SECDEF Esper Calls for 500-Ship Fleet by 2045, With 3 SSNs a Year and Light Carriers Supplementing CVNs

By: Megan Eckstein

October 6, 2020 3:56 PM • Updated: October 6, 2020 5:03 PM

USNI.org

The Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group transits in formation with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group while conducting dual carrier and airwing operations in the Philippine Sea on June 23, 2020. US Navy Photo

This post has been updated to include additional information from Secretary Esper’s rollout of Battle Force 2045.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced a new future fleet plan for the Navy that would grow the attack submarine force, supplement nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with light carriers to achieve greater day-to-day presence, and invest heavily in small and unmanned ships for distributed operations.

Esper’s Battle Force 2045, which he rolled out during an online event today at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, lays out plans for achieving a fleet of 500 manned and unmanned ships by 2045, and a fleet of 355 traditional battle force ships by 2035 – all in a resource-constrained budget environment.

First, he said, the fleet would have a larger and more capable attack submarine fleet of 70 to 80 SSNs.

“If we do nothing else, the Navy must begin building three Virginia-class submarines a year as soon as possible,” he said in the event during his opening remarks. “If we do nothing else, we should invest in attack submarines,” he repeated later during a question-and-answer session.

Esper also called for refueling a total of seven Los Angeles-class SSNs, compared to the five or six the Navy had previously discussed, and invest heavily in the SSN(X) future submarine program.

Second, Esper stated that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would remain the most visible deterrence on the seas, but he said a new future air wing would have to be developed to increase their range and lethality, and that light carriers would have to supplement the Nimitz- and Ford-class supercarriers to help achieve greater day-to-day presence while preserving limited CVN readiness, which has been strained recently by overuse and backups at maintenance yards. Up to six light carriers, possibly based on the America-class amphibious assault ship design, would operate both instead of and alongside the CVNs.

“While we anticipate that additional study will be required to assess the proper high/low mix of carriers, eight to 11 nuclear-powered carriers will be necessary to execute a high-end conflict and maintain our global presence, with up to six light carriers joining them,” Esper said in his remarks.

The Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group transits in formation with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group while conducting dual carrier and airwing operations in the Philippine Sea on June 23, 2020. US Navy Photo

This post has been updated to include additional information from Secretary Esper’s rollout of Battle Force 2045.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced a new future fleet plan for the Navy that would grow the attack submarine force, supplement nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with light carriers to achieve greater day-to-day presence, and invest heavily in small and unmanned ships for distributed operations.

Esper’s Battle Force 2045, which he rolled out during an online event today at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, lays out plans for achieving a fleet of 500 manned and unmanned ships by 2045, and a fleet of 355 traditional battle force ships by 2035 – all in a resource-constrained budget environment.

First, he said, the fleet would have a larger and more capable attack submarine fleet of 70 to 80 SSNs.

“If we do nothing else, the Navy must begin building three Virginia-class submarines a year as soon as possible,” he said in the event during his opening remarks. “If we do nothing else, we should invest in attack submarines,” he repeated later during a question-and-answer session.

Esper also called for refueling a total of seven Los Angeles-class SSNs, compared to the five or six the Navy had previously discussed, and invest heavily in the SSN(X) future submarine program.

Second, Esper stated that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would remain the most visible deterrence on the seas, but he said a new future air wing would have to be developed to increase their range and lethality, and that light carriers would have to supplement the Nimitz- and Ford-class supercarriers to help achieve greater day-to-day presence while preserving limited CVN readiness, which has been strained recently by overuse and backups at maintenance yards. Up to six light carriers, possibly based on the America-class amphibious assault ship design, would operate both instead of and alongside the CVNs.

“While we anticipate that additional study will be required to assess the proper high/low mix of carriers, eight to 11 nuclear-powered carriers will be necessary to execute a high-end conflict and maintain our global presence, with up to six light carriers joining them,” Esper said in his remarks.

As a show of good faith, Esper praised Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite for finding significant funds in the budget to help refocus to shipbuilding. Braithwaite told USNI News in an interview this summer that he planned to go beyond his predecessor’s plan to find $40 billion over five years and wanted to find even more to overhaul the fleet. Esper said that, as a result of that work, he felt comfortable giving the Navy a bigger piece of the budget pie to help achieve Reagan-era levels of shipbuilding spending.

“To start, we have charted a credible path to reaching 355 ships that works within real-world budget constraints. Through its own reviews and reforms, the Navy did good work these past several months freeing up funds in the coming years for the building of new ships. The Navy must continue these initiatives; they are essential to ensuring an adequate shipbuilding account for the task ahead,” Esper said.
“Given the serious reform efforts put forward by the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations – and their commitment to continue them – I agreed to provide additional funding from across the DoD enterprise, funding that was harvested from ongoing reform efforts, such as Combatant Command reviews, Fourth Estate reforms, and other initiatives. Together, these additional funding streams will increase the shipbuilding account to 13 percent within the Navy’s topline, matching the average percentage spent for new ships during President Reagan’s buildup in the 1980s.”

Beyond the fiscal challenges, Esper noted two other challenges to the Navy’s ability to make best use of the fleet it has today and to find room in the budget to grow: over-demand for naval forces from the combatant commanders, and backlogs of maintenance work at public and private shipyards.

On maintenance, Esper said, “we also recognize what has been the Navy’s Achilles heel: shipyard capacity and maintenance delays. We cannot build and sustain our proposed fleet without the ability to service and repair a greater number of vessels in a more timely fashion. Nor can we sacrifice shipbuilding for maintenance. The objective is to have as many ships continuously at sea as possible; to maintain a high level of readiness. We must do both. We can do both. We will continue our efforts to revitalize and expand the Navy’s four shipyards, while promoting partnerships with private shipyards across the country – without pulling from the shipbuilding account.”

On demand, Esper acknowledged that the Navy has been strained to keep up with demands for presence in U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, U.S. Central Command and U.S. European Command. He committed to helping the service get on a better path to readiness while also being able to meet the most pressing COCOM needs. Esper said the National Defense Strategy prioritizes future readiness and lethality over current operations, and as such he said the service needed to reshape the fleet to prepare for a sophisticated war against China rather than spend all its money and readiness fighting lower-end fights today. He didn’t specify where the Navy may see some relief, but among the challenges the service has had in recent years is maintaining an aircraft carrier in or just outside the Persian Gulf to push back against Iran – essentially asking the Navy to keep a carrier sailing back and forth in a small box to address a lower-level threat under the NDS. Esper said NDS calls for INDOPACOM to be prioritized, and other COCOM requests to be scaled down so more forces can be sent to the Pacific or sent back home to rebuild readiness. It’s unclear when that will start happening for the Navy or what that will look like.

The Future Naval Force Study effort came about in January, when the Navy was supposed to finalize both an Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment and a 30-year shipbuilding plan to release alongside the Fiscal Year 2021 budget request in early February. When those two documents reached the Office of the Secretary of Defense for approval, Esper had concerns both on the content and the cost of the plans. He sent them back to the Navy and Marine Corps for more work.

Ultimately, the Navy was not able to make the changes that Esper wanted to see, resulting in the FNFS effort that Esper delegated to his deputy, David Norquist. Esper declined to release the Navy’s original INFSA and long-range ship plans to Congress, noting the additional work OSD was doing to create a new plan.

Under this effort, three plans were crafted: the Navy and Marine Corps plan, a plan by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, and one by the Hudson Institute.

Esper said during his remarks today that the FNFS was ““a comprehensive, cost-constrained and threat-informed assessment aligned with the National Defense Strategy.” He said each of the three proposals was wargamed against a detailed study of where China is now and where it’s heading, so OSD could see how each proposed naval force would handle various future mission sets against a realistic high-end adversary. The plan, which USNI News understands draws from the best of all three proposals, will “drive a major shift in how we design, build and sustain our fleet and conduct naval operations in the years and decades to come,” Esper said.

