Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress
February 9, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL32665

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

Summary
The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the annual rate of Navy ship
procurement, the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, and the capacity of
the U.S. shipbuilding industry to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight
matters for the congressional defense committees for many years.
In December 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and
maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship goal was made U.S.
policy by Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115-
91 of December 12, 2017). The Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been working
since 2019 to develop a successor for the 355-ship force-level goal. The new goal is expected to
introduce a new, more distributed fleet architecture featuring a smaller proportion of larger ships,
a larger proportion of smaller ships, and a new third tier of large unmanned vehicles (UVs).
On June 17, 2021, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that presents the
Biden Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The document calls
for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77
to 140 large UVs. A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that
the fleet envisioned in the document would cost an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7
billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure. These figures, the report states, are 10% to
43% higher the $22.9 billion in constant FY2021 dollars that Congress has appropriated, on
average, for all Navy shipbuilding activities over the past five years.
The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests the procurement of eight new ships, including two
Virginia-class attack submarines (SSNs); one Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer; one
Constellation (FFG-62) class frigate; one John Lewis (TAO-205) class oiler; two TATS towing,
salvage, and rescue ships; and one TAGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship. The total of eight new
ships requested for FY2022 is one more than the total of seven new ships that were projected for
FY2022 under the Navy’s FY2021 budget submission, about two less than steady-state
replacement rate for a 355-ship Navy (which is about 10 ships per year), and four less than the 12
new ships shown in a long-range shipbuilding document that Trump Administration submitted on
December 9, 2020.
The Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $18.1 billion for construction of new ships within
its shipbuilding budget (the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or SCN, appropriation account),
compared with $17.8 billion for construction of new ships within the SCN account projected for
FY2022 under the Navy’s FY2021 budget submission, $22.8 billion in FY2022 for construction
of new ships within the SCN account in the December 9, 2020, document, and an enacted
FY2021 total of $20.1 billion for the construction of new ships within the SCN account.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s force-level goal, its
proposed FY2022 shipbuilding program, and its longer-term shipbuilding plans. Key questions
for Congress include the following: Is the Navy’s emerging force-level goal appropriate for
supporting U.S. national security strategy and U.S. national defense strategy? Is the more
distributed fleet architecture envisioned by the Navy the most cost effective fleet architecture for
meeting future mission needs? Is the Navy’s proposed FY2022 shipbuilding program consistent
with the Navy’s emerging force-level goal? Given finite defense resources and competing
demands for defense funds, what is the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding
plans? Does the U.S. shipbuilding industry, including both shipyards and supplier firms, have
adequate capacity for executing the Navy’s shipbuilding plans?
Congressional Research Service

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

Introduction
Issue for Congress
This report presents background information and issues for Congress concerning the Navy’s force
structure and shipbuilding plans. The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the
annual rate of Navy ship procurement, the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding
plans, and the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans
have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years.
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s force-level goal, its
proposed FY2022 shipbuilding program, and its longer-term shipbuilding plans. Decisions that
Congress makes on this issue can substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements
and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.
CRS Reports on Individual Navy Shipbuilding Programs
Detailed coverage of certain individual Navy shipbuilding programs can be found in the
following CRS reports:
 CRS Report R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile
Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine
Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS In Focus IF11826, Navy Next-Generation Attack Submarine (SSN[X])
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS In Focus IF11679, Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R44972, Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship
Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R46374, Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS In Focus IF11674, Navy Next-Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS In Focus IF11838, Navy TAGOS(X) Ocean Surveillance Shipbuilding
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R45757, Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 link to page 99 link to page 78 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Background
Navy’s Force-Level Goal
Navy’s Existing (355-Ship) Force-Level Goal
355-Ship Goal Released in December 2016
The Navy’s existing force-level goal, which the Navy released on December 15, 2016, calls for
achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of the types and numbers shown in Table 1.1
Table 1. 355-Ship Force-Level Goal
Ship Category
Number of ships
Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
12
Attack submarines (SSNs)
66
Aircraft carriers (CVNs)
12
Large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers [CGs] and destroyers [DDGs])
104
Small surface combatants (i.e., frigates [FFGs], Littoral Combat Ships, and mine warfare ships)
52
Amphibious ships
38
Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ships (i.e., at-sea resupply ships)
32
Command and support ships
39
TOTAL
355
Source: U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year
2020, Table A-1 on page 10.
355-Ship Fleet Is a Goal to Be Attained in the Future
The 355-ship fleet is a goal to be attained in the future. As shown in Table G-1, the actual size of
the Navy in recent years has generally been between 270 and 300 ships. Increasing the numerical
size of the Navy from 300 ships to 355 would equate to an increase of about 18%.
355-Ship Goal Made U.S. Policy by FY2018 NDAA
Congress made the 355-ship goal U.S. policy via Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense
Authorization Act, or NDAA (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115-91 of December 12, 2017).2

1 For previous Navy force-level goals, see Appendix A.
2 Section 1025 of P.L. 115-91 states
SEC. 1025. Policy of the United States on minimum number of battle force ships.
(a) Policy.—It shall be the policy of the United States to have available, as soon as practicable, not
fewer than 355 battle force ships, comprised of the optimal mix of platforms, with funding subject
to the availability of appropriations or other funds.
(b) Battle force ships defined.—In this section, the term “battle force ship” has the meaning given
the term in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5030.8C.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 78 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

355-Ship Goal Resulted from a Force Structure Assessment (FSA) Done in 2016
The 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Assessment (FSA) conducted by
the Navy in 2016. An FSA is an analysis in which the Navy solicits inputs from U.S. regional
combatant commanders (CCDRs) regarding the types and amounts of Navy capabilities that
CCDRs deem necessary for implementing the Navy’s portion of the national military strategy,
and then translates those CCDR inputs into required numbers of ships, using current and
projected Navy ship types. The analysis takes into account Navy capabilities for both warfighting
and day-to-day forward-deployed presence.3
The Navy conducts a new FSA or an update to the existing FSA every few years, as
circumstances require, to determine its force-level goal. Previous Navy force-level goals that
resulted from earlier FSA are shown in Appendix A.
Navy’s Force-Level Goal Is Not Just a Single Number
Although the result of an FSA is often reduced for convenience to single number (e.g., 355 ships),
FSAs take into account a number of factors, including types and capabilities of Navy ships,
aircraft, unmanned vehicles, and weapons, as well as ship homeporting arrangements and
operational cycles. Thus, although the number of ships called for by an FSA might appear to be a
one-dimensional figure, it actually incorporates multiple aspects of Navy capability and capacity.
355-Ship Figure Includes Only Manned Ships
The 355-ship force-level goal, like previous Navy force-level goals, is a figure for manned ships
only. The Navy has operated smaller unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) and unmanned
underwater vehicles (UUVs) for many years, but because these unmanned vehicles (UVs) are
launched from manned ships to act essentially as extensions of the manned ships, they have not
been considered ships in their own right and consequently have not been included in the top-level
expression of the Navy’s force-level goal or the publicly cited figure for the number of ships in
the Navy.
Navy’s Next Force-Level Goal Might Include Large Unmanned Vehicles (UVs)
In the years since the 2016 FSA, the Navy has developed plans to acquire large USVs and UUVs.
Because of their size and projected capabilities, these large UVs are to be deployed directly from
pier, rather than from manned ships, to perform missions that might otherwise be assigned to
manned ships and submarines.4 In view of this, some observers have raised a question as to
whether these large UVs should be included in the top-level expression of the Navy’s next force-
level goal (see next section) and the publicly cited figure for the number of ships in the Navy.
Department of Defense (DOD) officials since late 2019 have sent mixed signals on this question,

The term battle force ships in the above provision refers to the ships that count toward the quoted size of the Navy in
public policy discussions about the Navy. The battle force ships method for counting the number of ships in the Navy
was established in 1981 by agreement between the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense, and has been
modified somewhat over time, in part by Section 1021 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.R. 3979/P.L. 113-291 of December 19, 2014).
3 For further discussion, see U.S. Navy, Executive Summary, 2016 Navy Force Structure Assessment (FSA), December
15, 2016, pp. 1-2.
4 For further discussion of these large UVs, see CRS Report R45757, Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea
Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

3

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

but in September 2020 indicated that the Navy’s next force-level goal (see next section) will
include large UVs.5
Navy’s Next Force-Level Goal
Work on Navy’s Next Force-Level Goal Underway Since 2019
The Navy and DOD since 2019 have been working to develop a new force-level goal to replace
the current 355-ship force-level goal. The conclusion of this work and the release of its results to
Congress have been delayed repeatedly since late-2019.
Next Navy Force-Level Goal Will Introduce More Distributed Fleet Architecture
Remarks from Navy and DOD officials since 2019 have indicated that the Navy’s next force-
level goal will introduce a once-in-a-generation change in fleet architecture, meaning basic the
types of ships that make up the Navy and how these ships are used in combination with one
another to perform Navy missions. This new fleet architecture is to be more distributed than the
fleet architecture reflected in the 355-ship goal or previous Navy force-level goals. In particular,
the new fleet architecture is expected to feature
 a smaller proportion of larger ships (such as large-deck aircraft carriers, cruisers,
destroyers, large amphibious ships, and large resupply ships);
 a larger proportion of smaller ships (such as frigates, corvettes, smaller
amphibious ships, smaller resupply ships, and perhaps smaller aircraft carriers);
and
 a new third tier of surface vessels about as large as corvettes or large patrol craft
that will be either lightly manned, optionally manned, or unmanned, as well as
large UUVs.

5 In December 2019, it was reported that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had directed the Navy to
include in its FY2021 budget submission a legislative proposal to formally change the definition of which ships count
toward the quoted size of the Navy (known as the number of battle force ships) to include not only manned ships, but
also large UVs that operate essentially as unmanned ships. (See Justin Katz, “OMB: Pentagon Must Submit Proposal to
‘Redefine’ Battleforce Ships to Include Unmanned Vehicles,” Inside Defense, December 20, 2019; Joseph Trevithick,
“White House Asks Navy To Include New Unmanned Vessels In Its Ambitious 355 Ship Fleet Plan,” The Drive,
December 20, 2019; Paul McCleary, “Navy To Slash 24 Ships in 2021 Plan, Bolster Unmanned Effort,” Breaking
Defense, December 20, 2019, David B. Larter, “Pentagon Proposes Big Cuts to US Navy Destroyer Construction,
Retiring 13 Cruisers,” Defense News, December 24, 2019.)
In January 2020, Admiral Michael Gilday, the Chief of Naval Operations, stated that the top-level expression of the
ship force-level goal resulting from the Navy’s next FSA would not include UVs. (See, for example, Sam LaGrone,
“CNO Gilday Calls for Budget Increase to Reach 355 Ship Fleet; New Battle Force Count Won’t Include Unmanned
Ships,” USNI News, January 14, 2020; Rich Abott, “CNO: Ship Count Will Not Include Unmanned; Bigger Topline
Needed For Fleet Goal,” Defense Daily, January 15, 2020; John M. Doyle, “CNO Wants Larger Slice of Defense
Budget to Modernize, Meet China Threat,” Seapower, January 15, 2020; Rich Abott, “CNO: Ship Count Will Not
Include Unmanned; Bigger Topline Needed For Fleet Goal,” Defense Daily, January 15, 2020.)
In September 2020, then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper signaled that the stated ship-force level goal will include
large UVs. (See, for example, Megan Eckstein, “Esper: Unmanned Vessels Will Allow the Navy to Reach 355-Ship
Fleet,” USNI News, September 18, 2020.)
Congressional Research Service

4

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

Navy and DOD leaders believe that shifting to a more distributed fleet architecture is
 operationally necessary, to respond effectively to the improving maritime anti-
access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities of other countries, particularly China;6
 technically feasible as a result of advances in technologies for UVs and for
networking widely distributed maritime forces that include significant numbers
of UVs; and
 affordable—no more expensive, and possibly less expensive, than the current
fleet architecture for a given level of overall fleet capability, so as to fit within
expected future Navy budgets.
Regarding the first point above, shifting to a more distributed force architecture, Navy and
Marine Corps officials have indicated, will support implementation of the Navy and Marine
Corps’ new overarching operational concept, called Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO), and
a supporting Marine Corps operational concept called Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations
(EABO).7 A key aim of DMO and EABO is to improve the ability of the Navy and Marine Corps
to counter China’s improving maritime military capabilities.
Some elements of the Navy’s new, more distributed fleet architecture are reflected in the Navy’s
FY2021 and FY2022 budget submissions, including the following:
 procurement of FFG-62-class frigates;8
 development of a smaller amphibious warship called the Light Amphibious
Warship (LAW);9
 development of a smaller resupply ship called the Next-Generation Medium
Logistics Ship;10

6 See, for example, David B. Larter, “With China Gunning for Aircraft Carriers, US Navy Says It Must Change How It
Fights,” Defense News, December 6, 2019; Arthur H. Barber, “Redesign the Fleet,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,
January 2019. Some observers have long urged the Navy to shift to a more distributed fleet architecture, on the grounds
that the Navy’s current architecture—which concentrates much of the fleet’s capability into a relatively limited number
of individually larger and more expensive surface ships—is increasingly vulnerable to attack by the improving A2/AD
capabilities (particularly anti-ship missiles and their supporting detection and targeting systems) of potential
adversaries, particularly China. Shifting to a more distributed architecture, these observers have argued, would
•
complicate an adversary’s targeting challenge by presenting the adversary with a larger number of Navy units
to detect, identify, and track;
•
reduce the loss in aggregate Navy capability that would result from the destruction of an individual Navy
platform;
•
give U.S. leaders the option of deploying USVs and UUVs in wartime to sea locations that would be
tactically advantageous but too risky for manned ships; and
•
increase the modularity and reconfigurability of the fleet for adapting to changing mission needs.
For more on China’s maritime A2/AD capabilities, see CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization:
Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
7 For more on DMO, see, for example, Barry Rosenberg, “Distributed Maritime Operations: Making Ships, Subs, And
Platforms Nodes On A Network,” Breaking Defense, August 3, 2021; Edward Lundquist, “DMO is Navy’s Operational
Approach to Winning the High-End Fight at Sea,” Seapower, February 2, 2021. For more on EABO, see CRS Report
R46374, Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
8 For more on the FFG-62 program, see CRS Report R44972, Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
9 For more on the LAW program, see CRS Report R46374, Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
10 For more on the next-generation Medium Logistics Ship, see, for example, Megan Eckstein, “Navy Researching New
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 101 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

 development of two types of larger USVs—Large USVs (LUSVs) and Medium
USVs (MUSVs);11 and
 procurement of large UUVs called Extra Large UUVs (XLUUVs).12
For additional background information on the effort in 2019 and 2020 to develop a new Navy
force-level goal, see Appendix H.
December 9, 2020, Document Outlining a Possible Next Navy Force-Level Goal
On December 9, 2020, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that
presented the Trump Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The
document called for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 382 to 446
manned ships and 143 to 242 large UVs.13
June 17, 2021, Document Outlining an Emerging Next Navy Force-Level Goal
On June 17, 2021, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that presents the
Biden Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The document calls
for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77
to 140 large UVs.14 The document states
As detailed in the 9 December 2020 Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan
for Construction of Naval Vessels, the Department [of the Navy] previously completed
significant analytic work with the Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment (INFSA)
and the Future Naval Force Study (FNFS). Analysis continues that will further define the
capabilities required to maintain military advantage in peer military competition over the
next several decades….
The Navy, working closely with the OSD [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] Director
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), continues to develop comparative
assessments of naval force structure options consistent with [the Biden Administration’s]
Interim National Security Strategic Guidance15 and designed to maximize the maritime
contribution to the joint force. The results of these efforts and ongoing experimentation
and prototyping will be reflected in the FY2023 shipbuilding plan.16

Class of Medium Amphibious Ship, New Logistics Ships,” USNI News, February 20, 2020; Rich Abott, “FY 2021
Request Starts Work on Future Amphibs and Logistics Ships,” Defense Daily, February 20, 2020; Justin Katz, “Navy
Announces ‘Next Generation Logistics Ship’ Program with June 25 Industry Day,” Inside Defense, May 14, 2020; Paul
McLeary, “No Shipbuilding Plan, But Navy Works On New Ships To Counter China,” Breaking Defense, May 18,
2020.
11 For more on the LUSV and XLUUV programs, see CRS Report R45757, Navy Large Unmanned Surface and
Undersea Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
12 For more on the XLUUV program, see CRS Report R45757, Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea
Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
13 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels, December 2020,
23 pp.
14 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year
2022, June 2021, 16 pp.
15 White House, Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, March 2021, 23 pp.
16 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year
2022, June 2021, p. 3. The document similarly states on page 5 that
The Department [of the Navy] will submit a complete 30-year shipbuilding plan with the
President’s Budget for FY2023.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

355-Ship Goal Compared to December 9, 2020, and June 17, 2021, Documents
Table 2 compares the 355-ship force-level goal to the emerging force-level goals in the December
9, 2020, long-range shipbuilding document and the June 17, 2021, long-range shipbuilding
document.
Table 2. 355-Ship Goal Compared to December 9, 2020, and
June 17, 2021, Documents
Emerging force-
Emerging force-
level goal in Trump
level goal in Biden
355-
Administration
Administration
ship
December 9, 2020,
June 17, 2021,
Ship type
goal
document
document
Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
12
12
12
Attack submarines (SSNs)
66
72 to 78
66 to 72a
Aircraft carriers
12
n/ab
9 to 11
Large aircraft carriers (CVNs)
12
8 to 11b
n/a
Light aircraft carriers (CVLs)
0
0 to 6 c
n/ad
Large surface combatants (cruisers and destroyers)
104
73 to 88
63 to 65
Small surface combatants (frigates and Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs])
52
60 to 67
40 to 45
Amphibious ships
38
61 to 67
48 to 63
Large-deck (LHA/LHD)
12
9 to 10
8 to 9
LPD-type
26
n/a
16 to 19
Light Amphibious Warships (LAWs)
0
n/a
24 to 35
LPD-type and LAWs combined
26
52 to 57
40 to 44
Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ships
32
69 to 87e
56 to 75f
Command and support ships
39
27 to 30
27 to 29
Subtotal manned ships
355
382 to 446
321 to 372
Unmanned and optionally manned ships
0
143 to 242
77 to 140
Large and medium unmanned surface vessels (LUSVs and MUSVs)
0
119 to 166
59 to 89
Extra-large unmanned underwater vehicles (XLUUVs)
0
24 to 76
18 to 51
TOTAL manned and unmanned ships
355
525 to 688
398 to 512
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Navy data.
Notes: n/a means not available.
a. The document states that the range of 66 to 72 includes Large Payload Submarines—the Navy’s planned
next-generation successor to its four current cruise missile submarines (SSGNs).
b. The document states: “Lower [end of the CVN] range may be enabled by acquisition of cost-effective CVL.”
c. The document states: “Further study of cost-effective CVL capabilities and capacity required.”

In the interim, the Department will continue to build on ongoing analysis, experimentation, testing,
prototyping, and the analytic results from force structure assessments, future fleet architectures, and
intelligence updates to refine required capabilities and characterize the technical and operational
risk of an objective battle force in military competition. This work will inform the content and
transition pace to the future force and be reflected in the FY2023 shipbuilding plan.
Congressional Research Service

7

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

d. The document states: “New capability concepts like a light aircraft carrier continue to be studied and
analyzed to ful y il uminate their potential to execute key mission elements in a more distributed manner
and to inform the best mix of a future force.”
e. The document states: “Includes Next Generation Logistic Ships (NGLS). Logistics force size/mix subject to
on-going analysis.”
f.
The document states: “Includes the future next generation logistics ship.”
September 2021 CBO Report on Cost of Fleet in June 17, 2021, Document
A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the fleet envisioned
in the June 17, 2021, long-range Navy shipbuilding document would cost an average of between
$25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure. These figures, the
report states, are 10% to 43% higher the $22.9 billion in constant FY2021 dollars that Congress
has appropriated, on average, for all Navy shipbuilding activities over the past five years.17
OSD and Navy Reportedly Conducting Parallel Fleet Studies
A September 21, 2021, press report stated:
The Navy and the Pentagon are crunching numbers on two separate sets of studies that will
map out the size of the service’s future fleet as defense budgets are set to stay static for the
foreseeable future, officials familiar with the studies told USNI News.
The Navy is performing its own assessment of the fleet architecture needed to counter
future threats past the Fiscal Year 2024 budget, while the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation (CAPE) [within OSD] is also evaluating the fleet design for the FY
2023 budget that will come out early next year.
“There’s two separate efforts going on. The Navy’s got one effort going on for force design.
And they’re calling it a strategy and force design effort. And then CAPE has got their own
project going as part of program budget review – evaluate the force structure – as more of
a near-term thing to support the [Fiscal Year] 23 budget submission. So the Navy’s effort
is more of a longer-term look at force design,” Hudson Institute senior fellow Bryan Clark
told USNI News. “CAPE is more focused on what’s going to be in the FY 23 budget that
comes out in February of next year, which will be like the [Future Years Defense Program],
basically.”18
Next Navy Force-Level Goal Reportedly May Not be Submitted Until 2023
A September 24, 2021, press report stated:
The U.S. Navy’s latest attempt to lay out a plan to compose its future fleet may not arrive
until 2023, the chief of naval operations said Thursday [September 23]....
“We're just in the beginning stages of framing what kind of questions we want that study
to actually get after,” Adm. Mike Gilday said in the keynote interview for Defense One’s
State of the Navy event....
Gilday declined to say much about where the next study might take the fleet. And he said
that some decisions, such as changing the Navy’s overseas posture, would depend on the
results of a global force posture study being conducted by the Office of the Secretary of

17 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2022 Shipbuilding Plan, September 2021, p. 6.
The report was posted at the CBO website on September 16, 2021.
18 Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone, “Pentagon, Navy Conducting Parallel Fleet Studies Ahead of Next National
Defense Strategy,” USNI News, September 21, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 14 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Defense, which must itself be informed by a new national security strategy from the Biden
White House.19
Navy’s FY2022, Five-Year, and 30-Year Shipbuilding Plans
FY2022 Shipbuilding Program
As shown in the final column of Table 3, the Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests the
procurement of eight new ships, including two Virginia-class attack submarines (SSNs); one
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer; one Constellation (FFG-62) class frigate; one John
Lewis (TAO-205) class oiler; two TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ships; and one TAGOS(X)
ocean surveillance ship.
As shown in the table, the total of eight new ships requested for FY2022 is one more than the
total of seven new ships that were projected for FY2022 under the Navy’s FY2021 budget
submission, about two less than steady-state replacement rate for a 355-ship Navy (which is about
10 ships per year),20 and four less than the 12 new ships shown in the Trump Administration’s
December 9, 2020, shipbuilding document. (One of the 12 ships shown in the December 9, 2020,
document—the LHA amphibious assault ship—is a ship that, based on congressional action on
the Navy’s FY2020 and FY2021 budgets, is treated in CRS reports as a ship that was procured in
FY2021. Excluding this ship from those shown for FY2022 would reduce the total in the
December 9, 2020, document to 11 new ships.21)
As also shown in the table, the Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $18.1 billion for
construction of new ships within its shipbuilding account (the Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy, or SCN, appropriation account), compared with $17.8 billion for construction of new ships
within the SCN account projected for FY2022 under the Navy’s FY2021 budget submission, and
$22.8 billion in FY2022 for construction of new ships within the SCN account in the December 9,
2020, document. The Navy’s proposed FY2022 request of $18.1 billion for construction of new
ships within the SCN account can also be compared to the FY2021 enacted total of $20.1 billion
for the construction of new ships within the SCN account.

19 Bradley Peniston, US Navy’s Latest Plan for Its Future May Not Come Until 2023, Says Top Admiral, It’s the
Fourth Attempt in Four Years to Define the Future of the Navy,” Defense One, September 24, 2021.
20 The steady-state replacement rate for a fleet of objects (i.e., ships, aircraft, vehicles) is the average annual rate of
procurement that, if maintained over the long run, would be sufficient to achieve and maintain the desired force level
over the long run. The steady-state replacement rate is equal to the desired force level divided by average service life.
For the Navy, the steady-state replacement for the Navy’s 355-ship force-level goal is 355 ships divided by about 35
years, which is the approximate weighted average service life of a Navy ship. (The weighted average service life is
calculated on the basis of various types and quantities of Navy ships within the 355-ship plan and the expected service
lives for each ship type.) A figure of 355 divided by about 35 equates to a steady-state replacement rate of about 10
ships per year. The steady-state replacement rate is an average annual figure—the actual rate can be either below or
above the steady-state rate in any given year. If the actual rate is below the steady-state replacement rate in one or more
years, then achieving and maintaining the desired force level would require the actual rate to be above the steady-state
replacement rate in one or more other years, so that the average rate achieved over the long run (in this case, over a
period of 35 years) equates to the steady-state replacement rate.
21 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 3. Navy’s Proposed FY2022 Shipbuilding Program
Compared to projection in FY2021 budget submission and December 9, 2020, document
Projected for
FY22 under
Navy’s proposed
Navy’s FY2021
FY22 in December
FY22
budget
9, 2020, shipbuilding
shipbuilding
submission
document
program

(February 2020)
(December 2020)
(May 2021)
Virginia-class SSN
2
2
2
DDG-51 destroyer
2
2
1
FFG-62 frigate
1
1
1
LHA amphibious assault ship

1a

Light Amphibious Warship (LAW)

TAO-205 oiler

1
1
EPF expeditionary fast transport ship

2

TATS towing/salvage/rescue ship
1
1
2
TAGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship
1
1
1
TOTAL
7
12a
8
TOTAL funding for construction of
$17.8
$22.8
$18.1
new ships within SCN account
(billions)
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Navy’s FY2021 and FY2022 budget submissions and Navy’s December
9, 2020, shipbuilding document. SCN is the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, appropriation account (i.e., the
Navy’s shipbuilding budget, which includes funding for both construction of new ships and other activities.
a. The LHA shown in the December 9, 2020, document is a ship that, based on congressional action on the
Navy’s FY2020 and FY2021 budgets, is treated in CRS reports as a ship that was procured in FY2021.
Excluding this ship from those shown for FY2022 would reduce the total in the December 9, 2020,
document to 11 new ships.
FY2022 Five-Year (FY2022-FY2026) Shipbuilding Plan (Not Yet Submitted)
As shown in Table 4, the Navy has not yet submitted an FY2022 five-year (FY2022-FY2026)
shipbuilding plan. DOD’s FY2022 budget submission in general was single-year budget for
FY2022 only, without many of the line-item details for the next four fiscal years (in this case, for
FY2023-FY2026) that would normally form part of DOD’s annual budget submission. (The five-
year budget plan normally included in DOD’s annual budget submission is called the Future
Years Defense Plan, or FYDP.) It is not unprecedented for a new administration, in its first year in
office, to submit a proposed DOD budget for a single fiscal year only, without line-item details
for the next four fiscal years, on the grounds that that it is spending the first year reviewing and
revising the previous Administration’s defense strategy, plans, and programs, so as to create a
basis for subsequently devising a full FYDP.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 16 link to page 11 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 4. FY2022 Five-Year (FY2022-FY2026) Shipbuilding Plan
(Not yet submitted)
FY22-
FY22
FY26

(req.) FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26
Total
Columbia (SSBN-826) class ballistic missile submarine

Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier

Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarine
2

Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer
1

FFG-62 frigate
1

LHA amphibious assault ship

LPD-17 Fight II amphibious ship

Light Amphibious Warship (LAW)

Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) ship

Submarine tender (AS[X])

John Lewis (TAO-205) class oiler
1

Next-Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS)

TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ship
2

TAGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship
1

TOTAL
8

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on FY2022 Navy budget submission. The Navy has not yet submitted an
FY2022 five-year (FY2022-FY2026) shipbuilding plan.
FY2022 30-Year (FY2022-FY2051) Shipbuilding Plan (Not Yet Submitted)
As shown in Table 5, the Navy has not yet submitted an FY2022 30-year (FY2022-FY2051)
shipbuilding plan. Although the executive branch is required by law to submit a 30-year
shipbuilding plan each year in conjunction with its annual budget submission, past
Administrations have sometimes chosen to not submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan during their
first year in office, on the grounds that they were spending that year reviewing and revising the
previous Administration’s defense strategy, plans, and programs, so as to create a basis for
subsequently devising a 30-year shipbuilding plan. The June 17, 2021, long-range shipbuilding
document states, “The Department [of the Navy] will submit a complete 30-year shipbuilding
plan with the President’s Budget for FY2023 (PB2023).22 DOD’s proposed FY2023 budget (i.e.,
PB2023) is to be submitted to Congress in February 2022.
The Navy did not submit an FY2021 30-year (FY2021-FY2050) shipbuilding plan. The Navy’s
nonsubmission of an FY2021 30-year shipbuilding plan appeared to be a consequence, at least in
part, of OSD and the Navy not having completed their analysis of the Navy’s next force-level
goal. The most recent 30-year shipbuilding plan that was submitted in conjunction with an annual
budget submission is the FY2020 30-year (FY2020-FY2049) shipbuilding plan, which was
submitted in March 2019. This 30-year shipbuilding plan was designed to support the Navy’s
355-ship force-level objective and the Navy’s current existing fleet architecture, rather than the
emerging Navy force-level goal shown in Table 2 and the more distributed fleet architecture
envisioned by the Navy.

22 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year
2022, June 2021, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 17 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

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 ship construction times and
service lives, estimated ship procurement costs, projected shipbuilding funding levels, and
industrial-base considerations.
Table 5. FY2022 30-Year (FY2022-FY2051) Shipbuilding Plan
(Not yet submitted)
FY
CVNs
LSCs
SSCs SSNs
LPSs
SSBNs
AWSs
CLFs Supt Total
22

1
1
2

1
3
8
23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Total

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Navy’s FY2022 budget submission. The Navy has not yet submitted an
FY2022 30-year (FY2022-FY2051) shipbuilding plan.
Key: FY = Fiscal Year; CVNs = aircraft carriers; LSCs = surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers);
SSCs = small surface combatants (i.e., Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs] and frigates [FFG-62s]); SSNs = attack
submarines; LPSs = large payload submarines; SSBNs = ballistic missile submarines; AWSs = amphibious
warfare ships; CLFs = combat logistics force (i.e., resupply) ships; Supt = support ships.
Projected Force Levels Under 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
As noted above, the Navy has not yet submitted an FY2022 30-year (FY2022-FY2051)
shipbuilding plan. If and when such a plan is submitted, Table 6 will show the Navy’s projection
Congressional Research Service

12

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

of ship force levels for FY2022-FY2051 that would result from implementing the FY2022 30-
year shipbuilding plan.
Table 6. Projected Force Levels Resulting from FY2022 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan

CVNs LSCs SSCs SSNs SSGN/LPSs SSBNs AWSs CLFs Supt Total
355-ship goal
12
104
52
66
0
12
38
32
39
355
FY22
11
89
31
51
14
4
31
30
35
296
FY23

FY24

FY25

FY26

FY27

FY28

FY29

FY30

FY31

FY32

FY33

FY34

FY35

FY36

FY37

FY38

FY39

FY40

FY41

FY42

FY43

FY44

FY45

FY46

FY47

FY48

FY49

FY50

FY51

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Navy’s FY2022 budget submission. The Navy has not yet submitted an
FY2022 30-year (FY2022-FY2051) 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.
Key: FY = Fiscal Year; CVNs = aircraft carriers; LSCs = surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers);
SSCs = small surface combatants (i.e., frigates, Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs], and mine warfare ships); SSNs =
attack submarines; SSGNs/LPSs = cruise missile submarines/large payload submarines; SSBNs = ballistic
missile submarines; AWSs = amphibious warfare ships; CLFs = combat logistics force (i.e., resupply) ships;
Supt = support ships.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 11 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Issues for Congress
Key Questions
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s force-level goal, its
proposed FY2022 shipbuilding program, and its longer-term shipbuilding plans. Decisions that
Congress makes on this issue can substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements,
and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base. Key questions for Congress include the following:
 Is the Navy’s emerging force-level goal appropriate for supporting U.S. national
security strategy and U.S. national defense strategy?
 Is the more distributed fleet architecture envisioned by the Navy the most cost
effective fleet architecture for meeting future mission needs?
 Is the Navy’s proposed FY2022 shipbuilding program consistent with the Navy’s
emerging force-level goal?
 Given finite defense resources and competing demands for defense funds, what is
the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans?
 Does the U.S. shipbuilding industry, including both shipyards and supplier firms,
have adequate capacity for executing the Navy’s shipbuilding plans?
June 17, 2021, and December 9, 2020, Emerging Force-Level Goals
One potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the difference between the emerging Navy
force-level goal in the Biden Administration’s June 17, 2021, long-range shipbuilding document
and the emerging force-level goal in the Trump Administration’s December 9, 2020, long-range
shipbuilding document. Using the figures shown in Table 2, the Trump Administration’s
emerging force-level goal includes about 19%-20% more manned ships, about 73%-86% more
unmanned ships, and about 32%-34% more manned and unmanned ships combined than the
Biden Administration’s emerging force-level goal. A potential oversight question is to what
degree this difference between the two emerging force-level goals is due to differences between
the two Administrations regarding one or more of the following factors:
 U.S. national security strategy and U.S. national defense strategy;
 projections of future capabilities of potential adversaries such as China and
Russia;
 consequent requirements, from the two factors above, for day-to-day forward-
deployed Navy capacity and capability and Navy warfighting capacity and
capability;
 assumptions about the capabilities of future U.S. Navy manned and unmanned
ships;
 Navy homeporting arrangements and operational cycles;
 projections about future Navy budgets, including future Navy shipbuilding
budgets; and
 the degree of operational risk deemed acceptable regarding the ability of the
Navy to successfully perform its various day-to-day and warfighting missions.
Congressional Research Service

14

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

FY2022 Shipbuilding Funding Request Relative to Emerging
Force-Level Goal
Another issue for Congress concerns the adequacy of the Navy’s FY2022 shipbuilding request
relative to the Navy’s emerging force-level goal.23 As noted earlier, the total of eight new ships
requested for FY2022 is one more than the total of seven new ships that were projected for
FY2022 under the Navy’s FY2021 budget submission, about two less than steady-state
replacement rate for a 355-ship Navy (which is about 10 ships per year),24 and four less than the
12 new ships shown in the Trump Administration’s December 9, 2020, shipbuilding document.
(One of the 12 ships shown in the December 9, 2020, document—the LHA amphibious assault
ship—is a ship that, based on congressional action on the Navy’s FY2020 and FY2021 budgets,
is treated in CRS reports as a ship that was procured in FY2021. Excluding this ship from those
shown for FY2022 would reduce the total in the December 9, 2020, document to 11 new ships.)25
As also noted earlier, the Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests $18.1 billion for construction
of new ships within its shipbuilding account (the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, or SCN,
appropriation account), compared with $17.8 billion for construction of new ships within the
SCN account projected for FY2022 under the Navy’s FY2021 budget submission, $22.8 billion in
FY2022 for construction of new ships within the SCN account in the December 9, 2020,
document, and an enacted FY2021 total of $20.1 billion for the construction of new ships within
the SCN account.
Potential Impacts of a CR on FY2022 Navy Shipbuilding Programs
Overview
Another issue for Congress concerns the potential impacts on FY2022 Navy shipbuilding
programs of using one or more continuing resolutions (CRs) to fund DOD operations for at least
some portion of FY2022.

