each year, in conjunction with each year’s proposed DOD budget. An exception occurred in 2009, the first year of the Obama Administration, when DOD submitted a
proposed budget for FY2010 with no accompanying FYDP or 30-year Navy shipbuilding plan. Section 1023 of the FY2011 Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-383 of January 7, 2011) amended 10 U.S.C. 231 to require DOD to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan once every four years, in the same year that
DOD submits a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Consistent with Section 1023, DOD did not submit a new 30-year shipbuilding plan at the time that it submitted
the proposed FY2012 DOD budget. At the request of the House Armed Services Committee, the Navy submitted the FY2012 30-year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding
plan in late-May 2011. Section 1011 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of December 31, 2011) amended 10 U.S.C. 231 to
reinstate the requirement to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan each year, in conjunction with each year’s defense budget.
CRS-10
c11173008

---

.


Table 6. Projected Navy Force Sizes in First 10 years of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans
Years shown are fiscal years
FY of 30-year
plan (year
submitted) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
FY01 plan (2000)
316 315 313 313 313 311 311 304 305 305














FY02 plan (2001)
316 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a

FY03 plan (2002)

314 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a

FY04 plan (2003)


292 292 291 296 301 305 308 313 317 321











FY05 plan (2004)



290 290 298 303 308 307 314 320 328 326










FY06 plan (2005)




289 293 297 301 301 306 n/a n/a 305 n/a









FY07 plan (2006)





285 294 299 301 306 315 317 315 314 317








FY08 plan (2007)






286 289 293 302 310 311 307 311 314 322







FY09 plan (2008)







286 287 289 290 293 287 288 291 301 309






FY10 plan (2009)

287
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a



FY11 plan (2010)

284
287
287
285
285
292
298
305
311
315

FY12 plan (2011)

290
287
286
286
297
301
311
316
322
324

FY13 plan (2012)

285
279
276
284
285
292
300
295
296
298
FY14 plan (2013)

282
270
280
283
291
300
295
296
297
297
FY15 plan (2014)

274
280
286
295
301
304
304
306
311
313
FY16 plan (2015)
282
284
294
300
304
306
309
310
315
317
Source: Navy 30-year shipbuilding plans supplemented by annual Navy budget submissions (including 5-year shipbuilding plans) for fiscal years shown. n/a means not
available—see notes below.
Notes: The FY2001 30-year plan submitted in 2000 was submitted under a one-time-only legislative provision, Section 1013 of the FY2000 National Defense
Authorization Act (S. 1059/P.L. 106-65 of October 5, 1999). No provision required DOD to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan in 2001 or 2002, when Congress
considered DOD’s proposed FY2002 and FY2003 DOD budgets. Section 1022 of the FY2003 Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4546/P.L. 107-314 of
CRS-11
c11173008

---

.

December 2, 2002) created a requirement to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan each year, in conjunction with each year’s defense budget. This provision was codified at
10 U.S.C. 231. The first 30-year plan submitted under this provision was the one submitted in 2003, in conjunction with the proposed FY2004 DOD budget. For the next
several years, 30-year shipbuilding plans were submitted each year, in conjunction with each year’s proposed DOD budget. An exception occurred in 2009, the first year
of the Obama Administration, when DOD submitted a proposed budget for FY2010 with no accompanying FYDP or 30-year Navy shipbuilding plan. The FY2006 plan
included data for only selected years beyond FY2011. Section 1023 of the FY2011 Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 6523/P.L. 111-383 of January 7,
2011) amended 10 U.S.C. 231 to require DOD to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan once every four years, in the same year that DOD submits a Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR). Consistent with Section 1023, DOD did not submit a new 30-year shipbuilding plan at the time that it submitted the proposed FY2012 DOD budget. At
the request of the House Armed Services Committee, the Navy submitted the FY2012 30-year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan in late-May 2011. Section 1011 of the
FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of December 31, 2011) amended 10 U.S.C. 231 to reinstate the requirement to submit a 30-year
shipbuilding plan each year, in conjunction with each year’s defense budget.

CRS-12
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Oversight Issues for Congress for FY2016
Potential Impact on Size and Capability of Navy of Limiting DOD
Spending to BCA Caps Through FY2021
One potential issue for Congress concerns the potential impact on the size and capability of the
Navy of limiting DOD spending through FY2021 to levels at or near the caps established in the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) as amended. Navy officials state that a decision to reduce
DOD’s budget to such levels would eventually lead to a smaller and less capable Navy.
Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, provided detailed testimony on this
question in his prepared statements for hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee on
November 7, 2013, and the House Armed Services Committee on September 18, 2013.6 In further
testimony on this issue to the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 28, 2015, Greenert
stated:
A return to sequestration in FY 2016 would necessitate a revisit and revision of the DSG
[Defense Strategic Guidance document of January 2012]. Required cuts will force us to
further delay critical warfighting capabilities, reduce readiness of forces needed for
contingency response, forego or stretch procurement of ships and submarines, and further
downsize weapons capability. We will be unable to mitigate the shortfalls like we did in
FY2013 [in response to the sequester of March 1, 2013] because [unobligated] prior-year
investment balances [which were included in the funds subject to the sequester] were
depleted under [the] FY 2013 sequester [of March 1, 2013].
The revised discretionary caps imposed by sequestration would be a reduction of about $10
billion in our FY 2016 budget alone, as compared to PB-2015. From FY 2016-2020, the
reduction would amount to approximately $36 billion. If forced to budget at this level, it
would reduce every appropriation, inducing deep cuts to Navy Operation and Maintenance
(O&M), investment, and modernization accounts. The Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E) accounts would likely experience a significant decline across the
FYDP, severely curtailing the Navy’s ability to develop new technologies and asymmetric
capabilities.
As I testified to this committee in November 2013, any scenario to address the fiscal
constraints of the revised discretionary caps must include sufficient readiness, capability and
manpower to complement the force structure capacity of ships and aircraft. This balance
would need to be maintained to ensure each unit will be effective, even if the overall fleet is
not able to execute the DSG. There are many ways to balance between force structure,
readiness, capability, and manpower, but none that Navy has calculated that enable us to
confidently execute the current defense strategy within dictated budget constraints.

6 See Statement of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on the Impact of Sequestration on the National Defense, November 7, 2013, pp. 7-11, and
Statement of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the House Armed Services
Committee on Planning for Sequestration in FY 2014 and Perspectives of the Military Services on the Strategic
Choices and Management Review, September 18, 2013, pp. 6-10.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

As detailed in the Department of Defense’s April 2014 report, “Estimated Impacts of
Sequestration-Level Funding,” one potential fiscal and programmatic scenario would result
in a Navy of 2020 that would be unable to execute two of the ten DSG missions due to the
compounding effects of sequestration on top of pre-existing FY 2013, 2014, and 2015
resource constraints. Specifically, the cuts would render us unable to sufficiently Project
Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges and unable to Deter and Defeat
Aggression. In addition, we would be forced to accept higher risk in five other DSG
missions: Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare; Defend the Homeland and Provide
Support to Civil Authorities; Provide a Stabilizing Presence; Conduct Stability and
Counterinsurgency Operations; and Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief, and Other
Operations. (Table 2 provides more detail on mission risks.) In short, a return to
sequestration in FY 2016 will require a revision of our defense strategy.
Critical assumptions I have used to base my assessments and calculate risk:
Navy must maintain a credible, modern, and survivable sea-based strategic deterrent
Navy must man its units
Units that deploy must be ready
People must be given adequate training and support services
Readiness for deployed forces is a higher priority than contingency response forces
Capability must be protected, even at the expense of some capacity
Modernized and asymmetric capabilities (advanced weapons, cyber, electronic warfare)
are essential to projecting power against evolving, sophisticated adversaries
The maritime industrial base is fragile—damage can be long-lasting, hard to reverse
The primary benchmarks I use to gauge Navy capability and capacity are DoD Global Force
Management Allocation Plan presence requirements, Combatant Commander Operation and
Contingency Plans, and Defense Planning Guidance Scenarios. Navy’s ability to execute
DSG missions is assessed based on capabilities and capacity resident in the force in 2020.
The following section describes specific sequestration impacts to presence and readiness,
force structure investments, and personnel under this fiscal and programmatic scenario:
Presence and Readiness
A return to sequestration would reduce our ability to deploy forces on the timeline required
by Global Combatant Commands in the event of a contingency. Of the Navy’s current battle
force, we maintain roughly 100 ships forward deployed, or 1/3 of our entire Navy. Included
among the 100 ships are two CSG and two ARG forward at all times. CSGs and ARGs
deliver a significant portion of our striking power, and we are committed to keeping, on
average, three additional CSGs and three additional ARGs in a contingency response status,
ready to deploy within 30 days to meet operation plans (OPLANs). However, if sequestered,
we will prioritize the readiness of forces forward deployed at the expense of those in a
contingency response status. We cannot do both. We will only be able to provide a response
force of one CSG and one ARG. Our current OPLANs require a significantly more ready
force than this reduced surge capacity could provide, because they are predicated on our
ability to respond rapidly. Less contingency response capacity can mean higher casualties as
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