USNI News previously reported that OSD in past years has taken varying levels of interest in the Navy’s plans before passing them along to Congress, sometimes giving closer analysis and sometimes just signing off on what the Navy pitches. But this is the first time in a long time a secretary of defense has taken the decision out of the Navy’s hands and created a new process by which future shipbuilding plans – and therefore manning, operations and sustainment plans, too – would be decided.

The Pentagon and the Navy have tried to couch FNFS as a collaborative effort, with a Pentagon spokesman telling USNI News that “this review, the Future Naval Force Study (FNFS), is a collaborative OSD, Joint Staff and Department of the Navy (DoN) effort to assess future naval force structure options and inform future naval force structure decisions and the 30-year shipbuilding plan.” Still, this is a new level of oversight from OSD, with several underlying issues contributing to Esper’s desire to take control of the process: budgets are expected to be flat or declining in the coming years; the Navy and Marine Corps have pitched several new classes of manned and unmanned vessels to help fight China, even while declining to make cuts elsewhere to pay for them; and maintenance and other readiness contributors have challenged the Navy to make best use of the fleet they have today, calling into question how they’d support the larger fleet proposed in internal Navy/Marine Corps INFSA plans, USNI News understands.

Despite the late release of the FNFS, its recommendations will still affect decisions for the FY 2022 budget, much of which should already be written by this time of year at the service level. Esper also promised today that, instead of waiting until February when the FY 2022 budget is due, he would this year release the FNFS results and the long-range shipbuilding plan to Congress.

Though likely to face concerns from the other services and from lawmakers over this shift in how DoD funds will be spent, Esper couched the FNFS and the resulting Battle Force 2045 plan into historical context.

“Over the past several years, the Department had to recover from the crippling effects of sequestration, inadequate funding, continuing resolutions, and years of budget uncertainty. We also placed insufficient attention on the high-end fight, which many believed was behind us with the Cold War’s end,” he said.
“The good news is that we are now on the road to recovery by first restoring the readiness of the current fleet; and second, by divesting from legacy systems and lower priorities in order to modernize the force. We are now at the point where we can – and indeed, we must – chart a new path to a future fleet that will maintain our naval superiority long into the future.

“Today, cutting-edge technologies are fundamentally altering the character of warfare and expanding the geometry of the battlefield in multiple ways. In the maritime domain, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, ubiquitous sensors, and long-range precision weapons will play an increasingly leading role in a future high-end fight,” he continued.
“Whoever harnesses these technologies first will have a clear advantage on the high seas for years to come. Getting there ahead of everyone else demands a whole-of-nation effort.”

Virginia-class submarine Delaware (SSN-791) was moved out of a construction facility into a floating dry dock using a transfer car system in 2018. HII Photo

Virginia-class submarine Delaware (SSN-791) was moved out of a construction facility into a floating dry dock using a transfer car system in 2018. HII Photo

Defense Secretary Dr. Mark T. Esper thanks the crew of the USS Bonhomme Richard for their efforts in battling a multi-day blaze that began July 12 on the ship, docked at Naval Base San Diego, Calif., Sept. 18, 2020. DoD photo.

Defense Secretary Dr. Mark T. Esper thanks the crew of the USS Bonhomme Richard for their efforts in battling a multi-day blaze that began July 12 on the ship, docked at Naval Base San Diego, Calif., Sept. 18, 2020. DoD photo.

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (Sept. 25, 2019) Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper is briefed on USS Gerald R. Ford’s (CVN 78) advanced weapons elevators (AWE) by Capt. John J. Cummings, Ford’s commanding officer. Esper visited Ford to see first-hand the pro…

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (Sept. 25, 2019) Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper is briefed on USS Gerald R. Ford’s (CVN 78) advanced weapons elevators (AWE) by Capt. John J. Cummings, Ford’s commanding officer. Esper visited Ford to see first-hand the progress the ship is making during its post-shakedown availability and to speak directly with Ford and Navy leadership. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Zachary Melvin)

Hudson Recommends 581 Ships, New Class of Corvette as Part of Input to Pentagon Fleet Plan

By: Megan Eckstein

September 30, 2020 12:35 PM

USNI.org

USS Sterett (DDG-104) steams through the night in the Gulf of Oman on Sept. 17, 2020. US Navy Photo

The first of three inputs to the Pentagon’s Future Naval Force Study was released this week, the Hudson Institute is calling for a future U.S. Navy fleet of 581 battle force ships through the addition of 80 corvettes, 99 unmanned surface vessels, 40 unmanned submarines and 27 new small amphibious ships

The Hudson Institute was asked to design a future fleet that adheres to today’s budget limitations but better meets the Navy and Marine Corps’ future needs: to operate more distributedly, to have better sensing and communication between all domains, to create better maneuver opportunities in complex environments, and to complicate an enemy trying to target or block U.S. naval forces.

This report, plus similar plans developed by the Navy and Marine Corps and by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, will together inform a final decision on the Navy’s path forward by Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist, expected to be announced next week.

The Hudson plan – written by Bryan Clark, Timothy Walton and Seth Cropsey – calls for today’s 11-carrier fleet to be trimmed to nine aircraft carriers, by moving new construction to six-year centers instead of today’s four or five. It also trims the requirement for large surface combatants to 64 – down from the requirement of 104 laid out in the 2016 Force Structure Assessment – in a nod to the vulnerability and rigidness they represent by amassing so much firepower in a single location.

Aside from those largest platforms, the plan calls for increases in most other categories: it keeps the requirement for 52 small combatants like Littoral Combat Ships and frigates, the same as the 2016 FSA, and adds a requirement for 80 corvettes and 99 Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels to supplement them.

Under the sea, it keeps the requirement for 12 ballistic missile submarines and slightly reduces the requirement for attack submarines, from 66 in the 2016 FSA to 60 in this plan, but supplements them with 40 Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vessels that are pier-launched and can conduct many missions similar to an SSN.

On the amphibious side of the portfolio, the Hudson team calls for just 30 traditional amphibs compared to the 2016 requirement for 38 – with eight amphibious assault ships to focus on supporting the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter and 22 amphibious transport docks and dock landing ships – but adds a requirement for 26 Light Amphibious Warships that the Marines have proposed as a way to maneuver small units of Marines around littoral battlespaces with less likelihood of detection.

The plan also boosts command and support ships from 35 to 53 and large logistics ships from 29 to 38, and it adds a small logistics ship requirement of 18.

“The Navy will need a new fleet design to affordably address its challenges and exploit its opportunities while maintaining today’s operational tempo. Unfortunately, its current plans fail to deliver on these goals. The force structure reflected in the [President’s Budget] 2020 Shipbuilding Plan and [Fiscal Year] 2021 budget, by continuing to emphasize large multimission combatant ships, includes too few ships to distribute the fleet or create sufficient complexity to slow or confuse an enemy’s attacks. Moreover, the fleet’s weighting toward large manned platforms creates unsustainable [operations and sustainment] costs that the Navy is even now struggling to pay,” the authors wrote in the executive summary.

The Navy’s contribution to the FNFS effort, its Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment, was never released publicly because Defense Secretary Mark Esper had concerns about the content and the cost of the plan.

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow and director for the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at Hudson, told USNI News that a noticeable difference between his plan and the Navy’s is the Large Unmanned Surface Vessel idea in the Navy versus the corvette idea in the Hudson plan. He said the Navy’s vision of LUSV was tailored around a specific idea of facing off against China in a high-end fight and wanting to distribute additional offensive and defensive missiles around the battlespace, potentially putting them so far forward that it would be dangerous to send a manned ship there. The Hudson plan instead has a lightly manned corvette that he said would be useful in presence missions and training with allies and partners during peacetime but that, if a conflict broke out, could be operated in an autonomous mode if the crew needed to leave the ship to serve as a forward unmanned missile ship. Clark said the cost of building corvettes instead of LUSVs was not much more and that in return the Navy gets “operational utility throughout peacetime.”