23 For press articles discussing this issue, see, for example, Megan Eckstein, “Navy Releases Long-Range Shipbuilding
Plan That Drops Emphasis on 355 Ships, Lays Out Fleet Design Priorities,” Defense News, June 17, 2021; Megan
Eckstein, “Lawmakers Are Worried About the US Navy’s Spending Plan and a Near-Term China Threat,” Defense
News, June 15, 2021; Brent D. Sadler, “US Navy Punts on Building a Fleet to Compete with China,” Defense One,
June 15, 2021; John Rossomando, “Is Joe Biden Looking to Gut the U.S. Navy?” National Interest, June 14, 2021;
Nick Danby, “Instead of Countering China, US Navy Plans Another ‘Rebuilding Year,’” Strategist, June 9, 2021.
24 The steady-state replacement rate for a fleet of objects (i.e., ships, aircraft, vehicles, etc.) is the average annual rate of
procurement that, if maintained over the long run, would be sufficient to achieve and maintain the desired force level
over the long run. The steady-state replacement rate is equal to the desired force level divided by average service life.
For the Navy, the steady-state replacement for the Navy’s 355-ship force-level goal is 355 ships divided by about 35
years, which is the approximate weighted average service life of a Navy ship. (The weighted average service life is
calculated on the basis of various types and quantities of Navy ships within the 355-ship plan and the expected service
lives for each ship type.) A figure of 355 divided by about 35 equates to a steady-state replacement rate of about 10
ships per year. The steady-state replacement rate is an average annual figure—the actual rate can be either below or
above the steady-state rate in any given year. If the actual rate is below the steady-state replacement rate in one or more
years, then achieving and maintaining the desired force level would require the actual rate to be above the steady-state
replacement rate in one or more other years, so that the average rate achieved over the long run (in this case, over a
period of 35 years) equates to the steady-state replacement rate.
25 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 106 link to page 106 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

For general background information on the potential impacts of CRs on Navy shipbuilding
programs, see Appendix I. As discussed in Appendix I, the potential impacts of a CR on
program execution can be avoided or mitigated if the CR includes special provisions, called
anomalies, for exempting individual programs or groups of programs from the general provisions
of the CR, or if the CR includes expanded authorities for DOD for reprogramming and
transferring funds.
The Navy states that a year-long CR that does not include an anomaly for the Columbia-class
ballistic missile submarine program would lead to an FY2022 procurement and advance
procurement (AP) funding shortfall of $524.8 million for the Columbia-class program, including
a $134.0 million shortfall in procurement funding and $390.8 million shortfall in advance
procurement (AP) funding.26 Such a shortfall, the Navy states, would lead to delays and cost
growth in the program.27
DOD Operating Under a CR That Provides Funding Through February 18,
2022
DOD operations are currently funded under a CR—Division A of H.R. 6119/P.L. 117-70 of
December 3, 2021, the Further Extending Government Funding Act—that funds federal
government operations through February 18, 2022. Division A of P.L. 117-70 amended a previous
CR—Division A of H.R. 5305/P.L. 117-43 of September 30, 2021, the Extending Government
Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act—that had provided funding for government
operations through December 3, 2021. Under Division A of P.L. 117-70, as under the previous
CR, funding levels for most DOD operations are generally based on funding levels in the FY2021
DOD appropriations act (Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 [H.R. 133/P.L.
116-260 of December 27, 2020]).
Division A of P.L. 117-70, like the previous CR, does not include any anomalies for Navy
shipbuilding programs or other Navy procurement programs.
H.R. 6617 Would Extend CR Funding Through March 11, 2022
A bill introduced in the House on February 7, 2022, and passed by the House on February 8,
2022—H.R. 6617, the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2022—would further
amend the CR to extend the funding of government operations through March 11, 2022.
H.R. 6617 would additionally amend the CR to include Section 164, which is an anomaly for the
Columbia-class program. Section 164 would eliminate most of the $390.8 million advance
procurement (AP) funding shortfall for the Columbia-class program that would result under a
year-long CR.28 Section 164 would not affect the $134.0 million shortfall in procurement (as

26 Source: Attachment 1 to Navy information paper on FY2022 continuing resolution impacts, September 7, 2021,
received from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs on September 13, 2021. These figures can also be derived from the
funding display for the Columbia-class program shown in the Navy’s budget-justification book for the FY2022
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account.
27 Source: Navy information paper on FY2022 continuing resolution impacts, September 7, 2021, received from Navy
Office of Legislative Affairs on September 13, 2021, p. 3. See also Mallory Shelbourne, “Navy: Year-Long CR Would
Lead to $500M Shortfall for Columbia-class Submarine,” USNI News, January 25, 2022.
28 The Navy’s FY2022 budget requests $1,644.0 million in advance procurement (AP) funding for the Columbia-class
program, which is about $42.2 million more than the $1,601.8 million (rounded off) that would be provided under
Section 164. On this basis, it would appear that under Section 164, the program’s FY2022 advance procurement (AP)
funding shortfall would be no more than $42.2 million, compared with the shortfall of $390.8 million that would occur
Congressional Research Service

16

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

opposed to advance procurement [AP]) funding for the Columbia-class program that would occur
under a year-long CR. Section 164 states:
SEC. 164. Notwithstanding sections 102 and 104, amounts made available by section 101
to the Department of Defense for ‘Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy’ may be apportioned
up to the rate for operations necessary for ‘Columbia Class Submarine (AP)’ in an amount
not to exceed $1,601,805,000.
September 2021 Navy Information Paper
A September 7, 2021, Navy information paper on impacts to FY2022 Department of the Navy
(DON) programs of FY2022 CRs lasting 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months that the Navy Office
of Legislative Affairs provided to CRS on September 13, 2021,29 states that
DON requested several anomalies for inclusion in an overall DoD anomaly. In addition to
a rate of operations anomaly for [the] Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN)
[appropriation account] for Columbia Class submarine Advance Procurement [AP], the
DON will require anomalies for new start and production rate increases for several other
programs [that are funded] in [the] Procurement, RDTEN [Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy], and Military Construction (MILCON) [appropriation accounts].
The information paper states that a three-month CR would cause schedule delays and cost growth
for various DON programs, including
 the aircraft carrier mid-life refueling overhaul program (i.e., the Refueling
Complex Overhaul, or RCOH) program, and
 the development of the nuclear propulsion system for the next-generation attack
submarine, or SSN(X).
The information paper states that a six-month CR would exacerbate schedule delays and cost
growth for programs impacted by a three-month CR, and cause schedule delays and cost growth
for various additional DON programs, including
 the RCOH for the aircraft carrier CVN-74,
 the Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) 23, 25, and 26,
 the TAO-205 oiler program,
 the T-ATS towing, salvage, and rescue ship program; and
 the Ship to Shore Connector (SSC) (i.e., next-generation air-cushioned landing
craft) program.
The information paper states that a 12-month CR would exacerbate schedule delays and cost
growth for programs impacted by three- and six-month CRs, and cause schedule delays and cost
growth for various additional DON programs, including
 the lead ship in the Columbia (SSBN-826) ballistic missile submarine program,
 the aircraft carrier CVN-80,
 the DDG-51 class destroyers DDG-121, DDG-122, and DG-123,

under a year-long CR without an anomaly for the Columbia-class program.
29 Navy information paper entitled “Fiscal Year Continuing Resolution (CR) Impacts Paper,” September 7, 2021,
provided by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS on September 13, 2021, 4 pp. plus attachment. See also Megan
Eckstein, “Year-Long Continuing Resolution Would Cost the Navy $14B in Spending Power,” Defense News, August
3, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 106 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

 the FFG-62 frigate program,
 the LCSs 27, 28, and 30,
 the amphibious ship LPD-29,
 the TAGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship program, and
 the acquisition of used sealift vessels.
For more on the Navy information paper, see Appendix I.
October 2021 Press Report
An October 5, 2021, press report states
The Navy has downplayed the effects of the current nine-week stopgap spending measure
that freezes its spending levels and the service has not submitted a list of waivers to
Congress, USNI News has learned.
The Navy has not sent over a list of anomalies, or waivers, to Capitol Hill, defense and
legislative officials confirmed to USNI News this week....
Should the CR extend past Dec. 3, the Navy would likely need to seek waivers from
Congress, USNI News understands....
The T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship is a new start program, but the Navy is not slated
to award the contract until August 2022, according to the service’s FY 2022 budget
documents. The Navy also wants to buy a T-AO-205 John Lewis-class fleet oiler in FY
2022, an increase from the zero oilers it purchased in FY 2021. That award is scheduled
for June 2022, according to service budget documents.
Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro told USNI News following an earlier version of this
post that a three-month CR is manageable, but any other extension would have
“catastrophic results.”
“A continuing resolution for three months is … something that we have to be able to
manage. We have lived with continuing resolutions for quite a few years now. So it just
doesn’t come as much of a shock or surprise anymore as perhaps it used to,” he said
following a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy on Tuesday night [October 5].
“Having said that, though, continuing resolutions have real negative consequences. While
we may be able to survive a three-month continuing resolution, once you start looking at a
six month or a year-long continuing resolution, the results are really disastrous, because
especially when it comes to the readiness of our forces, right, the ability of our forces to be
able to meet the missions they have to meet today around the globe in a real, credible
way.”...
Other parts of the Navy say the CR isn’t causing significant hardships to operations yet.
A spokesperson for Naval Sea Systems Command said the CR did not result in any closures
for the command.
“Under a CR, just as the CR didn’t result in any closures, it also means NAVSEA won’t
be able to start any new programs,” Jamie Koehler told USNI News in an email.
A spokesperson for Naval Air Systems Command said the continuing resolution has not
had an effect on NAVAIR.
“There was no impact. We are conducting business as usual,” Marcia Hart told USNI
News.
In a statement to USNI News, a spokesperson for Navy Installations Command pointed to
the $565 million for Navy operations and maintenance in the stopgap spending bill.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 14 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

“Installation operations and support functions are expected to continue as they did prior to
the signing of the CR, with no significant near-term impacts anticipated,” said Capt. Josh
Frey, a spokesperson for Navy Installations Command. “It is the mission of CNIC to
sustain the Fleet, enable the Fighter and support our Navy Families and the command is
set to continue that mission as leadership works towards agreement on the FY22 budget.”
“The CR did include $565M in Operations and Maintenance (OMN) funding for damage
repairs associated with natural disasters in calendar years 2020 and 2021. This funding is
welcome as Navy facilities and infrastructure have suffered significant damage from
natural disasters at several locations around the world in the past two years.”30
Number of DDG-51s to Procure in FY2022
A specific issue for Congress concerns the number of DDG-51 destroyers to procure in FY2022.
As shown in Table 3, the Navy’s proposed FY2022 budget requests the procurement of one
DDG-51 in FY2022, rather than the two DDG-51s that are called for FY2022 under the FY2018-
FY2022 DDG-51 multiyear procurement (MYP) contract, and that were projected for FY2022
under the Navy’s FY2021 budget submission. The issue for Congress for FY2022 is whether to
fund the procurement of one DDG-51, two DDG-51s, or some other number of DDG-51s (such
as zero or three).
When procured at a rate of two per year, DDG-51s cost roughly $2.0 billion each. Due to the
reduced production economies of scale that would occur at a production rate of one ship per year,
the one DDG-51 requested for procurement in FY2022 has an estimated cost of $2,401.7 million
(i.e., about $2.4 billion).
Procuring one DDG-51 rather than two DDG-51s in FY2022 would prevent the Navy from
fulfilling its obligations in the final year of the FY2018-FY2022 DDG-51 MYP contract. Navy
officials state that as a result, the Navy would need to pay a $33 million penalty to the DDG-51
shipbuilders (unless the Navy and the shipbuilders were to reach an agreement to amend the
terms of the MYP contract).
Navy officials have stated that requesting procurement of one DDG-51 rather than two DDG-51s
was an affordability measure—a means of helping the Navy remain within its budget topline
while meeting funding needs for other Navy programs. Procuring a second DDG-51 in FY2022 is
the number one item on the Navy’s FY2022 Unfunded Priorities List (UPL)—the service’s list of
programs it would prefer to be funded in FY2022, if additional funding were to become available.
The UPL states that procuring two DDG-51s rather than one DDG-51 in FY2022 would require
an additional $1,659.2 million (i.e., about $1.7 billion) in shipbuilding funding. That figure is not
the cost of the second DDG-51—the second DDG-51’s procurement cost would be roughly $2.0
billion. Adding the second DDG-51, however, would reduce the estimated procurement cost of
the first DDG-51 due to the resulting increased production economies of scale. The figure of
$1,659.2 million is thus the net increase in shipbuilding funding that would be needed to procure
two DDG-51s rather than one DDG-51 in FY2022.
Supporters of procuring one DDG-51 might argue that in a situation of finite defense resources,
funding the procurement of two DDG-51s could require reducing funding for other Navy or DOD
programs by about $1.7 billion, which could reduce Navy or DOD capabilities in other ways; that
the Navy’s new fleet architecture may result in a reduction in the force-level goal for large
surface combatants; and that the DDG-51 industrial base (both shipyards and supplier firms) will

30 Mallory Shelbourne, “Navy Downplays Effects of Continuing Resolution, No Waivers Sent to Capitol Hill,” USNI
News, October 5, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

19

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

be adequately supported by their existing backlog of DDG-51s and other Navy shipbuilding
work.
Supporters of procuring two DDG-51s might argue that it would help accelerate the introduction
of Flight III DDG-51s, with their new and more-capable SPY-6 radars, into the fleet; that it would
improve production economies of scale in the DDG-51 program; and that it would more strongly
support the DDG-51 industrial base. The second DDG-51’s position at the top of the Navy’s
FY2022 UPL, they might argue, shows that the second ship is a high-priority item for the Navy to
fund with offsetting reductions that Congress might be able to identify in reviewing and marking
up DOD’s proposed FY2022 budget.31
Proposed Ship Retirements
Another issue for Congress concerns the Navy’s proposals in its FY2022 budget submission for
retiring certain ships—particularly CG-47 class cruisers and Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs)—
years earlier than called for under earlier Navy plans.
The Navy argues that modernization work on the cruisers that would be necessary for the ships to
remain in service is taking longer and costing more than estimated, that the LCSs that are
proposed for retirement (at only a fraction of their originally planned service lives) would require
expensive repairs and modifications to be able to be mission effective, and more generally that in
a situation of constrained funding, retiring these ships is a necessary step to retain sufficient
funding for other Navy needs, including programs to maintain and improve Navy readiness and to
develop new technologies that will be needed to ensure the Navy’s combat effectiveness in
coming years.
Skeptics, while acknowledging the points made by the Navy, can argue that the proposed early
retirements would nevertheless reduce the total number of Navy ships at a time when the Navy is
trying to increase its fleet size, and that the solution to the Navy’s funding situation is to increase
the size of the defense budget and/or increase the Navy’s share of the defense budget.32
Affordability of the Shipbuilding Plan
Overview
The prospective affordability of the Navy’s force-level goal and associated 30-year shipbuilding
plan has been a matter of oversight focus for several years, and particularly since the enactment in
2011 of the Budget Control Act, or BCA (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011). Observers have
been especially concerned about the prospective affordability of Navy shipbuilding plans during
the decade or so from the mid-2020s through the mid-2030s, when the Navy wants to procure

31 For additional discussion of the DDG-51 program and the issue of how many DDG-51s to procure in FY2022, see
CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke.
32 See, for example, Megan Eckstein and Joe Gould, “Lawmakers Crunching the Numbers on Potential Surface Navy
Additions to FY22 Spending Plan,” Defense News, June 17, 2021; Mallory Shelbourne, “Lawmakers Probe Navy’s
Plan to Decommission Cruisers, Navy Says Cuts Will Save $5B Across FYDP,” USNI News, June 17 (updated June
18), 2021; Megan Eckstein, “Lawmakers Are Worried About the US Navy’s Spending Plan and a Near-Term China
Threat,” Defense News, June 15, 2021.; Mallory Shelbourne, “CNO Gilday: Flat or Declining Navy Budgets ‘Will
Definitely Shrink’ the Fleet,” USNI News, June 15, 2021; Blake Herzinger, “The Budget (and Fleet) That Might Have
Been,” War on the Rocks, June 10, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

20

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

Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines as well as replacements for large numbers of retiring
attack submarines, cruisers, and destroyers.33
Navy officials stated at hearings on the Navy’s FY2021 budget submission that achieving and
supporting a 355-ship fleet over the next 10 years would require increasing the Navy’s budget by
a cumulative total of $120 billion to $130 billion over the next ten years, or an average of $12
billion to $13 billion per year. This figure, Navy officials stated, included not only the cost of
procuring new ships, but costs associated with crewing, arming, operating, and maintaining a
355-ship fleet.34 Prior to that—in September and October 2019—Navy officials stated that if
Navy budgets in coming years remain at current levels in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted terms), the
Navy would not be able to properly maintain a fleet of more than 302 to 310 ships.35
Navy officials have made similar statements in their June 2021 testimony on the Navy’s proposed
FY2022 budget. A June 15, 2021, press report, for example, states
The number of ships in the fleet, now at 296 ships, will decrease if the Navy continues to
have flat or declining budgets, the service’s top officer told Congress today.
Despite numerous evaluations showing the Navy needs more ships, Chief of Naval
Operations Adm. Mike Gilday told the House Armed Service Committee that without a
topline increase to the service’s budget, the fleet will only get smaller.
“As you all know, the results of analysis done over the past five years—whether inside the
Pentagon or outside—have been consistent and clear: America needs a larger, more capable
fleet,” Gilday said. “Our latest Future [Naval Force Structure] assessment provided the
headlights not only for the size of our future fleet, but importantly for the composition of
that fleet, the capabilities that it brings to the joint force. If the Navy’s [budget] top-line
remains flat or goes down further, the size of our fleet will definitely shrink.”…
Gilday told lawmakers that the service’s budget is trying to balance the need to pursue new
capabilities and technology with its readiness priorities. While the Navy has for years been
building toward a goal of 355 ships, Gilday said the service only has enough money for
300 vessels with its current budget.36
A November 4, 2021, press report stated:
The U.S. Navy needs annual budget increases of three to five percent over inflation if it is
to reach its shipbuilding goals and meet China’s “significant threat,” Navy Secretary Carlos
Del Toro said Thursday [November 4]....

33 The Navy’s 30-year plans in recent years have spotlighted for policymakers the substantial increase in Navy
shipbuilding funding that would be required to implement the 30-year plan during the decade or so from the mid-2020s
through the mid-2030s. As discussed in CRS testimony in 2011, a key function of the 30-year shipbuilding plan is to
alert policymakers well ahead of time to periods of potentially higher funding requirements for Navy shipbuilding. (See
Statement of Ronald O’Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, Congressional Research Service, before the House Armed
Services Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, hearing on the Department of Defense’s 30-Year
Aviation and Shipbuilding Plans, June 1, 2011, 8 pp.)
34 See, for example, Ben Werner, “SECNAV Modly: Navy Needs Additional $120 Billion To Build 355-Ship Fleet By
2030,” USNI News, February 27, 2020.
35 Justin Katz, “Modly Acknowledges 355 Ships Won’t Happen in ‘Reasonable’ Amount of Time,” Inside Defense,
September 16, 2019; Otto Kreisher, “Modly Doubts Future Budgets Will Allow for 355-Ship Fleet,” Seapower,
October 27, 2019; Ben Werner, “Admiral: Navy Can Afford to Field a 310-Ship Fleet, Not 355,” USNI News, October
28, 2019. See also Rich Abott, “Navy Says Current Funding Only Supports 310 Ships,” Defense Daily, October 28,
2019; Paul McLeary, “Navy May Scrap Goal of 355 Ships; 310 Is Likely,” Breaking Defense, October 25, 2019.
36 Mallory Shelbourne, “CNO Gilday: Flat or Declining Navy Budgets ‘Will Definitely Shrink’ the Fleet,” USNI News,
June 15, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

21

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

If the U.S. Navy is to reach 355 ships—the goal service leaders put forth in 2016 and
Congress ratified two years later—it needs budget increases of three to five percent over
inflation, Del Toro said.37
An January 2020, Admiral Gilday stated that fully funding the Navy’s program goals, including
the attainment of a 355-ship fleet, would require allocating a larger share of DOD’s budget to the
Navy.38
Potential Impact of Cost Growth
If one or more Navy ship designs turn out to be more expensive to build than the Navy estimates,
then the Navy’s shipbuilding plan as a whole would become more expensive to execute. As
detailed by CBO39 and the Government Accountability Office (GAO),40 lead ships in Navy
shipbuilding programs in many cases have turned out to be more expensive to build than the
Navy had estimated. Ship designs that can be viewed as posing a risk of being more expensive to
build than the Navy estimates include but are not necessarily limited to Columbia-class ballistic
missile submarines and FFG-62 frigates, as well as other new classes of ships that the Navy wants
to begin procuring years from now.
CBO Estimate Compared to Navy Estimate
The statute that requires the Navy to submit a 30-year shipbuilding plan each year (10 U.S.C.
231) also requires CBO to submit its own independent analysis of the potential cost of the 30-year
plan (10 U.S.C. 231[d]). CBO analyses of past Navy 30-year shipbuilding plans have generally
estimated the cost of implementing those plans to be higher than what the Navy estimated.
As mentioned earlier, a September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates
that the fleet envisioned in the June 17, 2021, long-range Navy shipbuilding document would cost
an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to
procure. These figures, the report states, are 10% to 43% higher the $22.9 billion in constant
FY2021 dollars that Congress has appropriated, on average, for all Navy shipbuilding activities
over the past five years.41
An April 2021 CBO report on the cost to implement the shipbuilding plan in the December 9,
2020, long-range Navy shipbuilding document estimates that the plan would require 10% more
funding to implement than the Navy estimates.42 CBO estimates that the cost of the first 10 years
of the plan would be about 1% higher than the Navy estimates, that the cost of the middle 10

37 Caitlin M. Kenney, “Navy Secretary Seeks 3-5% Annual Budget Increases,” Defense One, November 4, 2021.
38 See, for example, Marcus Weisgerber, “The US Navy Needs More Money, Its Top Admiral Bluntly Argues,”
Defense One, January 14, 2020; Sam LaGrone, “CNO Gilday Calls for Budget Increase to Reach 355 Ship Fleet; New
Battle Force Count Won’t Include Unmanned Ships,” USNI News, January 14, 2020; John M. Doyle, “CNO Wants
Larger Slice of Defense Budget to Modernize, Meet China Threat,” Seapower, January 15, 2020; Rich Abott, “CNO:
Ship Count Will Not Include Unmanned; Bigger Topline Needed For Fleet Goal,” Defense Daily, January 15, 2020.
39 See Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2019 Shipbuilding Plan, October 2018, p.
25, including Figure 10.
40 See Government Accountability Office, Navy Shipbuilding[:] Past Performance Provides Valuable Lessons for
Future Investments, GAO-18-238SP, June 2018, p. 8.
41 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2022 Shipbuilding Plan, September 2021, p. 6.
The report was posted at the CBO website on September 16, 2021.
42 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s December 2020 Shipbuilding Plan, April 2021, unnumbered
page following the cover with the header “At a Glance.”
Congressional Research Service

22

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

years of the plan would be about 8% higher than the Navy estimates, and that the cost of the final
10 years of the plan would be about 17% higher than the Navy estimates.43
The growing divergence between CBO’s estimate and the Navy’s estimate as one moves from the
first 10 years of the 30-year plan to the final 10 years of the plan is due in part to a technical
difference between CBO and the Navy regarding the treatment of inflation. 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 apart
as one proceeds from the earlier years of the plan to the later years of the plan.44
The growing divergence between CBO’s estimate and the Navy’s estimate as one moves from the
first 10 years of the 30-year plan to the final 10 years of the plan is also due to differences
between CBO and the Navy about the costs of certain ship classes, particularly classes that are
projected to be procured starting years from now. The designs of these future ship classes are not
yet determined, creating more potential for CBO and the Navy to come to differing conclusions
regarding their potential cost.
The ship class that is the largest contributor to the difference between CBO and Navy regarding
the cost of the shipbuilding plan in the December 9, 2020, document is the DDG(X) next-
generation destroyer, which the Navy wants to begin procuring years from now as the successor
to the DDG-51 destroyer design. The DDG(X), CBO says, accounts for 28% of the difference
between the CBO and Navy estimates. The second-largest source of difference by ship class is the
SSN(X) next-generation attack submarine, which the Navy wants to begin procuring years from
now as the successor to the Virginia-class SSN design. The SSN(X), CBO says, accounts for 20%
of the difference between the CBO and Navy estimates. Together, the DDG(X) and SSN(X)
account for 48%, or almost half, of the difference between the CBO and Navy estimates.
The third- and fourth-largest sources of difference by ship class are the Constellation (FFG-62)
class frigates that the Navy began procuring in FY2020 and a new class of large-payload
submarines that the Navy envisions procuring after procurement of Columbia-class SSBNs is
complete. CBO says that these two classes of ships each account for 12% of the difference
between the CBO and Navy estimates. Several other ship classes each account for between 1%
and 6% of the difference between the CBO and Navy estimates. The Columbia-class SSBN
accounts for 1% of the difference, and CBO estimates that DDG-51s will cost 1% less than the
Navy estimates.45
Sustainment Cost
In addition to the issue of the cost to build new ships, the Navy in its FY2020 30-year
shipbuilding plan highlighted a concern over the potential costs to sustain a larger fleet. On this
issue, the FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan stated in part

43 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s December 2020 Shipbuilding Plan, April 2021, p. 4 (figure
entitled “Average Annual Costs of All Shipbuilding Activities Under the December 2020 Plan, as Estimated by CBO
and the Navy”).
44 For additional discussion of how CBO estimates the costs of new Navy ships, see Congressional Budget Office, How
CBO Estimates the Cost of New Ships, April 2018, 6 pp.
45 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s December 2020 Shipbuilding Plan, April 2021, p. 23 (Table
B-2).
Congressional Research Service

23

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

Coincident with the relatively new dynamic of purchasing more ships to grow the force
instead of simply replacing ships or shrinking the force, is the responsibility to “own” the
additional inventory when it arrives.
Consistent annual funding in the shipbuilding account is foundational for an efficient
industrial base in support of steady growth and long-term maintenance planning, but
equally important is the properly phased, additional funding needed for operations and
sustainment accounts as each new ship is delivered—the much larger fiscal burden over
the life of a ship and the essence of the challenge to remain balanced across the three
integral elements of readiness–capability–capacity. Because the Navy [until recently] has
been shrinking not growing, and because of the disconnected timespan from purchase to
delivery, often five years or more and often beyond the FYDP, there is risk of
underestimating the aggregate sustainment costs looming over the horizon that must now
be carefully considered in fiscal forecasting.
For a ship, the rough rule of thumb for cost is 30 percent for procurement and 70 percent
for operating and sustainment; for example, a ship that costs $1B to buy costs $3.3B to
own, amortized over its lifespan. Accordingly, multi-ship deliveries can add hundreds of
millions of dollars to a budget year, and then require the same funding per year thereafter,
compounded by additional deliveries in subsequent years and only offset by ship
retirements, which lag deliveries when growing the force. A similar dynamic occurs when
the life of a ship is extended. Sustainment resources programmed to shift from a retiring
ship to a new ship must now stay in place – for the duration of the extension. The burden
continues to grow until equilibrium is reached at the desired higher inventory, when
deliveries match retirements and all resourcing accounts reach steady-state at a higher,
enduring sustainment cost.
For perspective, the current budget, among the largest ever, supports a modern fleet of
approximately 300 ships, nearly 20 percent fewer than the goal of 355. The battle force
inventory… rises from 301 ships in FY2020 to [a projected figure of] 314 ships in FY2024,
and then 355 in FY2034. The programmed sustainment cost… is $24B [billion] in FY2020
and rises to $30B [billion in FY2024 in TY$ [then-year dollars]. When the battle force
inventory reaches 355 in FY2034, [the] estimated cost to sustain that fleet will approach
$40B (TY$), 32% higher than in FY2024. For now, included in this sustainment estimate
are only personnel, planned maintenance, and some operations; representing those costs
tied directly to owning and operating a ship, easily modeled today, and already line-item
accounted for in the budget. Equally important additional costs, but not yet included in the
future estimate, are those not easily associated with individual ships and require complex
modeling for long-term forecasting (beyond 3 to 5 years), such as the balance of the
operations accounts (market and schedule driven), modernization and ordnance (threat and
technology driven), infrastructure and training (services spread across many ships),
aviation detachments, networks and cyber support, plus others….
Less of a challenge when shrinking the force, the Navy is now working towards developing
the complex model needed to capture indirect costs for growing the force. Until then, macro
ratios are helpful in estimating rough orders of magnitude beyond the FYDP and for
identifying future areas of concern. Similar to procurement, estimates will be less precise
deeper into the plan. Recovering from the long-term investment imbalance has proven to
be costly, particularly in the readiness accounts. As readiness becomes more accurately
defined, the modeling will improve and so will the ability to more accurately forecast.
However, no matter the method, the anticipated cost of sustaining the proper mix of 355
ships is anticipated to be substantial, and reform efforts and balanced scalability will
continue to be the drivers going forward.46

46 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year
2020, pp. 19-20.
Congressional Research Service

24

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

As mentioned earlier, an April 2021 CBO report on the cost of the shipbuilding plan in the
December 9, 2020, shipbuilding document estimates that if the plan were implemented, the fleet’s
annual operation and support (O&S) costs in constant 2021 dollars would grow from $74 billion
today to $113 billion by 2051, and that the Navy’s total budget would increase in constant 2021
dollars from about $200 billion today to $279 billion by 2051.47
Capacity of Shipbuilding Industry
Areas of particular focus in recent years regarding the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry
to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans include shipyard capacity for building submarines at
desired rates, and the capacity of supplier firms to support increased rates of production of ship
components for both submarines and surface ships. Shipyard capacity for conducting
maintenance and overhaul work on an expanded fleet is another concern, particularly given the
delays and other difficulties the Navy has experienced in recent years in executing overhaul and
repair work on today’s fleet.48
COVID-19 Impact on Execution of Shipbuilding Programs
DOD Point Paper on Impacts from March 15 Through June 15, 2020
A DOD point paper on COVID-19 impacts to DOD acquisition programs from March 15, 2020,
through June 20, 2020, stated in part
The Acquisition Program Impact Penalty cost is an estimate of the program costs increases
realized because of inefficiencies caused by COVID-19. This document covers expected
cost incurred between March 15, 2020 and June 15, 2020. Specific reasons for these
inefficiencies across the defense programs includes the following;
• Confirmed cases or quarantines.
• Government facility closure/stand down-test delays and Research and Development
Center inefficiencies.
• Telework across the Defense Industrial Base
• Closures due to travel restrictions
• Logistic implications caused by travel restrictions requiring commercial freight

47 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s December 2020 Shipbuilding Plan, April 2021, unnumbered
page with the header “At a Glance” that immediately follows the report’s cover.
48 Regarding the delays and other difficulties the Navy has experienced in recent years in executing overhaul and repair
work on existing Navy ships, see, for example, Congressional Budget Office, The Capacity of the Navy’s Shipyards to
Maintain Its Submarines, March 2021, 21 pp; Government Accountability Office, Navy Maintenance[:] Navy Report
Did Not Fully Address Causes of Delays or Results-Oriented Elements, GAO-21-66, October 2020, 29 pp; Government
Accountability Office, Navy Shipyards[:] Actions Needed to Address the Main Factors Causing Maintenance Delays
for Aircraft Carriers and Submarines, GAO-20-588, August 2020, 47 pp.; Government Accountability Office, Navy
Ship Maintenance[:] Evaluating Pilot Program Outcomes Could Inform Decisions to Address Persistent Schedule
Challenges, GAO-20-370, May 2020, 55 pp.; Government Accountability Office, Navy Ship Maintenance[:] Actions
Needed to Address Maintenance Delays for Surface Ships Based Overseas, GAO-20-86, February 2020, 63 pp.;
Government Accountability Office, Navy Maintenance[:] Persistent and Substantial Ship and Submarine Maintenance
Delays Hinder Efforts to Rebuild Readiness, GAO-20-257T, December 4, 2019 (Testimony Before the Subcommittees
on Seapower and Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Statement of
Diana C. Maurer Director Defense Capabilities and Management), 31 pp. GAO has reported and testified on this issue
numerous times in recent years.
Congressional Research Service

25

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

• Availability of parts and supplies
• High absentee rates
• Local and state lockdowns
• Foreign Government Lockdowns
• Company/Supplier shutdowns
• Financial distress
• Social distancing across the industrial base (production line implications)
• Added costs for cleaning/Disinfecting and temperature sensors
• Added costs for PPE
• CARES Act Section 3610 costs to pay for contractor/subcontractor employees unable to
work due to COVID-19 impacts
The Department closely monitors and tracks approximately 22,000 critical contractors who
are most important to modernization and readiness. As of July 8, 2020, 977 of DoD’s
suppliers have closed since March 15, 2020. The average closure is over two weeks. 943
have reopened with 34 still closed. The biggest sectors affected have been Aviation, Space,
Combat Vehicles, Clothing and Textiles and Missiles. Some sectors like Aviation also have
significant impacts related to commercial aviation challenges.
The estimate currently does not include potential overhead rate increases due to layoffs,
especially if the contractor performs both government and commercial work. The
Department is also concerned with a potential loss of critical labor skills (e.g. welders) and
continue to work these issues by contract and location as we analyze the impact across the
Defense Industrial Base (DIB).
DoD’s Requirements
The Department currently estimates a potential cost to complete (or Request for Equitable
Adjustments) totaling about $10.8 billion and touching more than 106,000 jobs. This
estimate is calculated by considering the projected spend over this period for the portfolio,
assessment of the percentage of that spend attributed to direct labor, and application of
reported inefficiencies in that sector. The data from industry is showing approximately a
30-40% inefficiency across the DIB but in certain sectors like shipbuilding we are seeing
about a 50-60% inefficiency.
Projected cost overrun/inefficiency risk examples are as follows….
…
• Navy [impact:] $4,664.0M (43,214 Jobs)
− Shipbuilding: Significant touch labor; greater facility impact from social distancing; and
strong union representation at some yards pushing for paid leave with facility shutdown.
Worker attendance rates range from 50% to 70% for blue collar workforce, and much of
the white collar workforce is teleworking. At least one of the big seven private shipyards
may shutdown. Recovery from a full shutdown would extend inefficiencies well into next
year after restart.
− Aircraft Procurement: Moderate touch labor but tends to enable better distancing. No
prime production impacts yet, but there are some sub-tier Component impacts. A couple
of short term plant shutdowns occurred in early April with possibly more in the near future.
− Other Procurement: Moderate touch labor; greater facility impacts from social
distancing, subtiers reporting issues (e.g. BAE York shut down for two days; returned with
Congressional Research Service

26

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

50% workforce). Weapons manufacturer’s not seeing significant impacts yet as many not
located in high COVID impact areas.
− Fragility concerns: The DoN shares the Army’s long term fragility concern regarding
FLIR , combat vehicle transmissions, and aircraft engines (GE specifically). The DoN also
shares Army concerns about short term risk to textile manufacturers; body armor suppliers,
and small business electronics suppliers who feed guidance systems (PGK, GMLRS,
Excalibur) and wiring harnesses (vehicles, aircraft).
…
• Missile Defense Agency [impact:] $593.5M (3,956 Jobs)
…
− Aegis Program delays: SM-3 Block IIA production deliveries; Aegis Ashore Poland
construction (further delays); and Aegis Testing delays for Flight Test Missile (FTM)-44
(Aegis), FTM-31, and FTM-33.49
The Navy later clarified that the statement in the above passage that “[a]t least one of the big
seven private shipyards may shutdown” refers to the possibility of a shipyard closing temporarily
due to COVID-19, rather than to the possibility of a shipyard closing permanently.50
Press Reports
A March 15, 2021, press report states
A year into the pandemic, a Defense News review tried to measure its toll on the defense
industry. The full scope of damage is complex and still coming into focus, but a broad
outline is becoming clear. Among the findings

Early in the pandemic, Pentagon leaders worried about the health of the industrial base and
program timelines. However, the largest firms have rebounded, and the biggest projects are
mostly on track. In the past year, at least half of the Pentagon’s major defense acquisition
programs experienced some kind of delay as a result of COVID-19. Programs were able to
recover, often in a matter of months fol owing nearly $5 bil ion in federal aid and efforts to push
money more quickly to suppliers. Pentagon leaders have not listed all of the specific programs
which have faced delays.