wars are prolonged by the slow arrival of naval forces into a combat zone. Without the
ability to respond rapidly enough, our forces could arrive too late to affect the outcome of a
fight.
Our PB-2015 base budget funded ship and aviation depot maintenance to about 80 percent of
the requirement in FY 2016-2019. This is insufficient in maintaining the Fleet and has forced
us to rely upon Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding to address the shortfall.
Sequestration would further aggravate existing Navy backlogs. The impacts of these growing
backlogs may not be immediately apparent, but will result in greater funding needs in the
future to make up for the shortfalls each year and potentially more material casualty reports
(CASREPs), impacting operations. For aviation depot maintenance, the growing backlog
will result in more aircraft awaiting maintenance and fewer operational aircraft on the flight
line, which would create untenable scenarios in which squadrons would only get their full
complement of aircraft just prior to deployment. The situation will lead to less proficient
aircrews, decreased combat effectiveness of naval air forces, and increased potential for
flight and ground mishaps.
Critical to mission success, our shore infrastructure provides the platforms from which our
Sailors train and prepare. However, due the shortfalls over the last three years, we have been
compelled to reduce funding in shore readiness since FY 2013 to preserve the operational
readiness of our fleet. As a result, many of our shore facilities are degrading. At
sequestration levels, this risk will be exacerbated and the condition of our shore
infrastructure, including piers, runways, and mission-critical facilities, will further erode.
This situation may lead to structural damage to our ships while pierside, aircraft damage
from foreign object ingestion on deteriorated runways, and degraded communications within
command centers. We run a greater risk of mishaps, serious injury, or health hazards to
personnel.
Force Structure Investments
We must ensure that the Navy has the required capabilities to be effective, even if we cannot
afford them in sufficient capacity to meet the DSG. The military requirements laid out in the
DSG are benchmarked to the year 2020, but I am responsible for building and maintaining
capabilities now for the Navy of the future. While sequestration causes significant near-term
impacts, it would also create serious problems that would manifest themselves after 2020 and
would be difficult to recover from.
In the near term, the magnitude of the sequester cuts would compel us to consider reducing
major maritime and air acquisition programs; delaying asymmetric capabilities such as
advanced jammers, sensors, and weapons; further reducing weapons procurement of
missiles, torpedoes, and bombs; and further deferring shore infrastructure maintenance and
upgrades. Because of its irreversibility, force structure cuts represent options of last resort for
the Navy. We would look elsewhere to absorb sequestration shortfalls to the greatest extent
possible.
Disruptions in naval ship design and construction plans are significant because of the long-
lead time, specialized skills, and extent of integration needed to build military ships. Because
ship construction can span up to nine years, program procurement cancelled in FY 2016 will
not be felt by the Combatant Commanders until several years later when the size of the battle
force begins to shrink as those ships are not delivered to the fleet at the planned time.
Likewise, cancelled procurement in FY 2016 will likely cause some suppliers and vendors of
our shipbuilding industrial base to close their businesses. This skilled, experienced and
innovative workforce cannot be easily replaced and it could take years to recover from
layoffs and shutdowns; and even longer if critical infrastructure is lost. Stability and
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

predictability are critical to the health and sustainment of this vital sector of our Nation’s
industrial capacity.
Personnel
In FY 2013 and 2014, the President exempted all military personnel accounts from
sequestration out of national interest to safeguard the resources necessary to compensate the
men and women serving to defend our Nation and to maintain the force levels required for
national security. It was recognized that this action triggered a higher reduction in non-
military personnel accounts.
If the President again exempts military personnel accounts from sequestration in FY 2016,
then personnel compensation would continue to be protected. Overall, the Navy would
protect personnel programs to the extent possible in order to retain the best people. As I
testified in March 2014, quality of life is a critical component of the quality of service that
we provide to our Sailors. Our Sailors are our most important asset and we must invest
appropriately to keep a high caliber all-volunteer force. We will continue to fund Sailor
support, family readiness, and education programs. While there may be some reductions to
these programs if sequestered in FY 2016, I anticipate the reductions to be relatively small.
However, as before, this would necessitate higher reductions to the other Navy accounts.
Conclusion
Navy is still recovering from the FY 2013 sequestration in terms of maintenance, training,
and deployment lengths. Only 1/3 of Navy contingency response forces are ready to deploy
within the required 30 days. With stable and consistent budgets, recovery is possible in 2018.
However, if sequestered, we will not recover within this FYDP.
For the last three years, the Navy has been operating under reduced top-lines and significant
shortfalls: $9 billion in FY 2013, $5 billion in FY 2014 and $11 billion in FY 2015, for a
total shortfall of about $25 billion less than the President’s budget request. Reverting to
revised sequester-level BCA caps would constitute an additional $5-10 billion decrement
each year to Navy’s budget. With each year of sequestration, the loss of force structure,
readiness, and future investments would cause our options to become increasingly
constrained and drastic. The Navy already shrank 23 ships and 63,000 personnel between
2002 and 2012. It has few options left to find more efficiencies.
While Navy will do its part to help the Nation get its fiscal house in order, it is imperative we
do so in a coherent and thoughtful manner to ensure appropriate readiness, warfighting
capability, and forward presence—the attributes we depend upon for our Navy. Unless naval
forces are properly sized, modernized at the right pace, ready to deploy with adequate
training and equipment, and capable to respond in the numbers and at the speed required by
Combatant Commanders, they will not be able to carry out the Nation’s defense strategy as
written. We will be compelled to go to fewer places, and do fewer things. Most importantly,
when facing major contingencies, our ability to fight and win will neither be quick nor
decisive.
Unless this Nation envisions a significantly diminished global security role for its military,
we must address the growing mismatch in ends, ways, and means. The world is becoming
more complex, uncertain, and turbulent. Our adversaries’ capabilities are diversifying and
expanding. Naval forces are more important than ever in building global security, projecting
power, deterring foes, and rapidly responding to crises that affect our national security. A
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

return to sequestration would seriously weaken the United States Navy’s ability to contribute
to U.S. and global security.7
Greenert’s testimony concluded with the following table:
Figure 1. Navy Table on Mission Impacts of Limiting Navy’s Budget to BC Levels

Source: Statement of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the Senate
Armed Services Committee on the Impact of Sequestration on National Defense, January 28, 2015.
Appropriate Future Size and Structure of Navy in Light of Strategic
and Budgetary Changes
A related oversight issue for Congress concerns the appropriate future size and structure of the
Navy. Changes in strategic and budgetary circumstances have led to a broad debate over the
future size and structure of the military, including the Navy. Changes in strategic circumstances
include, among other things, the end of major U.S. ground combat operations in Iraq, the winding
down of U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, China’s military (including naval) modernization

7 Statement of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the Senate Armed Services
Committee on the Impact of Sequestration on National Defense, January 28, 2015, pp. 4-9.
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

effort,8 maritime territorial disputes involving China,9 Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea,
and the U.S. commitment to counter the Islamic State organization.
The Navy’s current goal for a fleet of 308 ships reflects a number of judgments and planning
factors (some of which the Navy receives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense), including
but not limited to the following:
• U.S. interests and the U.S. role in the world, and the U.S. military strategy for
supporting those interests and that role;
• current and projected Navy missions in support of U.S. military strategy,
including both wartime operations and day-to-day forward-deployed operations;
• current and projected capabilities of potential adversaries, including their anti-
access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities;
• regional combatant commander (COCOM) requests for forward-deployed Navy
forces;
• the individual and networked capabilities of current and future Navy ships and
aircraft;
• basing arrangements for Navy ships, including numbers and locations of ships
homeported in foreign countries;
• maintenance and deployment cycles for Navy ships; and
• fiscal constraints.
With regard to the fourth point above, Navy officials testified in March 2014 that a Navy of 450
ships would be required to fully meet COCOM requests for forward-deployed Navy forces.10 The
difference between a fleet of 450 ships and the current goal for a fleet of 308 ships can be viewed
as one measure of the operational risk associated with the goal of a fleet of 308 ships. A goal for a
fleet of 450 ships might be viewed as a fiscally unconstrained goal.
Actions by China starting in November 2013 that appear aimed at achieving a greater degree of
control over China’s near-seas region,11 followed by Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea in
March 2014, have led to a discussion among observers about whether we are currently shifting
from the familiar post-Cold War era of the last 20 to 25 years to a new and different strategic era
characterized by, among other things, renewed great power competition and challenges to key
aspects of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II. A shift in
strategic eras can lead to a reassessment of defense funding levels, strategy, missions, plans, and
programs. The shift from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era led to such a reassessment in the

8 For more on the modernization of China’s military (particularly naval) capabilities and its potential implications for
required U.S. Navy capabilities, see CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy
Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
9 For a discussion of these disputes, see CRS Report R42784, Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. See also CRS Report R42930, Maritime
Territorial Disputes in East Asia: Issues for Congress, by Ben Dolven, Mark E. Manyin, and Shirley A. Kan.
10 Spoken testimony of Admiral Jonathan Greenert at a March 12, 2014, hearing before the House Armed Services
Committee on the Department of the Navy’s proposed FY2015 budget, as shown in transcript of hearing.
11 For a summary of these actions, see CRS Report R42784, Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

early 1990s. A shift from the post-Cold War era to a new strategic era could lead to a new
reassessment of defense funding levels, strategy, missions, plans, and programs.12
For additional discussion of the relationship between U.S. strategy and the size and structure of
U.S. naval forces that can form part of the context for assessing the 30-year shipbuilding plan, see
Appendix C.
Some study groups have made their own proposals for Navy ship force structure that reflect their
own perspectives on the points listed above (particularly the first three and the final one). For
purposes of comparison, Table 7 also shows the Navy’s 308-ship goal of March 2015.