When the 2016 FSA was being drafted, the focus was making the Navy bigger. Despite sequestration earlier in the decade, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus had prioritized shipbuilding during his eight-year tenure and ensured that hot production lines stayed funded despite cuts elsewhere in the budget. After the initial shock of across-the-board sequester cuts in FY 2013, Congress had showed a willingness to provide some budgetary relief, and the Navy was looking forward to seeing continued increases in its budget.

Now, with the FNFS, the calculus is completely different. There’s a general consensus that flat budgets are the best the Pentagon can hope for, with declining toplines a real possibility into the mid 2020s. There’s also an increased focus on the cost of manning, operating and sustaining the fleet, which poses a danger to the Navy in the future. Increasing per-sailor costs, plus the need to bring in thousands more sailors to man the bigger fleet, could start to elbow other priorities out of the budget. Ship maintenance has similarly proven to be a weakness, with not enough capacity at private or public yards to meet the Navy’s needs and the service working hard to contain cost and schedule growth during ship availabilities.

There’s also less focus on a bigger fleet this time around, and more of a focus on a distributed fleet. Many experts inside and outside the Navy have concluded they’d rather have the same number of missile launchers from one large cruiser split among two or three smaller ships – allowing them to be more places from a lethality standpoint, allowing them to be smaller targets from a survivability standpoint, and creating a hedge in case one were sunk by an enemy from an attrition standpoint.

On the issue of cost constraints – both on the procurement side and the manpower and operations and sustainment (O&S) side – the Hudson report compares its projected costs to the 30-year plan developed to accompany the PB 2021 budget request. The FY 2021 30-year ship plan was never released publicly because Esper had more foundational concerns about it that the Navy could not immediately address, leading to the kickoff of the FNFS effort in February.

“The shipbuilding plan supports [a deployed posture] with a fleet that is larger, more operationally effective, and significantly less expensive to procure and sustain than the Navy’s planned force. The proposed plan balances the need for a new fleet architecture with the imperative to manage costs and takes an evolutionary approach to developing and fielding new platforms and associated technologies. Over thirty years, the shipbuilding plan costs $31.7 billion less to buy in FY 2020 dollars than the PB21 [shipbuilding] budget plus inflation. It includes an affordable mix of platforms, such as a $2.3 billion DDG(X) that has the same [vertical launch system] capacity as a current DDG, rather than the Navy’s planned cruiser-like $3.3 billion future large surface combatant. The plan also includes a $4 billion SSN(X) that is designed for stealth, survivability, and speed rather than a large, undersea mothership with significant missile and UUV capacity that could cost more than $5.5 billion. By keeping total shipbuilding costs lower than the PB21-plus-inflation limit throughout the plan, the Navy can preserve funding for research, development, testing, and evaluation of future technologies and procurement of key enablers, without having [shipbuilding] costs crowd out necessary investments in these areas,” the authors wrote.

In sum, the Hudson plan would cost more than the allowed limits – flat budget, plus inflation – but quite a bit less than the Navy’s current plan would cost.

“The proposed fleet architecture costs, on average, approximately $1.3 billion more per year —4.9 percent—than the PB21-plus inflation O&S limit. By slightly reducing the number of CVNs in the fleet, fielding fewer large surface combatants with fewer personnel, and not extending ships past their original service lives, it would be possible to lower O&S costs for existing ship classes. However, introducing small surface combatants, unmanned vessels, and auxiliaries to create a fleet with more than twice the number of ships as today’s force leads to a net increase in O&S costs. … Over the next thirty years, Hudson’s proposed fleet would cost a total of $8.6 billion more to procure, operate, and sustain than the sum of the SCN and O&S PB21-plus-inflation limits. The Hudson fleet would cost $165 billion less to procure, operate, and sustain than the fleet proposed by the Navy in its FY 2020 thirty-year shipbuilding plan, as shown in figure 19. This is true even though the Hudson plan has nearly twice as many vessels. The Navy plan would require $174 billion more than the established limit. In terms of personnel, even when the proposed plan robustly crews each vessel, it would require 27 percent fewer personnel to crew the fleet by FY 2045 than the Navy’s FY 2020 thirty-year shipbuilding plan, as shown in figure 20. This is mostly a result of shifting to smaller designs and adopting greater automation.”

The Hudson team notes in their executive summary: “The US fleet is at an important crossroads. Nearly twenty years after the drive for transformation led to costly and problematic programs such as the littoral combat ship (LCS), Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, and Zumwalt-class destroyer, the Navy is again starting work on new ships in every vessel category. It is essential to make smart decisions on the design of these ships, and of the fleet as a whole, to create a force that affordably supports future defense strategy and avoids mistakes of the past.”

The report notes sufficient time between ship design and ship construction for new classes, stating that “the proposed fleet, like that which the Navy is considering, incorporates several new ship classes. The proposed shipbuilding plan mitigates the risk associated with new platforms by using derivative vessel designs where appropriate and providing, on average, more than seven years between initial ship concept and construction. This allows technologies to mature and provides sufficient time for detailed design work. During this time, the Navy should implement a technology development roadmap for each new ship to enable the development of essential hull, mechanical, and electrical systems or the evolution of the vessel’s concept to accommodate expected technological limitations.”

An F-35B Lightning II assigned to the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 265 (Reinforced) takes off from the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA-6) on March 23, 2020. US Navy Photo

An F-35B Lightning II assigned to the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 265 (Reinforced) takes off from the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA-6) on March 23, 2020. US Navy Photo

Sea Transport Solutions Image

Sea Transport Solutions Image

John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) in drydock on Oct. 29, 2019. US Navy Photo

John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) in drydock on Oct. 29, 2019. US Navy Photo

Esper Opens Door to Boosting Navy’s Shipbuilding Budget to Fund New Force Structure

By: Megan Eckstein

September 16, 2020 9:38 PM • Updated: September 16, 2020 10:06 PM

USNI.org

Defense Secretary Mark Esper speaks in the Pentagon Briefing Room, Washington, D.C. on Sept. 14, 2020. DoD Photo

SANTA MONICA, Calif. – Defense Secretary Mark Esper is open to increasing Navy budgets to support a new shipbuilding plan and future force design, he said today in a speech at RAND Corporation’s Los Angeles office.

In a speech meant to outline how the Pentagon was continuing to implement the National Defense Strategy to restructure its capabilities and readiness to deter a war against China – but fight and win if necessary, he repeated – Esper said that “China cannot match the United States when it comes to naval power. Even if we stopped building new ships, it would take the [People’s Republic of China] years to close the gap when it comes to our capability on the high seas.”

Still, he said, the U.S. Navy would not stand still and wait for China to catch up.

Esper’s office never released the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2021 long-range shipbuilding plan or an Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment that were due out early this year, citing simultaneous criticisms that the Navy’s own plan cost too much and did not produce enough ships and naval power. USNI News understands that much of the cost concerns relate to the long-term cost of sustaining, modernizing and manning the 355-ship fleet the Navy had outlined.

Since February, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has been working with the Navy, Marine Corps, Joint Staff, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office and more to come up with a new future vision for the fleet, called the Future Naval Force Study – the results of which Esper was briefed on earlier this week.

“The results are a game-changer that reflect a good deal of serious work and effort based on facts and data,” Esper said today, though he stopped short of outlining publicly what the plan includes.

“To achieve this outcome, we must increase funding for shipbuilding and the readiness that sustains a larger force. Doing this – and finding the money within the Navy budget and elsewhere to make it real – is something both the Navy leadership and I are committed to doing.”

Boosting funding beyond the Navy’s typical allotment of the defense budget is a departure from Esper’s past comments. A major hurdle the Navy faces today is that it is kicking off the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program in FY 2021, beginning construction on a $100-billion-plus program even as it is also trying to grow the fleet, build back readiness and material condition, and incorporate new platforms like unmanned vessels and smaller amphibious and logistics ships to support new Navy and Marine Corps operating concepts.