Smaller companies—already imperiled before the pandemic—are stil struggling, with as many as 1
in 7 believing they wil never return to pre-pandemic levels.

Industry invested roughly $10 bil ion to reconfigure production lines and build infrastructure for
remote working, costs that if not addressed by Congress could become amortized over time and
potentially lead to overall per unit price increases.

Finally, quantifying the human toll on the workforce is nearly impossible. The Pentagon has not
tracked deaths in the defense industry, and only two companies Defense News contacted
acknowledged employee deaths from the pandemic.51
A March 31, 2021, press report states

49 Department of Defense, “FY 2020 DoD COVID-19 Response and Stimulus & COVID-19 Recovery Acquisition
Contract Cost Overrun,” undated point paper, 4 pp., posted at InsideDefense.com on August 6, 2020.
50 See, for example, Paul McLeary, “Shipyards Not At Risk, Despite DoD Warning It Needs $$ To Save Them,”
Breaking Defense, August 12, 2020; Mallory Shelbourne, “Geurts: Navy Modernization At Risk Without COVID-19
Acquisition Relief Funds,” USNI News, August 12 (updated August 13), 2020.
51 Aaron Mehta and Valerie Insinna, “Chaos, Cash and COVID-19: How the Defense Industry Survived—and
Thrived—During the Pandemic,” Defense News, March 15, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

27

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

Absenteeism rates at public and private shipyards skyrocketed. Supply chains slowed. Top
officials and executives worried the pandemic would result in significant new delays for
already troubled Navy shipbuilding and maintenance programs….
But as the one-year anniversary of pandemic-related shutdowns passes, outside analysts,
the ranking Republican on the House shipbuilding subcommittee and the Navy itself say
the service successfully managed the crisis.52
A September 23, 2021, press report stated:
Only about half of the workers at two of the Navy’s shipbuilders are vaccinated against
COVID-19, top executives from the two companies said.
The sobering numbers, which were revealed during Defense One’s State of the Navy event
Thursday morning, offer a snapshot of defense contractors’ struggle to get workers
vaccinated....
“We're waiting to see what either the [Federal Acquisition Regulations] or the OSHA rules,
once promulgated, do,” said Mark Vandroff, CEO of Fincantieri Marinette Marine. “That
would give us additional requirements and potentially additional authorities, since right
now we can't force our employees to be vaccinated.”...
“Right now, we're masked when we're around other people when we're not outdoors,”
Vandroff said. “We'll keep that mask requirement in place for as long as we remain a high
transmission area.”
Since the beginning of the pandemic, 330 of the shipyard’s 1,350 workers—about 25
percent of the workforce—have been infected with COVID-19, Vandroff said. None have
died.
“North of 50 percent” of workers at Marinette Marine are vaccinated, Vandroff said. That’s
slightly more than the general population of Marinette County itself.
The company has offered workers free vaccines at the shipyard. Workers are also given
paid time off to get vaccinated, Vanddroff said.
“We're going to continue to make vaccines available to our workforce and continue to urge
that,” he said.
Meanwhile, at General Dynamics Electric Boat, the employee vaccination rate “is in the
neighborhood of about 50 percent,” according to Kevin Graney, the company’s president....
That’s far below the average in the surrounding New London and Washington counties,
where the overall vaccine rate is 69 percent, according to the New York Times vaccine
tracker.
“We're continuing to make sure that [vaccines are] available to everyone,” Graney said.
Graney said workers at Electric Boat’s Connecticut and Rhode Island facilities are required
to wear masks indoors.
Many Navy shipbuilding are located in states and counties with low vaccination rates. For
instance, Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding is in Pascagoula, Mississippi,
where the vaccination rate is 37 percent. HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding is located in a

52 Aidan Quigley, “Analysts Credit Aggressive Navy Action with Mitigating Effects of COVID-19 on Shipbuilding,”
Inside Defense, March 31, 2021. See also Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communication,
“SurgeMain Sailors Cover COVID Gap, Demobilization Starts Apr. 1,” Naval Sea Systems Command, March 24,
2021.
Congressional Research Service

28

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

community that has a 45 percent vaccination level. The vaccine rate in Mobile, Alabama,
where Austal USA builds the Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship, is 41 percent.53
A November 19, 2021, opinion piece stated:
While America’s shipyards need to increase production, the last straw for an industry
already confronting labor shortages is the federal vaccine mandate implemented by the
Biden administration. Despite the deadline being delayed and softened, shipbuilders (and
other supply chain firms across the aerospace- and defense-industrial base) are still feeling
the effects.
Shipbuilding has a specialized construction process that is hurt by COVID-19 and
continuing resolutions, plus the resulting workforce challenges....
Even before the pandemic, shipyards were relying on “excessive use of overtime” due to
understaffing. A lack of workers has contributed to delayed maintenance periods across the
U.S. Navy’s four public yards, ranging from 113 days for aircraft carriers to 225 days for
submarines.
The vaccine mandate is poised to aggravate these labor shortages: In late September 2021,
two Navy shipbuilders—Fincantieri Marinette Marine and General Dynamics Electric
Boat—reported that only about half of their workforces were vaccinated, despite offers of
paid time off to receive vaccinations. A month later, the largest union at Bath Iron Works
reported it might lose about 30 percent of its membership as a result of the mandate.54
A December 3, 2021, press report stated
The Navy and shipbuilding industry are monitoring the supply chain issues caused by the
ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and the industrial base is experiencing some effects,
according to Navy and industry sources.
While it’s too early to fully grasp the effect of the supply chain slowdown on Navy
shipbuilding, some companies are starting to feel constraints and the Navy is increasing its
focus on addressing supply chain problems.”55
Past Examples of Assistance to Shipyards and Supplier Firms
Potential options for Congress for providing assistance to shipyards and supplier firms whose
operations are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic could take various forms. Some past
instances of assistance relating to shipbuilding include the following:
 Following Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, Congress provided $1.7 billion in
reallocated emergency supplemental appropriations to pay estimated higher
shipbuilding costs for 11 Navy ships under construction at the Ingalls shipyard in
Pascagoula, MS, and the Avondale shipyard upriver from New Orleans, LA.56

53 Marcus Weisgerber, “Just Half of Workers at Two Critical Shipyards Are Vaccinated, The Sobering Numbers Offer
a Snapshot of Defense Contractors’ Struggle to Get Workers Vaccinated,” Defense One, September 23, 2021.
54 Mackenzie Eaglen, “Vaccine Mandate Is Last Straw for US Shipyards Already Facing Labor Shortages,” Defense
News, November 19, 2021.
55 Aidan Quigley, “Navy, Industry Monitoring Shipbuilding Supply Chain Challenges,” Inside Defense, December 3,
2021.
56 See CRS Report RS22239, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Katrina Relief, by Keith Bea,
August 22, 2006, p. 6. The report states
Citing the need for “special oversight” of these shipbuilding funds dedicated to cover property
damage, cleanup, idle payroll, and business disruption (that may also be covered by shipbuilders’
insurance), the appropriators added report language requiring that the Navy or Army, as applicable,
Congressional Research Service

29

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

 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (H.R. 1/P.L.
111-5 of February 17, 2009), which was enacted in response to the 2008-2009
recession, appropriated $100 million for the Maritime Administration (MARAD)
to be used for making supplemental grants to small shipyards as authorized under
Section 3508 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (S. 3001/P.L. 110-417 of October 14, 2008) or 46 U.S.C.
54101.57
 Following Hurricane Michael in October 2018, the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), of which the Coast Guard is a part, announced on October 11,
2019, that DHS had granted extraordinary contractual relief to Eastern
Shipbuilding Group (ESG) of Panama City, FL, the builder of the first of the
Coast Guard’s new Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs), under P.L. 85-804 as
amended (50 U.S.C. 1431-1435). P.L. 85-804, originally enacted in 1958,
authorizes certain federal agencies to provide certain types of extraordinary relief
to contractors who are encountering difficulties in the performance of federal
contracts or subcontracts relating to national defense.58 ESG reportedly submitted
a request for extraordinary relief on June 30, 2019, after ESG’s shipbuilding
facilities were damaged by Hurricane Michael.59

submit a report to the Appropriations Committees “certifying” that the costs were related to the
hurricanes and would not be paid for by FEMA or the shipbuilders’ insurers.
(U.S. House, Conference Committees 2005, Making Appropriations for the Department of Defense
for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other Purposes, conference report to
accompany H.R. 2863, H.Rept. 109-359, 109th Cong., 1st sess. [Washington: GPO, 2005], p. 496.)
See also CRS Report RL33298, FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations: Iraq and Other International Activities;
Additional Hurricane Katrina Relief, Paul M. Irwin, Coordinator, Larry Nowels, Coordinator, June 15, 2006, pp. 59-
66; and CRS Report RL33197, Reallocation of Hurricane Katrina Emergency Appropriations: Defense and Other
Issues, Coordinated by Amy Belasco, December 15, 2005, pp. 9-14. (These CRS reports are out of print and available
to congressional clients from the author of this report.)
57 Section 3508 of P.L. 110-417 amended the U.S. Code to add Section 54101 to Title 46, which establishes a program
for assistance for small shipyards and maritime communities.
58 50 U.S.C. 1431 states in part
The President may authorize any department or agency of the Government which exercises
functions in connection with the national defense, acting in accordance with regulations prescribed
by the President for the protection of the Government, to enter into contracts or into amendments or
modifications of contracts heretofore or hereafter made and to make advance payments thereon,
without regard to other provisions of law relating to the making, performance, amendment, or
modification of contracts, whenever he deems that such action would facilitate the national defense.
The authority conferred by this section shall not be utilized to obligate the United States in an
amount in excess of $50,000 without approval by an official at or above the level of an Assistant
Secretary or his Deputy, or an assistant head or his deputy, of such department or agency, or by a
Contract Adjustment Board established therein.
For more on P.L. 85-804 as amended, see CRS Report 76-261, Extraordinary Contractual Relief Under Public Law 85-
804, April 28, 1976, by Andrew C. Mayer. The report was prepared at the request of the House Armed Services
Committee and converted by the committee into a committee print (70-905 O), dated May 10, 1976, that can be viewed
at https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00022546/00001/1j. See also David H. Peirez, “Public Law 85-804: Contractual Relief for the
Government Contractor,” Administrative Law Review, vol. 16 (Summer 1964): 248-264, accessed October 11, 2019, at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40708469; and “Presidential Power: Public Law 85-804 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1431-35),” Brennan
Center for Justice, undated, accessed October 11, 2019, at https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/
50%20USC%201431-1435.pdf. (Although it is undated, it appears to have been written no earlier than 2014, as it
includes three references to the year 2014, including one that states, “As of 2014….”) The text of P.L. 85-804 as
originally enacted is posted at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-72-Pg972.pdf.
59 For more on the extraordinary contractual relief provided to ESG under P.L. 85-804, see CRS Report R42567, Coast
Congressional Research Service

30

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

The past instances listed above do not necessarily represent the full range of options available to
Congress for assisting shipyards and supplier firms—additional options might be available
through the Defense Production Act (DPA) or other federal authorities.60
Legislative Activity for FY2022
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 R41129, Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile
Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine
Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS In Focus IF11826, Navy Next-Generation Attack Submarine (SSN[X])
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS In Focus IF11679, Navy DDG(X) Next-Generation Destroyer Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R44972, Navy Constellation (FFG-62) Class Frigate Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R43543, Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship
Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R46374, Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R43546, Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS In Focus IF11674, Navy Next-Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS In Focus IF11838, Navy TAGOS(X) Ocean Surveillance Shipbuilding
Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
 CRS Report R45757, Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
60 For more on the DPA in the context of the COVID-19 situation, see CRS Report R43767, The Defense Production
Act of 1950: History, Authorities, and Considerations for Congress, by Michael H. Cecire and Heidi M. Peters, and
CRS Insight IN11231, The Defense Production Act (DPA) and COVID-19: Key Authorities and Policy Considerations,
by Michael H. Cecire and Heidi M. Peters. See also Scott F. Roybal and Laura A. Alexander, “Coronavirus and its
Implications for Government Contractors,” National Law Review, March 9, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

31

link to page 37 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Legislative activity on individual Navy shipbuilding programs that are not covered in detail in the
above reports is covered below.
Summary of Congressional Action on FY2022 Funding Request
Table 7 summarizes congressional action on the Navy’s FY2022 funding request for Navy
shipbuilding. The table shows the amounts requested and congressional changes to those
requested amounts. A blank cell in a filled-in column showing congressional changes to requested
amounts indicates no change from the requested amount.

Congressional Research Service

32

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

Table 7. Summary of Congressional Action on FY2022 Funding Request
Millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth; totals may not add due to rounding
Congressional changes to requested amounts
Line
Authorization
Appropriation
number
Program
Request
HASC
SASC
Enacted
HAC
SAC
Conf.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account
001
Columbia-class SSBN
3,003.0
-80.0

002
Columbia-class SSBN (AP)
1,644.0
199.6
130.0
130.0
-42.2
130.0

003
CVN 78-80 aircraft carriers
1,068.7
-6.5

-6.5
-6.5

004
CVN-81 aircraft carrier
1,299.8
-12.0

-12.0
-12.0

005
Virginia-class SSN
4,249.2
567.0

200.0
80.0
-50.0

006
Virginia-class SSN (AP)
2,120.4

-15.0
-15.5
-15.0

007
CVN RCOH
2,456.0
-224.0

-20.0
-191.0
-11.8

008
CVN RCOH (AP)
66.3

009
DDG-1000
56.6

15.0

010
DDG-51
2,016.8
3,041.6
1,659.0
2,912.3
1,318.0
1,659.2

011
DDG-51 (AP)
0

175.0
120.0

120.0

012
LCS
0

013
FFG-62
1,087.9

3.0

014
FFG-62 (AP)
69.1

-69.1

015
LPD-17 Flight II
60.6

016
LPD-17 Flight II (AP)
0

250.0
250.0

250.0

017
Expeditionary Sea Base
0

577.0

018
Expeditionary Sea Base (AP)
0

019
LHA amphibious assault ship
68.6
1,200.0
350.0
100.0

020
Expeditionary fast transport ship (EPF)
0
540.0
270.0
540.0

590.0

021
TAO-205 oiler
668.2
668.2

668.2
20.0

022
TAO-205 oiler (AP)
76.0

-76.0
-76.0
-76.0

023
TAGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship
434.4

024
TATS towing/salvage/rescue ship
183.8
-103.0

-97.0

025
LCU 1700 landing craft
67.9

026
Outfitting
655.7
-73.8

-32.8
-41.0
-14.4

027
Ship to shore connector (SSC)
156.7
130.0

130.0
-21.5
195.0

028
Service craft
67.9

029
LCAC landing craft SLEP
32.7

030
Auxiliary vessels (used sealift ships)
299.9

-299.9
-179.9

-299.9

031
Completion of prior-year ships
660.8

TOTAL
22,571.1
5,847.1
2,549.1
4,708.2
915.3
2,987.9

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on original Navy FY2022 budget submission, committee reports, and
explanatory statements on the FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act and FY2022 DOD Appropriations
Act.
Notes: Mil ions of dol ars, rounded to nearest tenth. A blank cell indicates no change to requested amount.
Totals may not add due to rounding. AP = advance procurement funding; HASC = House Armed Services
Committee; SASC = Senate Armed Services Committee; HAC = House Appropriations Committee; SAC =
Senate Appropriations Committee; Conf. = conference report. SLEP is service life extension program.
Congressional Research Service

33

link to page 37 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4350/S. 2792/S.
1605/P.L. 117-81)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 117-118 of September 10, 2021) on
H.R. 4350, recommended the funding levels shown in the HASC column of Table 7.
Among the recommended changes shown in the table, the committee is recommending funding
for the procurement of two additional DDG-51 destroyers; one additional LHA-type amphibious
assault ship; two additional expeditionary fast transport (EPF) ships; one additional TAO-205
oiler; one TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ship (rather than the two TATS ships that were
requested); and two additional ship-to-shore connectors (SSCs, i.e., next-generation air-cushioned
landing craft).
Section 122 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 122. INCLUSION OF BASIC AND FUNCTIONAL DESIGN IN ASSESSMENTS
REQUIRED PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION ON FIRST SHIP OF A
SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM.
Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law
110–181; 122 Stat. 28; 10 U.S.C. 8661 note) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Concurrent with approving the start
of construction of the first ship for any major shipbuilding program, the Secretary of the
Navy shall’’ and inserting ‘‘The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract for the
construction of the first ship for any major shipbuilding program until a period of 30 days
has elapsed following the date on which the Secretary’’;
(B) in paragraph (1)—
(i) by striking ‘‘submit’’ and inserting ‘‘submits’’; and
(ii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(C) in paragraph (2)—
(i) by striking ‘‘certify’’ and inserting ‘‘certifies’’; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(3) certifies to the congressional defense committees that the basic and functional design
of the vessel is complete.’’; and
(2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(5) BASIC AND FUNCTIONAL DESIGN.—The term ‘basic and functional design’,
when used with respect to a vessel, means design through computer aided models, that—
‘‘(A) fixes the hull structure of the vessel;
‘‘(B) sets the hydrodynamics of the vessel;
‘‘(C) routes all major distributive systems of the vessel, including electricity, water, and
other utilities; and
‘‘(D) identifies the exact positioning of piping and other outfitting within each block of the
Congressional Research Service

34

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

vessel.’’.
Section 363 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 363. ANNUAL REPORT ON MATERIAL READINESS OF NAVY SHIPS.
Section 8674(d) of title 10, United States Code is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘submit to the’’ and inserting ‘‘provide to the’’;
(B) by inserting ‘‘a briefing and submit to such committees’’ after ‘‘congressional defense
committees’’; and
(C) by striking ‘‘setting forth’’ and inserting ‘‘regarding’’;
(2) in paragraph (2)—
(A) by striking ‘‘in an unclassified form that is releasable to the public without further
redaction.’’ and inserting ‘‘in—’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
‘‘(A) a classified form that shall be available only to the congressional defense committees;
and
‘‘(B) an unclassified form that is releasable to the public without further redaction’’; and
(3) by striking paragraph (3).
Section 373 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 373. MANAGEMENT OF FATIGUE AMONG CREW OF NAVAL SURFACE
SHIPS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of the Navy shall implement each recommendation
for executive action set forth in the report of the Government Accountability Office titled
‘‘Navy Readiness: Additional Efforts Are Needed to Manage Fatigue, Reduce Crewing
Shortfalls, and Implement Training’’ (GAO-21-366).
(b) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees and the
Comptroller General a report on the status of actions taken by the Secretary to monitor
crew fatigue and ensure equitable fatigue management throughout the naval surface ship
fleet in accordance with subparagraph (a). Such report shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the extent of crew fatigue throughout the naval surface ship fleet.
(2) A description of the metrics used to assess the extent of fatigue pursuant to paragraph
(1).
(3) An identification of results-oriented goals for effective fatigue management.
(4) An identification of timeframes for achieving the goals identified pursuant to paragraph
(3).
(c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 90 days after the date
on which the Comptroller General receives the report under subsection (b), the Comptroller
General shall brief the congressional defense committees on the extent to which the actions
and goals described in the report meet the requirements of sub section (a).
Section 816 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 816. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OF WELDED SHIPBOARD ANCHOR
AND MOORING CHAIN FOR NAVAL VESSELS.
Congressional Research Service

35

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

Section 2534 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(F) Welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain.’’; and
(2) in subsection (b)—
(A) by striking ‘‘A manufacturer’’ and in serting ‘‘(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), a manufacturer’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(2) A manufacturer of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain for naval vessels
meets the requirements of this subsection if the manufacturer is part of the national
technology and industrial base.’’.
Section 1012 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 1012. BIENNIAL REPORT ON SHIPBUILDER TRAINING AND THE DEFENSE
INDUSTRIAL BASE.
(a) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—The second section 8692 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by section 1026 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116–283) is redesignated as section
8693 and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 863 of such title is conformed
accordingly.
(b) MODIFICATION OF REPORT.—Such section is further amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘Not later’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later’’;
(2) in subsection (a), as so redesignated, by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(7) An analysis of the potential benefits of multi-year procurement contracting for the
stability of the shipbuilding defense industrial base.’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sub section:
‘‘(b) SOLICITATION AND ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION.—In order to carry out
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Labor shall—
‘‘(1) solicit information regarding the age demographics and occupational experience level
from the private shipyards of the shipbuilding defense industrial base; and
‘‘(2) analyze such information for findings relevant to carrying out subsection (a)(2),
including findings related to the current and projected defense shipbuilding workforce,
current and projected labor needs, and the readiness of the current and projected workforce
to supply the proficiencies analyzed in subsection (a)(1).’’.
Section 1013 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 1013. REVISION OF SUSTAINMENT KEY PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
FOR SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall update the policy for the Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System to ensure that the guidance for setting sustainment key performance
parameters for shipbuilding programs accounts for all factors that could affect the
operational availability and materiel availability of a ship. Such changes shall include—
(1) changing the definition of ‘‘operational availability’’ as it applies to ships so that such
definition applies according to mission area and includes all equipment failures that affect
the ability of a ship to perform primary missions; and
Congressional Research Service

36

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

(2) changing the definition of ‘‘materiel availability’’ as is it applies to ships so that such
definition takes into account all factors that could result in a ship being unavailable for
operations, including unplanned maintenance, unplanned losses, and
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to congressional defense commit tees a report
on the plan of the Secretary to—
(1) incorporate the sustainment key performance parameters revised under subsection (a)
into the requirement documents of new and ongoing shipbuilding programs; and
(2) establish a process for translating such sustainment key performance parameters into
specific contract requirements for systems engineering and ship design.
(c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.—Not later than one year after the Secretary
of Defense submits the report required under subsection (b), the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to the congressional defense committees an assessment of
such report that includes an evaluation of—
(1) the sustainment key performance parameters for Department of Defense shipbuilding
programs;
(2) how shipbuilding programs translate sustainment key performance parameters into
contract requirements for systems engineering and ship design activities; and
(3) any other matter the Comptroller General determines appropriate.
Section 1014 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 1014. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR RETIREMENT OF MARK VI
PATROL BOATS.
(a) PROHIBITION.—None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2022 for the Navy may be obligated or expended
to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any Mark VI patrol boat.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than February 15, 2022, the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation
with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report that includes each of the following:
(1) The rationale for the retirement of existing Mark VI patrol boats, including an
operational analysis of the effect of such retirements on the warfighting requirements of
the combatant commanders.
(2) A review of operating concepts for escorting high value units without the Mark VI
patrol boat.
(3) A description of the manner and concept of operations in which the Marine Corps could
use the Mark VI patrol boat to support distributed maritime operations, advanced
expeditionary basing operations, and persistent presence near maritime choke points and
strategic littorals in the Indo-Pacific region.
(4) An assessment of the potential for modification, and the associated costs, of the Mark
VI patrol boat for the inclusion of loitering munitions or anti-ship cruise missiles, such as
the Long Range Anti Ship Missile and the Naval Strike Missile, particularly to support the
concept of operations described in paragraph (3).
(5) A description of resources required for the Marine Corps to possess, man, train, and
maintain the Mark VI patrol boat in the performance of the concept of operations described
in paragraph (3) and modifications described in paragraph (4).
(6) At the discretion of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, a plan for the Marine Corps
to take possession of the Mark VI patrol boat not later than September 30, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

37

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

(7) Such other matters the Secretary deter mines appropriate.
Section 1015 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 1015. ASSESSMENT OF SECURITY OF GLOBAL MARITIME CHOKEPOINTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the
security of global maritime chokepoints from the threat of hostile kinetic attacks, cyber
disruptions, and other form of sabotage. The report shall include an assessment of each of
the following with respect to each global maritime chokepoint covered by the report:
(1) The expected length of time and resources required for operations to resume at the
chokepoint in the event of attack, sabotage, or other disruption of regular maritime
operations.
(2) The security of any secondary chokepoint that could be affected by a disruption at the
global maritime chokepoint.
(3) Options to mitigate any vulnerabilities resulting from a hostile kinetic attack, cyber
disruption, or other form of sabotage at the chokepoint.
(b) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in
unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
(c) GLOBAL MARITIME CHOKEPOINT.—In this section, the term ‘‘global maritime
chokepoint’’ means any of the following:
(1) The Panama Canal.
(2) The Suez Canal.
(3) The Strait of Malacca.
(4) The Strait of Hormuz.
(5) Any other chokepoint determined appropriate by the Secretary.
Section 1016 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 1016. ANNUAL REPORT ON SHIP MAINTENANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 863 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 8694. Annual report on ship maintenance
‘‘(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than October 15 of each year, the Secretary of the
Navy shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report setting forth each of the following:
‘‘(1) A description of all ship maintenance planned for the fiscal year during which the
report is submitted, by hull.
‘‘(2) The estimated cost of the maintenance described in paragraph (1).
‘‘(3) A summary of all ship maintenance conducted by the Secretary during the previous
fiscal year.
‘‘(4) A detailed description of any ship maintenance that was deferred during the previous
fiscal year, including specific reasons for the delay or cancellation of any availability.
‘‘(5) A detailed description of the effect of each of the planned ship maintenance actions
that were delayed or cancelled during the previous fiscal year, including—
Congressional Research Service

38

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

‘‘(A) a summary of the effects on the costs and schedule for each delay or cancellation;
and
‘‘(B) the accrued operational and fiscal cost of all the deferments over the fiscal year.
‘‘(b) FORM OF REPORT.— Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall submitted
in unclassified form and made publicly available on an appropriate internet website in a
searchable format, but may contain a classified annex.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘8694. Annual report on ship maintenance.’’.
Section 1017 of H.R. 4350 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 1017. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RETIREMENT OR INACTIVATION OF
TICONDEROGA CLASS CRUISERS.
(a) LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Except as provided in subsection
(b), none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2022 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended to retire,
prepare toretire, inactivate, or place in storage a cruiser.
(b) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), the funds referred to in such
subsection may be obligated or expended to retire any of the following vessels:
(1) The USS Hue City (CG 66).
(2) The USS Vela Gulf (CG72).
(3) The USS Port Royal (CG 73).
(4) USS Anzio (CG 68).
H.Rept. 117-118 states
Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of the Littoral Combat Ship Program
The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported
extensively on issues with the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. Since 2005, GAO has
issued no fewer than 19 reports that highlight failures in the acquisition of LCS, including
ships delivered late, with increased costs and less capability than planned—such as lower
lethality and survivability—higher than expected costs for contractor maintenance, and
numerous mechanical failures. Most recently in 2021, GAO found that the Navy continues
to face substantial challenges in demonstrating the operational and warfighting capabilities
that the LCS fleet needs to perform its missions.
The committee notes that the Navy continues to make significant investments in the LCS
program even as it has stopped accepting Freedom-class LCS variants while the contractor
fixes a class-wide engineering defect, is decommissioning two LCS ships in 2021 after
completing just one mission each, and has proposed retiring four more ships in fiscal year
2022. The Navy has yet to complete reviews to identify ways to improve LCS employment,
lethality, maintenance, reliability, and sustainability.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 15, 2022, assessing the costs and benefits of
continued investment in the LCS program. As the ships are being employed differently and
are experiencing different levels of reliability and different employment schedules, the
report should address the Independence and Freedom variants separately. The report shall
include:
Congressional Research Service

39

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

(1) An assessment of whether the LCS is meeting current and future performance
requirements and fleet needs and whether the LCS fleet could be expected to contribute to
forward naval presence and operate effectively against near-peer threats and on blue water
missions.
(2) An assessment of all LCS deployments in 2020–2021 to include reliability, missions
performed, and feedback from Fleet Commanders, and an assessment of operational impact
of changes to manning and maintenance CONOPS for deployed LCSs.
(3) An updated estimate of total life cycle costs for the program as currently structured,
including research and development, acquisition of the seaframes and mission modules,
test and evaluation, in-service modernization, training, operating and support, and disposal.
The associated costs and benefits of modifying the current LCS program, including
alternatives such as revising the LCS capabilities and concept of operations, such as
different mixes of mission modules, weapons, crews, and missions to find a combination
that is efficient to operate and effectively performs a useful mission; increasing the
endurance of the vessels, including reliability, maintainability, and availability; addressing
deficiencies identified during deployments and operational testing; retiring some or all of
the LCS fleet earlier than planned; and implementing other major modifications to the LCS
program currently under consideration or already being executed, such as
recommendations resulting from Task Force LCS and ongoing studies.
(4) An analysis of fleet wide costs to support LCS compared with other ship classes and an
assessment of whether end-strength and funds devoted to keeping LCS ready and mission
capable would be better used to mitigate shortfalls on other ship classes.
(5) A recommendation from the Secretary of the Navy as to whether the benefits and
performance of LCS justify continued investment in the program. (Pages 16-17)
H.Rept. 117-118 also states
Astern refueling on Expeditionary Sea Based platforms
The committee recognizes that current versions of the Expeditionary Sea Based (ESB)
platforms do not possess an astern refueling capability. Current astern fueling configuration
height does not allow for safe refueling of the Littoral Combat Ship or the Expedi tionary
Fast Transport ship. Addition of an astern refueling capability, coupled with the large fuel
capacity of the ESB, will allow for coordinated operation of these platforms in a variety of
expeditionary missions, such as mine warfare. The committee encourages the Secretary of
the Navy to consider designing and incorporating an astern refueling capability for ESB
platforms. (Pages 17-18)
H.Rept. 117-118 also states
Improving Safe and Secure Cyber-Enabled Navy Vessels
The committee continues to have concerns regarding the emerging threat of cyberattacks
and present danger to US Navy vessels, both surface and underwater. Entire Navy systems,
including vessels, weapons, and facilities, continue to be cyberattack targets from both
state and non-state sponsored actors. Significant investment in cyber-defense training and
technology development is essential to ensure continued naval superiority throughout the
world for the foreseeable future. The digital thread from manned ships and autonomous
platforms provides enormous opportunities for efficiencies in coordination, operation,
maintenance, and cyber-resilience. However, this thread of critical data, including location,
heading, and platform health, presents one of the biggest opportunities for cyber threats
and cyber-attacks to Navy vessels. End-to-end cybersecurity and anti-tamper technology
need to be addressed for a wide range of systems, from small man-portable autonomous
vehicles to systems as large as carrier groups.
Congressional Research Service

