This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The U.S. Navy’s aggressive 30-year shipbuilding and modernization plan suffers from serious deficiencies and could become a victim of its own ambition, according to highly regarded Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) analyst Robert Work.
Named for the number of ships the Navy wants by fiscal 2020, the so-called 313-ship fleet plan would leave the service lacking in important capabilities to meet the operational demands of current strategic challenges, Work says in his new report. “Specifically, [the Navy] lacks the range to face increasingly lethal, land-based, maritime reconnaissance-strike complexes or nuclear-armed regional adversaries,” Work wrote. “Moreover, it does not adequately take into account the changing nature of undersea warfare, or the potential prospect of a major maritime competition with China.“
The former Marine Corps colonel also says the Navy’s plans are “far too ambitious” given likely future budget constraints. According to Work, between FY ’03 and ’08, the Navy spent an average $11.1 billion per year on new ship construction. But the Congressional Budget Office projects that cost will nearly double, to between $20 billion and $22 billion. And those costs do not factor in the funds required to build 12 replacements for the current strategic ballistic missile submarine force. “It seems clear, then, that the Navy needs to scale back its current plans,” Work wrote.
Recommendations
Work offers numerous recommendations, including:
After completing the ongoing midlife refueling cycle for the first 12 of 14 Ohio-class SSBNs, immediately reduce the strategic deterrent fleet to its final target of 12 boats and start work on the SSBN(X) design immediately;
Begin a concerted research-and-development program for small, manned undersea vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles and other unmanned underwater systems, as well as a new generation of littoral anti-submarine warfare weapons;
Slow the production rate of nuclear-powered carriers (CVNs) from one every four years to one every five years, and consider accelerating the current unmanned combat air system (UCAS) demonstration program and planned operational debut;
Halt production of DDG-1000 destroyers at three ships and restart the DDG-51 production line in FY ’10 while putting the futuristic CG(X) cruiser off until at least FY ’15;
Ramp up production of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) to four per year; and
Build six Joint Multimission Submersibles as rapidly as possible.
Work also suggests a variety of additional detailed recommendations covering naval special warfare/Navy Expeditionary Combat Command ships and craft, naval maneuver and maneuver-support ships, joint sealift ships and combat logistics force and support ships.
p>Read the rest of this story, check out how the Dutch are thrifting the Pentagon, hear the Canadian DM’s sharp words for NATO and see some killer Sabra tech from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Not bad but the entire LCS program needs to be done with. just build destroyers for a punch.
hell instead of lcs why not build some corvettes and some HLS (Helecopter landing ships..like tiny carriers for helicopters). Current LCS prototipes are just to expensive.
The navy wants 300 ships……wtf do ALL of them have to be multitasked?..god i swear do all the services have airforce disease.
Also with the navy no longer flying vikings and not willing to build any more attack subs realy what is the new tool? and are they up to it?
Overall, that is stupidist list I have read yet, mainly for the Sub hysteria. It needs a Gates slap down.
If the USN can’t keep cost under 1 billion dollars per ship/sub, I don’t care what they think they want or need, it will never happen; especially given the economic times, the Pres, and reality that there are no conventional Land, Sea, or Air threats of any consequence whatsoever, now, and most likely in the future. Big bad China, and Global Warming resource wars are the biggest rational proponents push for this pipe dream. Keep wishing for that BS.
I do agree, build more of what we already have, including Carriers, and build dozens of shallow draft ships like the X-Craft, and stop wasting money on DDG1000, and cold war Subs. Something like Sweden’s new Visby-class corvettes stealth ships seem like a good approach.
I would rather have a thousand less capable ships, instead of ten super ships like the DDG whatever. It is after all about presence, since ship/sub to ship/sub (and air to air) warfare is history. I am a big fan in large numbers.
I already know some of you are going to slam me for the hubris of knowing the future, and that everyone is really out to get us. I will respond. Plan and buy for what is the hear and now and likely future. Seems like a better idea to buy things we use regularly, instead of things that may use, if the stars align. Keeping the sea lanes open, is the primary task. That is short version since I don’t feel like writing an essay on world affairs.