Esper previously said he did not want to pay for the Columbia program – which eats up about 30 percent of the Navy shipbuilding budget each year while in construction – outside the Navy’s shipbuilding program, even if it meant that other shipbuilding programs suffered. He has said that the Air Force shoulders the burden of recapitalizing its bomber, another leg of the nuclear triad, within its budget, and the Navy ought to do the same.

In January, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said, “Here’s the deal: we need more money. We need more top line. If you believe that we need overmatch in the maritime, if you believe … that we need to operate forward in great numbers, that we need more iron? Then yes, we need more top line. … One percent of the DOD budget [being added to the Navy’s budget] would be $7 billion a year in the shipbuilding accounts.”

USNI News reported at the time that, during the 1980s’ construction of the Ohio class of SSBNs, the program ate up about 20 percent of the shipbuilding budget. The DoD budget reflected the importance of the program, with the Navy at the time having about a 38-percent share of the total Pentagon budget to make up for the hit to the shipbuilding budget. Now, the new Columbia class will take up to a 30-percent bite out of the shipbuilding account, and the Department of the Navy will have a 34-percent share of the DoD budget, according to previous budget plans.

That Esper would consider adding funds outside the Navy’s typical allotment to support the boon in shipbuilding – which will increase the quantity of ships built and the range of ship designs and shipbuilders that will be included – could make possible a transformation of the Navy fleet and a sprint to reach 355 ships that many had considered impossible under current budget constraints.

“To compete in a 21st-century high-end fight, we will need a future fleet that optimizes the following operational attributes: first, distributed lethality and awareness; second, survivability in a high-intensity conflict; third, adaptability for a complex world; fourth, ability to project power, control the seas and demonstrate presence; and fifth, capability to deliver precision effects at very long ranges,” Esper said in the RAND speech.

Unmanned vessels will be relied on for many of those priorities. After giving his speech, he visited with Boeing in Long Beach, Calif., to see the Echo Voyager prototype being used to buy down risk on the Orca Extra Large Unmanned Underwater Vessel that Boeing will begin constructing later this year. Esper also plans to see the Sea Hunter medium unmanned surface vessel, a Pentagon-purchased prototype learning early lessons to inform the Navy’s MUSV program, as well as visit with other companies in the area contributing to unmanned system research and development.

“This future naval force will be more balanced in its ability to deliver lethal effects from the air, from the sea, and from under the sea. This fleet will be made up of more and smaller surface combatants; optionally-manned, unmanned, and autonomous surface and subsurface vehicles; unmanned carrier-based aircraft of all types; a larger and more capable submarine force; and a modern strategic deterrent,” Esper said in his speech.
“And we must keep investing in our people, ensuring they are the best trained, educated, technologically skilled, and ready force in the world. At the same time, this force must be affordable in an era of tight funding; sustainable over the long term; and operationally ready and available at higher rates. In addition, it must have a robust and healthy industrial base, with modern shipyards and highly skilled workers, which have the capacity to build and maintain the fleet we need.”

Without divulging what the Future Naval Force Study revealed, Esper said the plan he was briefed on met these needs for the future fleet, and “this study will serve as our guidepost as we decide on, program, and build our future fleet, and conduct follow-on assessments in select areas.”

Esper couched the need for this fleet largely in terms of China and the threat it poses not only to the U.S. and its allies but to a rules-based order in the diplomacy, security, political and economic realms.

“China, for example, is exerting its malign influence through its ‘One-Belt, One-Road’ Initiative. This campaign has left weaker nations with crushing debt, forcing them to take their economic relief at the expense of their sovereignty. Additionally, Beijing’s aggression and disregard of its commitments in the South and East China Seas – such as the sinking of a Vietnamese vessel and escorting of Chinese fishing fleets into the exclusive economic zones of Indonesia and the Philippines – are further examples of the Communist Party’s attempts to reshape and undermine the international order that has benefitted nations, large and small,” Esper said.

“Meanwhile, for nearly two decades the United States concentrated on fighting violent extremist organizations in low-intensity conflicts that left us less focused and prepared for a high-end fight against near-peer adversaries. And in the last decade, the Department was crippled by the devastating effects of sequestration, continuing resolutions, and insufficient budgets prior to 2017,” he continued.”
“For years, our military was in a period of strategic atrophy and burning down readiness, as our adversaries watched from the sidelines, searching for opportunities to erode our hard-earned gains.”

Artist’s rendering of the Columbia-class SSBN submarine. US Navy Image

Artist’s rendering of the Columbia-class SSBN submarine. US Navy Image

Boeing Echo Voyager. Boeing Co. photo

Boeing Echo Voyager. Boeing Co. photo

The launch of the Type 75 big-deck amphib in Shanghai on. PLAN Photo

The launch of the Type 75 big-deck amphib in Shanghai on. PLAN Photo

Austal Expanding Yard In Alabama as It Eyes New Unmanned, Amphibious Shipbuilding Programs

By: Megan Eckstein

September 15, 2020 5:31 PM

USNI.org

The future Savannah (LCS-28) is floated down the Mobile River on Sept. 2, 2020, just days after it was christened at the Austal USA shipyard. Austal USA photo.

Austal USA is expanding the capacity and capability of its Alabama shipyard, doubling down on investing in its future in a way reminiscent of 2009, just before it won the block buy of Littoral Combat Ships that secured the yard a spot in the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.

The Mobile yard this month closed on the purchase of a ship repair facility formerly owned by World Marine of Alabama, an indirect subsidiary of Modern American Recycling and Repair Services of Alabama. It includes a 20,000-ton Panamax-class floating dry dock, 100,000 square feet of covered repair facilities and 15 acres of waterfront property along the Mobile River and Gulf of Mexico, according to a company statement.

Shipyard President Craig Perciavalle told USNI News this week that the expansion fits in with its desires to continue building aluminum ships and to expand into building steel ships – manned or unmanned – as well as a desire to take on more repair work for the Navy and other customers.

“We feel we’re putting ourselves, and we’ve put ourselves, in a very good place to continue to provide very capable but lower-cost ships to the Navy,” he said of the yard that today builds Independence-variant LCSs and Expeditionary Fast Transit (EPF) ships.
“I have had some discussions with [Defense Secretary Mark] Esper, we are encouraged by the plan for, the need and the requirement for 355 ships or more maybe. And I think there’s plenty of opportunities for us to help the Navy grow the fleet, and we’re putting ourselves in a very good position to help the Navy do that long-term.”

The yard expansion gives Austal ownership of a dry dock it was leasing to launch its ships into the Mobile River, eliminating any schedule problems the yard had to worry about in the past if its desired timeline didn’t match up with the dry dock’s availability to be leased.

“We’ll just have complete control over it, and then we can have the priority for the dry dock be supporting our business, first and foremost,” Perciavalle said.

He added that the rest of the facility, on the other side of the river and just south of Austal’s property, could be refurbished or upgraded in the future to support ship construction or repair activities as needed, giving Austal some flexibility as its future workload becomes clearer.

Many in the Navy and industry have expressed concern about Austal’s future, with the company’s LCS construction coming to an end in a couple years – four ships are in construction at Austal and four more are in pre-construction – and its future with the EPF program still uncertain, as the Navy and Congress haven’t made any firm decisions about continuing the hot production line to build an ambulance ship variant of the hull. Austal competed to build the Navy’s FFG(X) frigate program and lost, leaving many wondering what would happen to the yard, its workforce and its suppliers.

Perciavalle said he’s not worried about the yard’s future.

“It’s no secret that we’re focused on the unmanned side of the business, we think there’s obviously plenty of opportunities there and we’re going to, hopefully – our plan is to be a major player in that side of the market,” he said. Austal is one of six companies selected to conduct industry studies on the Navy’s Large Unmanned Surface Vessel, and Austal also participated in the LUSV precursor by converting a vessel to an unmanned ship through the Pentagon’s Overlord USV prototype effort.