40

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

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2022. that includes current plans and
potential opportunities to improve the cybersecurity of the digital thread communication
network for Navy vessels, specifically communication between unmanned and
autonomous vessels.
The briefing should also include:
(1) A description and evaluation of current Naval vessel cyber-security real-world test-bed
facilities and their capabilities.
(2) A description and evaluation of requirements for autonomous Naval vessel
cybersecurity communications testing and qualifications.
(3) A description and evaluation of current Naval vessel cybersecurity workforce and
expected future workforce needs.
(4) An analysis of opportunities to expand Naval vessel digital thread cybersecurity
development and testing, specifically for unmanned and autonomous vessels. (Page 19)
H.Rept. 117-118 also states
National Security Hospital Vessel
The committee recognizes the Navy’s plan to increase Role 2 afloat medical capacity
through the procurement of a modified Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) ship called an
EPF Flight II. The committee is supportive of this effort and recognizes that an embarkable
Role 2 enhanced (R2E) medical capability will allow the Navy to fill gaps identified by the
Naval Expeditionary Health Services Support (NEHSS) for Distributed Maritime
Operations. The committee further understands that the afloat theater hospitalization Role
3 requirement will continue to be met by the Navy’s aging hospital ships (T–AH). The
committee believes that as an alternative to maintaining converted supertankers that were
procured in the mid 1970s, the Navy could take advantage of a redesigned EPF or the
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel (NSMV) that the Maritime Administration is
currently procuring for the 6 State Maritime Academies ‘‘to meet this Role 3 requirement.’’
By utilizing the NSMV or the EPF hull form and an ongoing production line, the Navy
could minimize design costs and schedule of the T–AH(X) that is planned to replace the
current T–AHs. This strategy would also allow the Navy to defer future costly maintenance
availabilities on the existing T–AHs and deliver a replacement capability sooner than the
current plan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2022, on the
feasibility of utilizing the EPF or the NSMV hull forms to fill the requirements of the T–
AH(X). (Pages 19-20)
H.Rept. 117-118 also states
Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutter61
The committee looks forward to reviewing the Navy’s updated force structure assessment
and shipbuilding plan. The committee understands the Navy intends to change the fleet
architecture reflected in the 355-ship force-level goal to reflect a more distributed fleet mix
with a smaller proportion of larger ships and a larger proportion of smaller manned ships
as well as unmanned vessels. The committee supports incorporating a mix of smaller
manned ships into the fleet and encourages the Navy to consider the capabilities the U.S.
Coast Guard’s Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutter could provide to the fleet and the

61 For more on the Fast response Cutter (FRC) program, see CRS Report R42567, Coast Guard Cutter Procurement:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

41

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

concept of operations and associated requirements that would support acquisition of these
vessels.
Further, the committee is aware the U.S. Coast Guard has contract options for 12 additional
Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutters with firm fixed pricing in place until May of 2023.
Exercising these contract options in advance of their expiration would lock in favorable
pricing on Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutters should the Navy determine that they add
value to the fleet.
Given the successes of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutter in
support of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet as a part of Patrol Forces Southwest Asia, the committee
believes there are similar roles for Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutters in other areas of
responsibility. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2022, that details the
current mission sets and operating requirements for the Sentinel-class Fast Response Cutter
and expands on how successes in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility would
translate to other regions, including the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Further, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the requisite upgrades to the Sentinel-
class Fast Response Cutter required to meet Navy standards and evaluate the concept of
operations for employing these vessels in Southeast Asia. This report should be
unclassified but may include a classified annex. (Page 21)
H.Rept. 117-118 also states
Report on Ship Components
The Secretary of the Navy is directed to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by September 1, 2022 as to cost and schedule impacts associated with requiring
the following components to be procured consistent with section 2534 of title 10, U.S.C.:
Ship shafts, electric power generators, electric propulsion motors, degaussing systems,
power distribution equipment, breakers, switchgear, load center, power panels, power
conversion equipment, rectifiers, frequency converters, inverters, machinery control,
damage control, sensors, or programs for command, control, communications, computers,
and intelligence (commonly known as ‘C4I’). (Page 201)
H.Rept. 117-118 also states
Shipbuilding and Naval Capability
The committee remains concerned by the challenges facing the shipbuilding industry in the
United States. The acquisition and development of a capable fleet, both military and
commercial, will be critical in addressing the threats from near peer adversaries and
advancing other national security interests over the next five to ten years. Although the
committee acknowledges that the Navy has provided previous reports about sourcing of
specific components, the committee believes a broader report is warranted in light of the
wide-ranging supply chain disruptions that the COVID–19 pandemic precipitated.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by June 1, 2022 on the principal factors presenting
risks to U.S. shipbuilding, specifically focusing on those factors that could lead to cost
increases or supply chain vulnerabilities, and recommendations to reduce those risks. (Page
202)
H.Rept. 117-118 also states
Other Potential Uses for Decommissioned Naval Assets
The Committee believes there is merit in examining other possible uses of ships proposed
to be decommissioned by the US Navy. The Committee is aware of interest on the part of
foreign allies in some of these ships which could be beneficial to the US Navy and allied
Congressional Research Service

42

link to page 37 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

relationships. The Navy has proposed additional retirements of several Littoral Combat
ships, as well as Aegis cruisers. Both these classes of ships offer the opportunity for
interoperability and commonality with allied navies either due to Hull, Mechanical and
Electrical (HM&E) characteristics or similarities with combat or weapons systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2022 on the viability of transferring ships
planned for decommissioning to allied Navies, to include Ticonderoga Class Cruisers the
Littoral Combat Ships. The report should explore all options, with associated costs and
risks, in effecting the transfer, including a full transfer or a potential leasing mechanism
that would allow for the ultimate transfer of the asset back to the US Navy upon completion
of the lease term. The report should also examine modifications and repairs that would be
necessary to address operational deficiencies and other modifications necessary for
operation by allied Navies. (Page 222)
Senate
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 117-39 of September 22 [legislative
day, September 21], 2021) on S. 2792, recommended the funding levels shown in the SASC
column of Table 7.
Among the recommended changes shown in the table, the committee is recommending funding
for the procurement of one additional DDG-51 destroyer, one additional expeditionary fast
transport (EPF) ship, and no used sealift ships (rather than the five that were requested).
Section 133 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 133. EXTENSION OF REPORT ON LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP MISSION
PACKAGES.
Section 123(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2030) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2022’’ and inserting
‘‘fiscal year 2027’’.
Section 135 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 135. LIMITATION ON DECOMMISSIONING OR INACTIVATING A BATTLE
FORCE SHIP BEFORE THE END OF EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 863 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 8678 the following new section:
‘‘§ 8678a. Limitation on decommissioning or inactivating a battle force ship before the end
of expected service life
‘‘(a) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of the Navy may not decommission or inactivate a
battle force ship before the end of the expected service life of the ship.
‘‘(b) WAIVER.—The Secretary may waive the limitation under subsection (a) not fewer
than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the congressional defense
committees a certification described in subsection (c).
‘‘(c) CERTIFICATION DESCRIBED.—A certification described in this subsection is a
certification that—
‘‘(1)(A) maintaining the battle force ship in a reduced operating status is not feasible;
‘‘(B) maintaining the ship with reduced capability is not feasible;
‘‘(C) maintaining the ship as a Navy Reserve unit is not feasible;
Congressional Research Service

43

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

‘‘(D) transferring the ship to the Coast Guard is not feasible;
‘‘(E) maintaining the ship is not required to support the most recent national defense
strategy required by section 113(g) of this title; and
‘‘(F) maintaining the ship is not required to support operational plans of any combatant
commander; and
‘‘(2) includes an explanation of—
‘‘(A) the options assessed and the rationale for the determinations under subparagraphs (A)
through (D) of paragraph (1); and
‘‘(B) the rationale for the determinations under subparagraphs (E) and (F) of such para
graph.
‘‘(d) FORM.—A certification submitted under sub section (b) shall be submitted in
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) The term ‘battle force ship’ means the following:
‘‘(A) A commissioned United States Ship warship capable of contributing to combat
operations.
‘‘(B) A United States Naval Ship that contributes directly to Navy warfighting or support
missions.
‘‘(2) The term ‘expected service life’ means the number of years a naval vessel is expected
to be in service.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 863
of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8678 the following
new item:
‘‘8678a. Limitation on decommissioning or inactivating a battle force ship before the end
of expected service life.’’.62
Section 136 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 136. ACQUISITION, MODERNIZATION, AND SUSTAINMENT PLAN FOR
CARRIER AIR WINGS.
(a) PLAN REQUIRED.—Not later than February 1, 2022, the Secretary of the Navy shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a 15-year acquisition, modernization, and
sustainment plan for the carrier air wings of the Navy.
(b) ELEMENTS.—The plan required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of how well the capabilities and composition of the carrier air wings
meet the requirements of the National Defense Strategy and a plan to address known
shortfalls such as with respect to tanker capacity and strike fighter range.
(2) An identification of the role of autonomous aircraft, including the MQ–25 aircraft, and
other potential future capabilities and platforms in future carrier air wings.
(3) An assessment of whether nine carrier air wings is the correct force structure,
considering—

62 For a press report discussing this provision, see Megan Eckstein, “Concerned About the Navy Retiring Ships Early,
Senators Consider Higher Standards,” Defense News, September 22, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

44

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

(A) whether the composition of aircraft and squadrons within a carrier air wing as of the
date on which the plan is submitted is adequate; and
(B) whether ten carrier air wings, the minimum number to be maintained under section
8062(e) of title 10, United States Code, after the earlier of the two dates referred to in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of such section, is adequate.
(4) An identification of the appropriate modernization plan to maximize operational use of
plat forms in existence as of the date on which the report is submitted, particularly the EA–
18G aircraft and the E–2D aircraft, by leveraging available technologies such as Next
Generation Jammer.
Regarding Section 136, S.Rept. 117-39 states
Acquisition, modernization, and sustainment plan for carrier air wings (sec. 136)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the Navy to develop a 15-year
acquisition, modernization, and sustainment plan for the entire carrier air wing (CVW),
building off the requirement in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116–283) to produce a fighter force
structure acquisition strategy. The provision would require the Secretary of the Navy to
provide the plan to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2022.
In order to meet the challenges of great power competition, the Navy’s carrier air wings
must have the right capabilities and sufficient aircraft inventories. Although smaller scale
efforts have looked at components of the CVW, such as fighter force structure, a
comprehensive plan based on current and projected requirements is necessary to maintain
U.S. naval air superiority. The plan should:
(1) Assess how well CVW capabilities and composition meet National Defense
Strategy requirements, and plan to address known shortfalls such as tanker capacity
and strike fighter range;
(2) Identify the role of autonomous aircraft in future CVWs, to include the MQ–25 but
also consider other potential future capabilities and platforms;
(3) Assess whether nine CVWs is the correct force structure;
(4) Consider whether the current composition of aircraft and squadrons within a CVW
is adequate;
(5) Consider whether 10 CVWs, the current legal requirement to be achieved by
October 1, 2025, under section 8062 of title 10, United States Code, is adequate; and
(6) Identify the appropriate modernization plan to maximize operational use of current
platforms, particularly the EA–18G and E–2D, by leveraging available technologies
such as the Next Generation Jammer. (Page 8)
Section 137 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 137. IMPROVING OVERSIGHT OF NAVY CONTRACTS FOR SHIPBUILDING,
CONVERSION, AND REPAIR.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 805 title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:
‘‘§ 8039. Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command for the Supervision of
Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Navy shall establish and appoint an individual
to the position of Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command for the
Supervision of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair (in this section referred to as the
‘Deputy Commander’).
Congressional Research Service

45

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

‘‘(b) QUALIFICATIONS.—The Deputy Commander shall be a flag officer of the Navy
or an employee of the Navy in a Senior Executive Service position.
‘‘(c) REPORTING.—The Deputy Commander shall report directly to the Commander of
the Naval Sea Systems Command.
‘‘(d) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Deputy Commander shall—
‘‘(1) independently administer and manage the execution of Department of Defense
contracts awarded to commercial entities for shipbuilding, conversion, and repair at the
facilities of such entities;
‘‘(2) serve as the designated contract administration office of the Department responsible
for performing contract administration services for the contracts described in paragraph
(1);
‘‘(3) enforce contract requirements of the contracts described in paragraph (1), ensuring
contractors and the Department satisfy contractual obligations;
‘‘(4) work with contractors and Federal agencies to facilitate greater quality and economy
in the products and services being procured; and
‘‘(5) provide on-site quality assurance for contracts described in paragraph (1), including
inspections.
‘‘(e) NON-CAS FUNCTIONS.—The Deputy Commander shall manage the complexities
and unique demands of shipbuilding, conversion, and repair by performing the following
non-contract administration services functions for Navy Program Executives Offices, fleet
commanders, and the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters:
‘‘(1) Project oversight, including the following:
‘‘(A) Coordinating responses to non-contractual emergent problems.
‘‘(B) Coordinating activities of precommissioning crews and ship’s force, and other
Government activities.
‘‘(C) Communicating with customers and higher authority regarding matters that may af
fect project execution.
‘‘(2) Technical authority, including the following:
‘‘(A) Executing the technical authority responsibilities of the Waterfront Chief Engineer.
‘‘(B) Serving as the waterfront technical authority of the Naval Sea Systems Command
responsible for providing Government direction and coordination in the resolution of
technical issues.
‘‘(C) Contract planning and procurement, including participation in acquisition planning
and pre-award activities, including assessment of contractor qualifications.
‘‘(f) COMPREHENSIVE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT.—The Deputy Commander
shall maintain direct relationships with the Director of the Defense Contract Management
Agency and the Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency to facilitate comprehensive
contract management and oversight of contractors awarded a contract described in
subsection (d)(1) and subcontractors.
‘‘(g) SUBCONTRACTOR AUDITS.—The Deputy Commander shall request that the
Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency perform periodic audits of subcontractors
that perform cost- or incentive-type subcontracts for which the Deputy Commander serves
as the designated contract administration office of the Department and that are valued at
$50,000,000 or more.
Congressional Research Service

46

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

‘‘(h) ANNUAL WRITTEN ASSESSMENT.—(1) Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Deputy Commander shall submit to the congressional defense committees a written
assessment of the contracts for which the Deputy Commander serves as the designated
contract administration office of the Department.
‘‘(2) Each written assessment required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
‘‘(A) The cost, schedule, and performance of each contract covered by the assessment.
‘‘(B) A summary of any requests for corrective action or other significant contract
discrepancies documented by the office of the Deputy Commander, the Defense Contract
Management Agency, or the Defense Contract Audit Agency for such contracts, and any
actions planned or taken in response.
‘‘(C) A summary of any dedicated evaluation, such as a review by a task force or working
group, of the organizational structure and resourcing plans and requirements that support
the supervision of shipbuilding, conversion, and repair, that—
‘‘(i) includes key findings, recommendations, and implementation plans; and
‘‘(ii) indicates any additional support needed from other organizations of the Department,
such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Contract Management
Agency, for implementation.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 805
of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8039. Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command for the Supervision of
Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair.’’.
(c) DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND APPOINTMENT.—Not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall establish
and appoint an individual to the position of Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems
Command for the Supervision of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair under section 8039
of such title, as added by subsection (a).
Section 373 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 373. REPEAL OF SUNSET FOR NAVAL VESSEL EXAMINATION REPORT.
Section 8674(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (3).
Regarding Section 373, S.Rept. 117-39 states
Repeal of sunset for naval vessel examination report (sec. 373)
The committee recommends a provision that would strike subsection (d)(3) of section 8674
of title 10, United States Code, in order to retain an annual report relating to examinations
of naval vessels. (Page 105)63

63 10 U.S.C. 8674 states (emphasis added):
§8674. Examination of vessels; striking of vessels from Naval Vessel Register
(a) Boards of Officers To Examine Naval Vessels.-(1) The Secretary of the Navy shall designate
boards of naval officers to examine naval vessels, including unfinished vessels, for the purpose of
making a recommendation to the Secretary as to which vessels, if any, should be stricken from the
Naval Vessel Register. Each vessel shall be examined at least once every three years if practicable.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any naval vessel examined under this section on or
after January 1, 2020, shall be examined with minimal notice provided to the crew of the vessel.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a vessel undergoing necessary trials before acceptance into
the fleet.
Congressional Research Service

47

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

Section 375 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 375. ANNUAL REPORT BY SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ON SHIP
MAINTENANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 863 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 8695. Annual report on ship maintenance
‘‘Not later than October 15 of each year, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives a report setting forth the following:
‘‘(1) A description of all ship maintenance planned for the fiscal year in which the report
is submitted, by hull.
‘‘(2) The estimated cost of the maintenance described in paragraph (1).
‘‘(3) A summary of all ship maintenance conducted by the Secretary during the previous
fiscal year.
‘‘(4) Details of any ship maintenance that was deferred during the previous fiscal year.
‘‘(5) Details of planned ship maintenance that was cancelled during the previous fiscal year
and a summary of the reasons for the decision.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 863
of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8695. Annual report on ship maintenance.’’.
Section 1021 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 1021. MODIFICATION TO ANNUAL NAVAL VESSEL CONSTRUCTION
PLAN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(2), by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
‘‘(G) The expected service life of each vessel in the naval vessel force provided for under
the naval vessel construction plan, disaggregated by ship class, and the rationale for any
changes to such expectations from the previous year’s plan.

(b) Actions by Board.-A board designated under subsection (a) shall submit to the Secretary in
writing its recommendations as to which vessels, if any, among those it examined should be
stricken from the Naval Vessel Register.
(c) Action by Secretary.-If the Secretary concurs with a recommendation by a board that a vessel
should be stricken from the Naval Vessel Register, the Secretary shall strike the name of that vessel
from the Naval Vessel Register.
(d) Annual Report.-(1) Not later than March 1 each year, the board designated under subsection (a)
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth the following:
(A) An overall narrative summary of the material readiness of Navy ships as compared to
established material requirements standards.
(B) The overall number and types of vessels inspected during the preceding fiscal year.
(C) For in-service vessels, material readiness trends by inspected functional area as compared to the
previous five years.
(2) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted in an unclassified form that is releasable to
the public without further redaction.
(3) No report shall be required under this subsection after October 1, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

48

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

‘‘(H) A certification by the appropriate Senior Technical Authority designated under
section 8669b of this title of the expected service life of each vessel in the naval vessel
force provided for under the naval vessel construction plan, disaggregated by ship class,
and the rationale for any changes to such expectations from the previous year’s plan.’’; and
(2) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) The term ‘expected service life’ means the number of years a naval vessel is expected
to be in service.’’.
(b) REPEAL OF TERMINATION OF ANNUAL NAVAL VESSEL CONSTRUCTION
PLAN.—Section 1061(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114–328; 10 U.S.C. 111 note) is amended by striking paragraph (15).
Section 1022 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 1022. NAVY BATTLE FORCE SHIP ASSESSMENT AND REQUIREMENT
REPORTING.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 863 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by redesignating the second section 8692, as added by section 1026 of the William M.
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law
116–283), as section 8693; and
(2) by inserting after section 8693, as redesignated by paragraph (1), the following new
section:
‘‘§ 8694. Navy battle force ship assessment and requirement reporting
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which a covered event
occurs, the Chief of Naval Operations shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a battle force ship assessment and requirement.
‘‘(b) ASSESSMENT.—Each assessment required by subsection (a) shall include the
following:
‘‘(1) A review of the strategic guidance of the Federal Government, the Department of
Defense, and the Navy for identifying priorities, missions, objectives, and principles, in
effect as of the date on which the assessment is submitted, that the force structure of the
Navy must follow.
‘‘(2) An identification of the steady-state demand for maritime security and security force
assistance activities.
‘‘(3) An identification of the force options that can satisfy the steady-state demands for
activities required by theater campaign plans of combatant commanders.
‘‘(4) A force optimization analysis that produces a day-to-day global posture required to
accomplish peacetime and steady-state tasks assigned by combatant commanders.
‘‘(5) A modeling of the ability of the force to fight and win scenarios approved by the
Department of Defense.
‘‘(6) A calculation of the number and global posture of each force element required to meet
steady-state presence demands and warfighting response timelines.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENT.—(1) Each requirement required by subsection (a) shall—
‘‘(A) be based on the assessment required by subsection (b); and
‘‘(B) identify, for each of the fiscal years that are five, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years from
the date of the covered event—
‘‘(i) the total number of battle force ships required;
Congressional Research Service

49

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

‘‘(ii) the number of battle force ships required in each of the categories described in
paragraph (2);
‘‘(iii) the classes of battle ships included in each of the categories described in paragraph
(2); and
‘‘(iv) the number of battle force ships required in each such class.
‘‘(2) The categories described in this paragraph are the following:
‘‘(A) Aircraft carriers.
‘‘(B) Large surface combatants.
‘‘(C) Small surface combatants.
‘‘(D) Amphibious warfare ships.
‘‘(E) Attack submarines.
‘‘(F) Ballistic missile submarines.
‘‘(G) Combat logistics force.
‘‘(H) Expeditionary fast transport.
‘‘(I) Expeditionary support base.
‘‘(J) Command and support.
‘‘(K) Other.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) The term ‘battle force ship’ means the following:
‘‘(A) A commissioned United States Ship warship capable of contributing to combat
operations.
‘‘(B) A United States Naval Ship that contributes directly to Navy warfighting or support
missions.
‘‘(2) The term ‘covered event’ means a significant change to any of the following:
‘‘(A) Strategic guidance that results in changes to theater campaign plans or warfighting
scenarios.
‘‘(B) Strategic construction of vessels or aircraft that affects sustainable peacetime
presence or warfighting response timelines.
‘‘(C) Operating concepts, including employment cycles, crewing constructs, or operational
tempo limits, that affect peacetime presence or warfighting response timelines.
‘‘(D) Assigned missions that affect the type or quantity of force elements.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 863
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to the second section 8692 and
inserting the following new items:
‘‘8693. Biennial report on shipbuilder training and the defense industrial base.
‘‘8694. Navy battle force ship assessment and requirement reporting.’’.
(c) BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND REQUIREMENT REQUIRED.—The date that is
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act is deemed to be a covered event for the
purposes of establishing a baseline battle force ship assessment and requirement under
section 8694 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).
Congressional Research Service

50

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

Section 3156 of S. 2792 as reported states
SEC. 3156. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR NAVAL NUCLEAR FUEL
SYSTEMS BASED ON LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM.
(a) LIMITATION.—Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year
2022 for the National Nuclear Security Administration for research and development of an
advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on low-enriched uranium, not more than 50
percent may be obligated or expended until the following determinations are submitted to
the congressional defense committees:
(1) A determination made jointly by the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense
with respect to whether the determination made jointly by the Secretary of Energy and the
Secretary of the Navy pursuant to section 3118(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1196) and submitted to the
congressional defense committees on March 25, 2018, that the United States should not
pursue research and development of an advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on low-
enriched uranium, remains valid.
(2) A determination by the Secretary of the Navy with respect to whether an advanced
naval nuclear fuel system based on low-enriched uranium can be produced that would not
reduce vessel capability, increase expense, or reduce operational availability as a result of
refueling requirements.
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator for Nuclear Security shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on activities conducted using amounts made available for fiscal year
2021 for development of nonproliferation fuels, including a description of any progress
made toward technological or nonproliferation goals as a result of such activities.
Regarding Section 3156, S.Rept. 117-39 states
Limitation on use of funds for naval nuclear fuel systems based on low-enriched
uranium (sec. 3156)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of any fiscal year 2022 funds at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to
conduct research and development of an advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on low-
enriched uranium unless the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the
Secretary of the Navy communicate certain determinations to the congressional defense
committees. The provision would also require the Administrator of the NNSA to submit to
the congressional defense committees, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, a report outlining activities undertaken using fiscal year 2021 funds for this
purpose, including progress made toward either technological or nonproliferation goals.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Navy stated in
a letter to the congressional defense committees dated March 25, 2018, that such a research
and development effort would cost about $1.0 billion over a 10-to-15-year period, ‘‘with
success not assured.’’ It would also result in a reactor design that would be ‘‘less capable,
more expensive, and unlikely to support current life-of-ship submarine reactors,’’ which
would reduce operational availability and increase force structure requirements. (Page 354)
S.Rept. 117-39 also states
Expeditionary fast transport vessels
The budget request included no funding in line number 20 of Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy (SCN), for expeditionary fast transport (EPF) vessels.
Congressional Research Service

51

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

The committee notes that EPF vessels are built with an inherent cargo handling capability
and ability to deliver troops and equipment together in a manner that provides greater
flexibility in how combatant commanders employ these and other naval vessels in theater.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $270.0 million in line number 20 of
SCN.
Used sealift ships
The budget request included $299.9 million in line number 30 of Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy (SCN) to purchase five used vessels to recapitalize the Ready Reserve
Force (RRF).
The committee notes that the Congress provided funding for two vessels in fiscal year 2021
and that the Navy has been unable to successfully contract for those ships. The committee
will need to see the Navy execute the fiscal year 2021 funds and the vessels in question
inducted into the RRF before it can recommend additional funding for this program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $299.9 million in line number 30 of
SCN. (Pages 16-17)
S.Rept. 117-39 also states
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan implementation
The committee recognizes the critical strategic and logistics role our public shipyards play
in the security of our Nation. To address chronically unmet infrastructure needs at the
shipyards, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–
91) directed the Department of Defense to create and implement a Shipyard Infrastructure
Optimization Plan (SIOP). The committee strongly supports the SIOP, which will
revitalize the Nation’s four public shipyards and equip them with the facilities needed to
meet the requirements of the naval fleet into the future. The public shipyards are American
institutions of shipbuilding and maintenance that, in some cases, date back more than two
hundred years. They employ a highly skilled workforce that performs critical repair and
maintenance work on complex Navy ships and submarines in order to maintain the fleet’s
operational readiness needed to respond to national security requirements. The committee
believes continued investment in the public shipyards is a national security imperative, and
the SIOP must remain on schedule.
The committee is very concerned that the Navy’s SIOP is falling behind schedule because
details on multiple projects that are needed to properly assess and evaluate this critical
recapitalization effort have not been timely and fully provided to the committee. While
unforeseen challenges arise during the execution of large and complicated construction
projects, they can often be mitigated with prudent planning and foresight. This heightens
concerns whether the Navy can maintain its current operational depot-level maintenance
schedule as dry docks are temporarily unavailable when they are upgraded and replaced,
whether adequate resourcing has been provided to the managing program office to mitigate
the risk of construction cost increases, and how the Navy will meet its commitment to its
budget for these projects. The committee urges the Navy to incorporate these concerns into
the detailed planning process for planned implementation.
The recently revealed cost overrun of more than 150 percent for the multi-mission dry dock
project at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY) not only costs finite resources, it risks
unacceptable delays for a project that is essential for maintaining the submarine force.
Furthermore, delays in commencing or completing dry dock modernization will have a
great impact on our Nation’s national security. In the case of Joint Base Pearl Harbor
(JBPH), the older Dry Dock 3 will be filled in during the construction of the newer and
larger Dry Dock 5. The committee is concerned that with the last scheduled availability for
Dry Dock 3 in 2023 and with Dry Dock 5 not scheduled for completion until 2028, there
will be a significant lack of facilities to maintain fleet readiness.
Congressional Research Service

52

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

The committee is also concerned that the SIOP may not sufficiently account for the
differences between the Nation’s four historical public shipyards. Each shipyard has a
unique history, design, and local workforce with valuable knowledge of its respective
facilities that can help ensure the proper modernization and optimization of these facilities.
Rather than relying solely on a one-size-fits-all approach that is centralized without fully
considering local conditions, the committee urges the Navy’s SIOP program office to seek
more input and engagement from these local workforces and their installation leadership
to efficiently and effectively build and maintain shipyards that can sustain the fleet for
generations to come.
In order to ensure the Navy is appropriately managing the PNSY multi-mission dry dock
project, future JBPH dry dock, and the overall SIOP, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees not later than
October 1, 2021. The briefing shall include:
(1) A description of the cause(s) of the cost overrun at PNSY;
(2) Analysis on measures that could have mitigated the cause(s) of the overrun;
(3) A discussion on the need to revise cost and schedule projections for future SIOP
projects in light of the overrun;
(4) What steps the Navy is taking to incorporate the lessons learned from the overrun
to apply to future SIOP work;
(5) The impact of the current military construction timelines on JBPH shipyard
availabilities in each of the fiscal years from 2023 through 2029;
(6) A detailed plan of the construction timeline for JBPH Dry Dock 5 and
accompanying water front production facilities; and
(7) The planned utilization of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate
Maintenance Facility workforce during this same period if Dry Dock 5 is not
completed before the closure of Dry Dock 3. (Pages 135-137)
S.Rept. 117-39 also states
Study of expanding ship repair capacity
The committee is concerned the Navy is facing a fleet sustainment predicament without
clear solutions. Congressional and Navy leaders believe that the United States needs a fleet
of 355 or more battle force ships. However, the Navy has been unable to maintain and
modernize the fleet, which has had 300 or fewer ships, over the past 5 years due to
affordability challenges; the number of shipyards able to perform maintenance and
modernization work; and limitations within shipyards, including a paucity of dry docks.
The Navy has been executing a plan to modernize the Navy’s public shipyards called the
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP). While the SIOP effort is sorely
needed, it will not yield substantial increases in capacity sufficient to handle a larger fleet.
Furthermore, the committee is unaware of any Navy-identified alternatives on the scale
required to expand overall ship repair capacity to sustain a fleet of 355 or more ships.
Accordingly, the committee believes that the Navy needs to investigate more expansive
and, perhaps, non-traditional options for expanding the Nation’s ship repair capacity.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an analysis of
options for increasing ship repair capacity that would be necessary to support a fleet of 355
or more ships comprised of the optimal mix of ship types, including addressing the costs
and benefits of the following options:
(1) Expanding plant capacity at existing naval shipyards beyond the current SIOP
effort;
(2) Building new or re-opening closed naval shipyards;
Congressional Research Service

53

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

(3) Investing in modernization or expansion of private repair yard infrastructure;
(4) Modifying or relaxing restrictions on overseas maintenance of Navy vessels;
(5) Changing ship repair practices or processes to enhance existing capacity;
(6) Increasing technical competence of current naval shipyard workforce;
(7) Increasing or expanding the use of rolling admission for multiple-award
maintenance contracts;
(8) Increasing or expanding private repair activities at Navy bases; and
(9) Any other options the Secretary may identify.
The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report on this analysis not later than March
1, 2022, including recommendations for implementation and funding and any associated
legislative changes. (Page 138)
S.Rept. 117-39 also states
Comparative assessment of naval shipbuilding costs
The committee believes that one aspect of defense strategy implementation is a detailed
understanding of the relative purchasing power for similar weapons systems among the
great power competitors. To this end, the committee desires a better understanding of the
comparative costs of naval shipbuilding in the United States, China, and Russia.
Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit, not later than March
1, 2022, a report to the congressional defense committees on the comparative costs of naval
shipbuilding in the United States, China, and Russia. The report shall include a comparison
of the following costs in the United States, China, and Russia:
(1) The approximate end cost to construct an aircraft carrier, attack submarine, ballistic
missile submarine, large surface combatant, small surface combatant, and amphibious
ship. For each category of vessel, a description of the key quantitative and qualitative
differences of the vessels being assessed with associated cost implications shall be
included;
(2) The approximate cost of key commodities used in naval shipbuilding, including
one ton of steel;
(3) The approximate cost of key labor resources used in naval shipbuilding, including
one production labor hour, one electrician labor hour, and one design labor hour;
(4) The approximate cost of key combat subsystems used in naval vessels, including
air and missile defense radars, electronic warfare suites, anti-submarine capabilities,
and shipboard combat system software. For each category of subsystem, a description
of the key quantitative and qualitative differences of the subsystems being assessed
with associated cost implications shall be included;
(5) The approximate cost of key hull, mechanical, and electric subsystems used in
naval vessels, including main engines, electrical generators, shafting, and air
conditioning systems. For each category of subsystem, a description of the key
quantitative and qualitative differences of the subsystems being assessed with
associated cost implications shall be included; and
(6) Other cost drivers in naval shipbuilding, as identified by the Secretary, with the
associated costs.
The report shall be submitted in unclassified form and may include a classified annex.
(Pages 236-237)
Congressional Research Service

54

link to page 37 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

S.Rept. 117-39 also states
Forward deployed naval forces in Europe
The committee continues to support additional forward-basing of U.S. Navy destroyers in
Rota, Spain. The ships currently stationed in Spain are among the most dynamically-
employed assets of U.S. global maritime presence—performing ballistic missile defense
missions; carrying out strikes in Syria; boosting U.S. presence across the European theater
in support of allies and partners; and monitoring increasing Russian naval activities. At the
same time, these ships have maintained some of the highest readiness rates of ships in the
Navy, in part due to rigorous maintenance practices.
The committee is concerned that increasing Russian naval activity in the European theater,
which is at its highest level since the Cold War, presents a significant challenge to the
implementation of the National Defense Strategy in the European theater. The committee
is also aware of the significant advances in Russian naval capability, especially in undersea
warfare.
Due in part to these developments, the Commander, U.S. European Command, testified to
the committee in February 2020 that he supports increasing from four to six the number of
destroyers based in Rota, Spain. The Commander said that, based on the European
Deterrence Initiative investments, Rota, Spain, facilities could support two more destroyers
immediately. He also said that the two ships would ‘‘improve our ability to get indications
and warnings in the potential battle space and also dramatically improve our ability to
better command and control.’’ In March 2020, the Chief of Naval Operations also endorsed
the additional naval presence before the committee. The committee finds the arguments of
senior defense leadership to increase naval presence in Europe, and the mission flexibility
it would provide, compelling.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commander, U.S.
European Command, not later than 15 days after the fiscal year 2023 budget request is
submitted to the Congress, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives on the plan to base two additional destroyers
at Rota, Spain. This brief shall include a detailed explanation, by fiscal year, of actions and
the associated funding that will lead to the forward stationing of six destroyers based in
Rota as soon as practicable. (Pages 264-265)
Enacted
The joint explanatory statement for the FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1605/P.L.
117-81 of December 27, 2021) recommends the funding levels shown in the Enacted column of
Table 7. Among the recommended changes shown in the table, the joint explanatory statement
recommends funding for the procurement of two additional DDG-51 destroyers; two additional
expeditionary fast transport (EPF) ships; one additional TAO-205 oiler; two additional ship-to-
shore connectors (SSCs, i.e., next generation air-cushioned landing craft); and two auxiliary
sealift vessels (i.e., used sealift ships), or three fewer than the five auxiliary sealift vessels that
were requested.
Section 355 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 355. IMPROVED OVERSIGHT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SHIPYARD
INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM OF THE NAVY.
(a) UPDATED PLAN.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than September 30, 2022, the Secretary of the Navy shall
submit to the congressional defense committees an update to the plan of the Secretary for
implementation of the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program of the Department of
Congressional Research Service