12 For a discussion, see CRS Report R43838, A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications
for Defense—Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 7. Recent Study Group Proposals for Navy Ship Force Structure
Center for
Center for
Navy’s
Project on
Independent
a New
Strategic
308-
Defense
Panel
American
and
ship
Alternatives
Heritage
Cato
Assessment
Sustainable
Security
Budgetary
goal of
(PDA)
Foundation
Institute
of 2010
Defense
(CNAS)
Assessments
March
(November
(April
(September
QDR
Task Force
(November
(CSBA)
Ship type
2015
2012)
2011)
2010)a
(July 2010)
(June 2010)
2008)
(2008)b
Submarines
SSBN
12 7 14c 6 14 7 14 12
SSGN
0 6-7 4
0
4
4
0
2
SSN
48 42 55 40 55 37 40 41
Aircraft carriers
CVN
11 9 11 8 11 9 8 11
CVE
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Surface combatants
Cruiser
22 n/a
18 14
88 72-74 88
85
Destroyer 65
n/a
56
73
Frigate
0 2-7j
14 n/a 0 0 9e
28d
LCS
52 12j 4
n/a
25
48
55
SSC
0
j 0 0 n/a 0 40 0f
Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) (MPF[F]) ships
Amphibious ships
34 >23 37 23 n/a 27 36 33
MPF(F) ships
0 n/a 0
0 n/a n/a 0
3g
LSD station ships
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7h
Other: Mine warfare (MIW) ships; Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ships (i.e., at-sea resupply ships), and support ships
MIW
0 14j 14 11 0 0 0 0
CLF ships
29 n/a 33 21 n/a
31
36 40
Support ships
34 n/a 25 27 n/a
31
TOTAL battle
308 230 309 241 346 230 300 326i
force ships
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on the fol owing sources: For Heritage Foundation: A Strong National
Defense[:] The Armed Forces America Needs and What They Will Cost, Heritage Foundation, April 5, 2011, pp. 25-
26. For Cato Institute: Benjamin H. Friedman and Christopher Preble, Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint,
Washington, Cato Institute, September 23, 2010 (Policy Analysis No. 667), pp. 6, 8-10, and additional
information provided by Cato Institute to CRS by email on September 22, 2010. For Independent Panel
Assessment: Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Perry, co-chairmen, et al., The QDR in Perspective: Meeting
America’s National Security Needs In the 21st Century, The Final Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent
Panel, Washington, 2010, Figure 3-2 on pages 58-59. For Sustainable Defense Task Force: Debt, Deficits, and
Defense, A Way Forward[:] Report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, June 11, 2010, pp. 19-20. For CNAS:
Frank Hoffman, From Preponderance to Partnership: American Maritime Power in the 21st Century. Washington,
Center for a New American Security, November 2008. p. 19 (Table 2). For CSBA: Robert O. Work, The US
Navy[:] Charting a Course for Tomorrow’s Fleet. Washington, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments,
2008. p. 81 (Figure 5). For PDA: Carl Conetta, Reasonable Defense, Project on Defense Alternatives,
November 14, 2012, 31 pp.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Notes: n/a is not addressed in the report. SSBN is nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine; SSGN is
nuclear-powered cruise missile and special operations forces submarine; SSN is nuclear-powered attack
submarine; CVN is large nuclear-powered aircraft carrier; CVE is medium-sized aircraft carrier; LCS is Littoral
Combat Ship; SSC (an acronym created by CRS for this table) is smal surface combatant of 1,000+ tons
displacement—a ship similar to late-1990s Streetfighter concept; MPF(F) is Maritime Prepositioning Force
(Future) ship; LSD is LSD-41/49 class amphibious ship operating as a station ship for a formation like a Global
Fleet Station (GFS); MIW is mine warfare ship; CLF is combat logistics force (i.e., resupply) ship.
a. Figures shown are for the year 2020; for subsequent years, reductions from these figures would be
considered.
b. Figures shown are for the year 2028.
c. The report calls for a force of 280 SLBMs, which appears to equate to a force of 14 SSBNs, each with 20
SLBM tubes.
d. The report calls for a force of 28 small surface combatants, and appears to use the term small surface
combatants the same way that the Navy does in the 30-year shipbuilding plan—as a way of collectively
referring to frigates and LCSs. The small surface combatants (SSCs) called for in the November 2008 CNAS
report are separate from and smaller than the LCS.
e. Maritime Security Frigates.
f.
Plan includes 28 patrol craft (PCs) of a few hundred tons displacement each, as wel as 29 boat detachments
and seven riverine squadrons.
g. Plan shows three Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships that the Navy currently plans for the MPF(F)
squadron, plus 16 existing current-generation maritime prepositioning force (MPF) ships and 17 existing
prepositioning ships for Army and other service/agency equipment. Plan also shows 67 other DOD sealift
ships.
h. T-LSDs, meaning LSDs operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC) with a partly civilian crew.
i.
The CSBA report shows a total of 488 units by including 162 additional force units that do not count
toward the 308-ship goal under the battle force ships counting method that has been used since the early
1980s for public policy discussions of the size of the Navy. These 162 additional force units include 16
existing current-generation maritime prepositioning force (MPF) ships and 17 existing prepositioning ships
for Army and other service/agency equipment, 67 other DOD sealift ships, 28 PCs, 29 boat detachments,
and certain other smal -scale units. The CSBA report proposes a new counting method for naval/maritime
forces that includes units such as these in the total count.
j.
The report “prescribes ending procurement of the LCS with the 12 already purchased. The Reasonable
Defense model foresees a future cohort of 28 to 33 smal surface combatants, including a mix of the 12 LCS
that have already been procured, 14 Mine Counter Measure (MCM) ships already in the fleet, and small
frigates or ocean-going corvettes. As the MCM ships age and leave the fleet, the LCS should assume their
role. The would leave a post-MCM requirement for 16 to 21 additional small surface combatants. For this,
the Navy needs a simpler, less expensive alternative to the LCS.”
A potential key question for Congress concerns whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be
large enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime A2/AD forces while also
adequately performing other missions of interest to U.S. policymakers around the world. Some
observers are concerned that a combination of growing Chinese naval capabilities and budget-
driven reductions in the size of the U.S. Navy could encourage Chinese military overconfidence
and demoralize U.S. allies and partners in the Pacific, and thereby make it harder for the United
States to defend its interests in the region.13 Potential oversight questions for Congress include the
following:

13 See, for example, Dan Blumenthal and Michael Mazza, “Asia Needs a Larger U.S. Defense Budget,” Wall Street
Journal, July 5, 2011; J. Randy Forbes, “Defence Cuts Imperil US Asia Role,” The Diplomat (http://the-diplomat.com),
October 26, 2011. See also Andrew Krepinevich, “Panetta’s Challenge,” Washington Post, July 15, 2011: 15; Dean
Cheng, Sea Power and the Chinese State: China’s Maritime Ambitions, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2576,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

• Under the Administration’s plans, will the Navy in coming years be large enough
to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime A2/AD forces while also
adequately performing other missions of interest to U.S. policymakers around the
world?
• What might be the political and security implications in the Asia-Pacific region
of a combination of growing Chinese naval capabilities and budget-driven
reductions in the size of the U.S. Navy?
• If the Navy is reduced in size and priority is given to maintaining Navy forces in
the Pacific, what will be the impact on Navy force levels in other parts of the
world, such as the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean region or the Mediterranean Sea,
and consequently on the Navy’s ability to adequately perform its missions in
those parts of the world?
• To what extent could the operational impacts of a reduction in Navy ship
numbers be mitigated through increased use of forward homeporting, multiple
crewing, and long-duration deployments with crew rotation (i.e., “Sea Swap”)?
How feasible are these options, and what would be their potential costs and
benefits?14
• Particularly in a situation of constrained DOD resources, if enough funding is
allocated to the Navy to permit the Navy in coming years to maintain a fleet of
308 ships including 11 aircraft carriers, how much would other DOD programs
need to be reduced, and what would be the operational implications of those
program reductions in terms of DOD’s overall ability to counter improved
Chinese military forces and perform other missions?15
One observer—the person who until recently was the Navy’s lead force-structure planner—stated
the following regarding the Navy’s approach to fleet design:
It is time to rethink how we will design the future Fleet in a way that rebalances
affordability, platform capability, and deployment processes. We must build it as a whole
instead of continuing to “let it happen” one platform requirements decision at a time....
Today the Navy operates about 50 different types of ships and aircraft with individual
design-service lives of 20 to 50 years. On average, about two classes of ship or aircraft
annually come up for a decision on replacement at the end of their service lives. Each of
these decisions, a multi-year joint bureaucratic process with dozens of participating
organizations, is made individually. Typically, as a starting point, the new platform must do
everything the old one did, except in the more challenging threat environment of the future.
All of the decision-making organizations generally advocate for the next-generation platform
to have the desired capabilities unmet by the old one—particularly since any additional unit
cost is not their bill. It is no surprise that this process leads to steadily increasing platform
and overall Fleet cost....