“We are encouraged by discussions around additional EPFs going forward. EPF-15 has been in and out of the budget, and the latest discussions show that there might be some opportunities for that to get back in. I think it’s no secret that we’ve been looking at expeditionary medical ships that have been discussed, and we feel we’re in a pretty good place to support those needs to the Navy,” he continued, with the Congress this current fiscal year appropriating money to give EPF-14 a greater medical capability.

“And then from a steel shipbuilding perspective, there’s certainly opportunities from that medium-sized type vessel: [Light Amphibious Warship] is one that we’ve been participating in. We have participated in some of the industry studies on [the Coast Guard’s Offshore Patrol Cutter]. And without getting into much more detail beyond that, there’s opportunities that exist across the board that we’re going to continue to look at and to pursue. “

Asked by USNI News if the range of work – from unmanned vessels to amphibious ships to Military Sealift Command support ships to Coast Guard cutters – spurred Austal to take a leap of faith and expand the shipyard now, Perciavalle said, “this is something that Austal’s done in the past, so been there done that. We leaned into the facility that we have today, committing much of those funds before (LCS) block buys were even awarded back in the ‘09 and 2010 time period. We have seen where the Navy looks like they’re going, and we’re leaning into those requirements going forward. There seems to be opportunities both on the steel ship side of things as well as aluminum, and we’re going to leverage our strength and what we’ve been able to do from an aluminum perspective, and take those same strengths and transition adding the steel capabilities.”

“So yeah, it’s pretty interesting times, it’s pretty exciting. We’ve proven in the past that we’re pretty darn good at building lots of ships in a relatively short period of time. I think we’ve delivered 23 surface ships to the Navy over the last just over seven and a half years,” he continued.
“We believe there’s value in that for the Navy and trying to expand to 355 in a reasonable timeframe, and I think leveraging the industrial base that we have here in Mobile is going to be important to the Navy’s ability to do that.”

In addition to the physical expansion of the yard through the recent acquisition, Austal and the Defense Department are spending $100 million to bring a steel shipbuilding capability to the yard that today only builds aluminum ships. DoD offered its half under the Defense Production Act Title III (DPA) Agreement “to maintain, protect, and expand critical domestic shipbuilding and maintenance capacity,” according to a DoD announcement. The money, appropriated as part of the coronavirus pandemic relief bill passed by Congress in the spring, will not only help the Navy industrial base but will “accelerat[e] pandemic recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast region” by supporting the economy.

Perciavalle said the yard decided to match the contract with its own $50 million investment in the steel shipbuilding capability.

Perciavalle said another growth area for Austal is likely to be ship repair, though the Navy has not made its intentions public yet.

Austal is somewhat challenged in that every single LCS it has built is stationed in San Diego, which is a Panama Canal transit away. The San Diego ship repair industrial base is under pressure to keep up with the Navy’s growing surface ship maintenance and modernization needs, and although Austal has a support office in San Diego and can contribute to pier-side work at the naval base, it cannot take on maintenance availabilities on its own yet.

“The Navy’s aware of our interest in expanding our service business, and I think given the fact that they’re looking for increased capacity in that regard, I think it’s welcome,” he said.
“And then we’ll just see how things go both here in Mobile, obviously continuing to support efforts on the West Coast, and then in Singapore,” where Austal has an office to support forward-deployed LCSs operating in the Indo-Pacific region.

USNI News previously reported that Austal was trying to conduct some LCS work in Mobile after sea trials and ship delivery, but before the ships headed through the canal and onto San Diego. Perciavalle said that has continued, but that the ships are coming out of the yard with very little work waiting to be done during the post-shakedown availability. He said he hopes the Navy and the yard can find a way to bring more repair work to Mobile, to ease the strain in San Diego and to fully leverage the dry dock the yard now owns.

Additionally, while his focus is maintaining the ships that Austal built, Perciavalle said “the sky is the limit” in terms of the yard taking on repair and modernization work for Military Sealift Command ships, Coast Guard ships or commercial vessels.

“The facility has been in the past supporting various markets and will continue to do that going forward,” he said of the newly purchased property that also includes deep-water berthing space for in-water repairs in addition to the dry dock for out-of-water repairs.

He noted that the team operating out of Singapore had contributed to the success of overlapping USS Montgomery (LCS-8) and USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10) deployments there and that Austal planned to maintain or grow its presence in Singapore.

“Our game plan is there will be at least two ships there going forward, we are fully prepared to support having two ships in Singapore or more,” as well as sending flyaway teams or setting up offices anywhere else the Navy chooses to hub the LCSs or EPFs around the globe.

The future littoral combat ship USS Tulsa (LCS 16) returns to Austal USA after launching from the drydock at BAE Ship Systems on March 16, 2016. US Navy photo.

The future littoral combat ship USS Tulsa (LCS 16) returns to Austal USA after launching from the drydock at BAE Ship Systems on March 16, 2016. US Navy photo.

Expeditionary fast transport ship USNS Brunswick (T-EPF 6) departs Naval Base Guam, passing the MSC expeditionary fast transport ship USNS Fall River (T-EPF 4) and marking the start of Pacific Partnership 2019. Navy photo

Expeditionary fast transport ship USNS Brunswick (T-EPF 6) departs Naval Base Guam, passing the MSC expeditionary fast transport ship USNS Fall River (T-EPF 4) and marking the start of Pacific Partnership 2019. Navy photo

First module of the future Savannah (LCS 28) rolls in as the future Oakland (LCS 24) rolls out of the construction facility at Austal USA. Austal USA photo.

First module of the future Savannah (LCS 28) rolls in as the future Oakland (LCS 24) rolls out of the construction facility at Austal USA. Austal USA photo.

The Independence-variant littoral combat ships USS Montgomery (LCS 8), bottom, and USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) operate in the South China Sea, accompanied by an MH-60S Sea Hawk assigned to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 23, Jan. 28, 2020. …

The Independence-variant littoral combat ships USS Montgomery (LCS 8), bottom, and USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) operate in the South China Sea, accompanied by an MH-60S Sea Hawk assigned to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 23, Jan. 28, 2020. US Navy photo.

6 Companies Awarded Contracts to Start Work on Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle

By: Mallory Shelbourne

September 4, 2020 5:51 PM

USNI.org

A Ghost Fleet Overlord test vessel takes part in a capstone demonstration during the conclusion of Phase I of the program in September. Two existing commercial fast supply vessels were converted into unmanned surface vessels (USVs) for Overlord testing, which will play a vital role in informing the Navy’s new classes of USVs. US Navy photo.

The Navy today awarded six companies contracts to take the first steps in determining what the service’s Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle will look like.

After adjusting its acquisition approach to adhere to congressional code, the Navy today announced $42 million in contracts for LUSV studies, with Austal USA, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Fincantieri Marinette, Bollinger Shipyards, Lockheed Martin and Gibbs & Cox each winning about $7 million to kick off work on the program.

The Navy anticipates the companies finishing the work by August 2021, but options could extend the work to May 2022. The contracts’ total value with options is $59.48 million.

“These contracts were established in order to refine specifications and requirements for a Large Unmanned Surface Vessel and conduct reliability studies informed by industry partners with potential solutions prior to release of a Detail Design and Construction contract,” Navy spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told USNI News in a statement.
“The studies effort is designed to provide robust collaboration with government and industry to assist in maturation of platform specifications, and ensure achievable technical requirements are in place for a separate LUSV DD&C competition.”

The contract announcement comes after the Navy had to alter its acquisition approach for LUSV due to lawmakers’ concern over the untested technology being rolled out too quickly.

“The LUSV studies will support efforts that facilitate requirements refinement, development of an affordable and effective platform; provide opportunities to continue maturing the performance specifications and conduct analysis of alternative design approaches; facilitate reliability improvements and plans for government-furnished equipment and mechanical and electrical systems; and support development of cost reduction and other affordability initiatives,” Hernandez said.

The Navy had planned to use a similar acquisition approach for LUSV as it did with the new guided-missile frigates, where it issued concept design awards to several vendors to help the Navy finalize its requirements, and then issued a detailed design and construction contract to a single bidder, USNI News understands.