55

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

the Navy, with the objective of providing increased transparency for the actual costs and
schedules associated with infrastructure optimization activities for shipyards covered by
such program.
(2) UPDATED COST ESTIMATES.—The updated plan required under paragraph (1)
shall include up dated cost estimates comprising the most recent costs of capital
improvement projects for each of the four public shipyards covered by the Shipyard
Infrastructure Optimization Program.
(b) BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Before the start of physical construction with respect to a covered
project, the Secretary of the Navy or a designee of the Secretary shall brief each of the
congressional defense committees on such project, regardless of the source of funding for
such project.
(2) WRITTEN INFORMATION.—Before conducting a briefing under paragraph (1) with
respect to a covered project, the Secretary of the Navy or a designee of the Secretary shall
submit to the congressional defense committees in writing the following information:
(A) An updated cost estimate for such project that—
(i) meets the standards of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering for a
Level 1 or Level 2 cost estimate; or
(ii) is an independent cost estimate.
(B) A schedule for such project that is comprehensive, well-constructed, credible, and
controlled pursuant to the Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project
Schedules (GAO–16–89G) set forth by the Comptroller General of the United States in
December 2015, or successor guide.
(C) An estimate of the likelihood that programmed and planned funds for such project will
be sufficient for the completion of the project.
(3) COVERED PROJECT DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘covered project’’
means a shipyard project under the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program—
(A) with a contract awarded on or after October 1, 2024; and
(B) valued at $250,000,000 or more.
(c) ANNUAL REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31, 2022, and not later than December 31
of each year thereafter, the Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command, in
coordination with the Program Manager Ships 555, shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report detailing the use by the Department of the Navy of funding
for all efforts associated with the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, including
the use of amounts made available by law to support the projects identified in the plan to
implement such program, including any update to such plan under subsection (a).
(2) ELEMENTS.—Each report required by paragraph (1) shall include updated cost and
schedule estimates—
(A) for the plan to implement the Shipyard Optimization Program, including any update to
such plan under subsection (a); and
(B) for each dry dock, major facility, and infrastructure project valued at $250,000,000 or
more under such program.
(d) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—
(1) REPORT.—
Congressional Research Service

56

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

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than May 1, 2023, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report on the progress of the Secretary of the Navy in implementing the
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, including—
(i) the progress of the Secretary in completing the first annual report required under such
program; and
(ii) the cost and schedule estimates for full implementation of such program.
(B) ELEMENTS.—The report required by subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
(i) An assessment of the extent to which the cost estimate for the updated optimization plan
for the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program is consistent with leading practices
for cost estimation.
(ii) An assessment of the extent to which the project schedule for such program is
comprehensive, well-constructed, credible, and controlled.
(iii) An assessment of whether programmed and planned funds for a project under such
program will be sufficient for the completion of the project.
(iv) Such other related matters as the Comptroller General considers appropriate.
(2) INITIAL BRIEFING.—Not later than April 1, 2023, the Comptroller General shall
brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the preliminary findings of the report under paragraph (1).
Section 362 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 362. ANNUAL REPORT ON MATERIAL READINESS OF NAVY SHIPS.
Section 8674(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)—
(A) by striking ‘‘submit to the’’ and inserting ‘‘provide to the’’;
(B) by inserting ‘‘a briefing and submit to such committees’’ after ‘‘congressional defense
committees’’; and
(C) by striking ‘‘setting forth’’ and inserting ‘‘regarding’’;
(2) in paragraph (2)—
(A) by striking ‘‘in an unclassified form that is releasable to the public without further
redaction.’’ and inserting ‘‘in—’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
‘‘(A) a classified form; and
‘‘(B) an unclassified form that is releasable to the public without further redaction.’’; and
(3) by striking paragraph (3).
Regarding Section 362, the joint explanatory statement states
Annual report on material readiness of Navy ships (sec. 362)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 363) that would amend section 8674 of title 10,
United States Code, to make permanent the requirement for an annual report to the
congressional defense committees on the material readiness of Navy ships.
The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec.373).
Congressional Research Service

57

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

The agreement includes the House provision with an amendment that would remove the
requirement that the classified form of the report only be made available to the
congressional defense committees.
We understand that based on the Navy’s investigation into the USS Bonhomme Richard
fire the Chief of Naval Operations intends to restructure the Naval Safety Center into the
Naval Safety Command with a more senior flag officer in command and a mandate to
ensure safety best practices and lessons learned are more fully incorporated across the
Navy.
Accordingly, we direct the Chief of Naval Operations to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later
than March 1, 2022, on the roles and responsibilities of the Naval Safety Command. This
briefing shall include an assessment of the appropriateness of such Command, or another
command, to conduct minimal or no-notice inspections of battle force ships undergoing
depot maintenance for compliance with applicable safety, firefighting, and other
procedures. (PDF page 50 of 670)
Section 379 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 379. MANAGEMENT OF FATIGUE AMONG CREW OF NAVAL SURFACE
SHIPS AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of the Navy shall implement each recommendation
for executive action set forth in the report of the Government Accountability Office titled
‘‘Navy Readiness: Additional Efforts Are Needed to Manage Fatigue, Reduce Crewing
Shortfalls, and Implement Training’’ (GAO–21–366).
(b) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees and the
Comptroller General a report on the status of actions taken by the Secretary to monitor
crew fatigue and ensure equitable fatigue management throughout the naval surface ship
fleet in accordance with subsection (a). Such report shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the extent of crew fatigue throughout the naval surface ship fleet.
(2) A description of the metrics used to assess the extent of fatigue pursuant to paragraph
(1).
(3) An identification of results-oriented goals for effective fatigue management.
(4) An identification of timeframes for achieving the goals identified pursuant to paragraph
(3).
Section 816 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 816. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OF WELDED SHIPBOARD ANCHOR
AND MOORING CHAIN FOR NAVAL VESSELS.
Section 2534 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘‘(F) Welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain.’’; and
(2) in subsection (b)—
(A) by striking ‘‘A manufacturer’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), a manufacturer’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
Congressional Research Service

58

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

‘‘(2) A manufacturer of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain for naval vessels
meets the requirements of this subsection if the manufacturer is part of the national
technology and industrial base.’’
Section 877 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 877. REPORT ON REQUESTS FOR EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT IN
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report describing in detail the processing of requests for equitable adjustment by the
Department of the Navy between October 1, 2011, and the date of the enactment of this
Act, including progress by components within the Department of the Navy in complying
with the covered directive.
(b) CONTENTS.—The report required under subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum,
the following:
(1) The number of requests for equitable adjustment submitted between October 1, 2011,
and the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The components within the Department of the Navy to which each such request was
submitted.
(3) The number of requests for equitable adjustment outstanding as of the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(4) The number of requests for equitable adjustment settled but not paid as of the date of
the enactment of this Act, including a description of why each such request has not been
paid.
(5) A detailed explanation of the efforts by the Secretary of the Navy to ensure compliance
of components within the Department of the Navy with the covered directive.
(c) COVERED DIRECTIVE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered directive’’
means the directive of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition, dated March 20, 2020, and titled ‘‘(Intent and Direction) Withholds and
Retentions During COVID-19’’ requiring—
(1) payment to contractors of all settled requests for equitable adjustment; and
(2) the expeditious resolution of all outstanding requests for equitable adjustment.
Section 1011 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1011. MODIFICATION TO ANNUAL NAVAL VESSEL CONSTRUCTION
PLAN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(2), by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
‘‘(G) The expected service life of each vessel in the naval vessel force provided for under
the naval vessel construction plan, disaggregated by ship class, and the rationale for any
changes to such expectations from the previous year’s plan.
‘‘(H) A certification by the appropriate Senior Technical Authority designated under
section 8669b of this title of the expected service life of each vessel in the naval vessel
force provided for under the naval vessel construction plan, disaggregated by ship class,
and the rationale for any changes to such expectations from the previous year’s plan.
‘‘(I) For each battle force ship planned to be inactivated during the five-year period
beginning on the date of the submittal of the report, a description of the planned disposition
Congressional Research Service

59

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

of each such ship following such inactivation and the potential gaps in warfighting
capability that will result from such ship being removed from service.’’; and
(2) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(6) The term ‘expected service life’ means the number of years a naval vessel is expected
to be in service.’’.
(b) REPEAL OF TERMINATION OF ANNUAL NAVAL VESSEL CONSTRUCTION
PLAN.—Section 1061(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114–328; 10 U.S.C. 111 note) is amended by striking paragraph (15).
Section 1012 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC.
1012.
IMPROVING
OVERSIGHT
OF
NAVY
CONTRACTS
FOR
SHIPBUILDING, CONVERSION, AND REPAIR.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 805 title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:
‘‘§ 8039. Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command for the Supervision of
Ship building, Conversion, and Repair
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Navy shall establish and appoint an individual
to the position of Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command for the
Supervision of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair (in this section referred to as the
‘Deputy Commander’).
‘‘(b) QUALIFICATIONS.—The Deputy Commander shall be a flag officer of the Navy
or an employee of the Navy in a Senior Executive Service position who possesses the
expertise required to carry out the responsibilities specified in this section.
‘‘(c) REPORTING.—The Deputy Commander shall report directly to the Commander of
the Naval Sea Systems Command.
‘‘(d) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Deputy Commander shall oversee—
‘‘(1) the independent administration and management of the execution of Department of
Defense contracts awarded to commercial entities for ship building, conversion, and repair
at the facilities of such entities;
‘‘(2) the designated contract administration office of the Department responsible for
performing contract administration services for such contracts;
‘‘(3) enforcement of requirements of such contracts to ensure satisfaction of all contractual
obligations;
‘‘(4) the work performed on such contracts to facilitate greater quality and economy in the
products and services being procured; and
‘‘(5) on-site quality assurance by the Government for such contracts, including inspections.
‘‘(e) NON-CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FUNCTIONS.—The Deputy
Commander shall manage the complexities and unique demands of shipbuilding,
conversion, and repair by overseeing the performance of the following non-contract
administration services functions for Navy Program Executives Offices, fleet commanders,
and the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters:
‘‘(1) Project oversight, including the following:
‘‘(A) Coordinating responses to non-contractual emergent problems, as assigned by the
Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command.
‘‘(B) Jointly coordinating activities of precommissioning crews and ship’s force, and other
Government activities.
Congressional Research Service

60

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

‘‘(C) Communicating with customers and higher authority regarding matters that may
affect project execution.
‘‘(D) Contract planning and procurement, including participation in acquisition planning
and pre-award activities, including assessment of contractor qualifications.
‘‘(2) Technical authority, including the following:
‘‘(A) Execution of the technical authority responsibilities by the Waterfront Chief
Engineer.
‘‘(B) Execution of the waterfront technical authority responsibilities of the Naval Sea
Systems Command for providing Government direction and coordination in the resolution
of technical issues.
‘‘(f) COMPREHENSIVE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT.—The Deputy Commander
shall maintain direct relationships with the Director of the Defense Contract Management
Agency and the Director of the Defense ContractAudit Agency to facilitate comprehensive
contract management and oversight of commercial entities awarded a contract described in
subsection (d)(1) and subcontractors (at any tier).
‘‘(g) SUBCONTRACTOR AUDITS.—The Deputy Commander shall request that the
Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency perform periodic audits of subcontractors
that perform cost-type subcontracts or incentive subcontracts—
‘‘(1) that are valued at $50,000,000 or more; and
‘‘(2) for which the Deputy Commander oversees the designated contract administration
office of the Department pursuant to subsection (d)(2).
‘‘(h) ANNUAL WRITTEN ASSESSMENT.—(1) Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Deputy Commander shall submit to the congressional defense committees a written
assessment summarizing the activities and results associated with the contracts for which
the Deputy Commander oversees the designated contract administration office of the
Department.
‘‘(2) Each written assessment required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
‘‘(A) A summary of shipbuilding performance that—
‘‘(i) includes common critical process metrics documented by the appropriate Navy
supervisor of shipbuilding, conversion, and repair for each commercial entity described in
subsection (d)(1);
‘‘(ii) outlines corrective action requests for critical defects and any actions planned or taken
to address them;
‘‘(iii) indicates waivers approved to support acceptance trials, combined trials, and Navy
acceptance of ship delivery from the commercial entity described in subsection (d)(1), to
include the conditions requiring the approval of each waiver; and
‘‘(iv) includes information on the extent to which letters of delegation are used for each
shipbuilding program to provide for quality assurance oversight of subcontractors (at any
tier) by the Defense Contract Management Agency.
‘‘(B) A summary of any significant deficiencies in contractor business systems or other
significant contract discrepancies documented by the appropriate Navy supervisor of
shipbuilding, conversion, and repair, the Defense Contract Management Agency, or the
Defense Contract Audit Agency for such contracts, and any actions planned or taken in
response.
‘‘(C) A summary of the results from audits and inspections completed by Naval Sea
Systems Command that evaluate the performance of the appropriate Navy supervisor of
Congressional Research Service

61

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

shipbuilding, conversion, and repair in executing their quality assurance and contract
administration responsibilities.
‘‘(D) A summary of any dedicated evaluation, such as a review by a task force or working
group, of the organizational structure and resourcing plans and requirements that support
the supervision of shipbuilding, conversion, and repair, that—
‘‘(i) includes key findings, recommendations, and implementation plans; and
‘‘(ii) indicates any additional support needed from other organizations of the Department,
such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Contract Management
Agency, for implementation.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 805
of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8039. Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command for the Supervision of
Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—On the date that is 30 days after the date of enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023—
(1) this section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect; and
(2) the Secretary of the Navy shall appoint an individual to the position of Deputy
Commander of the Naval Sea Systems Command for the Super vision of Shipbuilding,
Conversion, and Repair and notify the congressional defense committees of such
appointment.
Section 1013 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1013. CODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR ASSESSMENTS PRIOR TO
START OF CONSTRUCTION ON FIRST SHIP OF A SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 863 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 8669b the following new section:
‘‘§ 8669c. Assessments required prior to start of construction on first ship of a shipbuilding
program
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Navy may not approve the start of construction
of the first ship for any major shipbuilding program until a period of 30 days has elapsed
following the date on which the Secretary—
‘‘(1) submits a report to the congressional defense committees on the results of any
production readiness review;
‘‘(2) certifies to the congressional defense committees that the findings of any such review
support commencement of construction; and
‘‘(3) certifies to the congressional defense committees that the basic and functional design
of the vessel is complete.
‘‘(b) REPORT.—The report required by subsection (a)(1) shall include, at a minimum, an
assessment of each of the following:
‘‘(1) The maturity of the ship’s design, as measured by stability of the ship contract
specifications and the degree of completion of detail design and production design
drawings.
‘‘(2) The maturity of developmental command and control systems, weapon and sensor
systems, and hull, mechanical and electrical systems.
‘‘(3) The readiness of the shipyard facilities and workforce to begin construction.
Congressional Research Service

62

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

‘‘(4) The Navy’s estimated cost at completion and the adequacy of the budget to support
the estimate.
‘‘(5) The Navy’s estimated delivery date and description of any variance to the contract
delivery date.
‘‘(6) The extent to which adequate processes and metrics are in place to measure and
manage program risks.
‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of subsection (a):
‘‘(1) BASIC AND FUNCTIONAL DESIGN.—The term ‘basic and functional design’,
when used with respect to a vessel, means design through computer aided models, that—
‘‘(A) fixes the major hull structure of the vessel;
‘‘(B) sets the hydrodynamics of the vessel; and
‘‘(C) routes major portions of all distributive systems of the vessel, including electricity,
water, and other utilities.
‘‘(2) FIRST SHIP.—The term ‘first ship’ applies to a ship if—
‘‘(A) the ship is the first ship to be constructed under that shipbuilding program; or
‘‘(B) the shipyard at which the ship is to be constructed has not previously started
construction on a ship under that shipbuilding program.
‘‘(3) MAJOR SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM.—The term ‘major shipbuilding program’
means a program for the construction of combatant and support vessels required for the
naval vessel force, as reported within the annual naval vessel construction plan required by
section 231 of this title.
‘‘(4) PRODUCTION READINESS REVIEW.—The term ‘production readiness review’
means a formal examination of a program prior to the start of construction to determine if
the design is ready for production, production engineering problems have been resolved,
and the producer has accomplished adequate planning for the production phase.
‘‘(5) START OF CONSTRUCTION.—The term ‘start of construction’ means the
beginning of fabrication of the hull and superstructure of the ship.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8669b the following new item:
‘‘8669c. Assessments required prior to start of construction on first ship of a shipbuilding
program.’’.
(c) CONFORMING REPEAL.—Section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 28; 10 U.S.C. 8661 note) is repealed.
Section 1014 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1014. LIMITATION ON DECOMMISSIONING OR INACTIVATING A BATTLE
FORCE SHIP BEFORE THE END OF EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 863 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 8678 the following new section:
‘‘§ 8678a. Limitation on decommissioning or inactivating a battle force ship before the end
of expected service life
‘‘(a) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of the Navy may not decommission or inactivate a
battle force ship before the end of the expected service life of the ship.
Congressional Research Service

63

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

‘‘(b) WAIVER.—The Secretary of the Navy may waive the limitation under subsection (a)
with respect to a battle force ship if—
‘‘(1) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees the certification
described in subsection (c) with respect to such ship; and
‘‘(2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date on which such certification was
submitted.
‘‘(c) CERTIFICATION DESCRIBED.—A certification described in this subsection is a
certification that—
‘‘(1)(A) maintaining the battle force ship in a reduced operating status is not feasible;
‘‘(B) maintaining the ship with reduced capability is not feasible;
‘‘(C) maintaining the ship as a Navy Reserve unit is not feasible;
‘‘(D) transferring the ship to the Coast Guard is not feasible; and
‘‘(E) maintaining the ship is not required to support the most recent national defense
strategy required by section 113(g) of this title; and
‘‘(2) includes an explanation of—
‘‘(A) the options assessed and the rationale for the determinations under subparagraphs (A)
through (D) of paragraph (1); and
‘‘(B) the rationale for the determination under subparagraph (E) of such paragraph.
‘‘(d) FORM.—A certification submitted under subsection (b) shall be submitted in
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
‘‘(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) The term ‘battle force ship’ means the following:
‘‘(A) A commissioned United States Ship
warship capable of contributing to combat operations.
‘‘(B) A United States Naval Ship that contributes directly to Navy warfighting or support
missions.
‘‘(2) The term ‘expected service life’ means the number of years a naval vessel is expected
to be in service.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 863
of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8678 the following
new item:
‘‘8678a. Limitation on decommissioning or inactivating a battle force ship before the end
of expected service life.’’.
Section 1015 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1015. BIENNIAL REPORT ON SHIPBUILDER TRAINING AND THE DEFENSE
INDUSTRIAL BASE.
(a) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—The second section 8692 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by section 1026 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116–283), is redesignated as section
8693 and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 863 of such title is conformed
accordingly.
(b) MODIFICATION OF REPORT.—Such section is fur ther amended—
Congressional Research Service

64

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

(1) by striking ‘‘Not later’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later’’;
(2) in subsection (a), as so redesignated, by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(7) An analysis of the potential benefits of multi-year procurement contracting for the
stability of the shipbuilding defense industrial base.’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sub section:
‘‘(b) SOLICITATION AND ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION.—In order to carry out
subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Labor shall—
‘‘(1) solicit information regarding the age demographics and occupational experience level
from the private shipyards of the shipbuilding defense industrial base; and
‘‘(2) analyze such information for findings relevant to carrying out subsection (a)(2),
including findings related to the current and projected defense shipbuilding workforce,
current and projected labor needs, and the readiness of the current and projected workforce
to supply the proficiencies analyzed in subsection (a)(1).’’.
Section 1016 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1016. ANNUAL REPORT ON SHIP MAINTENANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 863 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 8694. Annual report on ship maintenance
‘‘(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than October 15 of each year, the Secretary of the
Navy shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report setting forth each of the following:
‘‘(1) A description of all ship maintenance planned for the fiscal year during which the
report is submitted, by hull.
‘‘(2) The estimated cost of the maintenance described pursuant to paragraph (1).
‘‘(3) A summary of all ship maintenance conducted by the Secretary during the previous
fiscal year.
‘‘(4) A detailed description of any ship maintenance that was deferred during the previous
fiscal year, including specific reasons for the delay or cancellation of any availability.
‘‘(5) A detailed description of the effect of each of the planned ship maintenance actions
that were delayed or cancelled during the previous fiscal year, including—
‘‘(A) a summary of the effects on the costs and schedule for each delay or cancellation;
and
‘‘(B) the accrued operational and fiscal cost of all the deferments over the fiscal year.
‘‘(b) FORM OF REPORT.— Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall be submitted
in unclassified form and made publicly available on an appropriate internet website in a
searchable format, but may contain a classified annex.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘8694. Annual report on ship maintenance.’’.
Section 1017 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1017. NAVY BATTLE FORCE SHIP ASSESSMENT AND REQUIREMENT
REPORTING.
Congressional Research Service

65

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

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 863 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section
1023, is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘SEC. 8695. NAVY BATTLE FORCE SHIP ASSESSMENT AND REQUIREMENT
REPORTING.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which a covered event
occurs, the Chief of Naval Operations shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a battle force ship assessment and requirement.
‘‘(b) ASSESSMENT.—Each assessment required by subsection (a) shall include the
following:
‘‘(1) A review of the strategic guidance of the Federal Government, the Department of
Defense, and the Navy for identifying priorities, missions, objectives, and principles, in
effect as of the date on which the assessment is submitted, that the force structure of the
Navy must follow.
‘‘(2) An identification of the steady-state demand for maritime security and security force
assistance activities.
‘‘(3) An identification of the force options that can satisfy the steady-state demands for
activities required by theater campaign plans of combatant commanders.
‘‘(4) A force optimization analysis that produces a day-to-day global posture required to
accomplish peacetime and steady-state tasks assigned by combatant commanders.
‘‘(5) A modeling of the ability of the force to fight and win scenarios approved by the
Department of Defense.
‘‘(6) A calculation of the number and global posture of each force element required to meet
steady-state presence demands and warfighting response timelines.
‘‘(c) REQUIREMENT.—(1) Each requirement required by subsection (a) shall—
‘‘(A) be based on the assessment required by subsection (b); and
‘‘(B) identify, for each of the fiscal years that are five, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years from
the date of the covered event—
‘‘(i) the total number of battle force ships required;
‘‘(ii) the number of battle force ships required in each of the categories described in
paragraph (2);
‘‘(iii) the classes of battle force ships included in each of the categories described in
paragraph (2); and
‘‘(iv) the number of battle force ships required in each class.
‘‘(2) The categories described in this paragraph are the following:
‘‘(A) Aircraft carriers.
‘‘(B) Large surface combatants.
‘‘(C) Small surface combatants.
‘‘(D) Amphibious warfare ships.
‘‘(E) Attack submarines.
‘‘(F) Ballistic missile submarines.
‘‘(G) Combat logistics force.
‘‘(H) Expeditionary fast transport.
Congressional Research Service

66

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

‘‘(I) Expeditionary support base.
‘‘(J) Command and support.
‘‘(K) Other.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
‘‘(1) The term ‘battle force ship’ means the following:
‘‘(A) A commissioned United States Ship warship capable of contributing to combat
operations.
‘‘(B) A United States Naval Ship that contributes directly to Navy warfighting or support
missions.
‘‘(2) The term ‘covered event’ means a significant change to any of the following:
‘‘(A) Strategic guidance that results in changes to theater campaign plans or warfighting
scenarios.
‘‘(B) Strategic laydown of vessels or aircraft that affects sustainable peacetime presence or
warfighting response timelines.
‘‘(C) Operating concepts, including employment cycles, crewing constructs, or operational
tempo limits, that affect peacetime presence or warfighting response timelines.
‘‘(D) Assigned missions that affect the type or quantity of force elements.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 863
of such title is further amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8695. Navy battle force ship assessment and requirement reporting.’’.
(c) BASELINE ASSESSMENT AND REQUIREMENT REQUIRED.—The date of the
enactment of this Act is deemed to be a covered event for the purposes of establishing a
baseline battle force ship assessment and requirement under section 8695 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a).
Section 1018 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1018. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR RETIREMENT OF MARK VI
PATROL BOATS.
(a) PROHIBITION.—None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2022 for the Navy may be obligated or expended
to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any Mark VI patrol boat.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than February 15, 2022, the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation
with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report that includes each of the following:
(1) The rationale for the retirement of existing Mark VI patrol boats, including an
operational analysis of the effect of such retirements on the warfighting requirements of
the commanders of each of the combatant commands.
(2) A review of how the Fifth Fleet requirements, which are currently being met by Mark
VI patrol boats, will continue to be met without such boats, including an evaluation of the
cumulative effect of eliminating Mark VI patrol boats in addition to other recent reductions
in Navy riverine force structure, such as riverine command boats, in the theater.
(3) An update on the implementation of the corrective actions and lessons learned from the
Navy’s investigation of the January 12, 2016, incident in which 10 United States sailors
were detained by Iranian forces near Farsi Island, the extent to which retiring existing Mark
Congressional Research Service

67

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

VI patrol boats will affect such implementation, and how such implementation will be
sustained in the absence of Mark VI patrol boats.
(4) A review of operating concepts for escorting high value units without Mark VI patrol
boats.
(5) A description of the manner and concept of operations in which the Marine Corps could
use Mark VI patrol boats to support distributed maritime operations, advanced
expeditionary basing operations, and persistent presence near maritime choke points and
strategic littorals in the Indo-Pacific region.
(6) An assessment of the potential for modification, and the associated costs, of the Mark
VI patrol boat for the inclusion of loitering munitions or anti-ship cruise missiles, such as
the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile and the Naval Strike Missile, particularly to support the
concept of operations described in paragraph (5).
(7) A description of resources required for the Marine Corps to possess, man, train, and
maintain Mark VI patrol boats in the performance of the concept of operations described
in paragraph (5) and modifications described in paragraph (6).
(8) A determination of whether the Marine Corps should take possession of the Mark VI
patrol boats effective on or before September 30, 2022.
(9) Such other matters the Secretary deter mines appropriate.
Section 1019 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1019. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RETIREMENT OR INACTIVATION OF
GUIDED MISSILE CRUISERS.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2022 for the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended to retire,
prepare to retire, inactivate, or place in storage more than 5 guided missile cruisers.
Section 1020 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1020. REVIEW OF SUSTAINMENT KEY PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
FOR SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall initiate a review of the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System policy related to the setting of sustainment key
performance parameters and key system attributes for shipbuilding programs to ensure
such parameters and attributes account for a comprehensive range of factors that could
affect the operational availability and materiel availability of a ship. Such review shall
include the extent to which—
(1) the term ‘‘operational availability’’ should be redefined by mission area and to include
equipment failures that affect the ability of a ship to perform primary missions; and
(2) the term ‘‘materiel availability’’ should be redefined to take into account factors that
could result in a ship being unavailable for operations, including unplanned maintenance,
unplanned losses, and training.
Section 1021 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1021. ASSESSMENT OF SECURITY OF GLOBAL MARITIME CHOKEPOINTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the
security of global maritime chokepoints from the threat of hostile kinetic attacks, cyber
disruptions, and other form of sabotage. The report shall include an assessment of each of
the following with respect to each global maritime chokepoint covered by the report:
Congressional Research Service

68

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

(1) The expected length of time and resources required for operations to resume at the
chokepoint in the event of attack, sabotage, or other disruption of regular maritime
operations.
(2) The security of any secondary chokepoint that could be affected by a disruption at the
global maritime chokepoint.
(3) Options to mitigate any vulnerabilities resulting from a hostile kinetic attack, cyber
disruption, or other form of sabotage at the chokepoint.
(b) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in
unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
(c) GLOBAL MARITIME CHOKEPOINT.—In this section, the term ‘‘global maritime
chokepoint’’ means any of the following:
(1) The Panama Canal.
(2) The Suez Canal.
(3) The Strait of Malacca.
(4) The Strait of Hormuz.
(5) The Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
(6) Any other chokepoint determined appropriate by the Secretary.
Section 1022 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1022. REPORT ON ACQUISITION, DELIVERY, AND USE OF MOBILITY
ASSETS THAT ENABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF EXPEDITIONARY ADVANCED
BASE OPERATIONS.
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report that includes a detailed description of each of the following:
(1) The doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and
facilities required to operate and maintain a force of 24 to 35 Light Amphibious Warships,
including—
(A) the estimated timeline for procuring and delivering such warships;
(B) the estimated cost to procure, man, train, operate, maintain, and modernize such
warships for each of the 10 years following the year in which the report is submitted,
together with the notional Department of Defense appropriations account associated with
each such cost; and
(C) the feasibility of accelerating the cur rent Light Amphibius Warship procurement plan
and delivery schedule.
(2) The specific number, type, and mix of manned and unmanned platforms required to
support distributed maritime operations and expeditionary advanced base operations.
(3) The feasibility of Marine Littoral Regiments using other joint and interagency mobility
platforms prior to, in addition to, or in lieu of the operational availability of Light
Amphibious Warships, including—
(A) Army LCU-2000, Runnymede-class and General Frank S. Besson-class logistics
support vessels;
(B) Navy LCU-1610 or LCU-1700, Landing Craft Air Cushioned, and Ship-to-Shore
Connector vessels;
Congressional Research Service

69

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

(C) commercial vessel options that—
(i) are available as of the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(ii) meet Marine Littoral Regiment requirements for movement, maneuver, sustainment,
training, interoperability, and cargo capacity and delivery;
(D) maritime prepositioning force vessels; and
(E) Coast Guard vessels.
(4) The specific number, type, and mix of long range unmanned surface vessel platforms
required to support distributed maritime operations, expeditionary advanced base
operations, along with their operational interaction with the warfighting capabilities of the
fleet, including—
(A) the estimated timeline for procuring and delivering such platforms; and
(B) the estimated cost to procure, man, train, operate, maintain, and modernize such
platforms for each of the 10 years following the year in which the report is submitted,
together with the notional Department of Defense appropriations account associated with
each such cost.
(5) The feasibility of integrating Marine Littoral Regiments with—
(A) special operations activities;
(B) joint and interagency planning;
(C) information warfare operations; and
(D) command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance, and security cooperation activities.
(6) The projected cost and timeline for deploying Marine Littoral Regiments, including—
(A) the extent to which such regiments will deploy with the capabilities listed in paragraphs
(1) through (5) during each of the 10 years following the year in which the report is
submitted; and
(B) options to accelerate such deployments or increase the capabilities of such regiments
if additional resources are available, together with a description of such resources.
(b) FORM OF REPORT.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in a
publicly accessible, unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.
Section 1053 of S. 1605/P.L. 117-81 states
SEC. 1053. NAVY COORDINATION WITH COAST GUARD AND SPACE FORCE
ON AIRCRAFT, WEAPONS, TACTICS, TECHNIQUE, ORGANIZATION, AND
EQUIPMENT OF JOINT CONCERN.
Section 8062(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘the Coast Guard,
the Space Force,’’ after ‘‘the Air Force,’’.64

64 10 U.S.C. 8062(d) as of December 8, 2021, states: “(d) The Navy shall develop aircraft, weapons, tactics, technique,
organization, and equipment of naval combat and service elements. Matters of joint concern as to these functions shall
be coordinated between the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy.”
Congressional Research Service

70

link to page 37 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

FY2022 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 4432/S. XXXX)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 117-88 of July 15, 2021) on H.R.
4432, recommended the funding levels shown in the HAC column of Table 7.
Among the recommended changes shown in the table, the committee is recommending funding
for the procurement of one additional DDG-51 destroyer and funding for the procurement of one
TATS towing, salvage, and rescue ship (one less than the two TATS ships that were requested).
Section 8095 of H.R. 4432 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 8095. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act for ‘‘Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy’’, $299,900,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2026, may
be used for the purchase of five used sealift vessels for the National Defense Reserve Fleet,
established under section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (46 U.S.C. 57100):
Provided, That such amounts are available for reimbursements to the Ready Reserve Force,
Maritime Administration account of the United States Department of Transportation for
programs, projects, activities, and expenses related to the National Defense Reserve Fleet:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 2218 of title 10, United States Code, none
of these funds shall be transferred to the National Defense Sealift Fund for execution.
Section 8104 of H.R. 4432 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 8104. None of the funds provided in this Act for requirements development,
performance specification development, concept design and development, ship con
figuration development, systems engineering, naval architecture, marine engineering,
operations research analysis, industry studies, preliminary design, development of the
Detailed Design and Construction Request for Proposals solicitation package, or related
activities for the AS(X) Submarine Tender, T–ARC(X) Cable Laying and Repair Ship, or
T–AGOS(X) Oceanographic Surveillance Ship may be used to award a new contract for
such activities unless these contracts include specifications that all auxiliary equipment,
including pumps and propulsion shafts are manufactured in the United States.
Section 8105 of H.R. 4432 as reported by the committee states
SEC. 8105. None of the funds made available by this Act may be obligated or expended
for the purpose of decommissioning the [Littoral Combat Ships] USS Fort Worth [LCS-
3], the USS Detroit [LCS-7], or the USS Little Rock [LCS-9].
Regarding Section 8105, H.Rept. 117-88 states
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIPS
The Committee recommendation includes a general provision [Section 8105] which allows
for the decommissioning of only the USS Coronado [LCS-4]. The Committee is
disappointed that the Navy has planned to decommission two ships, the USS Detroit [LCS-
7] and the USS Little Rock [LCS-9], that are five and four years old, respectively. The
Committee believes this is a misuse of taxpayer funds and directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after the
enactment of this Act on specific plans and missions for the USS Fort Worth [LCS-3], the
USS Detroit, and the USS Little Rock in the fiscal year 2023 budget request. (Page 8)
H.Rept. 117-88 also states
SHIPYARD DOMESTIC INDUSTRIAL BASE
The Committee supports the Navy’s efforts to procure domestically sourced industrial and
marine gear drives, motors, and generators; industrial cranes; and associated maintenance
Congressional Research Service