(...continued)
July 11, 2011, p. 10.
14 For further discussion of these options, see CRS Report RS21338, Navy Ship Deployments: New Approaches—
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
15 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy
Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

The future Fleet is being designed ad hoc, one platform at a time, and we cannot afford this.
How can we change the trend toward an ever-smaller Fleet of ever-better platforms while
maintaining the capability superiority needed to execute our missions? It will take a top-
down design to provide a structure in which individual platform requirements can be shaped
and disciplined despite all of the pressures. We will have to consider distributing capabilities
to a greater extent across a force that is securely networked, at least within line of sight,
rather than putting as many as possible on each individual platform and continuing to drive
up its size and cost.
We will have to consider separating weapon magazines from the sensors that direct the
weapons rather than putting both on the same platform. Another option is increasing reliance
on deep-magazine directed energy systems, and on force-wide coordinated soft-kill and
counter-targeting techniques, rather than on engaging each threat with ever-larger and more
expensive kinetic weapons. We can also think about increasing reliance on penetrating high-
threat areas with longer-range weapons or with preprogrammed unmanned systems rather
than with manned platforms. Few of these options would rise to the top in the requirements
decision-making process for any individual platform. They only start to make sense when
considered and competed at a Fleet-wide level.
Developing an overall fleet design to structure and discipline individual platform
requirements is no small task. Simply constraining platform cost without dealing with how
capabilities might be delivered differently is not sufficient. This is not a once-and-done
process, as changes in threat and in our own technology options will never stop. But neither
can it be a process that changes the design in some fundamental way every year or two—it
will have to influence platform requirements for a long period of time to affect a significant
number of new platform designs.
We cannot afford to retire legacy platforms prematurely simply because they are not
optimized within our new Fleet design, which will take time to implement and have to be
done incrementally. Real and fundamental change in the roles, missions, and
interdependencies among platform types, and in the balance between manned and unmanned
and between platform and payload, is an inevitable outcome of a Fleet design process. That
is the point. Change is hard, and it will have to be authorized and directed by the Navy’s
leadership or risk not happening.
A number of ideas for a new Fleet design have been offered recently from outside the Navy’s
decision-making mainstream. However, all have had significant flaws, so they have not
received serious consideration. They have assumed things such as beyond line-of-sight
networking that has no survivable future in the face of adversary counter-space capability;
autonomy of unmanned vehicles in executing lethal missions that is beyond the projected
capability of software and U.S. rules of engagement to support; and the use of platforms too
small to be capable of global deployment and sustained sea-based operations, which is how
the U.S. Navy must deliver global naval power. The future Fleet design must be grounded in
technical and operational reality, and it has to come from inside the Navy system....
Developing a rich list of operationally-realistic options supported by rigorous analysis of cost
and feasibility is foundational. It could include:
• The use of a common large aviation-ship hull for Navy sea-control/power-projection air
wings and for Marine Corps vertical-raid/assault-air wings, reconfigurable between the two
missions between the deployments;
• Surface combatants with smaller vertical-launch magazines that can reload at sea from
logistic ships or remotely fire weapons carried in supplementary magazines on logistic ships;
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

• Separate classes of surface combatants optimized for air defense or antisubmarine warfare
within a common hull type that can self-defend in peacetime but aggregate to fight
offensively in wartime;
• Tactical-combat aircraft that are optimized for endurance and carriage of long-range
weapons rather than for penetrating sophisticated defenses carrying short-range weapons;
• Large shore-launched unmanned undersea vehicles that take the place of submarines for
preprogrammed missions such as covert surveillance or mine-laying;
• Use of a common hull type for all of the large non-combatant ship missions such as
command ships, tenders, hospital ships, ground vehicle delivery, and logistics; and
• Elimination of support models that are based on wartime reliance on reach-back access to
unclassified cyber networks connected by vulnerable communications satellites or to an
indefensible global internet....
The Navy’s long-term force structure requirement is a 306-ship Fleet of the currently-
planned designs, of which about 120 (or 40 percent of the force) would be deployed day-to-
day. It would also be able to surge an additional 75 ships (another 25 percent) within two
months to meet warfighting capacity requirements. In other words, about 65 percent is
employed or rapidly employable.
This sounds good, but the reality is that 30 of these 120 deployed ships would be
permanently homeported overseas; 26 would be LCSs that use the rotation of their small
military crews to keep 50 percent of that class forward deployed; and 40 would be Military
Sealift Command support ships that use rotational civilian mariner crewing to keep the ships
deployed 75 percent of the time. The remaining 25 of the forward-deployed force will be
large and complex multibillion dollar warships with all-military crews, supported out of a
rotation base of 140 such ships.
In other words, we plan to buy and operate five of our most expensive ships to keep one
deployed. This is not an efficient way to operate. In times of reduced funding our design
must address ways to meet our deployment goals with a smaller rotation base while
preserving wartime surge capacity.
Many studies and trials have been done over the years on options for reducing the total
number of ships needed to sustain the Navy’s robust peacetime forward-deployed posture.
Increasing forward homeporting in other nations always comes up as the first choice. While
it is a good one, few countries beyond those that currently support this (Japan, Spain, Italy,
and Bahrain) are willing to tolerate a permanent new U.S. shore footprint. Building new
shore-support infrastructure in foreign countries to back this results in a large bill for
construction jobs outside the United States, which Congress normally finds unappetizing.
Using rotational crews to keep ships forward for extended periods without long deployments
for their sailors is an efficient option that works for ships with small crews like LCSs, legacy
mine-warfare ships, or Military Sealift Command support ships. Experiments in which this
has been done with military crews on large complex warships have not turned out well. This
was due both to the logistics of moving large crews overseas for turnovers and the difficulty
of maintaining exact configuration commonality within ships of a class so that a crew
arriving on a ship overseas has trained before deployment on an identical ship (or simulator)
at home. Conversions of ships from military manning to Military Sealift Command civilian
mariner crews that routinely rotate individual crewmembers to sustain ships forward are
limited by the law of war concerning what military actions civilians can perform, and there
are few legal options left for further expansion of this approach.
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

What is left in the force-generation model of our current Fleet is a force of our most complex
warships—aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers, and amphibious ships—operating with
permanently-assigned military crews in the “Fleet Readiness Program” cycle of maintain-
train-deploy with a deployed output of one in five. Future designs must address this model
and find ways to get more deployed time out of these expensive ships and crews—without
exceeding the current objective of having military crewmembers spend no more than 50
percent of their time away from homeport over a complete multi-year operating cycle. The
current limiting factor is the period required to train the crew as a team before deployment
following the inactivity and crew turnover of the shipyard maintenance period.
Naval aviation is steadily moving toward the increased use of high-fidelity single and multi-
aircraft simulation as a means of developing and sustaining operational proficiency with
reduced use of expensive live flying. These simulators are funded as part of the overall
fielding plan for the aircraft and were also built for the ballistic-missile submarine force to
support its Blue-Gold crew manning concept. There is no equivalent model or set of off-ship
simulators for major sections of the crews of conventional surface warships (other than the
LCS) for nuclear-aircraft carriers or for attack submarines. A Fleet design that bought such
simulation capability as part of its ship production programs—the way that aircraft programs
do—would have significant potential for improving operational output by reducing the time
to train for deployment after maintenance periods.
Today’s Fleet design is the product of many separate and disconnected decisions about the
required capabilities of 50 different types of ships and aircraft. While not ineffective, it is
definitely too expensive. The budget constraints facing the Navy for the next 20 years are not
matched by a projected reduction in the quantity or capability of forces that must be
delivered forward every day or surged forward in wartime.
The only way to meet these demands within available resources is to develop a design that
provides a structure within which the capabilities of future platforms can be shaped to meet
the Fleet’s missions efficiently as an overall force. Doing this will require a systems-level
approach to defining what it must be able to do, and will mean abandoning some cherished
traditions of what each type of platform should do. The alternative is a Navy no longer large
or capable enough to do the nation’s business.16
Affordability of 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the prospective affordability of the
Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan. In assessing the prospective affordability of the 30-year plan,
key factors that Congress may consider include estimated ship procurement costs and future
shipbuilding funding levels. Each of these is discussed below.
Estimated Ship Procurement Costs
If one or more Navy ship designs turn out to be more expensive to build than the Navy estimates,
then the projected funding levels shown in the 30-year shipbuilding plan will not be sufficient to
procure all the ships shown in the plan. Ship designs that can be viewed as posing a risk of being
more expensive to build than the Navy estimates include Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft
carriers, Ohio-replacement (SSBNX) class ballistic missile submarines, the Flight III version of
the DDG-51 destroyer, the TAO(X) oiler, and the LX(R) amphibious ship.