An Updated Development Plan

In response to congressional provisions restricting the Navy’s path forward on LUSV, the service in its Fiscal Year 2021 budget request reconfigured its LUSV acquisition approach by postponing the LUSV concept design awards to the final quarter of this fiscal year. The delay, according to the Navy’s FY 2021 budget documents, was so the service could change the LUSV request for proposals to maintain compliance with recent legislation preventing the service from seeking a design with a Vertical Launch System.

“The program will award Conceptual Design (CD) contracts to multiple vendors in FY20. The CD effort will support refinement of a LUSV Performance Specification that does not include the Vertical Launch System (VLS),” the FY 2021 budget documents read. “The final Performance Specification will define a LUSV with reservations in the design to support integration of a variety of capabilities and payloads.”

Instead of issuing the detail design and construction awards in FY 2021 as originally planned, the Navy’s recent budget request shows the service planning to award the contracts in FY 2022.

“The DD&C award will deliver a non-VLS LUSV prototype based on the Performance Specification developed during the CD effort,” the FY 2021 documents read.

The FY 2021 plan also shows the service seeking to buy two LUSV prototypes based on the Strategic Capabilities Office’s Ghost Fleet Overlord program. Two SCO vessels are already in the water and are supposed to be transferred to the Navy next year so the service can begin experimenting to learn more about the autonomous technology.

For the LUSV, the Navy wants a vehicle approximately 200 to 300 feet long that can function either partially or completely autonomously.

Congressional Pushback

Congress and defense analysts in the last year have voiced concerns that the Navy was trying to move too quickly on its unmanned systems family, arguing the service still needs to test the technology associated with the platforms and determine the concept of operations. The Navy has argued it needs to buy prototypes in order to perform testing and develop a better understanding of the technology and how it will fit into the future fleet architecture.

The Navy’s plans for LUSV in its FY 2020 budget submission ignited the initial criticism. FY 2020’s request showed the Navy seeking to buy two LUSV prototypes that year based on the SCO’s Overlord program, as well as issuing several concept design awards for the LUSV program. The blueprint then called for purchasing two LUSVs each year between FY 2021 and FY 2024. According to the FY 2020 budget documents, the service at the time was still determining when to move from using research and development funding to procurement funding.

But lawmakers criticized the approach and saw the acquisition plans as risky.

“The committee is concerned that the budget request’s concurrent approach to LUSV design, technology development, and integration as well as a limited understanding of the LUSV concept of employment, requirements, and reliability for envisioned missions pose excessive acquisition risk for additional LUSV procurement in fiscal year 2020,” the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote in the report supplementing its draft of the FY 2020 defense policy bill.

“The committee is also concerned by the unclear policy implications of LUSVs, including ill-defined international unmanned surface vessel standards and the legal status of armed or potentially armed LUSVs,” the report continued.

The explanatory statement accompanying the FY 2020 defense spending bill permitted the Navy to purchase two prototypes but directed the service to award concept designs that would not feature a VLS. Rear Adm. Casey Moton, the program executive officer for unmanned and small combatants, last November said the service had planned to begin buying LUSVs with a VLS in FY 2021.

Path Forward

Under the new strategy unveiled in the FY 2021 budget submission, the Navy would buy its first LUSVs as a program-of-record in FY 2023.

But lawmakers remain concerned about the Navy’s pursuit of unmanned technology.

While Congress has yet to unveil the conference version of the FY 2021 defense policy legislation, both House and Senate authorizers in their respective drafts sought to increase oversight of the LUSV program. The House Armed Services Committee’s chairman’s mark of the bill cut funding for the Overlord prototypes the Navy sought, while the seapower and projection forces subcommittee in its mark included a measure that would prevent the Navy from buying LUSVs before the service gives lawmakers a “technology maturity” certification.

Meanwhile, the Senate’s version of the policy bill would mandate the Navy achieve specific technical certifications, including the ability for generators and engines to operate for a minimum of 30 days, before the LUSV could reach its Milestone B decision.

“The committee remains concerned that the budget request’s concurrent approach to LUSV design, technology development, and integration, as well as a limited understanding of the LUSV concept of employment, requirements, and reliability for envisioned missions, pose excessive acquisition risk for additional LUSV procurement in fiscal year 2021,” the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote in its report accompanying the policy legislation. “The committee is also concerned by the unclear policy implications of LUSVs, including ill-defined international unmanned surface vessel standards and the legal status of armed or potentially armed LUSVs.”

Service officials have repeatedly referenced an ongoing dialogue with Congress on the subject of unmanned systems and maintained the importance of the platforms.

Navy acquisition chief James Geurts during a virtual event in July acknowledged congressional concern and said the Navy must find a “balance” as it pursues the new platforms and needs to test unmanned technology.

“From my perspective, the biggest challenge in the unmanned arena is not the technology, per se. There’s certainly some technology elements to work on,” Geurts told attendees at the United States Navy Memorial’s speaker series.

“It’s really the concept of operations, the command and control, the concept of employment. And so I do think there is a balance we’ve got to strike with getting some prototypes out to the field so that the fleet can understand how to best utilize what’s available,” he continued. “We’ve got to balance that with proven discipline, programmatics, and that’s the balance we’re working to put together right now.”

A Ghost Fleet Overlord test vessel takes part in a capstone demonstration during the conclusion of Phase I of the program in September. Two existing commercial fast supply vessels were converted into unmanned surface vessels (USVs) for Overlord test…

A Ghost Fleet Overlord test vessel takes part in a capstone demonstration during the conclusion of Phase I of the program in September. Two existing commercial fast supply vessels were converted into unmanned surface vessels (USVs) for Overlord testing, which will play a vital role in informing the Navy’s new classes of USVs. US Navy photo.

NASA Photo

NASA Photo

US Navy’s unmanned surface concept. NAVSEA Image

US Navy’s unmanned surface concept. NAVSEA Image

Report to Congress on Navy Force Structure

September 3, 2020 9:54 AM

The following is the Sept. 2, 2020 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the report

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 Trump Administration has identified the achievement of a Navy of 355 or more ships within 10 years as a high priority. The Navy states that it is working as well as it can, within a Navy budget top line that is essentially flat in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted terms), toward achieving that goal while also adequately funding other Navy priorities, such as restoring eroded ship readiness and improving fleet lethality. Navy officials state that while the 355-ship goal is a priority, they want to avoid creating a so-called hollow force, meaning a Navy that has an adequate number of ships but is unable to properly crew, arm, operate, and maintain those ships.

The Navy states that its proposed FY2021 budget requests the procurement of eight new ships, but this figure includes LPD-31, an LPD-17 Flight II amphibious ship that Congress procured (i.e., authorized and appropriated procurement funding for) in FY2020. Excluding this ship, the Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget requests the procurement of seven new ships rather than eight.

A figure of 7 new ships is less than the 11 that the Navy requested for FY2020 (a figure that excludes CVN-81, an aircraft carrier that Congress authorized in FY2019) or the 13 that Congress procured in FY2020 (a figure that again excludes CVN-81, but includes the above-mentioned LPD-31 as well as an LHA amphibious assault ship that Congress also procured in FY2020). The figure of 7 new ships is also less than the 10 ships that the Navy projected under its FY2020 budget submission that it would request for FY2021, and less than the average ship procurement rate that would be needed over the long run, given current ship service lives, to achieve and maintain a 355-ship fleet.

In dollar terms, the Navy is requesting a total of about $19.9 billion for its shipbuilding account for FY2021. This is about $3.9 billion (16.3%) less than the Navy requested for the account for FY2020, about $4.1 billion (17.0%) less than Congress provided for the account for FY2020, and about $3.6 billion (15.3%) less than the $23.5 billion that the Navy projected under its FY2020 budget submission that it would request for the account for FY2021.