71

link to page 37 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

and installation services for use in Navy public shipyards. The Committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study examining the economic impact on domestic
suppliers and their supply chains that would arise from the application of a domestic
content requirement to manufactured articles, materials, supplies, and services. The
Secretary of the Navy shall prioritize critical items, including but not limited to those
previously mentioned, for executing construction at the four shipyards under the Shipyard
Infrastructure Optimization Program. The analysis shall include possible expansion of Buy
America laws to the prioritized procurements. The Committee further directs the Secretary
of the Navy to provide a report on the study’s findings to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. (Pages 9-10)
H.Rept. 117-88 also states
ICEBREAKERS
The Committee understands that the Coast Guard is expanding its fleet of polar icebreakers
but is disappointed that the Navy has not also considered purchasing either new or used
icebreakers. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act
which details the Navy’s plan to address this capability requirement in fiscal year 2022 and
the future years defense program. (Page 186)65
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in the explanatory statement it released on October 18,
2021, for the FY2022 DOD Appropriations Act (S. XXXX), recommended the funding levels
shown in the SAC column of Table 7.
Among the recommended changes shown in the table, the committee is recommending funding
for the procurement of one additional DDG-51 destroyer, one additional Expeditionary Sea Base
(ESB) ship, two additional Expeditionary Fast Transport ships (EPFs) (one of which is to be built
as an emergency medical ship [EMS] variant), and three additional ship-to-shore connector (SSC)
landing craft. (PDF page 106 of 253)
The explanatory statement for S. XXXX that the committee released on October 18, 2021, states
BUDGETING for NAVY MODERNIZATION
In the fiscal year 2022 budget request, the Navy proposed to break the multi-year
procurement contract [MYP] for the DDG–51 Destroyer, while simultaneously requesting
that Congress appropriate the necessary additional funds for that Destroyer in the amount
of $1,659,200,000 by listing it as its top unfunded priority. The Committee notes that this
five-year MYP was authorized by the congressional defense committees in fiscal year 2018
at the request of the Navy, certified by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and
Sustainment), and with cost estimates provided by the Director, Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation [CAPE]. Failure to fully budget for this MYP, therefore, implies a lack
of understanding of the full five-year funding requirements, and creates an unnecessary
risk to the predictable and stable funding required for this MYP.
The Committee is concerned that this continues a trend by the Navy to submit budgets to
the Congress that deliberately underfund programs deemed by the Navy to be critical, with
the expectation that the congressional appropriations committees will restore funds for
these programs within the budget allocation for the Department of Defense. For instance,
in fiscal year 2021, the Navy’s budget request underfunded the MYP for the VIRGINIA
Class submarine that had been authorized in fiscal year 2018, requiring the congressional

65 For more on the Coast Guard’s icebreaker acquisition program, see CRS Report RL34391, Coast Guard Polar
Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

72

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

appropriations committees to provide approximately $2,600,000,000 in additional funds
for this MYP.
As a result of these repeated budgetary maneuvers, the Committee questions whether the
Navy’s budget requests accurately reflect the service’s most important priorities. This is
particularly concerning given the Navy’s plans to initiate and ramp up several major
acquisition programs in the near-term, including the COLUMBIA Class submarine, the
Next Generation Air Dominance Family of Systems, the DDG(X) Destroyer, FFG, and
SSN(X). At the same time, the Navy is struggling to manage cost on several major
acquisition programs, including the COLUMBIA Class submarine, certain subsea and
seabed warfare programs, and the TAO fleet oiler, revealing significant cost increases for
each of these programs in the fiscal year 2022 budget submission.
The Committee directs the Comptroller General to review the Department of the Navy’s
and the CAPE’s processes for identifying and budgeting funds required to fully fund MYPs
during the Departments’ programming, planning, and budgeting processes and to report
back to the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days after enactment of this
act. This report shall include an analysis on treatment of MYP funds for Navy programs in
the fiscal year 2021 and fiscal year 2022 President’s budget submissions. (PDF pages 6-7
of 253)
The explanatory statement also states
Land-Based Testing.—The fiscal year 2022 President’s budget request includes funds for
no less than five different land-based test enterprises in support of four Navy acquisition
programs, to include the Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel program, the Large
Unmanned Surface Vessel program, the Next-Generation Guided-Missile destroyer
program, and the CONSTELLATION Class program.
The Committee recognizes the value of, and supports, land-based testing to demonstrate
maturity of critical technologies for major Navy acquisition programs prior to construction;
however, the Committee is concerned by an apparent lack of coordination among the
multitude of efforts, as well as the potential for disconnects between the land-based test
sites and the acquisition programs they support, and recommends several adjustments, as
detailed in the table of Committee Recommended Adjustments accompanying this section.
Further, the Committee believes that costs to establish and operate land-based test sites
should be included in programs’ acquisition costs estimates up front. (PDF page 178 of
253)

Congressional Research Service

73

link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 78 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 link to page 79 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix A. Earlier Navy Force-Structure Goals
Dating Back to 2001
The table below shows earlier Navy force-structure goals dating back to 2001. The 308-ship
force-level goal of March 2015, shown in the first column of the table, is the goal that was
replaced by the 355-ship force-level goal released in December 2016.
Table A-1. Earlier Navy Force-Structure Goals Dating Back to 2001
Changes
Early-2005
2002-
to
Navy goal
2004
2001
~310-
Revised
February
February
for fleet of
Navy QDR
308-
306-
316
313-ship
2006 313-
2006
260-325
goal
goal
ship
ship
ship
goal of
ship goal
Navy
ships
for
for
goal of goal of
goal of
Septem-
announced
goal 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
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Navy data.
Notes: QDR = Quadrennial Defense Review. The “~” symbol means approximately.
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 Columbia (SSBN-826) Class 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 0.
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
Congressional Research Service

74

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

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.
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—specifically, 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. AFSBs are now called Expeditionary Sea Base ships (ESBs).
k. The figure of 26 dedicated mine warfare ships included 10 ships maintained in a reduced mobilization status
called Mobilization Category B. Ships in this status are not readily deployable and thus do not count as
battle force ships. The 375-ship proposal thus implied transferring these 10 ships to a higher readiness
status.
l.
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 goal 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.
Congressional Research Service

75

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

Appendix B. Comparing Past Ship Force Levels to
Current or Potential Future 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 FY1987,66 and as of February 7, 2022, included a total of 296
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 multitheater NATO-
Warsaw Pact conflict, while the February 2022 fleet is intended to meet a considerably different
set of mission requirements centered on countering China’s improving naval capabilities. In
addition, the Navy of FY1987 differed substantially from the February 2022 fleet in areas such as
profusion of precision-guided weapons and the sophistication of C4ISR systems and networking
capabilities.67
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 296-ship fleet of February 2022 may or may not be capable of performing its stated
missions; and a fleet years from now with a certain number of ships may or may not be capable of
performing its stated missions. Given changes over time in mission requirements, ship mixes, and
technologies, however, these three issues are to a substantial degree independent of one another.
For similar reasons, trends over time in the total number of ships in the Navy are not necessarily a
reliable indicator of the direction of change in the fleet’s ability to perform its stated missions. An
increasing number of ships in the fleet might not necessarily mean that the fleet’s ability to

66 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.
67 C4ISR stands for command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Congressional Research Service

76

link to page 99 link to page 78 link to page 78 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

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 294-ship Navy of September 2021 was
appropriately sized for meeting the mission requirements of 2021, even though there were
differences of opinion among observers on that question, simply because a figure of 294 ships
appears in the historical records for 2021, 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 G-1.
Previous Navy force structure plans, such as those shown in Table A-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 goal 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.68

68 Navy force structure plans that predate those shown in Table A-1 include the Reagan-era 600-ship goal 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
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 goal, 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
Congressional Research Service

77

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

from 50.
c. Plan originally included 80 attack submarines, but this was later reduced to about 55.
d. Plan originally included 50 attack submarines but this was later increased to 55.
e. Plus one additional aircraft carrier in the service life extension program (SLEP).
f. Eleven active carriers plus one operational reserve carrier.
g. Plan originally included 242 surface combatants but this was later reduced to 228.
h. Number needed to lift assault echelons of one Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) plus one Marine Expeditionary
Brigade (MEB).
i. Number needed to lift assault echelons of 2.5 MEBs. Changing numbers needed to meet this goal reflect in part
changes in the design and capabilities of amphibious ships.
Congressional Research Service

78

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

Appendix C. Industrial Base and Employment
Aspects of Additional Shipbuilding Work
This appendix presents background information on the ability of the industrial base to take on the
additional shipbuilding work associated with achieving and maintaining the Navy’s 355-ship
force-level goal and on the employment impact of additional shipbuilding work.
Industrial Base Ability
The U.S. shipbuilding industrial base has some unused capacity to take on increased Navy
shipbuilding work, particularly for certain kinds of surface ships, and its capacity could be
increased further over time to support higher Navy shipbuilding rates. Navy shipbuilding rates
could not be increased steeply across the board overnight—time (and investment) would be
needed to hire and train additional workers and increase production facilities at shipyards and
supplier firms, particularly for supporting higher rates of submarine production. Depending on
their specialties, newly hired workers could be initially less productive per unit of time worked
than more experienced workers.
Some parts of the shipbuilding industrial base, such as the submarine construction industrial base,
could face more challenges than others in ramping up to the higher production rates required to
build the various parts of the 355-ship fleet. Over a period of a few to several years, with
investment and management attention, Navy shipbuilding could ramp up to higher rates for
achieving a 355-ship fleet over a period of 20-30 years.
An April 2017 CBO report stated that
all seven shipyards [currently involved in building the Navy’s major ships] would need to
increase their workforces and several would need to make improvements to their
infrastructure in order to build ships at a faster rate. However, certain sectors face greater
obstacles in constructing ships at faster rates than others: Building more submarines to
meet the goals of the 2016 force structure assessment would pose the greatest challenge to
the shipbuilding industry. Increasing the number of aircraft carriers and surface combatants
would pose a small to moderate challenge to builders of those vessels. Finally, building
more amphibious ships and combat logistics and support ships would be the least
problematic for the shipyards. The workforces across those yards would need to increase
by about 40 percent over the next 5 to 10 years. Managing the growth and training of those
new workforces while maintaining the current standard of quality and efficiency would
represent the most significant industrywide challenge. In addition, industry and Navy
sources indicate that as much as $4 billion would need to be invested in the physical
infrastructure of the shipyards to achieve the higher production rates required under the
[notional] 15-year and 20-year [buildup scenarios examined by CBO]. Less investment
would be needed for the [notional] 25-year or 30-year [buildup scenarios examined by
CBO].69
A January 13, 2017, press report states the following:
The Navy’s production lines are hot and the work to prepare them for the possibility of
building out a much larger fleet would be manageable, the service’s head of acquisition
said Thursday.
From a logistics perspective, building the fleet from its current 274 ships to 355, as
recommended in the Navy’s newest force structure assessment in December, would be

69 Congressional Budget Office, Costs of Building a 355-Ship Navy, April 2017, pp. 9-10.
Congressional Research Service

79

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

straightforward, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and
Acquisition Sean Stackley told reporters at the Surface Navy Association’s annual
symposium.
“By virtue of maintaining these hot production lines, frankly, over the last eight years, our
facilities are in pretty good shape,” Stackley said. “In fact, if you talked to industry, they
would say we’re underutilizing the facilities that we have.”
The areas where the Navy would likely have to adjust “tooling” to answer demand for a
larger fleet would likely be in Virginia-class attack submarines and large surface
combatants, the DDG-51 guided missile destroyers—two ship classes likely to surge if the
Navy gets funding to build to 355 ships, he said.
“Industry’s going to have to go out and procure special tooling associated with going from
current production rates to a higher rate, but I would say that’s easily done,” he said.
Another key, Stackley said, is maintaining skilled workers—both the builders in the yards
and the critical supply-chain vendors who provide major equipment needed for ship
construction. And, he suggested, it would help to avoid budget cuts and other events that
would force workforce layoffs.
“We’re already prepared to ramp up,” he said. “In certain cases, that means not laying off
the skilled workforce we want to retain.”70
A January 17, 2017, press report states the following:
Building stable designs with active production lines is central to the Navy’s plan to grow
to 355 ships. “if you look at the 355-ship number, and you study the ship classes (desired),
the big surge is in attack submarines and large surface combatants, which today are DDG-
51 (destroyers),” the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Sean Stackley, told reporters at last
week’s Surface Navy Association conference. Those programs have proven themselves
reliable performers both at sea and in the shipyards.
From today’s fleet of 274 ships, “we’re on an irreversible path to 308 by 2021. Those ships
are already in construction,” said Stackley. “To go from there to 355, virtually all those
ships are currently in production, with some exceptions: Ohio Replacement, (we) just got
done the Milestone B there (to move from R&D into detailed design); and then upgrades
to existing platforms. So we have hot production lines that will take us to that 355-ship
Navy.”71
A January 24, 2017, press report states the following:
Navy officials say a recently determined plan to increase its fleet size by adding more new
submarines, carriers and destroyers is “executable” and that early conceptual work toward
this end is already underway....
Although various benchmarks will need to be reached in order for this new plan to come
to fruition, such as Congressional budget allocations, Navy officials do tell Scout Warrior
that the service is already working—at least in concept—on plans to vastly enlarge the
fleet. Findings from this study are expected to inform an upcoming 2018 Navy
Shipbuilding Plan, service officials said.72
A January 12, 2017, press report states the following:

70 Hope Hodge Seck, “Navy Acquisition Chief: Surge to 355 Ships ‘Easily Done,’” DoD Buzz, January 13, 2017.
71 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., “Build More Ships, But Not New Designs: CNO Richardson To McCain,” Breaking
Defense, January 17, 2017.
72 Kris Osborn, “Navy: Larger 355-Ship Fleet—‘Executable,’” Scout Warrior, January 24, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

80

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

Brian Cuccias, president of Ingalls Shipbuilding [a shipyard owned by Huntington Ingalls
Industries (HII) that builds Navy destroyers and amphibious ships as well as Coast Guard
cutters], said Ingalls, which is currently building 10 ships for four Navy and Coast Guard
programs at its 800-acre facility in Pascagoula, Miss., could build more because it is using
only 70 to 75 percent of its capacity.73
A March 2017 press report states the following:
As the Navy calls for a larger fleet, shipbuilders are looking toward new contracts and
ramping up their yards to full capacity....
The Navy is confident that U.S. shipbuilders will be able to meet an increased demand,
said Ray Mabus, then-secretary of the Navy, during a speech at the Surface Navy
Association’s annual conference in Arlington, Virginia.
They have the capacity to “get there because of the ships we are building today,” Mabus
said. “I don’t think we could have seven years ago.”
Shipbuilders around the United States have “hot” production lines and are manufacturing
vessels on multi-year or block buy contracts, he added. The yards have made investments
in infrastructure and in the training of their workers.
“We now have the basis ... [to] get to that much larger fleet,” he said....
Shipbuilders have said they are prepared for more work.
At Ingalls Shipbuilding—a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries—10 ships are under
construction at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, yard, but it is under capacity, said Brian
Cuccias, the company’s president.
The shipbuilder is currently constructing five guided-missile destroyers, the latest San
Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship, and two national security cutters for the
Coast Guard.
“Ingalls is a very successful production line right now, but it has the ability to actually
produce a lot more in the future,” he said during a briefing with reporters in January.
The company’s facility is currently operating at 75 percent capacity, he noted....
Austal USA—the builder of the Independence-variant of the littoral combat ship and the
expeditionary fast transport vessel—is also ready to increase its capacity should the Navy
require it, said Craig Perciavalle, the company’s president.
The latest discussions are “certainly something that a shipbuilder wants to hear,” he said.
“We do have the capability of increasing throughput if the need and demand were to arise,
and then we also have the ability with the present workforce and facility to meet a different
mix that could arise as well.”
Austal could build fewer expeditionary fast transport vessels and more littoral combat
ships, or vice versa, he added.
“The key thing for us is to keep the manufacturing lines hot and really leverage the
momentum that we’ve gained on both of the programs,” he said.
The company—which has a 164-acre yard in Mobile, Alabama—is focused on the
extension of the LCS and expeditionary fast transport ship program, but Perciavalle noted
that it could look into manufacturing other types of vessels.

73 Marc Selinger, “Navy Needs More Aircraft to Match Ship Increase, Secretary [of the Navy] Says,” Defense Daily,
January 12, 2017. See also Lee Hudson, “Ingalls Operating at About 75 Percent Capacity, Provided Info to Trump
Team,” Inside the Navy, January 16, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

81

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

“We do have excess capacity to even build smaller vessels … if that opportunity were to
arise and we’re pursuing that,” he said.
Bryan Clark, a naval analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a
Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said shipbuilders are on average running between 70
and 80 percent capacity. While they may be ready to meet an increased demand for ships,
it would take time to ramp up their workforces.
However, the bigger challenge is the supplier industrial base, he said.
“Shipyards may be able to build ships but the supplier base that builds the pumps … and
the radars and the radios and all those other things, they don’t necessarily have that ability
to ramp up,” he said. “You would need to put some money into building up their capacity.”
That has to happen now, he added.
Rear Adm. William Gallinis, program manager for program executive office ships, said
what the Navy must be “mindful of is probably our vendor base that support the shipyards.”
Smaller companies that supply power electronics and switchboards could be challenged,
he said.
“Do we need to re-sequence some of the funding to provide some of the facility
improvements for some of the vendors that may be challenged? My sense is that the
industrial base will size to the demand signal. We just need to be mindful of how we
transition to that increased demand signal,” he said.
The acquisition workforce may also see an increased amount of stress, Gallinis noted. “It
takes a fair amount of experience and training to get a good contracting officer to the point
to be [able to] manage contracts or procure contracts.”
“But I don’t see anything that is insurmountable,” he added.74
At a May 24, 2017, hearing before the Seapower subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services
Committee on the industrial-base aspects of the Navy’s 355-ship goal, John P. Casey, executive
vice president–marine systems, General Dynamics Corporation (one of the country’s two
principal builders of Navy ships) stated the following:
It is our belief that the Nation’s shipbuilding industrial base can scale-up hot production
lines for existing ships and mobilize additional resources to accomplish the significant
challenge of achieving the 355-ship Navy as quickly as possible....
Supporting a plan to achieve a 355-ship Navy will be the most challenging for the nuclear
submarine enterprise. Much of the shipyard and industrial base capacity was eliminated
following the steep drop-off in submarine production that occurred with the cancellation
of the Seawolf Program in 1992. The entire submarine industrial base at all levels of the
supply chain will likely need to recapitalize some portion of its facilities, workforce, and
supply chain just to support the current plan to build the Columbia Class SSBN program,
while concurrently building Virginia Class SSNs. Additional SSN procurement will
require industry to expand its plans and associated investment beyond the level today....
Shipyard labor resources include the skilled trades needed to fabricate, build and outfit
major modules, perform assembly, test and launch of submarines, and associated support
organizations that include planning, material procurement, inspection, quality assurance,
and ship certification. Since there is no commercial equivalency for Naval nuclear
submarine shipbuilding, these trade resources cannot be easily acquired in large numbers
from other industries. Rather, these shipyard resources must be acquired and developed
over time to ensure the unique knowledge and know-how associated with nuclear

74 Yasmin Tadjdeh, “Navy Shipbuilders Prepared for Proposed Fleet Buildup,” National Defense, March 2017.
Congressional Research Service

82

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

submarine shipbuilding is passed on to the next generation of shipbuilders. The
mechanisms of knowledge transfer require sufficient lead time to create the proficient,
skilled craftsmen in each key trade including welding, electrical, machining, shipfitting,
pipe welding, painting, and carpentry, which are among the largest trades that would need
to grow to support increased demand. These trades will need to be hired in the numbers
required to support the increased workload. Both shipyards have scalable processes in place
to acquire, train, and develop the skilled workforce they need to build nuclear ships. These
processes and associated training facilities need to be expanded to support the increased
demand. As with the shipyards, the same limiting factors associated with facilities,
workforce, and supply chain also limit the submarine unique first tier suppliers and sub-
tiers in the industrial base for which there is no commercial equivalency....
The supply base is the third resource that will need to be expanded to meet the increased
demand over the next 20 years. During the OHIO, 688 and SEAWOLF construction
programs, there were over 17,000 suppliers supporting submarine construction programs.
That resource base was “rationalized” during submarine low rate production over the last
20 years. The current submarine industrial base reflects about 5,000 suppliers, of which
about 3,000 are currently active (i.e., orders placed within the last 5 years), 80% of which
are single or sole source (based on $). It will take roughly 20 years to build the 12 Columbia
Class submarines that starts construction in FY21. The shipyards are expanding strategic
sourcing of appropriate non-core products (e.g., decks, tanks, etc.) in order to focus on core
work at each shipyard facility (e.g., module outfitting and assembly). Strategic sourcing
will move demand into the supply base where capacity may exist or where it can be
developed more easily. This approach could offer the potential for cost savings by
competition or shifting work to lower cost work centers throughout the country. Each
shipyard has a process to assess their current supply base capacity and capability and to
determine where it would be most advantageous to perform work in the supply base....
Achieving the increased rate of production and reducing the cost of submarines will require
the Shipbuilders to rely on the supply base for more non-core products such as structural
fabrication, sheet metal, machining, electrical, and standard parts. The supply base must be
made ready to execute work with submarine-specific requirements at a rate and volume
that they are not currently prepared to perform. Preparing the supply base to execute
increased demand requires early non-recurring funding to support cross-program
construction readiness and EOQ funding to procure material in a manner that does not hold
up existing ship construction schedules should problems arise in supplier qualification
programs. This requires longer lead times (estimates of three years to create a new
qualified, critical supplier) than the current funding profile supports....
We need to rely on market principles to allow suppliers, the shipyards and GFE material
providers to sort through the complicated demand equation across the multiple ship
programs. Supplier development funding previously mentioned would support non-
recurring efforts which are needed to place increased orders for material in multiple market
spaces. Examples would include valves, build-to-print fabrication work, commodities,
specialty material, engineering components, etc. We are engaging our marine industry
associations to help foster innovative approaches that could reduce costs and gain
efficiency for this increased volume....
Supporting the 355-ship Navy will require Industry to add capability and capacity across
the entire Navy Shipbuilding value chain. Industry will need to make investment decisions
for additional capital spend starting now in order to meet a step change in demand that
would begin in FY19 or FY20. For the submarine enterprise, the step change was already
envisioned and investment plans that embraced a growth trajectory were already being
formulated. Increasing demand by adding additional submarines will require scaling
facility and workforce development plans to operate at a higher rate of production. The
nuclear shipyards would also look to increase material procurement proportionally to the
increased demand. In some cases, the shipyard facilities may be constrained with existing
Congressional Research Service

83

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

capacity and may look to source additional work in the supply base where capacity exists
or where there are competitive business advantages to be realized. Creating additional
capacity in the supply base will require non-recurring investment in supplier qualification,
facilities, capital equipment and workforce training and development.
Industry is more likely to increase investment in new capability and capacity if there is
certainty that the Navy will proceed with a stable shipbuilding plan. Positive signals of
commitment from the Government must go beyond a published 30-year Navy Shipbuilding
Plan and line items in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) and should include

Multi-year contracting for Block procurement which provides stability in the industrial base and
encourages investment in facilities and workforce development

Funding for supplier development to support training, qualification, and facilitization efforts—
Electric Boat and Newport News have recommended to the Navy funding of $400M over a three-
year period starting in 2018 to support supplier development for the Submarine Industrial Base as
part of an Integrated Enterprise Plan Extended Enterprise initiative

Acceleration of Advance Procurement and/or Economic Order Quantities (EOQ) procurement
from FY19 to FY18 for Virginia Block V

Government incentives for construction readiness and facilities / special tooling for shipyard and
supplier facilities, which help cash flow capital investment ahead of construction contract awards

Procurement of additional production back-up (PBU) material to help ensure a ready supply of
material to mitigate construction schedule risk.. .
So far, this testimony has focused on the Submarine Industrial Base, but the General
Dynamics Marine Systems portfolio also includes surface ship construction. Unlike
Electric Boat, Bath Iron Works and NASSCO are able to support increased demand without
a significant increase in resources.....
Bath Iron Works is well positioned to support the Administration’s announced goal of
increasing the size of the Navy fleet to 355 ships. For BIW that would mean increasing the
total current procurement rate of two DDG 51s per year to as many as four DDGs per year,
allocated equally between BIW and HII. This is the same rate that the surface combatant
industrial base sustained over the first decade of full rate production of the DDG 51 Class
(1989-1999)....
No significant capital investment in new facilities is required to accommodate delivering
two DDGs per year. However, additional funding will be required to train future
shipbuilders and maintain equipment. Current hiring and training processes support the
projected need, and have proven to be successful in the recent past. BIW has invested
significantly in its training programs since 2014 with the restart of the DDG 51 program
and given these investments and the current market in Maine, there is little concern of
meeting the increase in resources required under the projected plans.
A predictable and sustainable Navy workload is essential to justify expanding
hiring/training programs. BIW would need the Navy’s commitment that the Navy’s plan
will not change before it would proceed with additional hiring and training to support
increased production.
BIW’s supply chain is prepared to support a procurement rate increase of up to four DDG
51s per year for the DDG 51 Program. BIW has long-term purchasing agreements in place
for all major equipment and material for the DDG 51 Program. These agreements provide
for material lead time and pricing, and are not constrained by the number of ships ordered
in a year. BIW confirmed with all of its critical suppliers that they can support this
increased procurement rate....
The Navy’s Force Structure Assessment calls for three additional ESBs. Additionally,
NASSCO has been asked by the Navy and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to
evaluate its ability to increase the production rate of T-AOs to two ships per year. NASSCO
has the capacity to build three more ESBs at a rate of one ship per year while building two
Congressional Research Service

84

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

T-AOs per year. The most cost effective funding profile requires funding ESB 6 in FY18
and the following ships in subsequent fiscal years to avoid increased cost resulting from a
break in the production line. The most cost effective funding profile to enable a production
rate of two T-AO ships per year requires funding an additional long lead time equipment
set beginning in FY19 and an additional ship each year beginning in FY20.
NASSCO must now reduce its employment levels due to completion of a series of
commercial programs which resulted in the delivery of six ships in 2016. The proposed
increase in Navy shipbuilding stabilizes NASSCO’s workload and workforce to levels that
were readily demonstrated over the last several years.
Some moderate investment in the NASSCO shipyard will be needed to reach this level of
production. The recent CBO report on the costs of building a 355-ship Navy accurately
summarized NASSCO’s ability to reach the above production rate stating, “building more
… combat logistics and support ships would be the least problematic for the shipyards.”75
At the same hearing, Brian Cuccias, president, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Huntington Ingalls Industries
(the country’s other principal builder of Navy ships) stated the following:
Qualifying to be a supplier is a difficult process. Depending on the commodity, it may take
up to 36 months. That is a big burden on some of these small businesses. This is why
creating sufficient volume and exercising early contractual authorization and advance
procurement funding is necessary to grow the supplier base, and not just for traditional
long-lead time components; that effort needs to expand to critical components and
commodities that today are controlling the build rate of submarines and carriers alike.
Many of our suppliers are small businesses and can only make decisions to invest in people,
plant and tooling when they are awarded a purchase order. We need to consider how we
can make commitments to suppliers early enough to ensure material readiness and
availability when construction schedules demand it.
With questions about the industry’s ability to support an increase in shipbuilding, both
Newport News and Ingalls have undertaken an extensive inventory of our suppliers and
assessed their ability to ramp up their capacity. We have engaged many of our key suppliers
to assess their ability to respond to an increase in production.
The fortunes of related industries also impact our suppliers, and an increase in demand
from the oil and gas industry may stretch our supply base. Although some low to moderate
risk remains, I am convinced that our suppliers will be able to meet the forecasted Navy
demand....
I strongly believe that the fastest results can come from leveraging successful platforms on
current hot production lines. We commend the Navy’s decision in 2014 to use the existing
LPD 17 hull form for the LX(R), which will replace the LSD-class amphibious dock
landing ships scheduled to retire in the coming years. However, we also recommend that
the concept of commonality be taken even further to best optimize efficiency, affordability
and capability. Specifically, rather than continuing with a new design for LX(R) within the
“walls” of the LPD hull, we can leverage our hot production line and supply chain and
offer the Navy a variant of the existing LPD design that satisfies the aggressive cost targets
of the LX(R) program while delivering more capability and survivability to the fleet at a
significantly faster pace than the current program. As much as 10-15 percent material
savings can be realized across the LX(R) program by purchasing respective blocks of at
least five ships each under a multi-year procurement (MYP) approach. In the aggregate,
continuing production with LPD 30 in FY18, coupled with successive MYP contracts for

75 John P. Casey, Executive Vice President – Marine Systems, General Dynamics Corporation, Testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Seapower, 115th Congress, Supporting the 355-Ship Navy with
Focus on Submarine Industrial Base, Washington, DC, May 24, 2017, pp. 3-18. See also Marjorie Censer, “BWX
Technologies Weighs When To Ready for Additional Submarines,” Inside the Navy, May 29, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

85

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

the balance of ships, may yield savings greater than $1 billion across an 11-ship LX(R)
program. Additionally, we can deliver five LX(R)s to the Navy and Marine Corps in the
same timeframe that the current plan would deliver two, helping to reduce the shortfall in
amphibious warships against the stated force requirement of 38 ships.
Multi-ship procurements, whether a formal MYP or a block-buy, are a proven way to
reduce the price of ships. The Navy took advantage of these tools on both Virginia-class
submarines and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. In addition to the LX(R) program
mentioned above, expanding multi-ship procurements to other ship classes makes sense....
The most efficient approach to lower the cost of the Ford class and meet the goal of an
increased CVN fleet size is also to employ a multi-ship procurement strategy and construct
these ships at three-year intervals. This approach would maximize the material
procurement savings benefit through economic order quantities procurement and provide
labor efficiencies to enable rapid acquisition of a 12-ship CVN fleet. This three-ship
approach would save at least $1.5 billion, not including additional savings that could be
achieved from government-furnished equipment. As part of its Integrated Enterprise Plan,
we commend the Navy’s efforts to explore the prospect of material economic order
quantity purchasing across carrier and submarine programs.76
At the same hearing, Matthew O. Paxton, president, Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA)—a
trade association representing shipbuilders, suppliers, and associated firms—stated the following:
To increase the Navy’s Fleet to 355 ships, a substantial and sustained investment is required
in both procurement and readiness. However, let me be clear: building and sustaining the
larger required Fleet is achievable and our industry stands ready to help achieve that
important national security objective.
To meet the demand for increased vessel construction while sustaining the vessels we
currently have will require U.S. shipyards to expand their work forces and improve their
infrastructure in varying degrees depending on ship type and ship mix – a requirement our
Nation’s shipyards are eager to meet. But first, in order to build these ships in as timely
and affordable manner as possible, stable and robust funding is necessary to sustain those
industrial capabilities which support Navy shipbuilding and ship maintenance and
modernization....
Beyond providing for the building of a 355-ship Navy, there must also be provision to fund
the “tail,” the maintenance of the current and new ships entering the fleet. Target fleet size
cannot be reached if existing ships are not maintained to their full service lives, while
building those new ships. Maintenance has been deferred in the last few years because of
across-the-board budget cuts....
The domestic shipyard industry certainly has the capability and know-how to build and
maintain a 355-ship Navy. The Maritime Administration determined in a recent study on
the Economic Benefits of the U.S. Shipyard Industry that there are nearly 110,000 skilled
men and women in the Nation’s private shipyards building, repairing and maintaining
America’s military and commercial fleets.1 The report found the U.S. shipbuilding
industry supports nearly 400,000 jobs across the country and generates $25.1 billion in
income and $37.3 billion worth of goods and services each year. In fact, the MARAD
report found that the shipyard industry creates direct and induced employment in every
State and Congressional District and each job in the private shipbuilding and repairing
industry supports another 2.6 jobs nationally.
This data confirms the significant economic impact of this manufacturing sector, but also
that the skilled workforce and industrial base exists domestically to build these ships. Long-

76 Statement of Brian Cuccias, President, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Subcommittee on
Seapower, Senate Armed Services Committee, May 24, 2017, pp. 4-11.
Congressional Research Service

86

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

term, there needs to be a workforce expansion and some shipyards will need to reconfigure
or expand production lines. This can and will be done as required to meet the need if
adequate, stable budgets and procurement plans are established and sustained for the long-
term. Funding predictability and sustainability will allow industry to invest in facilities and
more effectively grow its skilled workforce. The development of that critical workforce
will take time and a concerted effort in a partnership between industry and the federal
government.
U.S. shipyards pride themselves on implementing state of the art training and
apprenticeship programs to develop skilled men and women that can cut, weld, and bend
steel and aluminum and who can design, build and maintain the best Navy in the world.
However, the shipbuilding industry, like so many other manufacturing sectors, faces an
aging workforce. Attracting and retaining the next generation shipyard worker for an
industry career is critical. Working together with the Navy, and local and state resources,
our association is committed to building a robust training and development pipeline for
skilled shipyard workers. In addition to repealing sequestration and stabilizing funding the
continued development of a skilled workforce also needs to be included in our national
maritime strategy....
In conclusion, the U.S. shipyard industry is certainly up to the task of building a 355-ship
Navy and has the expertise, the capability, the critical capacity and the unmatched skilled
workforce to build these national assets. Meeting the Navy’s goal of a 355-ship fleet and
securing America’s naval dominance for the decades ahead will require sustained
investment by Congress and Navy’s partnership with a defense industrial base that can
further attract and retain a highly-skilled workforce with critical skill sets. Again, I would
like to thank this Subcommittee for inviting me to testify alongside such distinguished
witnesses. As a representative of our nation’s private shipyards, I can say, with confidence
and certainty, that our domestic shipyards and skilled workers are ready, willing and able
to build and maintain the Navy’s 355-ship Fleet.77
Employment Impact
Building the additional ships that would be needed to achieve and maintain the 355-ship fleet
could create many additional manufacturing and other jobs at shipyards, associated supplier
firms, and elsewhere in the U.S. economy. A 2015 Maritime Administration (MARAD) report
states
Considering the indirect and induced impacts, each direct job in the shipbuilding and
repairing industry is associated with another 2.6 jobs in other parts of the US economy;
each dollar of direct labor income and GDP in the shipbuilding and repairing industry is
associated with another $1.74 in labor income and $2.49 in GDP, respectively, in other
parts of the US economy.78
A March 2017 press report states, “Based on a 2015 economic impact study, the Shipbuilders
Council of America [a trade association for U.S. shipbuilders and associated supplier firms]
believes that a 355-ship Navy could add more than 50,000 jobs nationwide.”79 The 2015

77 Testimony of Matthew O. Paxton, President, Shipbuilders Council of America, before the United States Senate
Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Seapower, [on] Industry Perspectives on Options and Considerations
for Achieving a 355-Ship Navy, May 24, 2017, pp. 3-8.
78 MARAD, The Economic Importance of the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repairing Industry, November 2015, pp. E-3, E-4.
For another perspective on the issue of the impact of shipbuilding on the broader economy, see Edward G. Keating et
al., The Economic Consequences of Investing in Shipbuilding, Case Studies in the United States and Sweden, RAND
Corporation, 2015.
79 Yasmin Tadjdeh, “Navy Shipbuilders Prepared for Proposed Fleet Buildup,” National Defense, March 2017.
Congressional Research Service