16 Arthur H. Barber, “Rethinking The Future Fleet,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2014: 48-52.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

The Navy delivered its narrative report on the FY2015 30-year shipbuilding plan to CRS on July
3, 2014. As shown in the bottom half of Table 8, the Navy estimates in the report that the FY2015
30-year plan would cost an average of about $16.7 billion per year in constant FY2014 dollars to
implement, including an average of about $15.7 billion per year during the first 10 years of the
plan, an average of about $19.7 billion per year during the middle 10 years of the plan, and an
average of about $14.6 billion per year during the final 10 years of the plan.
As also shown in the bottom half of Table 8, a December 2014 Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) report on the Navy’s FY2015 30-year shipbuilding plan estimates that the plan will require
about 13% more funding to implement than the Navy estimates, including about 6% more than
the Navy estimates during the first 10 years of the plan, about 14% more than the Navy estimates
during the middle 10 years of the plan, and about 20% more than the Navy estimates during the
final 10 years of the plan.17 Over the years, CBO’s estimates of the cost to implement the Navy’s
30-year shipbuilding plan have generally been higher than the Navy’s estimates.
Some of the difference between CBO’s estimates and the Navy’s estimates is due to a difference
between CBO and the Navy in how to treat inflation in Navy shipbuilding. This difference
compounds over time, making it increasingly important as a factor in the difference between
CBO’s estimates and the Navy’s estimates the further one goes into the 30-year period. In other
words, other things held equal, this factor tends to push the CBO and Navy estimates further and
further apart as one proceeds from the earlier years of the plan to the later years of the plan.
Table 8. Navy and CBO Estimates of Cost of FY2014 and FY2015 30-Year
Shipbuilding Plans
Funding for new-construction ships, in billions of constant FY2013 or FY2014 dollars
First 10 years of
Middle 10 years of
Final 10 years of
Entire 30 years of

the plan
the plan
the plan
the plan
FY2014 30-year (FY2014-FY2043) plan (in constant FY2013 dollars)
Navy estimate
15.4
19.8
15.2
16.8
CBO estimate
16.3
22.6
19.1
19.3
% difference
6% 14% 26% 15%
between Navy and
CBO estimates
FY2015 30-year (FY2015-FY2044) plan (in constant FY2014 dollars)
Navy estimate
~15.7
~19.7
~14.6
~16.7
CBO estimate
16.7
22.5
17.5
18.9
% difference
6% 14% 20% 13%
between Navy and
CBO estimates
Source: For FY2014 30-year plan: Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2014
Shipbuilding Plan, October 2013, Table 3 (page 13). For FY2015 30-year plan: Report to Congress on the Annual
Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2015, p. 8.

17 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2015 Shipbuilding Plan, December 2014, Table
3 on page 14.
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

The shipbuilding program that contributes the most to the difference between the CBO and Navy
estimates of the cost of the 30-year plan is a future destroyer, called the DDG-51 Flight IV, that
appears in the final 15 years of the 30-year plan. As shown in the CBO report, this one program
accounts for 38% of the total difference between CBO and the Navy on the estimated cost
implement the 30-year shipbuilding plan, making it almost twice as significant as the next-largest
contributor to the overall difference (the Ohio replacement program, which accounts for 20%).18
The relatively large contribution of the Flight IV destroyer to the overall difference between CBO
and the Navy on the cost of the 30-year shipbuilding plan appears to be due primarily to three
factors:
• There are many of these Flight IV destroyers in the 30-year plan—a total of 35,
or 13% of the 264 total ships in the plan.
• There appears to be a basic difference between CBO and the Navy over the likely
size (and thus cost) of this ship. The Navy appears to assume that the ship will
use the current DDG-51 hull design, whereas CBO believes the growth potential
of the current DDG-51 hull design will be exhausted by then, and that the ship
will require a larger hull design (either a lengthened version of the DDG-51 hull
design, or an entirely new hull design).
• These destroyers occur in the final 15 years of the 30-year plan, where the effects
of the difference between CBO and the Navy on how to treat inflation in Navy
shipbuilding are the most pronounced.
Future Shipbuilding Funding Levels
It has been known for some time that implementing the 30-year shipbuilding plan would require
shipbuilding budgets in coming years that are considerably greater than those of recent years, and
that funding requirements for the Ohio-replacement (SSBN[X]) ballistic missile submarine
program will put particular pressure on the shipbuilding budget during the middle years of the 30-
year plan. The Navy’s report on the FY2015 30-year plan states:
Beginning in FY2020 and running through the end of the 30-year plan horizon, the plan
requires an average annual investment of about $17.2B [billion] (FY14$) [i.e., in constant
FY2014 dollars] to finance, which is ~$4B/year more than our historical average annual
investment of ~$13B/yr. In particular, for the period while we are procuring the OHIO
Replacement (OR) SSBN (essentially FY[20]25-FY[20]34), the Navy will have to provide
an average of $19.7B annually with the peak year in FY[20]32 at slightly more than $24B.
Even if the OHIO Replacement Program (ORP) is removed from the [required] resource total
[by funding the program through a different part of the defense budget], the average funding
required beginning in FY2020 is ~$14-15B/yr to build the FSA [Force Structure
Assessment] force [i.e., the planned 306-ship fleet]....
While the force structure presented [in this report] describes a battle force that meets the
requirements of the National Security Strategy and the 2014 QDR [Quadrennial Defense
Review]; it requires funding at an unsustainable level, particularly between FY[20]25 and
FY[20]34... The average cost of this plan during the period in which the DON [Department

18 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2015 Shipbuilding Plan, December 2014, Table
A-1 on page 31.
Congressional Research Service
27
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

of the Navy] is procuring OR SSBN[s] (~$19.7B/year [during] FY2025-[FY]2034) cannot be
accommodated by the Navy from existing resources—particularly if DOD is required to be
funded at the BCA [Budget Control Act] levels....
The DON can only afford the SSBN procurement costs with significant increases in our
[budget] top-line or by having the SSBN funded from sources that do not result in any
reductions to the DON’s current resourcing level....
If the DON is unable to sustain the average annual shipbuilding budgets of $19.7 billion over
the course of the mid-term planning period, which is unlikely to be the case,19 the battle force
will fall far short of meeting the QDR requirements.20
In assessing the Navy’s ability to reach the higher annual shipbuilding funding levels described
above, one perspective is to note that doing so would require the shipbuilding budget to be
increased by 30% to 50% from levels in recent years. In a context of constraints on defense
spending and competing demands for defense dollars, this perspective can make the goal of
increasing the shipbuilding budget to these levels appear daunting.
Another perspective is to note that the additional annual funding needed (roughly $4 billion to
$6.7 billion) equates to roughly 0.8% to 1.3% of a defense budget of $521 billion per year (the
Budget Control Act figure for defense spending FY2015). Some observers, noting the U.S.
strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region, have advocated shifting a greater share of
the DOD budget to the Navy and Air Force, on the grounds that the Asia-Pacific region is
primarily a maritime and aerospace theater for DOD. In discussing the idea of shifting a greater
share of the DOD budget to the Navy and Air Force, some of these observers refer to breaking the
so-called “one-third, one-third, one-third” division of resources among the three military
departments—a shorthand term sometimes used to refer to the more-or-less stable division of
resources between the three military departments that existed for the three decades between the
end of U.S. participation in the Vietnam War in 1973 and the start of the Iraq War in 2003.21 In a
context of breaking the “one-third, one-third, one-third” allocation with an aim of better aligning
defense spending with the strategic rebalancing, shifting 0.8% to 1.3% of the defense budget into
the Navy’s shipbuilding account would appear to be quite feasible.
More broadly, if defense spending were to remain constrained to the revised cap levels in the
Budget Control Act, then fully funding the Department of the Navy’s total budget at the levels
shown in the current Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) would require increasing the Department
of the Navy’s share of the non-Defense-Wide part of the DOD budget to about 41%, compared to
about 36% in the FY2014 budget and an average of about 37% for the three-decade period

19 This can be read as a double negative—that it is unlikely the Navy will be unable to sustain average annual
shipbuilding budgets at this level. The Navy’s intent appears to be to state that it is unlikely the Navy will be able to do
this.
20 Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2015, June 2014, pp. 5,
6, 7, 9.
21 The “one-third, one-third, one-third” terminology, though convenient, is not entirely accurate—the military
departments’ shares of the DOD budget, while more or less stable during this period, were not exactly one-third each:
the average share for the Department of the Army was about 26%, the average share for the Department of the Navy
(which includes both the Navy and Marine Corps) was about 32%, the average share for the Department of the Air
Force was about 30%, and the average share for Defense-Wide (the fourth major category of DOD spending) was about
12%. Excluding the Defense-Wide category, which has grown over time, the shares for the three military departments
of the remainder of DOD’s budget during this period become about 29% for the Department of the Army, about 37%
for the Department of the Navy, and about 34% for the Department of the Air Force.
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

between the Vietnam and Iraq wars.22 While shifting 4% or 5% of DOD’s budget to the
Department of the Navy would be a more ambitious reallocation than shifting 0.8% to 1.3% of
the DOD budget to the Navy’s shipbuilding account, similarly large reallocations have occurred
in the past.23
Legislative Activity for FY2016
FY2016 Funding Request
The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests funding for the procurement of nine new battle
force ships (i.e., ships that count against the Navy’s goal for achieving and maintaining a fleet of
308 ships). The nine ships include two Virginia-class attack submarines, two DDG-51 class Aegis
destroyers, three Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), one LPD-17 class amphibious ship, and one
TAO(X) class oiler. The Navy’s proposed FY2016 shipbuilding budget also requests funding for
ships that have been procured in prior fiscal years, and ships that are to be procured in future
fiscal years.
CRS Reports Tracking Legislation on Specific Navy Shipbuilding
Programs
Detailed coverage of legislative activity on certain Navy shipbuilding programs (including
funding levels, legislative provisions, and report language) can be found in the following CRS
reports:
• CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
• CRS Report R41129, Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile
Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
• CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine
Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

22 Since the Defense-Wide portion of the budget has grown from just a few percent in the 1950s and 1960s to about
15% in more recent years, including the Defense-Wide category of spending in the calculation can lead to military
department shares of the budget in the 1950s and 1960s that are somewhat more elevated compared to those in more
recent years, making it more complex to compare the military departments’ shares across the entire period of time since
the end of the World War II. For this reason, military department shares of the DOD budget cited in this statement are
calculated after excluding the Defense-Wide category. The points made in this statement, however, can still made on
the basis of a calculation that includes the Defense-Wide category.
23 For example, from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, reflecting a U.S. defense strategy at the time that placed a strong
reliance on the deterrent value of nuclear weapons, the Department of the Air Force’s share of the non-Defense-Wide
DOD budget increased by several percentage points. The Department of the Air Force’s share averaged about 45% for
the 10-year period FY1956-FY1965, and peaked at more than 47% in FY1957-FY1959. As another example, for the
11-year period FY2003-FY2013, as a consequence of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of
the Army’s share of the non-Defense-Wide DOD budget increased by roughly 10 percentage points. The Department of
the Army’s share during this period averaged about 39%, and peaked at more than 43% in FY2008. U.S. combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during this period reflected the implementation of U.S. national strategy as
interpreted by policymakers during those years.
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

• CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
• CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
• CRS Report R43543, Navy LX(R) Amphibious Ship Program: Background and
Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
• This report also covers the issue of funding for the procurement of a 12th San
Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship.
• CRS Report R43546, Navy TAO(X) Oiler Shipbuilding Program: Background
and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Individual Navy shipbuilding programs that are not covered in detail in the above reports are
covered in this report.




Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix A. Comparing Past Ship Force Levels to
Current or Potential Future Ship Force Levels
In assessing the appropriateness of the current or potential future number of ships in the Navy,
observers sometimes compare that number to historical figures for total Navy fleet size. Historical
figures for total fleet size, however, can be a problematic yardstick for assessing the
appropriateness of the current or potential future number of ships in the Navy, particularly if the
historical figures are more than a few years old, because
• the missions to be performed by the Navy, the mix of ships that make up the
Navy, and the technologies that are available to Navy ships for performing
missions all change over time; and
• the number of ships in the fleet in an earlier year might itself have been
inappropriate (i.e., not enough or more than enough) for meeting the Navy’s
mission requirements in that year.
Regarding the first bullet point above, the Navy, for example, reached a late-Cold War peak of
568 battle force ships at the end of FY1987,24 and as of March 25, 2015, included a total of 275
battle force ships. The FY1987 fleet, however, was intended to meet a set of mission requirements
that focused on countering Soviet naval forces at sea during a potential multi-theater NATO-
Warsaw Pact conflict, while the March 2015 fleet is intended to meet a considerably different set
of mission requirements centered on influencing events ashore by countering both land- and sea-
based military forces of potential regional threats other than Russia, including improved Chinese
military forces and non-state terrorist organizations. In addition, the Navy of FY1987 differed
substantially from the March 2015 fleet in areas such as profusion of precision-guided air-
delivered weapons, numbers of Tomahawk-capable ships, and the sophistication of C4ISR
systems and networking capabilities.25
In coming years, Navy missions may shift again, and the capabilities of Navy ships will likely
have changed further by that time due to developments such as more comprehensive
implementation of networking technology, increased use of ship-based unmanned vehicles, and
the potential fielding of new types of weapons such as lasers or electromagnetic rail guns.
The 568-ship fleet of FY1987 may or may not have been capable of performing its stated
missions; the 275-ship fleet of March 2015 may or may not be capable of performing its stated
missions; and a fleet years from now with a certain number of ships may or may not be capable of

24 Some publications have stated that the Navy reached a peak of 594 ships at the end of FY1987. This figure, however,
is the total number of active ships in the fleet, which is not the same as the total number of battle force ships. The battle
force ships figure is the number used in government discussions of the size of the Navy. In recent years, the total
number of active ships has been larger than the total number of battle force ships. For example, the Naval History and
Heritage Command (formerly the Naval Historical Center) states that as of November 16, 2001, the Navy included a
total of 337 active ships, while the Navy states that as of November 19, 2001, the Navy included a total of 317 battle
force ships. Comparing the total number of active ships in one year to the total number of battle force ships in another
year is thus an apples-to-oranges comparison that in this case overstates the decline since FY1987 in the number of
ships in the Navy. As a general rule to avoid potential statistical distortions, comparisons of the number of ships in the
Navy over time should use, whenever possible, a single counting method.
25 C4ISR stands for command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

performing its stated missions. Given changes over time in mission requirements, ship mixes, and
technologies, however, these three issues are to a substantial degree independent of one another.
For similar reasons, trends over time in the total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a
reliable indicator of the direction of change in the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions. An
increasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to
perform its stated missions is increasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be
increasing more rapidly than ship numbers and average ship capability. Similarly, a decreasing
number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to perform stated
missions is decreasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be declining more rapidly
than numbers of ships, or because average ship capability and the percentage of time that ships
are in deployed locations might be increasing quickly enough to more than offset reductions in
total ship numbers.
Regarding the second of the two bullet points above, it can be noted that comparisons of the size
of the fleet today with the size of the fleet in earlier years rarely appear to consider whether the
fleet was appropriately sized in those earlier years (and therefore potentially suitable as a
yardstick of comparison), even though it is quite possible that the fleet in those earlier years
might not have been appropriately sized, and even though there might have been differences of
opinion among observers at that time regarding that question. Just as it might not be prudent for
observers years from now to tacitly assume that the 289-ship Navy of September 2014 was
appropriately sized for meeting the mission requirements of 2014, even though there currently are
differences of opinion among observers on that question (as reflected, for example, in Table 7)
simply because a figure of 289 ships appears in the historical records for 2014, so, too, might it
not be prudent for observers today to tacitly assume that the number of ships of the Navy in an
earlier year was appropriate for meeting the Navy’s mission requirements that year, even though
there might have been differences of opinion among observers at that time regarding that
question, simply because the size of the Navy in that year appears in a table like Table D-1.
Previous Navy force structure plans, such as those shown in Table 1, might provide some insight
into the potential adequacy of a proposed new force-structure plan, but changes over time in
mission requirements, technologies available to ships for performing missions, and other force-
planning factors, as well as the possibility that earlier force-structure plans might not have been
appropriate for meeting the mission demands of their times, suggest that some caution should be
applied in using past force structure plans for this purpose, particularly if those past force
structure plans are more than a few years old. The Reagan-era plan for a 600-ship Navy, for
example, was designed for a Cold War set of missions focusing on countering Soviet naval forces
at sea, which is not an appropriate basis for planning the Navy today, and there was considerable
debate during those years as to the appropriateness of the 600-ship goal.26

26 Navy force structure plans that predate those shown in Table 1 include the Reagan-era 600-ship plan of the 1980s,
the Base Force fleet of more than 400 ships planned during the final two years of the George H. W. Bush
Administration, the 346-ship fleet from the Clinton Administration’s 1993 Bottom-Up Review (or BUR, sometimes
also called Base Force II), and the 310-ship fleet of the Clinton Administration’s 1997 QDR. The table below
summarizes some key features of these plans.
Features of Recent Navy Force Structure Plans
Plan
600-ship
Base Force
1993 BUR
1997 QDR
Total ships
~600 ~450/416a 346
~305/310b
Attack submarines
100 80/~55c 45-55 50/55d
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix B. Independent Panel Assessment of 2010
QDR
The law that requires DOD to perform QDRs once every four years (10 U.S.C. 118) states that
the results of each QDR shall be assessed by an independent panel. The report of the independent
panel that assessed the 2010 QDR was released on July 29, 2010. The independent panel’s report
recommended a Navy of 346 ships, including 11 aircraft carriers and 55 attack submarines.27 The
report stated the following, among other things:
• “The QDR should reflect current commitments, but it must also plan effectively
for potential threats that could arise over the next 20 years.… we believe the
2010 QDR did not accord sufficient priority to the need to counter anti-access
challenges, strengthen homeland defense (including our defense against cyber
threats), and conduct post-conflict stabilization missions.” (Page 54)
• “In this remarkable period of change, global security will still depend upon an
American presence capable of unimpeded access to all international areas of the
Pacific region. In an environment of ‘anti-access strategies,’ and assertions to
create unique ‘economic and security zones of influence,’ America‘s rightful and
historic presence will be critical. To preserve our interests, the United States will
need to retain the ability to transit freely the areas of the Western Pacific for
security and economic reasons. Our allies also depend on us to be fully present in
the Asia-Pacific as a promoter of stability and to ensure the free flow of
commerce. A robust U.S. force structure, largely rooted in maritime strategy but
including other necessary capabilities, will be essential.” (Page 51)
• “The United States will need agile forces capable of operating against the full
range of potential contingencies. However, the need to deal with irregular and
hybrid threats will tend to drive the size and shape of ground forces for years to