The Navy states that its FY2021 five-year (FY2021-FY2025) shipbuilding plan includes 44 new ships, but this figure includes the above-mentioned LPD-31 and LHA amphibious ships that Congress procured in FY2020. Excluding these two ships, the Navy’s FY2021 five-year shipbuilding plan includes 42 new ships, which is 13 less than the 55 that were included in the FY2020 (FY2020-FY2024) five-year plan and 12 less than the 54 that were projected for the period FY2021-FY2025 under the Navy’s FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan.

The Navy’s 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Assessment (FSA) conducted by the Navy in 2016. A new FSA, referred to as the Integrated Naval FSA (INFSA), is to be published sometime during the spring of 2020. Statements from Department of the Navy (DON) officials suggest that the INFSA could result in a once-in-a-generation change in the Navy’s fleet architecture, meaning the mix of ships that make up the Navy. DON officials suggest that the INFSA could shift the fleet to a more distributed architecture that includes a reduced proportion of larger ships, an increased proportion of smaller ships, and a newly created category of large unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) and large unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). Such a change in fleet architecture could alter the mix of ships to be procured for the Navy and the distribution of Navy shipbuilding work among the nation’s shipyards.

171128-N-AC254-174.jpg

Littoral Combat Ship USS Sioux City Joins SOUTHCOM Anti-Drug Mission in First Deployment

By: Mallory Shelbourne

September 1, 2020 2:42 PM

Information Specialist 1st Class Matthew Stephenson mans the lines as the Freedom-variant littoral combat ship USS Sioux City (LCS-11) gets underway on Aug. 30, 2020. US Navy Photo

USS Sioux City (LCS-11) deployed over the weekend to U.S. Southern Command to aid in conducting counter-narcotic missions, the Navy recently announced.

Sioux City, a Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship commissioned in 2018, will have a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment (LEDET) aboard, in addition to an MQ-8B Fire Scout and MH-60S helicopter for aerial missions.

Sioux City’s operations will involve practical exercises and exchanges with partner nations, supporting U.S. 4th Fleet interoperability and reinforcing the U.S. position as the regional partner of choice,” according to a service press release.

The deployment comes as the Trump administration has ramped up warship presence in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific to help perform counter-narcotic missions. USNI News in July reported that the Navy had more of a warship presence in the region in the preceding three months than it had since 2015.

Several destroyers have operated in the 4th Fleet area of responsibility as part of the administration’s initiative to seize drugs bound for the United States.

Vice Adm. Steven Poulin, Coast Guard Atlantic Area commander, in an interview with USNI News earlier this summer cited helicopters as a platform that aids in conducting counter-narcotics operations.

“It starts with a ship, and then it starts with a law enforcement detachment on board. The more law enforcement detachment you get out there, the better able you are to do the actual end game of interdiction,” Poulin said at the time.
“It also includes getting helicopters, more helicopters on the flight decks of the assets that are now in there, including precision marksman on those helicopters. And that’s what we’re doing,” he added.

The Navy last year dispatched USS Detroit (LCS-7), another Freedom-variant LCS, to Southern Command for its first deployment. Detroit also had a Coast Guard LEDET team, an MQ-8B Fire Scout and an MH-60S helicopter to help perform counter-narcotics operations.

Both Sioux City and Detroit are based out of Naval Station Mayport, Fla.

“LCS’s have amazing capabilities and are underestimated,” Sioux City’s Command Senior Chief Conrad Hunt said in the press release.
Sioux City is ready to deploy to show why the LCS program is so important to the Navy’s mission.”

USS Sioux City (LCS-11) arrives at its homeport in Mayport, Fla, on Nov. 21, 2018. US Navy Photo

USS Sioux City (LCS-11) arrives at its homeport in Mayport, Fla, on Nov. 21, 2018. US Navy Photo

New SWO Boss Eyeing Advanced Warfighting Training, Mainstreaming LCS

By: Megan Eckstein

August 25, 2020 4:14 PM

USNI.org

Vice Adm. Roy Kitchener, Commander, Naval Surface Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, meets with Sailors during a tour of the Amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) on Aug. 13, 2020. Kitchener also evaluated Boxer’s current state of readiness during his visit. US Navy photo.

The new head of the Navy’s surface fleet said his predecessor made major improvements in training and readiness, and he wants to use them as a foundation to improve the tactical side: more advanced warfighting training, more self-sufficient ship crews, and more technology being pushed out to ships and unmanned vessels.

Vice Adm. Roy Kitchener took command of Naval Surface Forces and Naval Surface Force Pacific on Aug. 3, relieving former commander Vice Adm. Rich Brown after serving as the head of the Atlantic surface force under Brown for the past year.

“A lot of the work that Adm. Brown and the team did really set us on the right path, and I’m going to continue to build on that foundation. The training investments we made, we’ve just got to continue to make those,” Kitchener told USNI News on Aug. 24, in his first interview since taking over the new job.

“Train, maintain, fight” will be the new bumper sticker slogan for the surface force, he said, following Brown’s “combat-ready ships and battle-minded crews” mantra.

“I think if I can focus on those things, and continue to strengthen that foundation and then add a few things into the mix, I think that’ll make a better surface force out of an already pretty good one, a good, premier force we have out there,” said Kitchener, previewing a speech he’ll be giving on Thursday at the Surface Navy Association’s Waterfront Symposium.

For example, he praised the improvements in seamanship and navigation training, made in the fallout of the pair of fatal collisions in 2017.

“I think we need to apply the same rigor and work towards warfighting, where we develop a continuum where we see ensigns getting what I would consider an apprentice-type skill level of warfighting, and then as they graduate to department heads we really build that base up to the journeyman level, and then when they come back as [commanding officers] to command our ships and as major commanders, as warfare commanders, they become masters. And that’s something I’m going to put a lot into. I think there’s a lot of good work already there that [Naval Surface and Mine Warfighting Development Center] has done and [Surface Warfare Officers School], so I think that’s one of my main investments,” Kitchener said

Self-Sufficiency

Being able to fight the combat systems with these new advanced skills is important, Kitchener said, but so is being able to sustain the ship itself in tough circumstances. That could be a warzone where movement of resupply ships is limited, or an emerging theater like the Arctic where resupply and movement of people is difficult just due to geography.

“We’ve got to go fight, we need to have our ships ready to do that, we need to be self-sufficient. That’s another big thing that I’m going after,” he said.

As disruptive as the COVID-19 pandemic has been, he said it’s actually forced the Navy to simulate this in a way, testing crews’ abilities to keep themselves operating at sea with the materials – and the people and expertise – they have on hand. The isolation that comes with staying at sea to avoid the virus is “a good snapshot of what we would be required to do if we had to fight forward” and a ship didn’t have access to ashore technical experts in the Navy and in industry.

“What we’ve found in COVID-19 is that we’re a little bit better off than we thought we were, but we could be better,” the admiral said.

Kitchener described an “ATG Rodeo” pilot program he did on the East Coast and now is replicating on the West Coast, where Afloat Training Group personnel went to sea for extended basic phase training with a group of three ships and sought to check off as many certifications as they could before coming back ashore. This was done to keep the ships safe from the coronavirus pandemic, but the extended at-sea time also forced the self-sufficiency issue, too.

“The idea was to get as many certifications in basic phase tier 1 completed,” Kitchener said, “and that worked really well on the training side: all those three ships went to sea and certified their basic phase. But one of the other things that we did with the program was we monitored very closely, because sometimes what we see is material readiness or the lack thereof impacts their ability to do quality training. And so we were very focused with this group together that, okay, it looks like you’re slowing down, or you were unable to get this done for the last 48 hours; what’s holding you back? And they would talk to us about the casualty, and we’d get the right sailors on that ship, or perhaps maybe somebody from the other ships with them would come over – but they worked together, and it allowed them to start getting at their material readiness early on in the training cycle, building that self-sufficiency with the teams.