HPC,
Your LACK of undersanding of reality is disturbing.
You can’t even build an Arleigh Burke for less than $1 billion.
There is a term for a “thousand less capable ships” – FODDER.
you love life ?100 – – class happy line ?-007 ?
???you love life?????????????100?????????????? -????????-??????????????????????????????????????????class??????????????happy line??????????????????????-007?????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????
No one has the Nuc Subs we deploy or even have any on the drawing boards.
thats kinda the point. sigh the best a country can do is to become so powerful and make the idea of attacking them so insane that they dont even have to go to war.
doesnt work with terrorist groups but superpowers
think twice
as for the ddg 1k i think its just not the right time for something like that maybe never there to expensive though some of the systems are good ideas. One thing i think the navy needs to do and yes i know ive said it a thousand times is beef up anti missile systems threwout the fleet
Gentlemen, bring back the battleships. A couple conventional Capital ships have the presence and armament, plus the ability to recruit Americans, that the Navy is looking for. Admiral Carey explains:
http://www.military.com/Opinions/1,14790,Carey_031505-P2,00.html
Gentlemen, bring back the battleships.
in a word..amen iread some where a iowa class could take something like 17 hits from modern anti ship missiles. though with the room and power available(nuke power of course) for anti missile systems doubt anywhere near that many could get through. With upgrades in weapons new main guns rocket assisted etc… well it would scare the crap out of anyone stupid enough to mess with its battlegroup.
When the North Vietnamese wanted to negotiate they always demanded the battleships be sent away. When you command that much fear from an enemy there must be a reason
Reuse SSBNs for Sub Training OR marine research mobile labs,
Ramp up UAV Dev & production.
Ramp up Multipurpose Submersibles
Do a carrier 1X for 10 years.
Merge DDX & CG 51 Projects to cut costs.
CUT Navy Dept bureaucracy alone.
Make ships more Multipurpose?
Retrain crews?
New names for ships:
USS, USNS:
John Wayne
Clint Eastwood
Burt Lancaster
Cold Harbor
Gettysburg
Concord
Kirk Douglas
Lord Nelson from RN?
Apache
Zuni
Comanche
The current rate of SSN production isn’t enough to replace the 688s as they are retired. This should be doubled.
Reduce the Ohio fleet to 10 and convert the retires to the Ohio SSGN configuration.
Delay CVN production as much as possible, just keep enough work to maintain the yard.
I don’t see the utility of build more Burkes. Why pout more money into a dated design? Maybe we could use it as a basis for a follow-on but it dosn’t meet the landing support requirement.
Sorry BB fans, these were great ships but they are too expensive to run. Having said that what is so hard about building a ship with armor some heavy Arty on it? Seems the navy thinks this isn’t cool anymore.
As someone also said, prety much the whole CV air wing is F-18s. We could use a S-3 replacement or reactivation. Some jackass in a Kilo is going to creep up and pop a Nimitz one of these days.
Hell the damn chinese got close enough to ask for a delivery fee..you want fried rice?…sigh im going to hell.
So if no bb what about a replacment…something with serious armor, nuke powered for power, crapload of antiair and missile defenses, crusie missiles for longer range firesupport or something like it. rail guns eventually though i have to wonder how theyll do it and if it would be worth the cost from what ive heard there big problem is that firing the guns pretty much destroys them…oh well i still think big gun naval arty is the way to go not 155mm but 14 to 16in.
Hell way i see it is this china probbly has something close to aegis probbly so does russia. The land based phalanx system is pretty much a naval anti air system tied to the radar…well if they can build them they can sell em what happenes when say a power like iran or syria buys them rendering our naval missiles, aircraft,(dont give me that stealth crap theyve beaten it before)arnt expected to be able to penetrate? youll have to spend retarded amounts of money firing 5mil missiles so 4 out of 5 are shot down. What is the cost in lives and dollars when a 140mil f22 gets reduced to scrap?
anyways we have seen the enemy and he uses mass attack tactics…..why because they work. a marine proved that using small cheap ships you could sink a carrier battle group. More AA and antimissile.