87

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

economic impact study referred to in that quote might be the 2015 MARAD study discussed in
the previous paragraph. An estimate of more than 50,000 additional jobs nationwide might be
viewed as a higher-end estimate; other estimates might be lower. A June 14, 2017, press report
states the following: “The shipbuilding industry will need to add between 18,000 and 25,000 jobs
to build to a 350-ship Navy, according to Matthew Paxton, president of the Shipbuilders Council
of America, a trade association representing the shipbuilding industrial base. Including indirect
jobs like suppliers, the ramp-up may require a boost of 50,000 workers.”80

Similarly, another press report states the following: “The Navy envisioned by Trump could create more than 50,000
jobs, the Shipbuilders Council of America, a trade group representing U.S. shipbuilders, repairers and suppliers, told
Reuters.” (Mike Stone, “Missing from Trump’s Grand Navy Plan: Skilled Workers to Build the Fleet,” Reuters, March
17, 2017.)
80 Jaqueline Klimas, “Growing Shipbuilding Workforce Seen as Major Challenge for Trump’s Navy Buildup,” Politico,
June 14, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

88

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

Appendix D. A Summary of Some Acquisition
Lessons Learned for Navy Shipbuilding
This appendix presents a general summary of lessons learned in Navy shipbuilding, reflecting
comments made repeatedly by various sources over the years. These lessons learned include the
following:
 At the outset, get the operational requirements for the program right.
Properly identify the program’s operational requirements at the outset. Manage
risk by not trying to do too much in terms of the program’s operational
requirements, and perhaps seek a so-called 70%-to-80% solution (i.e., a design
that is intended to provide 70%-80% of desired or ideal capabilities). Achieve a
realistic balance up front between operational requirements, risks, and estimated
costs.
 Use mature technologies. Use land-based prototyping and testing to bring new
technologies to a high state of maturity before incorporating them into ship
designs, and limit the number of major new technologies to be incorporated into
a new ship design.
 Impose cost discipline up front. Use realistic price estimates, and consider not
only development and procurement costs, but life-cycle operation and support
(O&S) costs.
 Employ competition where possible in the awarding of design and construction
contracts.
 Use a contract type that is appropriate for the amount of risk involved, and
structure its terms to align incentives with desired outcomes.
 Minimize design/construction concurrency by developing the design to a high
level of completion before starting construction and by resisting changes in
requirements (and consequent design changes) during construction.
 Properly supervise construction work. Maintain an adequate number of
properly trained Supervisor of Shipbuilding (SUPSHIP) personnel.
 Provide stability for industry, in part by using, where possible, multiyear
procurement (MYP) or block buy contracting.
 Maintain a capable government acquisition workforce that understands what
it is buying, as well as the above points.
Identifying these lessons is arguably not the hard part—most if not all these points have been
cited for years. The hard part, arguably, is living up to them without letting circumstances lead
program-execution efforts away from these guidelines.
Congressional Research Service

89

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

Appendix E. Some Considerations Relating to
Warranties in Shipbuilding Contracts
This appendix presents some considerations relating to warranties in shipbuilding contracts and
other defense acquisition.
In discussions of Navy (and also Coast Guard) shipbuilding, one question that sometimes arises is
whether including a warranty in a shipbuilding contract is preferable to not including one. The
question can arise, for example, in connection with a GAO finding that “the Navy structures
shipbuilding contracts so that it pays shipbuilders to build ships as part of the construction
process and then pays the same shipbuilders a second time to repair the ship when construction
defects are discovered.”81
Including a warranty in a shipbuilding contract (or a contract for building some other kind of
defense end item), while potentially valuable, might not always be preferable to not including
one—it depends on the circumstances of the acquisition, and it is not necessarily a valid criticism
of an acquisition program to state that it is using a contract that does not include a warranty (or a
weaker form of a warranty rather than a stronger one).
Including a warranty generally shifts to the contractor the risk of having to pay for fixing
problems with earlier work. Although that in itself could be deemed desirable from the
government’s standpoint, a contractor negotiating a contract that will have a warranty will
incorporate that risk into its price, and depending on how much the contractor might charge for
doing that, it is possible that the government could wind up paying more in total for acquiring the
item (including fixing problems with earlier work on that item) than it would have under a
contract without a warranty.
When a warranty is not included in the contract and the government pays later on to fix problems
with earlier work, those payments can be very visible, which can invite critical comments from
observers. But that does not mean that including a warranty in the contract somehow frees the
government from paying to fix problems with earlier work. In a contract that includes a warranty,
the government will indeed pay something to fix problems with earlier work—but it will make
the payment in the less-visible (but still very real) form of the up-front charge for including the
warranty, and that charge might be more than what it would have cost the government, under a
contract without a warranty, to pay later on for fixing those problems.
From a cost standpoint, including a warranty in the contract might or might not be preferable,
depending on the risk that there will be problems with earlier work that need fixing, the potential
cost of fixing such problems, and the cost of including the warranty in the contract. The point is
that the goal of avoiding highly visible payments for fixing problems with earlier work and the
goal of minimizing the cost to the government of fixing problems with earlier work are separate
and different goals, and that pursuing the first goal can sometimes work against achieving the
second goal.82

81 See Government Accountability Office, Navy Shipbuilding[:] Past Performance Provides Valuable Lessons for
Future Investments, GAO-18-238SP, June 2018, p. 21. A graphic on page 21 shows a GAO finding that the
government was financially responsible for shipbuilder deficiencies in 96% of the cases examined by GAO, and that
the shipbuilder was financially responsible for shipbuilder deficiencies in 4% of the cases.
82 It can also be noted that the country’s two largest builders of Navy ships—General Dynamics (GD) and Huntington
Ingalls Industries (HII)—derive about 60% and 96%, respectively, of their revenues from U.S. government work. (See
General Dynamics, 2016 Annual Report, page 9 of Form 10-K [PDF page 15 of 88]) and Huntington Ingalls Industries,
Congressional Research Service

90

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

The Department of Defense’s guide on the use of warranties states the following:
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 46.7 states that “the use of warranties is not
mandatory.” However, if the benefits to be derived from the warranty are commensurate
with the cost of the warranty, the CO [contracting officer] should consider placing it in the
contract. In determining whether a warranty is appropriate for a specific acquisition, FAR
Subpart 46.703 requires the CO to consider the nature and use of the supplies and services,
the cost, the administration and enforcement, trade practices, and reduced requirements.
The rationale for using a warranty should be documented in the contract file....
In determining the value of a warranty, a CBA [cost-benefit analysis] is used to measure
the life cycle costs of the system with and without the warranty. A CBA is required to
determine if the warranty will be cost beneficial. CBA is an economic analysis, which
basically compares the Life Cycle Costs (LCC) of the system with and without the warranty
to determine if warranty coverage will improve the LCCs. In general, five key factors will
drive the results of the CBA: cost of the warranty + cost of warranty administration +
compatibility with total program efforts + cost of overlap with Contractor support +
intangible
savings.
Effective
warranties
integrate
reliability,
maintainability,
supportability, availability, and life-cycle costs. Decision factors that must be evaluated
include the state of the weapon system technology, the size of the warranted population,
the likelihood that field performance requirements can be achieved, and the warranty
period of performance.83

2016 Annual Report, page 5 of Form 10-K [PDF page 19 of 134]). These two shipbuilders operate the only U.S.
shipyards currently capable of building several major types of Navy ships, including submarines, aircraft carriers, large
surface combatants, and amphibious ships. Thus, even if a warranty in a shipbuilding contract with one of these firms
were to somehow mean that the government did not have pay under the terms of that contract—either up front or later
on—for fixing problems with earlier work done under that contract, there would still be a question as to whether the
government would nevertheless wind up eventually paying much of that cost as part of the price of one or more future
contracts the government may have that firm.
83 Department of Defense, Department of Defense Warranty Guide, Version 1.0, September 2009, accessed July 13,
2017, at https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/uid/docs/departmentofdefensewarrantyguide[1].doc.
Congressional Research Service

91

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

Appendix F. Avoiding Procurement Cost Growth vs.
Minimizing Procurement Costs
This appendix presents some considerations relating to avoiding procurement cost growth vs.
minimizing procurement costs in shipbuilding and other defense acquisition.
The affordability challenge posed by the Navy’s shipbuilding plans can reinforce the strong
oversight focus on preventing or minimizing procurement cost growth in Navy shipbuilding
programs, which is one expression of a strong oversight focus on preventing or minimizing cost
growth in DOD acquisition programs in general. This oversight focus may reflect in part an
assumption that avoiding or minimizing procurement cost growth is always synonymous with
minimizing procurement cost. It is important to note, however, that as paradoxical as it may seem,
avoiding or minimizing procurement cost growth is not always synonymous with minimizing
procurement cost, and that a sustained, singular focus on avoiding or minimizing procurement
cost growth might sometimes lead to higher procurement costs for the government.
How could this be? Consider the example of a design for the lead ship of a new class of Navy
ships. The construction cost of this new design is uncertain, but is estimated to be likely
somewhere between Point A (a minimum possible figure) and Point D (a maximum possible
figure). (Point D, in other words, would represent a cost estimate with a 100% confidence factor,
meaning there is a 100% chance that the cost would come in at or below that level.) If the Navy
wanted to avoid cost growth on this ship, it could simply set the ship’s procurement cost at Point
D. Industry would likely be happy with this arrangement, and there likely would be no cost
growth on the ship.
The alternative strategy open to the Navy is to set the ship’s target procurement cost at some
figure between Points A and D—call it Point B—and then use that more challenging target cost to
place pressure on industry to sharpen its pencils so as to find ways to produce the ship at that
lower cost. (Navy officials sometimes refer to this as “pressurizing” industry.) In this example, it
might turn out that industry efforts to reduce production costs are not successful enough to build
the ship at the Point B cost. As a result, the ship experiences one or more rounds of procurement
cost growth, and the ship’s procurement cost rises over time from Point B to some higher
figure—call it Point C.
Here is the rub: Point C, in spite of incorporating one or more rounds of cost growth, might
nevertheless turn out to be lower than Point D, because Point C reflected efforts by the
shipbuilder to find ways to reduce production costs that the shipbuilder might have put less
energy into pursuing if the Navy had simply set the ship’s procurement cost initially at Point D.
Setting the ship’s cost at Point D, in other words, may eliminate the risk of cost growth on the
ship, but does so at the expense of creating a risk of the government paying more for the ship than
was actually necessary. DOD could avoid cost growth on new procurement programs starting
tomorrow by simply setting costs for those programs at each program’s equivalent of Point D.
But as a result of this strategy, DOD could well wind up leaving money on the table in some
instances—of not, in other words, minimizing procurement costs.
DOD does not have to set a cost precisely at Point D to create a potential risk in this regard. A risk
of leaving money on the table, for example, is a possible downside of requiring DOD to budget
for its acquisition programs at something like an 80% confidence factor—an approach that some
observers have recommended—because a cost at the 80% confidence factor is a cost that is likely
fairly close to Point D.
Congressional Research Service

92

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

Procurement cost growth is often embarrassing for DOD and industry, and can damage their
credibility in connection with future procurement efforts. Procurement cost growth can also
disrupt congressional budgeting by requiring additional appropriations to pay for something
Congress thought it had fully funded in a prior year. For this reason, there is a legitimate public
policy value to pursuing a goal of having less rather than more procurement cost growth.
Procurement cost growth, however, can sometimes be in part the result of DOD efforts to use
lower initial cost targets as a means of pressuring industry to reduce production costs—efforts
that, notwithstanding the cost growth, might be partially successful. A sustained, singular focus
on avoiding or minimizing cost growth, and of punishing DOD for all instances of cost growth,
could discourage DOD from using lower initial cost targets as a means of pressurizing industry,
which could deprive DOD of a tool for controlling procurement costs.
The point here is not to excuse away cost growth, because cost growth can occur in a program for
reasons other than DOD’s attempt to pressurize industry. Nor is the point to abandon the goal of
seeking lower rather than higher procurement cost growth, because, as noted above, there is a
legitimate public policy value in pursuing this goal. The point, rather, is to recognize that this goal
is not always synonymous with minimizing procurement cost, and that a possibility of some
amount of cost growth might be expected as part of an optimal government strategy for
minimizing procurement cost. Recognizing that the goals of seeking lower rather than higher cost
growth and of minimizing procurement cost can sometimes be in tension with one another can
lead to an approach that takes both goals into consideration. In contrast, an approach that is
instead characterized by a sustained, singular focus on avoiding and minimizing cost growth may
appear virtuous, but in the end may wind up costing the government more.
Congressional Research Service

93

link to page 99 link to page 80 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix G. Size of the Navy and Navy
Shipbuilding Rate
Size of the Navy
Table G-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.84 The Navy fell below 300
battle force ships in August 2003 and remained below 300 ships for the next 16 years. The Navy
briefly returned to a level of 300 ships in early July 2020, for the first time in almost 17 years, and
has since fallen back below 300 ships. As of February 7, 2022, the Navy had 296 battle force
ships.
As discussed in Appendix B, 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.

84 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

94

link to page 99 link to page 99 link to page 99 link to page 99 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Table G-1. Total Number of Ships in Navy Since FY1948
FYa
Number
FYa
Number
FYa
Number
FYa
Number
1948
737
1970
769
1992
466
2014
289
1949
690
1971
702
1993
435
2015
271
1950
634
1972
654
1994
391
2016
275
1951
980
1973
584
1995
372
2017
279
1952
1,097
1974
512
1996
356
2018
286
1953
1,122
1975
496
1997
354
2019
290
1954
1,113
1976
476
1998
333
2020
296
1955
1,030
1977
464
1999
317
2021
294
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
292

1961
897
1983
514
2005
281

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
546
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.
Congressional Research Service

95

link to page 100 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

Shipbuilding Rate
Table G-2 shows past (FY1982-FY2021) and programmed (FY2022-FY2026) rates of Navy ship
procurement.
Table G-2. Battle Force Ships Procured or Requested, FY1982-FY2026
(Procured in FY1982-FY2021 and programmed for FY2022-FY2026)
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
94 95 96 97 98 99 00
17 14 16 19 20 17 15 19 15 11 11
7
4
4
5
4
5
5
6
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
6
6
5
7
8
4
5
3
8
7
10
11
11
8
8
9
9
9
13
20 21 22 23 24 25 26

13 10
7

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 nonbattle force ships
that do not count toward the 355-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).
Notes: (1) The totals shown for FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008, reflect the cancellation two LCSs funded
in FY2006, another two LCSs funded in FY2007, and an LCS funded in FY2008.
(2) 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.
(3) The figures shown for FY2019 and FY2020 reflect a Navy decision to show the aircraft carrier CVN-81
as a ship to be procured in FY2020 rather than a ship that was procured in FY2019. Congress, as part of its
action on the Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget, authorized the procurement of CVN-81 in FY2019.

Congressional Research Service

96

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

Appendix H. Effort in 2019 and 2020 to Develop
New Navy Force-Level Goal
This appendix presents additional background information on the effort in 2019 and 2020 to
develop a new Navy force level goal.85
Navy’s Initial Effort Was Called the Integrated Naval FSA (INFSA)
The effort to develop a new Navy force-level goal began in the Navy with a new FSA that Navy
and Marine Corps officials called the Integrated Naval FSA (INFSA), with the words integrated
naval intended to signal that this FSA would integrate Marine Corps requirements into the
analytical process more fully than previous FSAs did. Department of the Navy (DON) officials
stated that the INFSA would take into account the Trump Administration’s December 2017
National Security Strategy document and its January 2018 National Defense Strategy document,
both of which put an emphasis on renewed great power competition with China and Russia,86 as
well as updated information on Chinese and Russian naval and other military capabilities and
recent developments in new technologies, including those related to UVs.87
INFSA May Have Called for a 390/435-Ship Force-level Goal
Press reports and statements from Navy officials suggested that the INFSA was completed in late
2019 or early 2020, and that it may have resulted in a new Navy force-level goal for a fleet of
about 390 manned ships plus about 45 unmanned or optionally manned ships, for a total of about
435 manned and unmanned/optionally manned ships. Navy officials provided few additional
details about the composition of this 390/435-ship force-level goal.88

85 See also Megan Eckstein, “After 9 Months of Study, Pentagon’s Fleet Architecture Similar to Original Navy Plan,”
USNI News, November 4, 2020; Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone, “SECDEF Esper’s ‘Battle Force 2045’ Plan
Still Awaiting White House Approval,” USNI News, October 231, 2020; John R. Kroger, “Esper’s Fantasy Fleet, The
SecDef’s 500-Ship Plan Is an Exercise in Wishful Thinking That Avoids Hard Choices,” Defense One, October 13,
2020; Gina Harkins, “The Navy Really Does Need 500 Ships, Experts Say. But Paying for Them Won’t Be Easy,”
Military.com, October 8, 2020. For a series of additional reaction and commentary articles on the Battle Force 2045
plan, see Dmitry Filipoff, “Fleet Force Structure Series,” Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC),
undated, with the linked reaction and commentary pieces dated October 26 to November 2, 2020.
86 For additional discussion of the defense implications of great power competition, see CRS Report R43838, Renewed
Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
87 See, for example, Marcus Weisgerber, “US Navy Re-Evaluating 355-Ship Goal,” Defense One, February 1, 2019;
Paul McLeary, “Navy Rethinks 355-Ship Fleet: CNO Richardson,” Breaking Defense, February 1, 2019; Mallory
Shelbourne, “CNO: Navy Expects New Force-Structure Assessment ‘Later This Year,’” Inside the Navy, February 4,
2019.
88 See, for example, Ben Werner, “SECNAV Modly Says Nation Needs Larger, Distributed Fleet of 390 Hulls,” USNI
News, February 28, 2020; Mallory Shelbourne, “Modly Sketches Out Potential Navy Force Structure Changes,
Anticipates 390-Ship Fleet,” Inside Defense, February 28, 2020; Rich Abott, “Modly Reveals Next Force Structure
Assessment Details, Working Toward 390-Ship Fleet,” Defense Daily, February 28, 2020; Patrick Tucker, “Acting
Navy Secretary: We Need More than 355 Ships, and That’s Not Even Counting Robot Vessels,” Defense One,
February 28, 2020; Connor O’Brien, “Acting Navy Secretary Hints At Larger Fleet Goal,” Politico Pro, February 28,
2020.
Congressional Research Service

97

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

INFSA Results and Associated FY2021 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan
Withheld from Congress
The release to Congress of the new Navy force-level goal resulting from the INFSA was
postponed repeatedly in late 2019 and early 2020.89 Remarks from DOD officials and press
reports indicated that then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and officials OSD disagreed with
some of the INFSA’s assumptions and resulting conclusions. Coincident with this, OSD
reportedly also withheld the release to Congress of the Navy’s associated FY2021 30-year
shipbuilding plan, because Esper and OSD officials reportedly believed that it did not present a
“credible pathway” for achieving a fleet of at least 355 ships in a timely manner.90
INFSA Superseded by DOD’s Future Naval Force Study (FNFS)
The INFSA reportedly was superseded in early 2020 by an OSD-led effort called the Future
Naval Force Study (FNFS) that reportedly involves OSD and the Joint Staff and is being overseen
by Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist.91 As part of the FNFS, OSD reportedly has used
war games to assess the merits of three candidate fleet plans prepared by the Navy, the Joint Staff,
and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office within OSD. The Hudson
Institute, a private defense and foreign policy think tank, provided an additional study to help
inform DOD’s work.92 With the INFSA having been superseded by the FNFS, the Navy

89 Through much of 2019, Navy officials stated that the INFSA was to be completed by the end of 2019. A September
27, 2019, press report stated that an interim version was to be completed by September 2019, in time to inform
programmatic decisions on the FY2022 Program Objective Memorandum (POM), meaning the in-house DOD planning
document that will guide the development of DOD’s FY2022 budget submission. (Mallory Shelbourne, “Navy, Marine
Corps Conducting Integrated Force-Structure Assessment,” Inside Defense, September 27, 2019. See also Otto
Kreisher, “New Force Structure Assessment Will Address Needs of ‘Great Power Competition,’ Two Top
Requirements Officers Say,” Seapower, October 22, 2019, and the section under the subheader “Naval Integrated Force
Structure Assessment” in Megan Eckstein, “Navy Marines Wargaming New Gear to Support Emerging Warfare
Concepts,” USNI News, October 23, 2019.)
A December 6, 2019, memorandum from then-Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas Modly stated that he expected the
final INFSA to be published no later than January 15, 2020. (Memorandum for distribution from Acting Secretary of
the Navy Thomas B. Modly, subject “SecNav Vector !,” dated December 6, 2019. See also David B. Larter, “Acting
US Navy Secretary: Deliver Me a 355-Ship Fleet by 2030,” Defense News, December 9, 2019.)
A January 23, 2020, press report quoted Modly as saying that the January 15 date was an internal Navy deadline, and
that the Navy expected the INFSA to be released to outside audiences sometime during the spring of 2020. (Mallory
Shelbourne, “Modly: Navy Expects to Release FSA by Spring,” Inside Defense, January 23, 2020.)
90 See, for example, Sam LaGrone, “SECDEF Esper Holds Back 30-Year Shipbuilding Outlook, New 355-Ship Plan
Ahead of HASC Testimony,” USNI News, February 25, 2020; Paul McLeary, “Esper To Navy: Rethink Your
Shipbuilding Plan,” Breaking Defense, February 25, 2020; Ben Werner, “SECDEF Esper Blames Failures of Optimized
Fleet Response Plan for Delay of New 355-Ship Fleet Outlook,” USNI News, February 26, 2020; Paul McLeary,
“EXCLUSIVE: SecDef Esper Seeks Détente With HASC; New Navy Plan This Summer,” Breaking Defense, February
28, 2020; Paul McLeary, “SecNav Details Gaps Between Navy & Pentagon Shipbuilding Plans,” Breaking Defense,
March 11, 2020; Mallory Shelbourne, “CAPE Nominee: SECDEF Esper Blocked Shipbuilding Plan to Congress
Because it Lacked ‘Credible Pathway’ to 355-Ship Fleet,” USNI News, August 4, 2020; David B. Larter and Joe Gould,
“Pentagon Nominee Slams the US Navy’s Fleet Plans as ‘Not a Credible Document,’” Defense News, August 4, 2020.
91 See, for example, David B. Later, “Defense Department Study Calls for Cutting 2 of the US Navy’s Aircraft
Carriers,” Defense News, April 20, 2020; Jack Detsch, “Trump’s Navy Pick Would Have Limited Sway on Ship Goal,”
Foreign Policy, May 7, 2020; Paul McLeary, “Navy Scraps Big Carrier Study, Clears Deck For OSD Effort,” Breaking
Defense, May 12, 2020; Megan Eckstein, “Pentagon Leaders Have Taken Lead in Crafting Future Fleet from Navy,”
USNI News, June 24, 2020.
92 Megan Eckstein, “Pentagon Leaders Have Taken Lead in Crafting Future Fleet from Navy,” USNI News, June 24,
2020.
Congressional Research Service

98

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

reportedly “has lost much of its power on deciding what its future fleet will look like….”93 No
release date for the result of the FNFS has been announced, but press reports suggest that much of
the analytical work on the FNFS has now been completed, and that the results of the FNFS could
be released in coming days or weeks.94
April and June 2020 Press Reports About FNFS Results
April and June 2020 press reports stated that FNFS as of April 2020 was moving toward
recommending a fleet with, among other things, 68 or 69 nuclear-powered attack submarines
(SSNs), 9 aircraft carriers, 80 to 90 large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers), 55 to
70 small surface combatants (i.e., frigates and Littoral Combat Ships [LCSs]), 65 unmanned or
lightly manned surface vehicles, and 50 extra-large unmanned underwater vehicles (XLUUVs).95
September 2020 Press Reports About FNFS Studies
A September 24, 2020, press report about studies done in April in support of the FNFS stated
The Pentagon’s upcoming recommendation for a future Navy is expected to call for a
significant increase in the number of ships, with officials discussing a fleet as large as 530
hulls, according to documents obtained by Defense News.
Supporting documents to the forthcoming Future Navy Force Study reviewed by Defense
News show the Navy moving towards a lighter force with many more ships but fewer
aircraft carriers and large surface combatants. Instead, the fleet would include more small
surface combatants, unmanned ships and submarines and an expanded logistics force.
Two groups commissioned by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to design what a future
Navy should look like suggested fleets of anywhere from 480 to 534 ships, when manned
and unmanned platforms are accounted for—at least a 35 percent increase in fleet size from
the current target of 355 manned ships by 2030.
The numbers all come from an April draft of inputs to the Future Navy Force Study
conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. While the number will likely have
changed somewhat in final recommendations recently sent to Esper, the plans being
discussed in April are notable as they reflect what will likely be major shift in the Navy’s
future—and the expectation is that a larger-than-planned Navy based on the concepts laid
out in the documents will remain intact in the final analysis….
The Future Naval Force Study, overseen by Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist,
kicked off in January after Esper decided he wanted an outside take on the Navy’s self-
review of its future force structure. The OSD-led review tasked three groups to provide
their version of an ideal fleet construction for the year 2045, one each by the Pentagon’s
Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation office, the Joint Staff, the Navy and a group from
the Hudson Institute.
Those fleets were war-gamed and the results were compiled into the Future Naval Force
Study, which was briefed to Esper earlier this month….

93 Megan Eckstein, “Pentagon Leaders Have Taken Lead in Crafting Future Fleet from Navy,” USNI News, June 24,
2020.
94 David B. Larter, “US Navy’s Long-Delayed Plan for Its Future Force is Nearing the Finish Line … Sort of,” Defense
News, September 10, 2020. See also Paul McLeary, “New Navy Ships Plan Finally Ready; On Esper’s Desk Next
Week,” Breaking Defense, September 10, 2020.
95 David B. Larter, “Defense Department Study Calls for Cutting 2 of the US Navy’s Aircraft Carriers,” Defense News,
April 20, 2020; David B. Larter, “To Compete with China, An Internal Pentagon Study Looks to Pour Money into
Robot Submarines,” Defense News, June 1, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

99

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

The April documents viewed by Defense News included notional fleets designed by CAPE
and the Hudson Institute….
The fleets designed by the CAPE and Hudson teams agreed on the need to increase the
number and diversity of ships while boosting vertical launch system capacity—while also
holding the operations and sustainment cost of the fleet as steady as possible and avoid
adding to the number of sailors required to operate it.
As of the April drafts, both the CAPE and Hudson Institute teams were supportive of
shrinking the number of supercarriers to nine from the current 11, which would effectively
give the country eight active carriers, with one carrier always in midlife overhaul and
refueling. The Hudson study also called for investing in four light carriers.
The CAPE fleet called for between 80 and 90 large surface combatants, about the same
level as today’s 89 cruisers and destroyers. Hudson looked to reduce the number slightly
and instead fund more lightly manned corvettes, something Hudson has called for in the
past.
The reports called for between 65 and 87 large unmanned surface vessels or optionally
unmanned corvettes, which the Navy hopes will boost vertical launch system capacity to
offset the loss over time of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the four guided missile
submarines.
Both fleets called for increased small surface combatants, with the CAPE study putting the
upper limit at 70 ships. Hudson recommended a maximum of 56. The Navy’s 2016 Force
Structure Assessment called for 52 small surface combatants.
Both fleets also favored a slight increase in attack submarines over the current 66-ship
requirement but reflected a big boost in large unmanned submarines, anywhere between
40 and 60 total. The idea would be to get the Extra Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle
to do monotonous surveillance missions or highly dangerous missions, freeing up the more
complex manned platforms for other tasking.
On the amphibious side, both fleets reduced the overall number of traditional dock landing
ships, such as the LPD-17, from the current 23 to between 15 and 19. As for the big-deck
amphibious ships, CAPE favored holding at the current level of 10, while Hudson favored
cutting to five, with the savings reinvested towards four light carriers.
The studies called for between 20 and 26 of the Marines’ light amphibious warships, which
they need for ferrying Marines and gear around islands in the Pacific.
Both fleets significantly expanded the logistics force, with big increases coming from
smaller ships similar to offshore or oil platform support-type vessels. The fleets called for
anywhere from 19 to 30 “future small logistics” ships. The CAPE and Hudon fleets
increased the number of fleet oilers anywhere from 21 to 31, up from today’s 17….
The Hudson fleet called for a significant boost to the command and support ship
infrastructure from today’s 33 ships to 52 ships. CAPE called for the fleet to remain about
the same. Those ships include dry cargo ships, the expeditionary fast transports,
expeditionary transfer docks and expeditionary sea bases.
All told, the fleets posited between 316 and 358 “traditional” ships, but when new classes
and unmanned ships were lumped in, the fleet designs contained upwards of 500 ships or
more.96

96 David B. Larter and Aaron Mehta, “The Pentagon Is Eyeing a 500-Ship Navy, Documents Reveal,” Defense News,
September 24, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

100

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

A September 25, 2020, press report similarly stated that the Hudson Institute study called for a
Navy with 434 manned ships and 139 large UVs, including, among other things, 60 nuclear-
powered attack submarines (SSNs), 9 aircraft carriers, 80 corvettes, 26 Light Amphibious
Warships (LAWs), 99 medium unmanned surface vessels (MUSVs), and 40 extra-large unmanned
underwater vehicles (XLUUVs).97
June 2020 Testimony from Hudson Institute
At a June 4, 2020, hearing on hearing on future force structure requirements for the Navy before
the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, one
of the witnesses, Bryan Clark of the Hudson Institute, presented testimony that proposed a fleet of
473 manned ships and 152 large UVs, including 12 ballistic missile submarines; 61 SSNs; 10
large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs); 77 large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers
and destroyers); 52 small surface combatants (i.e., frigates and Littoral Combat Ships); 91
corvettes; 33 larger amphibious ships, including 9 large-deck (LHD/LHA-type) ships and 24
small-deck (LPD-type) ships; 27 smaller Light Amphibious Warships (LAWs); 39 larger resupply
ships (including 20 oilers); 20 smaller oilers; 51 command and support ships; 112 MUSVs; and
40 XLUUVs.98
October 2020 Report from Hudson Institute
An October 2020 report by the Hudson Institute on future Navy force structure presented a
revised set of force-level goals, recommending a fleet of 442 manned ships and 139 large UVs,
including 12 ballistic missile submarines; 60 SSNs; 9 large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft
carriers (CVNs); 64 large surface combatants (i.e., cruisers and destroyers); 52 small surface
combatants (i.e., frigates and Littoral Combat Ships); 80 corvettes; 30 larger amphibious ships,
including 8 large-deck (LHD/LHA-type) ships and 22 small-deck (LPD-type) ships; 26 smaller
Light Amphibious Warships (LAWs); 38 larger resupply ships; 18 smaller oilers; 53 command
and support ships; 99 MUSVs; and 40 XLUUVs.99

97 Justin Katz, “Enlisted by DEPSECDEF, Hudson Proposes Fleet Lighter on Carriers, Roughly 140 Unmanned
Vessels,” Inside Defense, September 25, 2020.
98 Prepared statement by Bryan Clark, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, to Seapower and Projection Forces
subcommittee, House Armed Services Committee, hearing on future force structure requirements for the United States
Navy, June 4, 2020, p. 4.
99 Bryan Clark, Timothy A. Walton, and Seth Cropsey, American Sea Power at a Crossroads: A Plan to Restore the US
Navy’s Maritime Advantage, Hudson Institute, September 2020, Table 1 on p. 9. The report was released on September
30, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

101

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

Appendix I. Potential Impacts of CRs on Navy
Shipbuilding Programs
This appendix provides general background information on the potential impacts of continuing
resolutions (CRs) on Navy shipbuilding programs.
General Background
Potential Impacts of CRs on DOD Acquisition Programs, Including Navy
Shipbuilding100
No New Starts, Quantity Increases, or Signing of New MYP Contracts
CRs can lead to challenges in the execution of DOD acquisition programs (i.e., research and
development programs and procurement programs), including Navy shipbuilding programs,
because they typically prohibit the following:
 new program starts (“new starts”), meaning the initiation of new program efforts
that did not exist in the prior year—a prohibition that includes not only the
initiation of new acquisition programs, but also the shifting of an existing
acquisition program from its research and development phase to its procurement
phase;
 an increase in procurement quantity for a program compared with that program’s
procurement quantity in the prior year; and
 the signing of new multiyear procurement (MYP) contracts.101
Larger Contracts Broken into Smaller Contracts
Under a CR, DOD financial managers might dole out funding to DOD acquisition program
managers, including managers of Navy shipbuilding programs, in an incremental, piecemeal
fashion. This can require a program manager to divide an intended single contract into multiple
smaller contracts, which can increase the total cost of the effort by reducing economies of scale
within each of the smaller contracts and increasing Navy and contractor administrative costs.
R&D Efforts That Support Ongoing Procurement Programs
Ongoing DOD procurement programs, including Navy shipbuilding programs, are frequently
supported by ongoing research and development (R&D) work. R&D work on an existing
procurement program can, for example, support the development and integration of new systems
or components intended to improve the end item’s capability, reliability, or maintainability, or
reduce its operation and support (O&S) costs.
Under a CR, R&D funding is managed at the account level, giving service officials some
flexibility in applying available R&D funding so as to protect high-priority R&D efforts,

100 For a general discussion of the potential impacts of CRs on DOD, see CRS Report R45870, Defense Spending
Under an Interim Continuing Resolution: In Brief, coordinated by Pat Towell.
101 For more on MYP contracts, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy Contracting in
Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

102

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

particularly those that might require more funding in the current fiscal year than they received in
the previous fiscal year. Doing that, however, can reduce funding available under the CR for other
R&D efforts, including those supporting ongoing procurement programs, such as Navy
shipbuilding programs, which can lead to program-execution challenges for those programs.
Additional Potential Impacts of CRs Specific to Navy Shipbuilding Programs
Line-Item Funding Misalignments
Unlike all other DOD acquisition accounts, the Navy’s shipbuilding account, known formally as
the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account, is funded in the annual
DOD appropriations act not just with a total appropriated amount for the entire account, but also
with specific appropriated amounts at the line-item level. SCN line items in the DOD
appropriations act are not just specific to individual shipbuilding programs—they also distinguish
between procurement funding and advance procurement (AP) funding within those programs.
As a consequence, under a CR, SCN funding is managed not at the account level (like funding is
under a CR for other DOD acquisition accounts), but at the line-item level. For the SCN
account—uniquely among DOD acquisition accounts—this can lead to line-by-line funding
misalignments (excesses and shortfalls) for individual shipbuilding programs, compared with the
amounts those shipbuilding programs received in the prior year. The shortfalls in particular can
lead to program-execution challenges in shipbuilding programs, particularly under an extended or
full-year CR. This unique situation of line-by-line funding misalignments is an important
distinction between the potential impacts of CRs on Navy shipbuilding programs and the
potential impacts of CRs on other DOD acquisition activities.
Cost-to-Complete (CTC) Funding
Cost-to-complete (CTC) funding is funding that the Navy requests as a line item in the SCN
account to cover cost growth on the construction of Navy ships that were funded in prior fiscal
years. The line item is known more formally as the completion of prior-year (PY) shipbuilding
programs line. CTC funding is requested in specific amounts for individual ships that are under
construction. CTC work is considered to be a new start and is therefore typically prohibited under
a CR,102 perhaps on the grounds that CTC work is funded through a line item that is used
exclusively to fund CTC work, and which is therefore separate from the line items that were used
to originally fund the procurement of the ships in question.
The deeming of CTC work as a new start, and therefore prohibited under a CR, could lead to
situations under a CR in which ships under construction sit in shipyards without undergoing work
needed to complete their construction—something that could not only delay the completion of
those ships, but might also increase their total construction costs, because a ship under
construction is charged, for each day that it is in its construction shipyard, some of the fixed
overhead costs of that shipyard.

