Home » Naval » Navy Shipbuilding Gap Grows

Navy Shipbuilding Gap Grows

By Greg Grant Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 1:58 pm
Posted in Naval, Policy

The big question for the Navy in advance of the QDR and the 2011 budget release was would DOD reconcile the growing gap between the Navy’s shipbuilding and funding plans? The answer is no. They didn’t even try. The QDR pretty much defers on the subject of tying future shipbuilding to strategy. There is some vague talk in the document about the need for the Navy and the Air Force to jointly develop an air-sea battle concept to ensure power projection, but it provides no further details.

As for the Navy budget, the 2011 request increases funding for new ship construction from $12.4 billion in 2010 to $13.8 billion this year. But, as we noted yesterday, ~~OMB~~ the Congressional Budget Office recently pointed out the simple fact that a funding profile of between $13–15 billion a year will not get the Navy to its stated goal of a 313 ship fleet. ~~OMB~~ CBO estimated that at least $21 billion per year was needed and that at $15 billion per year the fleet would fall to around 270 ships by 2025.

According to Navy budget documents, funding is provided to operate a battle fleet of 284 ships in 2011, including 11 carriers and 29 large amphibious ships.

The 2011 shipbuilding plan buys nine ships: two Virginia class subs, two DDG 51 destroyers, two Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), one Landing Helicopter Assault Replacement (LHA ®) ship (the follow on to the Tarawa-class LHA), one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), and one Joint High Speed Vessel (JHV).

The Navy plan came in for some criticism Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi noting that the fleet is the smallest it has been since the 1980s, fact that .Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former chief of naval operations, sadly acknowledged. Mullen said the Navy still plans to build a 313-ship fleet but isn’t getting there any time soon. “The Navy is very pressed right now, operating at a very high tempo,” Mullen said. The service, “is sort of at the edge of being able to meet out global commitments.”

Across the FYDP, LCS construction is projected to increase to 3 ships next year and then steady state procurement of 4 ships per year during 2013–15, for a planned total LCS buy of 17 ships by 2015.

The Navy requested $18.5 billion for new aircraft. That total includes low rate initial procurement funds for 13 F-35B Short Takeoff and Landing and seven F-35C carrier jets. The request includes funding for 22 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and 12 EA-18G Growlers. Shutdown of the F-18 production line is delayed until 2013. Of course that could change as the F-35 JSF continues to battle development problems.

The Navy/Marine Corps budget buys a lot of helicopters, including: 2 new AH-1Z Super Cobra attack helicopters and remanufacture of eight more and 18 UH-1Y utility helicopters. The 2001 budget buys 24 MH-60R Seahawk and 18 MH-60S Knighthawk helicopters. The budget also funds 30 MV-22B Marine Corps Osprey tilt rotor aircraft.