(...continued)
Aircraft carriers
15e 12
11+1f 11+1f
Surface combatants
242/228g ~150
~124 116
Amphibious ships
~75h 51i 41i 36i
Source: Prepared by CRS based on DOD and U.S. Navy data.
a. Commonly referred to as 450-ship plan, but called for decreasing to 416 ships by end of FY1999.
b. Original total of about 305 ships was increased to about 310 due to increase in number of attack submarines to 55
from 50.
c. Plan originally included 80 attack submarines, but this was later reduced to about 55.
d. Plan originally included 50 attack submarines but this was later increased to 55.
e. Plus one additional aircraft carrier in the service life extension program (SLEP).
f. Eleven active carriers plus one operational reserve carrier.
g. Plan originally included 242 surface combatants but this was later reduced to 228.
h. Number needed to lift assault echelons of one Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) plus one Marine Expeditionary
Brigade (MEB).
i. Number needed to lift assault echelons of 2.5 MEBs. Changing numbers needed to meet this goal reflect in part
changes in the design and capabilities of amphibious ships.
27 Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Perry, co-chairmen, et al, The QDR in Perspective: Meeting America’s National
Security Needs In the 21st Century, The Final Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel,
Washington, 2010, Figure 3-2 on page 58.
Congressional Research Service
33
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

come, whereas the need to continue to be fully present in Asia and the Pacific and
other areas of interest will do the same for naval and air forces.” (Page 55)
• “The force structure in the Asia-Pacific needs to be increased. In order to
preserve U.S. interests, the United States will need to retain the ability to transit
freely the areas of the Western Pacific for security and economic reasons. The
United States must be fully present in the Asia-Pacific region to protect American
lives and territory, ensure the free flow of commerce, maintain stability, and
defend our allies in the region. A robust U.S. force structure, one that is largely
rooted in maritime strategy and includes other necessary capabilities, will be
essential.” (Page 66)
• “Force structure must be strengthened in a number of areas to address the need to
counter anti-access challenges, strengthen homeland defense (including defense
against cyber threats), and conduct post-conflict stabilization missions: First, as a
Pacific power, the U.S. presence in Asia has underwritten the regional stability
that has enabled India and China to emerge as rising economic powers. The
United States should plan on continuing that role for the indefinite future. The
Panel remains concerned that the QDR force structure may not be sufficient to
assure others that the United States can meet its treaty commitments in the face
of China’s increased military capabilities. Therefore, we recommend an increased
priority on defeating anti-access and area-denial threats. This will involve
acquiring new capabilities, and, as Secretary Gates has urged, developing
innovative concepts for their use. Specifically, we believe the United States must
fully fund the modernization of its surface fleet. We also believe the United
States must be able to deny an adversary sanctuary by providing persistent
surveillance, tracking, and rapid engagement with high-volume precision strike.
That is why the Panel supports an increase in investment in long-range strike
systems and their associated sensors. In addition, U.S. forces must develop and
demonstrate the ability to operate in an information-denied environment.” (Pages
59-60)
• “To compete effectively, the U.S. military must continue to develop new
conceptual approaches to dealing with operational challenges, like the Capstone
Concept for Joint Operations (CCJO). The Navy and Air Force‘s effort to
develop an Air-Sea Battle concept is one example of an approach to deal with the
growing anti-access challenge. It will be necessary to invest in modernized
capabilities to make this happen. The Chief of Naval Operations and Chief of
Staff of the Air Force deserve support in this effort, and the Panel recommends
the other military services be brought into the concept when appropriate.” (Page
51; a similar passage appears on page 67)
In recommending a Navy of 346 ships, the independent panel’s report cited the 1993 Bottom-Up
Review (BUR) of U.S. defense plans and policies. Table B-1 compares the Navy’s 308-ship goal
of March 2015 to the 346-ship Navy recommended in the 1993 BUR (as detailed partly in
subsequent Navy testimony and publications) and the ship force levels recommended in the
independent panel report.
Congressional Research Service
34
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table B-1. Comparison of Navy’s 308-ship goal, Navy Plan from 1993 BUR, and Navy
Plan from 2010 QDR Review Panel
2010 QDR
Independent
Navy’s 308-ship goal of
Bottom-Up Review
Review Panel
Ship Type
March 2015
(BUR) (1993)
(July 2010)
SSBNs 12
18
14
(SSBN force was later
reduced to 14 as a result of
the 1994 Nuclear Posture
Review)
SSGNs 0
0
4
(SSGN program did not yet
exist)
SSNs
48
45 to 55
55
(55 in FY99, with a long-term
goal of about 45)
Aircraft carriers
11
11 active + 1
11 active
operational/reserve
Surface combatants
140
124
n/a
(114 active + 10 frigates in
Naval Reserve Force; a total
of 110-116 active ships was
also cited)
Cruisers and destroyers
88
n/a
n/a
Frigates (modified LCSs)
20
n/a
n/a
LCSs
32
0
n/a
(LCS program did not exist)
Amphibious ships
34
41
n/a
(30 operational ships
(Enough to lift 2.5 MEBs)
needed to lift 2.0 MEBs)
Dedicated mine
0
26
n/a
warfare ships
(to be replaced by LCSs)
(LCS program did not exist)
CLF ships
29
43
n/a
Support ships
34
22
n/a
TOTAL ships
308
346
346
(numbers above add to
331-341)a
Source: Table prepared by CRS. Sources for 1993 Bottom-Up Review: Department of Defense, Report on the
Bottom-Up Review, October 1993, Figure 7 on page 28; Department of the Navy, Highlights of the FY 1995
Department of the Navy Budget, February 1994, p. 1; Department of the Navy, Force 2001, A Program Guide to the
U.S. Navy, 1994 edition, p. 15; Statement of VADM T. Joseph Lopez, U.S. Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements & Assessments), Testimony to the Military Forces and Personnel
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, March 22, 1994, pp. 2-5. Source for independent
panel report: Stephen J. Hadley and William J. Perry, co-chairmen, et al., The QDR in Perspective: Meeting
Congressional Research Service
35
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

America’s National Security Needs In the 21st Century, The Final Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent
Panel, Washington, 2010, Figure 3-2 on pages 58-59.
Notes: n/a is not addressed in the report. SSBN is nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine; SSGN is
nuclear-powered cruise missile and special operations forces submarine; SSN is nuclear-powered attack
submarine; LCS is Littoral Combat Ship; MPF(F) is Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) ship; CLF is combat
logistics force (i.e., resupply) ship; MEB is Marine Expeditionary Brigade.
a. The Navy testified in 1994 that the planned number was adjusted from 346 to 330 to reflect reductions in
numbers of tenders and early retirements of some older amphibious ships.
In a letter dated August 11, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates provided his comments on
the independent panel’s report. The letter stated in part:
I completely agree with the Panel that a strong navy is essential; however, I disagree with the
Panel’s recommendation that DoD should establish the 1993 Bottom Up Review’s (BUR’s)
fleet of 346 ships as the objective target. That number was a simple projection of the then-
planned size of [the] Navy in FY 1999, not a reflection of 21st century, steady-state
requirements. The fleet described in the 2010 QDR report, with its overall target of 313 to
321 ships, has roughly the same number of aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered attack
submarines, surface combatants, mine warfare vessels, and amphibious ships as the larger
BUR fleet. The main difference between the two fleets is in the numbers of combat logistics,
mobile logistics, and support ships. Although it is true that the 2010 fleet includes fewer of
these ships, they are all now more efficiently manned and operated by the Military Sealift
Command and meet all of DoD’s requirements….
I agree with the Panel’s general conclusion that DoD ought to enhance its overall posture and
capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. As I outlined in my speech at the Naval War College
in April 2009, “to carry out the missions we may face in the future… we will need numbers,
speed, and the ability to operate in shallow waters.” So as the Air-Sea battle concept
development reaches maturation, and as DoD’s review of global defense posture continues, I
will be looking for ways to meet plausible security threats while emphasizing sustained
forward presence – particularly in the Pacific.28

28 Letter dated August 11, 2010, from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the chairmen of the House and Senate
Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, pp. 3 and 4. The ellipsis in the second paragraph appears in the letter.
Congressional Research Service
36
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix C. U.S. Strategy and the Size and
Structure of U.S. Naval Forces
This appendix presents some observations on the relationship between U.S. strategy and the size
and structure of U.S. naval forces that can form part of the context for assessing Navy force
structure goals and shipbuilding plans.29
Strategic considerations that can be considered in assessing Navy force structure goals and
shipbuilding plans include, among other things, the U.S. strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-
Pacific region,30 China’s modernization of its maritime military capabilities,31 and requests from
U.S. regional combatant commanders (COCOMs) for forward-deployed U.S. naval forces that the
Navy has testified would require a Navy of about 450 ships to fully meet.32
More broadly, from a strategic perspective it can be noted that that U.S. naval forces, while not
inexpensive, give the United States the ability to convert the world’s oceans—a global commons
that covers more than two-thirds of the planet’s surface—into a medium of maneuver and
operations for projecting U.S. power ashore and otherwise defending U.S. interests around the
world. The ability to use the world’s oceans in this manner—and to deny other countries the use
of the world’s oceans for taking actions against U.S. interests—constitutes an immense
asymmetric advantage for the United States. This point would be less important if less of the
world were covered by water, or if the oceans were carved into territorial blocks, like the land.
Most of the world, however, is covered by water, and most of those waters are international
waters, where naval forces can operate freely. The point, consequently, is not that U.S. naval
forces are intrinsically special or privileged—it is that they have a certain value simply as a
consequence of the physical and legal organization of the planet.
An additional point that can be noted in relating U.S. naval forces to U.S. national strategy is that
most of the world’s people, resources, and economic activity are located not in the Western
Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia. In response to this basic feature of
world geography, U.S. policymakers for the last several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key
element of U.S. national strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in
one part of Eurasia or another, on the grounds that such a hegemon could represent a
concentration of power strong enough to threaten core U.S. interests by, for example, denying the
United States access to some of the other hemisphere’s resources and economic activity. Although
U.S. policymakers do not often state this key national strategic goal explicitly in public, U.S.