102 Source: Navy FY2018 program briefing to CRS and CBO, September 20, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

103

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

Avoiding or Mitigating Potential Impacts of CRs
Anomalies Can Avoid or Mitigate Potential Impacts
The potential impacts described above can be avoided or mitigated if the CR includes special
provisions, called anomalies, for exempting individual programs or groups of programs from the
general provisions of the CR, or if the CR includes expanded authorities for DOD for
reprogramming and transferring funds.
DOD Has Adapted to Likelihood of CRs to Avoid or Mitigate Impacts
The potential impacts described above can also be mitigated if the agency (in this case, the Navy)
anticipates that one or more CRs will likely be used to fund DOD for the first few months of the
fiscal year, and consequently decides to structure acquisition programs to avoid, during those
months, planned contract signings or other actions that would be prohibited by a CR. The military
services have observed that in many cases in recent years, CRs have been used to fund DOD for
the first few months of the fiscal year. As an apparent adaptation, DOD program managers are
now structuring their programs to reduce the potential impacts of DOD being funded during the
first few months of the fiscal year by CRs.
A September 2021 GAO report on practices that DOD has adopted for managing within the
constraints of CRs states the following:
GAO found that the Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services’ obligations
and acquisitions are limited during a Continuing Resolution (CR), but they have some
practices in place to minimize the effects. Specifically, GAO found that for selected
appropriations’ accounts for fiscal years 2017 through 2020, the military services tended
to obligate, (i.e., make a legal commitment to pay for goods or services), a lower percentage
of their total annual obligations in the first quarter of the fiscal year—when DOD is most
likely to be operating under a CR—as compared with the other quarters....
Although DOD officials reported acquisitions were constrained by CR provisions that
restrict starting new programs and production rate increases, the programs GAO reviewed
were able to avoid delays or cost increases during the fiscal years with CRs. The military
services have instituted some practices to minimize the effects of CRs, including initiating
service contract start dates after the first quarter of the fiscal year and postponing
nonessential purchases and training to later in the fiscal year.
DOD officials stated both that the repetition and incremental planning required during a
CR is not an effective or efficient way to operate, but that preparing for and operating under
CRs have become routine in nature. GAO identified three activities directly related to
preparing for and operating under CRs—developing legislative anomaly proposals (i.e.,
requests for authority beyond the standard CR provisions), creating spending plans for
various CR scenarios, and adjusting contracts to reflect CR funding availability.103
In an October 3, 2021, opinion piece about this GAO report, a GAO official states
Our first key point [in the report] is that there are clear effects of CRs on DOD. We
collected and analyzed each military service’s quarterly obligation data for fiscal years
(FY) 2017 through 2020 for three appropriations accounts—Operation and Maintenance;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E); and Procurement (other)—to
assess the percentage of annual funds each military service obligated during CRs and after
the enactment of regular appropriations. We saw an unmistakable difference in spending

103 Government Accountability Office, Defense Budget[:] DOD Has Adopted Practices to Manage within the
Constraints of Continuing Resolutions, GAO-21-541, September 2021 (released September 13, 2021), summary page.
Congressional Research Service

104

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

patterns during those fiscal years with CRs and the one recent fiscal year without (fiscal
year 2019)....
... we also determined that DOD has developed some practices to mitigate the effects of
CRs. For instance, officials can request so-called anomalies to get permission from
Congress to spend funds they would normally be restricted from spending during a CR.
They can also initiate the start date for one-year service contracts to the second quarter of
the fiscal year to avoid a break in service at the beginning of the next fiscal year.
[Other observers] suggest that because these practices are in place, we conclude that CRs
are benign. On the contrary, our report provides a more complex discussion of these
mitigation practices.
Take, for example, our discussion of major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) and
the constraints posed by the No New Starts provision typically contained in CRs. We
analyzed each of the 254 Selected Acquisition Reports the military services submitted to
Congress for fiscal years 2017 through 2019....
Of the 254 reports, we identified seven that explicitly cited CRs as posing risks, such as
delays and cost increases. When we met with officials, however, we learned that the CRs
did not have their predicted effects on these seven programs. We further listed the ways in
which DOD managed to avoid the potential problems and cited officials’ continued
concerns.
For example, we reported that the Navy avoided a problem it faced with its Ship to Shore
Connector, which was under production in FY19, but that did not have any planned
production in FY20. This gap in production would have meant that any production in FY21
would constitute a “new start” and, therefore, be prohibited under a CR. In this case,
Congress authorized the production of a single Ship to Shore Connector during FY20,
preventing a production gap. Nonetheless, as we reported, officials also warned there were
zero units planned for production in FY21, creating the same risk for FY22.
The key takeaway from our report, therefore, is not that CRs are inconsequential but, rather,
that defense officials have found ways to prepare for and respond to the very real
constraints they pose.104
In connection with the use of a CR to fund the first part of FY2017, a September 29, 2016, press
report stated the following:
The Navy has planned for and can mitigate the effects of [a CR], as long as Congress passes
a proper Fiscal Year 2017 budget by Dec. 9, 2016.
The Navy planned for most of its major acquisition milestones to take place in the second
quarter of the fiscal year rather than the first quarter, predicting that the year would likely
start off with a continuing resolution, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Kara Yingling told USNI
News. Under a continuing resolution, the previous year’s funding levels carry over,
meaning that new budget items are not funded and programs expecting a significant
funding boost would continue to operate at the previous year’s lower levels.
“The Navy has many new starts and program increases planned in FY ‘17. However, a CR
through December 9th is manageable because more of the initial contracts are scheduled in
Quarter 2 [of the fiscal year] and the Navy can take mitigating action for the first three
months of FY ’17,” Yingling said today....

104 Elizabeth Field, “Defense Officials Find Ways to Operate within Continuing Resolutions—But That Doesn’t Mean
CRs Are Smooth Sailing,” The Hill, October 3, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

105

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

Though program managers and Navy acquisition officials often note that stable and
sufficient funding would help them better keep their programs on track, Yingling said the
service would manage the impact of this six-week CR....
“Due to historical CRs, most FY ‘17 contracts are planned for Q2,” Yingling said, and if
the second quarter of the fiscal year is also governed by a CR then the Navy would look at
potentially awarding smaller contracts to get programs started—a contracting burden that
would cost more and potentially slow down programs’ progress.105
As another example, in connection with the use of a CR to fund the first part of FY2018, a
September 11, 2017, press report stated the following:
Pentagon plans to ramp up production of about two-dozen major weapon systems in fiscal
year 2018 would be largely unaffected by the stopgap spending bill President Trump and
congressional leaders hope to enact, funding the federal government from Oct. 1 to Dec. 8.
Nearly all of the big-ticket programs that aim to increase procurement rates in FY-18
compared to FY-17—including deals for a new aircraft carrier, more armored vehicles,
tank upgrades, precision munitions and aircraft—have set target dates to execute contract
awards after that 10-week window, according to a review of Pentagon budget
documents.106
Similarly, an October 6, 2017, press report about the use of a CR to fund the first part of FY2018
stated the following: “The Navy tends to avoid planning contract actions in the first quarter of the
fiscal year, since the last nine years have begun under a continuing resolution.”107
At a September 19, 2017, hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on recent Navy
ship collisions, the following exchange occurred (emphasis added):
SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN (continuing):
... I wonder if you could talk in detail about the impact of continuing resolutions, budget
cycle after budget cycle, and how they affect maintenance and training plans for ships. And
are forward deployed ships affected more than ships stateside? Can you—is there any
correlation there?
ADMIRAL JOHN M. RICHARDSON, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Ma’am, as I said, we will prioritize our resources to those forces that are forward deployed
and that will deploy forward. And so we will not leave those teams short of resources.
Having said that, the uncertainty that they can—well actually—it’s become actually
certain. We’re certain that we're not going to get a budget in the first quarter [of the
fiscal year]. And so...
(CROSSTALK)
SHAHEEN:
Which is a sad commentary on the budget situation.
RICHARDSON:

105 Megan Eckstein, “Navy Can Weather 6-Week Continuing Resolution, But Extension Would Delay Columbia
Submarine Class, Other Programs,” USNI News, September 29, 2016.
106 Jason Sherman, “DOD Procurement Plans Largely Safe Under Short-Term FY-18 CR,” Inside the Navy, September
11, 2017.
107 Megan Eckstein, “Top Navy Procurement Programs Facing Slow Start In FY 2018 Due to Continuing Resolution,”
USNI News, October 6, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

106

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

... behaviors have adapted. And so we don't put anything in the important in the first
quarter of the [fiscal] year, and we have to compete three out of four quarters of the
game.
And, in addition to just that fact, the—what happens is you have to double your contracting,
right? You have to write a tiny little contract for the length of the continuing resolution,
and then you have to write another one for the rest of the year. As you know, nothing new
can start, and so we try not to schedule anything new in that first quarter.
The maintenance and training—those are the hardest things. And so, as those—as the
uncertainty, you know, injects itself, it is always—the things on the bubble [i.e., at risk of
being affected] are maintenance periods, particularly surface ship maintenance periods.
It is, you know, “How many steaming hours am I going to get? How many flying hours am
I going to get? $150 million per month shortfall—how do I manage that?” These are the
effects of the continuing resolutions.108
A September 28, 2017, press report states the following:
The Navy has gotten creative in dealing with budget uncertainties and continuing
resolutions, developing a new ship maintenance contract structure to keep 11 ship
availabilities on track at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2018 that would otherwise face major
delays due to the impending CR, the head of surface ship maintenance told USNI News.
Rear Adm. Jim Downey, commander of Navy Regional Maintenance Centers and deputy
commander for surface warfare at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) told USNI
News today that up to a third of the ship maintenance workload can be put at risk when the
fiscal year starts with a CR. This year, the Pentagon has already said 11 ship availabilities
are at risk....
To avoid these delays, Downey said the Navy is now awarding contracts that are structured
differently, to leverage the fact that maintenance work is typically funded with one-year
money—use-it-or-lose-it money which must be spent in the year it is appropriated by
lawmakers—whereas modernization efforts are typically paid for with three-year money.
In essence, the planning and early work for a ship availability can get started as a ship
modernization effort, with planning and early activities paid for with three-year money
already in the Navy’s accounts, and one-year maintenance work can be added in later, once
the availability is already underway and Congress eventually gives the Navy its full-year
appropriations.
“We’ve worked very hard on how we structure our funding to get the planning to keep all
those ships in play, and to keep them in play to their schedule, expecting that the funding
is going to come just in time,” Downey said.
“So we do the planning for them. … And then we go ahead and structure that contract to
deal with the continuing resolution. So the base work now may be more modernization-
related because I have that money, and I’m going to lay the maintenance work in as an
option. So I’m going to award you the contract; I may not be 100-percent funded but I am
funded for this part. I’m going to award the contract to you—we’re currently referring to
it as a split-CLIN approach—so that you’ve got the work and you know that the rest of the
work is coming, you’re going to be able to bid against it, we’re going to exercise those
options if we get the budget approved.”
Downey told USNI News that he can’t change how Congress appropriates money—the
Department of Defense has begun every fiscal year since FY 2010 under a continuing
resolution, during which time the Navy cannot fund new projects and cannot ramp up
spending above the previous year’s levels – but he can best set up the Navy to succeed in

108 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service

107

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

this kind of new normal. Though the Navy has already largely stopped planning acquisition
contract actions during the first quarter of the year, ship maintenance, modernization and
repair work must take place throughout the year to maintain even workloads at the yards
and to address emergent issues, and therefore required a creative solution to get around the
CRs.
“The first issue is, if you don’t have all the money, especially with single-year
appropriations in maintenance, how do you do that? So we’re getting as legally creative as
we can. So then you get a repair yard that says, okay, so I’m betting on this other work.
Then you go to, historically, when have we not had a budget ultimately? It’s going to come
through at some point,” he said.109
Although structuring acquisition programs to avoid, during the first few months of a fiscal year,
planned contract signings or other actions that would be prohibited by CRs can mitigate the
potential impacts of CRs on the execution of DOD acquisition programs, it might also lead to a
risk, from DOD’s perspective, of a creating a so-called “moral hazard”—that is, of taking an
action that might be well-intentioned, but which, as a consequence of adapting to an undesired
behavior by another party (in this case, Congress’s use of CRs to fund DOD at the start of fiscal
years), might encourage more of that behavior from the other party in the future.
Navy Information Paper on CR Impacts to FY2022 Navy Programs
A September 7, 2021, Navy information paper on the impacts to FY2022 Department of the Navy
programs of FY2022 CRs lasting 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months that the Navy Office of
Legislative Affairs provided to CRS on September 13, 2021,110 states
The Department of the Navy (DON) faces numerous challenges operating under a CR, and
they are compounded by the global threat environment. The CR specifies a rate of
operations, which is usually the current year.111 This requires the DON to execute at FY21
enacted funding levels while attempting to execute the National Defense Strategy priorities
reflected in our PB22 request. Operating under CR authority slows development of critical
new capabilities and acquisition schedules, delays new facility construction, disrupts
operational readiness, slows accessions and PCS moves, delays force transitions such as
the Guam buildup, and creates business process inefficiencies.
As CRs become longer in duration, constraining new starts and rates of operations
exacerbates delays in the investments required to deliver a more ready, more lethal,
resilient, and rapidly innovative force to ensure we can compete, deter, and win in strategic
competition. Recurring CRs erode, and in some cases reverse, the Navy’s readiness
recovery effort that began in FY18. Momentum gained to rebuild our military forces to win
in a high-end fight scenario will continue to slow under an extended CR because funds are
misaligned, reduced, or prohibited from use. For the period FY 2003 through FY 2021,
only five fiscal years started with appropriation acts. CRs have become the routine method
of operating at the beginning of the fiscal year.

109 Megan Eckstein, “Navy Using ‘Legally Creative’ Contract Structure to Keep Ship Availabilities On track Despite
Continuing Resolutions,” USNI News, September 28, 2017.
110 Navy information paper entitled “Fiscal Year Continuing Resolution (CR) Impacts Paper,” September 7, 2021,
provided by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS on September 13, 2021, 4 pp. plus attachment. See also Megan
Eckstein, “Year-Long Continuing Resolution Would Cost the Navy $14B in Spending Power,” Defense News, August
3, 2021.
111 The Navy information paper includes a footnote at this point that states: “A CR specifies a rate of operations that is
usually the current year. This is known as the Estimated Annualized CR (FY 2021 for FY 2022 CR). The CR generally
provides budget authority for most projects and activities at the rate at which they were funded in the prior year.”
Congressional Research Service

108

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

There are moderate operational impacts in shorter term CRs, but they are disruptive and
result in lost time as well as increased administrative workload that detracts from the
business of the Department, including oversight and management, and slows investing in
the Navy and Marine Corps force. Non-value added workload includes:
— Planning required in advance of the potential CRs;
— Continuous need to reprioritize efforts during extended periods of CRs to manage
impacts on procurement programs, meet the demand signal and ensure continued
support to warfighter priorities;
— Increase in the number of transactions processed due to incremental funding under the
CR.
Since the basis of operations in a CR is a different fiscal year than the President’s Budget
Request (PBR), there are misalignments/shortfalls created by CR restrictions on new starts
and production rate increases. While the difference between the FY 2022 PBR and the
Estimated Annualized CR Base is only $4.4B, restrictions on new starts and production
rate increases creates a misalignment of funds of $14.2B in a year-long CR as shown in the
table below.

Anomalies: DON requested several anomalies for inclusion in an overall DoD anomaly.
In addition to a rate of operations anomaly for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN)
for Columbia Class submarine Advance Procurement, the DON will require anomalies for
new start and production rate increases for several other programs in Procurement,
RDTEN, and Military Construction (MILCON). MILCON projects must be both
appropriated and authorized (via the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A
complete listing of new starts, production rate increases, and appropriations rate of
operations increases for the entire fiscal year is provided at Attachment 1 [see below].
Impacts of a 3-month CR: The DON may require an Exception To Apportionment (ETA)
for MILPERS and will slow new accessions and Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
moves.112 The DON will face a $0.6B first quarter O&M shortfall compared to the budget
request for Ship Maintenance, Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN), and USMC
Operating Forces readiness. This forces DON to manage contracts inefficiently using
incremental financial management and contracting practices to piecemeal funds due to
limited resources. Acquisition programs will be delayed, slipping capability delivery and
causing contract inefficiencies. Other programs impacted by schedule delays/cost growth
include CVN 75 Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH), V-22, KC-130J, JSF STOVL,

112 The information paper includes a footnote at this point that states: “Exceptions’ refers to requests for exception
apportionments during the CR. In most cases, OMB makes automatic apportionments to each account on a pro rata
basis according to the CR provisions. While OMB generally cannot apportion an amount above the annualized rate of
operations authorized in the CR, it may apportion additional amounts above the automatic apportionment in
extraordinary circumstances. Apportionments for these additional amounts are referred to as exception
apportionments.”
Congressional Research Service

109

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

MQ-25, AARGM-ER, Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), IWS 12, Naval Strike
Missile (NSM), TRIDENT II D5 Life Extension 2 (D5LE2), Conventional Prompt Strike,
Long Endurance Electronic Decoy (LEED), Next Generation Fast Attack Nuclear
Propulsion Development, Medusa, Common Weapons Datalink Radio, and NGEN.
MILCON projects will be delayed in CA, NV, NC, and Guam (5 projects).
Impacts of a 6-month CR: MILPERS will require an ETA to cover January increases in
basic pay, retired pay accrual (RPA), basic allowance for housing (BAH) and basic
allowance for subsistence (BAS) increases. There is an increased likelihood of slowing
accessions, PCS moves, and delay in new bonuses. In addition to appropriations,
authorization is needed by 31 Dec 2021 (via the NDAA) to renew expiring military and
civilian pay, bonuses and other benefits including military pay raises and specialty pays for
Servicemembers serving overseas, and targeted reenlistment bonuses.
With a cumulative 6-month shortfall of $1.2B in O&M compared with the budget, levels
of effort will be reduced for items increased in the budget to improve DON readiness,
including Flight Operations, Fleet Air Training, Ship Operations and Maintenance,
Aviation Logistics, Base Support, INDOPACOM Support. Other areas with shortfalls
under a CR include ship inactivations, Ready Relevant Learning, and Service-wide Support
programs. NGEN requirements continue to increase monthly.
The DON expects significant and some irreversible operational impacts under a 6-month
CR or longer as Fleets delay and/or cancel scheduled maintenance, restrict the use of
overtime at ship depots, and defer the purchase of Government Furnished Material and
spare parts for ships and aircraft. Readiness will degrade across the Fleet Marine Forces.
USMC will reduce the scope and scale of exercises which impact Marine Corps unit level
deployments for training, service level pre-deployment training, and large, multi-lateral
exercises and partnership opportunities by Combatant Commanders. Previously mentioned
acquisition programs schedule delays and cost growth are exacerbated. The following
programs will also experience delays and cost growth: LCS 23, 25, and 26 Cost to
Complete; CVN 74 RCOH; T-ATS; Ship to Shore Connectors; T-AO; E-2D; Marine
Group 5 Unmanned Aerial System; and JASSM. MILCON project delays mentioned
before will be exacerbated, and additional MILCON projects will be delayed in VA and
Guam (2 projects).
Impacts of a Year-Long CR: MILPERS appropriation shortfalls ($1.9B) will require a
significant reduction in strength, curtailment of PCS moves, and elimination of most new
bonus awards. Navy will end the fiscal year significantly below authorized end strength.
Total O&M reduction in funding under a full year CR is $2.4B, resulting in cancellation of
ship depot maintenance, aircraft repair part purchases, ship underway training, ship,
submarine or carrier spare parts purchases, repair contracts and maintenance for LCACs
and LCUs, Expeditionary Table of Allowance maintenance and replacement. Cancellations
will include training range support, support for C5I efforts, shutdown of non-deployed
CVWs and Expeditionary squadrons, Fleet Replacement Squadrons, and Chief of Naval
Air Training (CNATRA), and cancellation of efforts in shore programs such as air and port
operations, fleet and family services, facilities management and environment compliance
and further reduced levels of sustainment.
Marine Corps readiness degradation continues as the delay in appropriations causes
funding to be reprioritized to fixed costs. NGEN end user devices will be rendered
inoperable. Reduced shore resources will risk shore programs such as air and port
operations, fleet and family services, facilities management and environment compliance
since utilities and transportation costs must be funded. Procurement ($6.2B) and R&D
($2.5B) shortfalls delay delivery of critical capabilities, and increase cost.
Previously mentioned acquisition programs schedule delays and cost growth are
exacerbated. The following programs will also experience delays and cost growth: SSBN
826 (first Columbia class), CVN 80, Cost to Complete (LCS 27, 28, 30, LPD 29, DDG-
Congressional Research Service

110

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

121, 122, 123), FFG, Auxiliary Vessels (Used Sealift), T-AGOS, Hellfire, JAGM,
Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD), and MK-48 Torpedo ADCAP.
MILCON projects experience $1.3B in shortfalls. Delays mentioned before will be
exacerbated. Additional MILCON projects will be delayed in VA, and Yokosuka, Japan.
Family housing shortfall of $35M disrupts operations. Revolving funds are unable to
execute $150M.
Summary: In total, a year-long CR creates a misalignment of $14.2B between the
annualized CR and the FY 2022 PBR as identified in Attachment 1. Anomalies and the
ability to realign funding between the CR authority and PB22 requirements would be
required to mitigate the impact of the misalignment of funds. Specific impacts of a FY2020
CR on the Navy and Marine Corps will depend on the duration, becoming more challenging
the longer the CR continues. Under a 12-month CR (with no anomalies), there would be
severe lasting impacts due to the estimated $20.4B shortfall ($15.8B Navy / $4.6B USMC)
due to restrictions on new starts, production rate increases, and appropriation rate increases.
The single most effective way to sustain readiness and maintain critical strategic
momentum is to provide adequate, stable and predictable funding.
Attachment 1
[See attachment below.]
Congressional Research Service

111

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

January 12, 2022, Navy Testimony on CR Impacts
In his prepared statement for a January 12, 2022, hearing before the Defense subcommittee of the
House Appropriations Committee on the impact of CRs on DOD and the military services, the
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, stated in part (with comments relating to
shipbuilding highlighted in bold):
Under the current CR, the Navy has to operate, maintain, and modernize the Fleet at last
year’s enacted funding level, which falls short of historical inflation and immensely short
of current inflation, and is significantly less than the funding level Congress is
contemplating for Fiscal Year 2022 (FY-22).
Every day and every dollar matters. CRs remove predictable funding levels that allow us
to spend taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible and deprive us of executing program
line-items and new starts. They disrupt operational readiness, slow development of critical
new capabilities, impede acquisition schedules, delay construction projects, and create
business process inefficiencies up and down the Navy.
We are doing what we can to mitigate the impacts of the current CR. Eleven years of
consecutive CRs—apart from FY-19—have taught us to anticipate them. Rather than
Congressional Research Service

112

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

execute appropriated funds as efficiently as would be possible with predictable funding,
we plan towards inefficiency and postpone new starts until later in the fiscal year. These
measures force us to expend precious time and manpower on managing cash flow,
determining which programs to prioritize and which to let languish, and segmenting
contract actions into multiple transactions that could otherwise be done once. These
incremental approaches create a cascading effect. We cannot receive the best contract
prices, we often pay multiple times for contract fees, and then lose time and skilled labor
for redundant tasks. The consequences of these added burdens are real and can never be
recovered.
Impacts from a CR become more severe if they are extended over a full year. Such an
extension would be an unprecedented measure with dire consequences. A full-year CR
changes the impact from delaying programs to completely eliminating them in FY-22. For
the Department of the Navy, under a full-year CR, the net shortfall between the CR funded
level and the FY-22 request is $4.4 billion. However, when adjusted for CR funding
restrictions on new starts, production rate increases, and appropriation rate increases, a full-
year CR would misalign $14.0 billion in resources. 24 new starts and 15 production rate
increases to critical programs would go unexecuted. End strength would be reduced,
maintenance and training events cancelled, and fleet and family services curtailed. The
impacts would ripple down to the industrial base, with programs falling below minimum
sustaining rates, resulting in possible shutdowns or furloughs of smaller suppliers and loss
of experienced workers.
As our competitors aggressively modernize their forces, a full-year CR cedes ground we
cannot afford to yield. CRs further erode our deterrence posture against China.
Ultimately, my request is simple: prevent a full-year CR and enact FY-22 appropriations.
The competition is on, and it is heating up. If the CR continues past February, or worse,
remains in effect through the end of the fiscal year, we inject unnecessary risk to our
national security and concede advantages to our adversaries; we make our sailors’ mission
even more difficult; we signal doubt to allies and partners; and we waste American
taxpayer dollars. All of which can be prevented....
The current FY-22 CR is already negatively affecting our priorities, and its impacts will
only grow in severity if the CR is extended. Below are some key concerns.
Columbia-class Submarine and Strategic Nuclear Deterrence. Since the shipbuilding
account is uniquely line-item appropriated, the CR provides insufficient funding for
SSBN 826, our first Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine and number one
modernization priority. Advanced procurement funding for the follow-on
submarines (SSBN 827-830) are also affected. If the CR is extended over the full year,
we expect construction delays to the Columbia-class program and costs to grow,
increasing delivery risk to this critical system and threatening our ability to meet U.S.
Strategic Command requirements. This is a program with zero margin for delays.
Also significant to strategic nuclear deterrence, the CR delays the TRIDENT II D5 Life
Extension 2 (D5LE2). This program extends the service life of the strategic weapons
system to align with the service life of Columbia-class SSBNs, which provides America a
safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.
Readiness. The current CR is creating a shortfall of more than $1 billion in Navy
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding. To mitigate these effects on the fleet, we are
reducing levels of effort for critical programs, including ship operations and maintenance,
flight operations, fleet air training, base support, and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
(INDOPACOM) support. We’ve delayed major O&M contracts until later in the year with
the expectation that a full appropriation can be enacted by then. However, this results in
delayed training and sustainment requirements for the Fleet, as well as disrupts schedules
for our organic industrial base.
Congressional Research Service

113

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

A full-year CR would create an O&M shortfall exceeding $2 billion, imperiling the
readiness of the United States Navy. Specifically, this includes:
•
Ship operation reductions puts training certification for one Carrier Strike Group and
two Expeditionary Strike Group work ups at high risk, impacting FY-23 deployments.
•
Ship Maintenance impacts would ripple through the public ship yards and the private
industrial base for future fiscal years. Five attack-submarines (SSN) and two aircraft
carriers (CVN) maintenance availabilities would be cancelled or delayed, adversely
impacting the industrial base, increasing idle time, and delaying the return of these
assets to operational status.
•
Shutdown of non-deployed carrier air wings, expeditionary squadrons, Fleet
Replacement Squadrons, and Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) squadrons.
•
Cancelled procurement of aircraft repair parts and ship, submarine, and aircraft carrier
spare parts.
•
Cancelled support for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, and
Intelligence (C5I).
•
Cancelled training range support.
•
Because utilities and transportation costs must be funded, other shore efforts will be
reduced or cancelled. These include air and port operations, fleet and family services,
facilities management, and environmental compliance.
For military construction, under a year-long CR, six Navy projects would be impacted due
to new start restrictions including a dry-dock saltwater system for CVN 78 at Norfolk
Naval Shipyard (VA), a submarine pier in Norfolk (VA), X-Ray wharf berth in Guam, a
directed energy weapons test facility in Ventura (CA), a Joint Reserve Intelligence Center
in Minneapolis (MN), and a ship handling and combat training facility in Yokosuka, Japan.
Modernization and Capabilities. New Start procurement and R&D programs cannot be
executed under the current CR, costing us valuable time every day. If the CR is extended
over the full year, R&D new starts would be cancelled. These include:
•
Advanced Nuclear Power Systems: Next Generation Fast Attack Nuclear
Propulsion Development.
•
Digital Warfare: Common Weapon Datalink Radio.
•
Small/Medium Unmanned Undersea Vehicles.
•
Precision Strike Weapons Development: Advanced Aerial Refueling Store and Sea
Launched Cruise Missile Nuclear.
•
Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Weapons Development: Increment II and
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM).
•
Warfare Support System: Expeditionary Small Unmanned Aircraft System
Development.
•
Ship Self Defense: Long Endurance Electronic Decoy (LEED).
•
Intelligence Mission Data: Acquisition Intelligence Requirements.
Shortfalls in procurement, R&D funding, and restrictions on production rate increases
under a full-year CR would also delay critical capabilities to the fleet and result in increased
costs per program. Weapons procurement production rate increases that would be restricted
include Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER),
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), Naval Strike Missile (NSM), Long Range Anti-
Ship Missile (LRASM), and Hellfire.
Congressional Research Service

114

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

Based on the threat we are facing, we need to maintain combat credibility in contested seas.
For many of our major development programs, the schedule pressure to meet an Initial
Operational Capability in a timeframe driven by the threat would be significantly
challenged, eroding our military advantage and combat credibility. Disruption to these
tightly coupled development and testing programs would most likely be unrecoverable
within the required timeframe.
One of the programs driving the increase in FY22 from FY21 is the Conventional Prompt
Strike (CPS) program. The CPS missile, being developed and produced jointly with the
U.S. Army, will provide Navy ships including Zumwalt-class destroyers and Block V
Virginia-class submarines with a hypersonic weapon capability that is critical in our ability
as a nation to deter China from conflict in the Western Pacific. Funding this program
increase under a full-year CR would require diverting funding from other important R&D
programs.
Capacity. The risk in capacity is exacerbated to unacceptable levels under a full-year CR.
Because shipbuilding funding cannot be shifted [within the shipbuilding account] to
higher priority [shipbuilding] programs, the CR impacts [in shipbuilding] are
widespread, affecting Ford-class aircraft carriers, aircraft carrier refueling
overhauls, Constellation-class guided missile frigates, John Lewis-class T-AO fleet
oilers, and used sealift auxiliary vessels. We need these ships in the fleet as soon as
possible. A full-year CR would drive significant schedule delays and increase the cost
of all of these programs.
The impact to the industrial base also needs to be considered. Private industry is
already challenged in recruiting, training, and retaining a skilled labor force. The
supply chain is already stressed from COVID-19. A full-year CR generates enormous
disruption to construction, production, maintenance, and repair schedules,
increasing the risk of loss of skilled artisans and highly specialized workers. This loss
of our skilled workforce will drive up costs, increase production time, and reduce
quality of the end products beyond FY-22. Industry will lose confidence in
government partnerships and may begin to factor CR uncertainty into the prices they
charge the government.
In addition, delayed production ramps will leave industry capacity unused at a time
when we are trying to maintain the fleet we have and build affordable capacity.
Industry needs a clear and consistent commitment from the United States
Government in order to make the necessary long-term investments in capital
expenditures and workforce growth. A full-year CR would quash these capacity
expansion efforts, perhaps beyond recovery.
Sailors. The fiscal uncertainty created by CRs takes a real toll on those we need the most
to keep pace with rising adversaries: our Sailors, civilians, and their families. Uncertain
funding adds unnecessary anxiety that distracts Sailors from executing their missions far
from home. CRs limit military personnel funding to last year’s levels, which means funding
the 2.7 percent pay raise and increased housing and subsistence allowances authorized in
the FY-22 National Defense Authorization Act requires offsetting reductions in other
military personnel programs. For the Navy, this results in slower accessions, deferred
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves, and reduction of family and base support
services. These impacts have ripple down effects that are deeply felt, but difficult to
measure. Military families are accustomed to changing jobs, homes, and schools, which
are in themselves enormous challenges. But deferring PCS moves and reducing services to
families adds even more strain to an already stressful time for so many of our Sailors.
Additionally, if the CR is extended for a full year, then end strength will have to be
reduced—in the active account by 23,000 of the 31,500 planned accessions beginning in
January. A full-year CR would mean immediately stopping initial Special and Incentive
Pays and Selected Re-enlistment Bonus contracts. At a time when we are in competition
Congressional Research Service

115

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

for talent, recruitment and retention may decline as people pursue other opportunities or
choose careers with more stability. The disruptions to training events and exercises will
significantly impact military and civilian recruitment, retention, and professional
development. We are breaking faith with our Sailors. Pilots who don’t fly, mariners that
don’t sail, maintainers that don’t maintain, will not stay with us. The combined impact of
a year-long CR on our world-class workforce would be yet another erosion of our military
advantage over China....
Extending the current CR will impair our ability to protect America and its interests, both
today and in the future. We cannot afford to forfeit our edge—too much is at stake.113

Author Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

113 Statement of Admiral Michael M. Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations, on the Impact of Continuing Resolutions to
the United States Navy, Before the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, January 12, 2022, 8
pp. See also Megan Eckstein, “Navy, Marines Would Cut Flying Hours, Cancel Weapon Purchases Under Full-Year
CR,” Defense News, January 25, 2022; Aidan Quigley, “Navy: Yearlong CR Would Hamper Shipbuilding, Aviation
and Missile Procurement,” Inside Defense, January 25, 2022; Konstantin Toropin and Rebecca Kheel, “Drastic Cuts to
Recruiting, Moves and New Ship Delays Are Inevitable Without a Budget, Navy Says,” Military.com, January 25,
2022.
Congressional Research Service
RL32665 · VERSION 358 · UPDATED
116