Correction: The original story said the source for the shipbuilding budget gap was OMB. That was incorrect, it was CBO.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	CharlesHouston February 2nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm We should be glad to see them buying new F-18s, they will almost certainly appear when promised. The F-35 is still too subject to cancellation, stretch out, development problems, etc.
	BOOMER February 2nd, 2010 at 5:23 pm F18’s are needed, but at the same time the new littoral ship’s are a waste of money. They need to be talking to the SEAL TEAMS and SWCC units who make a living at littoral combat in marine enviroments and buy what they suggest rather than listening to blue water navy officers that are out of thier zones in this issue.
	Lord Falcone February 3rd, 2010 at 1:04 am This is all wrong. Here’s what we need: DDG1000 = 8 new boats a year, Get the DDX program on track and add 6 of them a year (new boats) as well. start pumping out the Gerald Fords at a rate of 2 per year, get back up to 15 full carrier battle/strike groups. Subs: I say increase production of the Virginias to 4 per year, maintain a fleet of 100. Also, press full ahead with the f/22 carrier variant, procure about 100 per year. These simple steps will straighten us out folks, hope that settles any debate.
	A. Nonymous February 3rd, 2010 at 1:29 am As long as we don’t allow a mineshaft gap to develop, I’m okay with a shipbuilding gap.
	GI Joe February 3rd, 2010 at 2:37 am This is disheartening to be sure. The Navy has disposed of dozens of still-viable combatants in the past 15 years, many on the verge of significant updates and modernizations. Cruisers, carriers, destroyers, subs, even battleships. Better to have really good, proven and existing capability, as opposed to future, speculative and really expensive capability.…
	JAG February 3rd, 2010 at 4:35 am While i’m sure the Navy would love that, and that would definately get us closer to where our navy should be.…if you havent noticed, we’re in budget / debt melt down and the 8 DDG1000’s per year is at least $16b alone.…6 new DDX (assume another $6b), Gerald Fords at $12b and 4 Virginias at $8b.…and another $10b a year for standard F22’s (nevermind undeveloped carrier virants).…you’re talking a min of $50b a year in spending you just layed out vs. a $13.8b current budget…not gonna happen in today’s times.…i would think we could swing a touch more for more ships than allocated and toward the 313 ship goal, but we cant tripple the historical budget for 1 DOD Dept.…
	WarPony February 3rd, 2010 at 4:57 am America requires the 600 (… settle for 400) ship fleet with 13 carrier groups. If WE are going to be something other than the policeman for the “toll road operators” then we should nationalize the steel and heavy metal industries to assure supply — so there is no “suplize~!”
	William C. February 3rd, 2010 at 6:23 am Why not? Look at the way we are slinging around money everywhere else? F-22 would not be easily adaptable to carrier operations. This new fighter would largely be a new design but it could share many common parts and systems.
	R. Benson February 3rd, 2010 at 7:30 am I’m with Lord Falcone on this one.
	RetiredLDO February 3rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm There is simply NO WAY to deliver two Ford-Class carriers per year, now or ever. Even if (BIG IF) we had the money to throw at them it could not be done. Do you have any idea how ships are built and what it takes to deliver a CVN? If you did I doubt you’d make a statement like that .
	BOOMER February 3rd, 2010 at 8:05 am They need to take a step back and refocus. The DDX is junk, the virginia class is junk, and the LCS is junk. all have too many gadgets and are too hard to work on. Need to stop building new ships period till they go back to the drawing board and lay out the blue prints and identify what they missed such as port to starboard cross connect systems, double valve isolations on the supply and return side of every system, electrical by passes, reduce the amount of electronicly controlled valves, etc. The way these craft are being put out these days doesnt allow for them to remain fully combat ready while repairing a major system. The best submarine ever built was the 637 class, they were still out performing 688 class submarines on a daily basis but this embarassed the brass so they pushed to get them gone before they really needed to be. The same is true with many frigates, DD’s, cruisers, support ships and so on sitting on the back side of Ford island and in PA waiting to be given away or sunk, they are still operational and in good shape but the brass cant get new toys if congress knows this.
	Danny L. Turner February 3rd, 2010 at 1:27 pm It is a shame, but the U.S. military seems to shrinking in to a second rate power. Does anybody in Washington care? It doesn’t seem like to me.
	Robber February 3rd, 2010 at 1:56 pm In the early 70’s, New Idea, a farm equipment start-up tried to sell a multi-function tractor system that plowed, seeded, cut and baled hay; and harvested, etc all using interchangeable “snap on” parts. The only part that remained the same was the engine, frame and drivers cab. It failed miserably. The lesson learned is that one platform cannot effectively perform all tasks or missions. The failure was also the result of not understanding the process and the requirements of farmers. I am dismayed that the US Navy is attempting to do the same with the LCS essentially snapping on parts and pieces depending upon the mission. We use to build ships and weapon systems based upon the current and projected threat posed by potential adversaries. This seems to have been tossed out the window with the fall of the Soviet Union. With the shift away from threat based fleet development and future missions our focus appears to be driving toward multi-functional farm tractors. With regard to the fleet inventory at large: we might want to revisit the Battle Group concept of concentric rings of protection and power projection using the SSN-DS, CAP, FFG, Destroyer, Cruiser, CV concept. Granted, smaller platforms in greater numbers than Hi-value ones, but effective none-the less. With smaller FFG or similar type platforms, rearmed with more fire-power the littoral concept of operations can still be completed while not dragging the ship building budget down. For those of you who like to throw around the Asymmetrical Warfare concept, consider this: (1) are we better prepared to fight at sea now, or 20 years ago (2) have we improved our mine warfare capabilities or decreased them, and (3) have we developed a significantly better gun or missile compared to 30 years ago.…