29 This appendix adapts material originally presented in Statement of Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs,
Congressional Research Service, Before the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces on the Navy’s FY2014 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan, October 23, 2013, pp. 1, 17-18.
30 For more on the strategic rebalancing, see CRS Report R42146, Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic
Guidance (DSG): In Brief, by Catherine Dale and Pat Towell; and CRS Report R42448, Pivot to the Pacific? The
Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia, coordinated by Mark E. Manyin.
31 For more on China’s modernization of its maritime military capabilities, see CRS Report RL33153, China Naval
Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
32 Navy officials testified in March 2014 that a Navy of 450 ships would be required to fully meet COCOM requests for
forward-deployed Navy forces. (Spoken testimony of Admiral Jonathan Greenert at a March 12, 2014, hearing before
the House Armed Services Committee on the Department of the Navy’s proposed FY2015 budget, as shown in
transcript of hearing.)
Congressional Research Service
37
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

military operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—have
been carried out in no small part in support of this key goal.
The U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or
another is a major reason why the U.S. military is structured with force elements that enable it to
cross broad expanses of ocean and air space and then conduct sustained, large-scale military
operations upon arrival. Force elements associated with this goal include, among other things, an
Air Force with significant numbers of long-range bombers, long-range surveillance aircraft, long-
range airlift aircraft, and aerial refueling tankers, and a Navy with significant numbers aircraft
carriers, nuclear-powered attack submarines, large surface combatants, large amphibious ships,
and underway replenishment ships.
The United States is the only country in the world that designs its military to cross broad
expanses of ocean and air space and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon
arrival. The other countries in the Western Hemisphere do not design their forces to do this
because they cannot afford to, and because the United States is, in effect, doing it for them.
Countries in the other hemisphere do not design their forces to do this for the very basic reason
that they are already in the other hemisphere, and consequently instead spend their defense
money on forces that are tailored largely for influencing events in their own local region.
The fact that the United States designs its military to do something that other countries do not
design their forces to do—cross broad expanses of ocean and air space and then conduct
sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival—can be important to keep in mind when
comparing the U.S. military to the militaries of other nations. For example, in observing that the
U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers while other countries have no more than one or two, it can be
noted other countries do not need a significant number of aircraft carriers because, unlike the
United States, they are not designing their forces to cross broad expanses of ocean and air space
and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival.
As another example, it is sometimes noted, in assessing the adequacy of U.S. naval forces, that
U.S. naval forces are equal in tonnage to the next dozen or more navies combined, and that most
of those next dozen or more navies are the navies of U.S. allies. Those other fleets, however, are
mostly of Eurasian countries, which do not design their forces to cross to the other side of the
world and then conduct sustained, large-scale military operations upon arrival. The fact that the
U.S. Navy is much bigger than allied navies does not necessarily prove that U.S. naval forces are
either sufficient or excessive; it simply reflects the differing and generally more limited needs that
U.S. allies have for naval forces. (It might also reflect an underinvestment by some of those allies
to meet even their more limited naval needs.)
Countries have differing needs for naval and other military forces. The United States, as a country
located in the Western Hemisphere with a goal of preventing the emergence of a regional
hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another, has defined a need for naval and other military forces
that is quite different from the needs of allies that are located in Eurasia. The sufficiency of U.S.
naval and other military forces consequently is best assessed not through comparison to the
militaries of other countries, but against U.S. strategic goals.


Congressional Research Service
38
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix D. Size of the Navy and Navy
Shipbuilding Rate
Size of the Navy
Table D-1 shows the size of the Navy in terms of total number of ships since FY1948; the
numbers shown in the table reflect changes over time in the rules specifying which ships count
toward the total. Differing counting rules result in differing totals, and for certain years, figures
reflecting more than one set of counting rules are available. Figures in the table for FY1978 and
subsequent years reflect the battle force ships counting method, which is the set of counting rules
established in the early 1980s for public policy discussions of the size of the Navy.
As shown in the table, the total number of battle force ships in the Navy reached a late-Cold War
peak of 568 at the end of FY1987 and began declining thereafter.33 The Navy fell below 300
battle force ships in August 2003 and as of March 25, 2015, included 275 battle force ships.
As discussed in Appendix A, historical figures for total fleet size might not be a reliable yardstick
for assessing the appropriateness of proposals for the future size and structure of the Navy,
particularly if the historical figures are more than a few years old, because the missions to be
performed by the Navy, the mix of ships that make up the Navy, and the technologies that are
available to Navy ships for performing missions all change over time, and because the number of
ships in the fleet in an earlier year might itself have been inappropriate (i.e., not enough or more
than enough) for meeting the Navy’s mission requirements in that year.
For similar reasons, trends over time in the total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a
reliable indicator of the direction of change in the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions. An
increasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to
perform its stated missions is increasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be
increasing more rapidly than ship numbers and average ship capability. Similarly, a decreasing
number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to perform stated
missions is decreasing, because the fleet’s mission requirements might be declining more rapidly
than numbers of ships, or because average ship capability and the percentage of time that ships
are in deployed locations might be increasing quickly enough to more than offset reductions in
total ship numbers.

33 Some publications have stated that the Navy reached a peak of 594 ships at the end of FY1987. This figure, however,
is the total number of active ships in the fleet, which is not the same as the total number of battle force ships. The battle
force ships figure is the number used in government discussions of the size of the Navy. In recent years, the total
number of active ships has been larger than the total number of battle force ships. For example, the Naval History and
Heritage Command (formerly the Naval Historical Center) states that as of November 16, 2001, the Navy included a
total of 337 active ships, while the Navy states that as of November 19, 2001, the Navy included a total of 317 battle
force ships. Comparing the total number of active ships in one year to the total number of battle force ships in another
year is thus an apples-to-oranges comparison that in this case overstates the decline since FY1987 in the number of
ships in the Navy. As a general rule to avoid potential statistical distortions, comparisons of the number of ships in the
Navy over time should use, whenever possible, a single counting method.
Congressional Research Service
39
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table D-1. Total Number of Ships in the Navy Since FY1948
FYa Number FYa Number FYa Number FYa Number
1948 737 1970 769 1992 466 FY2014 289
1949 690 1971 702 1993 435

1950 634 1972 654 1994 391

1951 980 1973 584 1995 373

1952 1,097 1974 512 1996 356


1953 1,122 1975 496 1997 354


1954 1,113 1976 476 1998 333


1955 1,030 1977 464 1999 317


1956 973 1978 468 2000 318

1957 967 1979 471 2001 316

1958 890 1980 477 2002 313

1959 860 1981 490 2003 297

1960 812 1982 513 2004 291

1961 897 1983 514 2005 282

1962 959 1984 524 2006 281

1963 916 1985 541 2007 279

1964 917 1986 556 2008 282

1965 936 1987 568 2009 285

1966 947 1988 565 2010 288

1967 973 1989 566 2011 284

1968 976 1990 547 2012 287

1969 926 1991 526 2013 285

Source: Compiled by CRS using U.S. Navy data. Numbers shown reflect changes over time in the rules
specifying which ships count toward the total. Figures for FY1978 and subsequent years reflect the battle force
ships counting method, which is the set of counting rules established in the early 1980s for public policy
discussions of the size of the Navy.
a. Data for earlier years in the table may be for the end of the calendar year (or for some other point during
the year), rather than for the end of the fiscal year.
Shipbuilding Rate
Table D-2 shows past (FY1982-FY2015) and requested or programmed (FY2016-FY2020) rates
of Navy ship procurement.
Congressional Research Service
40
c11173008

---

.
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table D-2. Battle Force Ships Procured or Requested/Programmed, FY1982-FY2020
(Procured FY1982-FY2015; requested or programmed FY2016-FY2020)
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
17 14 16 19 20 17 15 19 15 11 11 7 4 4 5 4 5 5 6 6
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
6 5 7 8 4a
5a
3a 8 7 10 11b 11 8 8 9 10 10 9 10
Source: CRS compilation based on Navy budget data and examination of defense authorization and
appropriation committee and conference reports for each fiscal year. The table excludes non-battle force ships
that do not count toward the 308-ship goal, such as certain sealift and prepositioning ships operated by the
Military Sealift Command and oceanographic ships operated by agencies such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
a. The totals shown for FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008, reflect the cancel ation two LCSs funded in FY2006,
another two LCSs funded in FY2007, and an LCS funded in FY2008.
b. The total shown for FY2012 includes two JHSVs—one that was included in the Navy’s FY2012 budget
submission, and one that was included in the Army’s FY2012 budget submission. Until FY2012, JHSVs were
being procured by both the Navy and the Army. The Army was to procure its fifth and final JHSV in
FY2012, and this ship was included in the Army’s FY2012 budget submission. In May 2011, the Navy and
Army signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) transferring the Army’s JHSVs to the Navy. In the
FY2012 DOD Appropriations Act (Division A of H.R. 2055/P.L. 112-74 of December 23, 2011), the JHSV
that was in the Army’s FY2012 budget submission was funded through the Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy (SCN) appropriation account, along with the JHSV that the Navy had included in its FY0212 budget
submission. The four JHSVs that were procured through the Army’s budget prior to FY2012, however, are
not included in the annual totals shown in this table.

Author Contact Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610


Congressional Research Service
41
c11173008

---