	jack February 3rd, 2010 at 4:25 pm maybe we can get china to help us.….….……we are selling them everything else.……
	Nicholas February 3rd, 2010 at 6:18 pm At the current rate at which the government is nationalizing industries/companies, what you suggest is not that improbable (though as a supporter of the free market, I sincerely hope that never happens)
	Byron Skinner February 3rd, 2010 at 1:44 pm Good Morning Folks, Just a bunch of silly mindless postings. When somebody who has an opinion worth discussing, I’ll be back. It is doubtful that other then in the case of Global War such as the World Wars of the 20th. Century were, the USN will ever have a fleet of 300 ships again. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	R. Benson February 3rd, 2010 at 7:27 pm i have to agree with falcone as well
	ken854 February 3rd, 2010 at 8:02 pm With our current number of carriers at 11 and the closest country in number of full sized carriers is France with 1, we’re hardly in danger of becoming a second rate naval power. If we keep spending money on our military (and social security) and don’t concentrate on getting jobs created in the U.S. and bring down the debt, we certainly will be forced to sell the rest of our country to China.
	BOOMER February 3rd, 2010 at 5:00 pm Ken 854 — it’s not a question of loosing our sea power status but more about being able to get to a combat zone and put a hurting on the enemy. carriers lead the air attack most times during the initial conflict. support craft are just as important. they just need to buy smarter and no we dont need a 300 ship navy if we buy the right stuff.
	William C. February 3rd, 2010 at 11:20 pm Considering what we did back in during WWII, there is a way, it just won’t happen these days. However the early Nimitz class ships still have life in them, so more than 1 per yer probably isn’t needed.
	WarPony February 3rd, 2010 at 11:50 pm WE have a real problem when the steel we obtain comes from China (cheap), Brazil (cheap) and Germany (best around) and not the US (?). You aren’t going to have the metals at grade if we’re asking a potential adversary (eufrrprc) to sell US suplize. I prefer the free market also, but don’t we have a strategic oil supply? How ’bout a strategic metal industry (now known as “the rust belt” — torn down)?
	William C. February 4th, 2010 at 12:51 am Yet there is simply no reason we shouldn’t have a 300 ship Navy. It is just shameful considering the 600 Navy we were aiming for not too long ago. Numbers still count simply by the fact that a ship can’t be everywhere at once. There are few platforms these days that are limited to one mission. In fact since the retirement of the ASW focused Spruance class most of our ships have a wider array of capabilities. The latest DDG-51 class destroyers are great ships that can serve as the backbone of our surface fleet for many years. Yet there are always reasons to continue developing new systems. Eventually we should move to building a new class entirely. DDG-1000 was supposed to be this, yet as we know this program did not go as planned. It appears that the three ships built will be little more than technology demonstrators. Among other things they will prove if their hull design is truly viable for future destroyers and cruisers. Regarding cruisers, I don’t support Gate’s idea of one common hull. For some tasks you want a bigger ship, and if you are going to put an extremely advanced digital beam-forming phased array radar, you want to ensure you have the missiles to take advantage of that.
	TMB February 4th, 2010 at 12:56 am You’ll be back when your standards have been met? You say that like your posts are required reading around here.
	CharlesHouston February 4th, 2010 at 2:08 am Byron — if we want you back we’ll send you an email.
	Scott February 4th, 2010 at 4:26 am First, the idea of a larger navy is just not feasible right now. What is feasible though is to get our greedy defense contractors under control with fixed price contracts. Also, what is wrong with a little international cooperation in developing ships. There are two classes of ships I would consider as replacements for the ffg; the absilon and the f100. These vessels are flexible enough to operate as integral parts of a CSG, provide protection to an ESG, provide ABM defense, and operate reasonably well in the littorals. The LCS should be procured in a much more limited number than the 40–50+ and use it as an minesweeper with additional capabilities. As for cruisers, I believe the ddg-51 hull could be enlarged and adapted with additional vls cells and technologies from the ddg-1000 far cheaper than developing a completely new class. In fact south Korea is doing this with the kdx-3 destroyers. The point is these hulls are starting points that are available from friendly nations. As for aircraft, I’m for a future caw of 18 super hornets, 24 jsf, 12 f-22N, and 18 ucav as a strike element. The f-22 was originally developed and selected for it’s adaptability to carrier operations and would return the air dominance capability lost with the tomcat/ Phoenix. The ucav will provide a standoff capability nescessary in any future Asian conflict to protect taiwan.
	RetiredLDO February 5th, 2010 at 7:01 pm I agree about the lifespan of the 68 Class carriers, but even they will start to reach a point of diminishing return in about 15 years. The problem comes up when the numbers go below 12 or 11 and it becomes difficult to cover all the areas we need to maintain a presence. The WWII industrial base could support the buildup we needed at the time, after a few years of spinning it up. Now, there is only one shipyard capable of building and overhauling nuclear-powered carriers. The build process for the associated heavy components alone takes several years.
	Galrahn February 7th, 2010 at 8:24 pm Shipbuilding is jobs.
	BM@ Fields February 18th, 2010 at 2:24 pm We need to remember what the navy does and take back most of the MSC/ USNS dhips and have the Navy run them as well as bring back the Auxilaries, tenders oilers etc, etc, etc.