“The same thing is happening out on deployment, where we’re not really changing people out. We’ve only really started in the last month or so to rotate personnel out in some of the forward-deployed folks because of the COVID impacts,” he continued.
“And so what that’s done is, it forced our sailors to say, alright, no one’s coming. So it’s on you to fix it. How can we help? How can we enable you? Is it somebody talking to you on the phone with the right documentation? Or in many cases it’s just them getting after it, getting somebody from the engineering department to look at something in the combat systems department – troubleshooting techniques remain about the same for all systems – so regaining that self-sufficiency that way. I think we’re seeing some success, but we need to do better, we need to make sure our sailors are getting the right tools to do better. But the rodeo, I’m really encouraged by, I think we’re onto something in terms of getting more efficient training done, and then there’s all these other intangibles that are coming along with it.”

Risk Assessment and Mitigation

The surface fleet has had some leadership turnover since the fatal 2017 Western Pacific collisions – it was two SWO Bosses ago that they took place, and it was the last SWO Boss that implemented reform measures in the collisions’ aftermath – but Kitchener said he refuses to take his eye off safety. He talked about “organizational drift” and a natural and gradual degradation of standards. The vice admiral offered NASA as an example he talks about with sailors and vowed not to let the Navy repeat: after the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, NASA “had that tragic event, they figured out what went wrong, they moved out smartly, fixed it all, and then roughly 10 to 15 years later they did the same thing again with the Columbia. So that’s one of the things I use and I spend a lot of time on, and our force safety officer, I’ve asked him to look at that. As a matter of fact, getting ready to put out another P4 on risk analysis and what I want people to look at, and discussing things like that. What are those things you do on a daily basis that prevent your ship from getting in that kind of situation?”

On the training side, Kitchener said ship handling and safety training for officers through the new SWOS curriculum and for enlisted sailors through the new quartermaster course are helping rehash the 2017 tragedies and reinforce that those mistakes cannot be repeated. Additionally, he’s tasked SMWDC with helping address risk to mission and risk to the force during their advanced warfighting training events with the surface fleet. Kitchener said young officers need to learn what it means if a certain piece of gear is down, or a key crew member is taken out of the fight. Understanding that risk and articulating it up the chain of command, and then making informed decisions about how to proceed, need to be part of the training that ships undergo, the admiral said.

Littoral Combat Ship

Though many of his top initiatives apply to the whole surface force, Kitchener said there’s much Littoral Combat Ship-specific work to be done.

Brown was able to get the ship class deploying overseas again after a year-and-a-half hiatus from operational activities, and Kitchener said that going the next step and normalizing the ship class is “at the top of my list of things to do.”

In his last job at Naval Surface Force Atlantic, he oversaw the first deployment of the Freedom-class variant to U.S. 4th Fleet and helped lay the groundwork for forward-deploying the hulls to Bahrain.

But he said that, while training is a highlight of the program, there’s still work to be done on the reliability of some components of the ship, as well as finessing what the overseas maintenance model will be.

“Number one, we still continue to have some design problems on some of the engineering components on those ships. I know [Naval Sea Systems Command] has got their strike team and is looking really hard at that,” he said.
“I’ll tell you what, we’re really good at fixing the problems we have with them right now, but … we need to do better than that. They need to not be breaking the way they are. And I think we’ll get to some resolution there. I’ve been encouraged by the work [NAVSEA has] been doing, but we cannot let off on that. So that’s number one, getting that design reliability built back in to some of those systems.”

“I think on the maintenance side there’s some more work to be done. We’ve now successfully had deployments out to 7th Fleet, we’ve had successful deployments to 4th Fleet. And we got some good lessons learned, and we need to kind of figure out, okay, what is our global maintenance [concept of operations]? We need to figure out how are we going to repair these things forward. … And what does that maintenance team look like?” he continued.
A 2016 study overhauling the LCS program “sort of set up what we thought it looked like, but I would argue that, based on what we now know and what we’ve done, it might be a little bit different than that. So there’s some work we need to put into that as well.”

Kitchener made clear that deployments would continue, but he added that a study was in its early stages now on how to continue to mainstream the LCS class, with a particular focus on design reliability and maintenance models.

Future Technology

Kitchener also addressed his ideas about the future of the surface navy, even as he has his hands full with ensuring today’s surface force is ready and trained for complex operations.

The admiral said he’s pleased with the work the Surface Development Squadron-1 (SURFDEVRON) is doing to integrate new unmanned systems into the fleet, but he wants more of a tactical focus on ongoing events. Most of the USVs today still fall under control of either the Office of Naval Research or the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office, but they’re slowing transitioning over to Navy control under the SURFDEVRON. Kitchener advocated hastening the start of testing mission-related capabilities, such as sensor packages, on the USVs even as they’re wrapping up ONR and SCO testing on the autonomy and command and control side.

“There’s a lot of testing of, okay, how do we deal with this unmanned stuff and how do we get the remote control right and the [automatic identification system] and the [International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea]. Well, at the same time we could be testing the ability to put capabilities on those USVs, and so I’ve asked them to look at that,” he said.

With a handful of exercises and events coming up where the USVs will be operating at sea, “how can we make them more tactical rather than just going out and testing some of the functional capabilities that scientists want to look at? What’s the warfighting capability?”

Kitchener said this attitude of getting technology out there and testing it as soon as possible applies to manned ships, too, such as LCS, and comes from his previous assignment to Naval Mine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Command. There he was tasked with getting new mine warfare gear out to U.S. 5th Fleet.

“We were just taking stuff that wasn’t fully developed, we were experimenting, and a lot of gear went out there, and a lot of that gear is now in use today,” Kitchener said.
“And I kind of see the same thing: I want to test capabilities as much as I can, put things on LCS. I know on the East Coast there’s an initiative to put a laser on one of them, and we’ve got to continue to test that kind of stuff because that’s how we’ll get at speed to fleet. Get things out there – what works, we’ll keep; what doesn’t, we’ll send back for more seasoning. So that’s kind of how I look at the SURFDEVRON. I think it’s kind of exciting, I think we just need to start pushing that a little bit harder and get more capability out there.”

Vice Adm. Roy Kitchener, Commander, Naval Surface Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, meets with the Chiefs Mess aboard dock landing ship USS Rushmore (LSD 47) on Aug. 20, 2020. During his visit, Kitchener evaluated Rushmore’s current state of readiness and m…

Vice Adm. Roy Kitchener, Commander, Naval Surface Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, meets with the Chiefs Mess aboard dock landing ship USS Rushmore (LSD 47) on Aug. 20, 2020. During his visit, Kitchener evaluated Rushmore’s current state of readiness and met with Sailors. US Navy photo.

Vice Adm. Roy Kitchener, Commander, Naval Surface Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, presents one of his coins to Seaman Taliyah Brown, a native of Fayetteville, North Carolina, for a job well done during his visit to dock landing ship USS Rushmore (LSD 47) …

Vice Adm. Roy Kitchener, Commander, Naval Surface Force U.S. Pacific Fleet, presents one of his coins to Seaman Taliyah Brown, a native of Fayetteville, North Carolina, for a job well done during his visit to dock landing ship USS Rushmore (LSD 47) on Aug. 20, 2020. US Navy photo.

The Independence variant littoral combat ships USS Independence (LCS 2), left, USS Manchester (LCS 14), center, and USS Tulsa (LCS 16), right, sail in formation in the eastern Pacific on Feb, 27, 2019. US Navy photo.

The Independence variant littoral combat ships USS Independence (LCS 2), left, USS Manchester (LCS 14), center, and USS Tulsa (LCS 16), right, sail in formation in the eastern Pacific on Feb, 27, 2019. US Navy photo.

Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MDUSV) prototype Sea Hunter pulls into Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii on Oct. 31, 2018. US Navy Photo

Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MDUSV) prototype Sea Hunter pulls into Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii on Oct. 31, 2018. US Navy Photo

Report to Congress on Navy Force Structure

The following is the Aug. 13, 2020 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress.

August 19, 2020 7:21 AM

USNI.org

From the report

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 Trump Administration has identified the achievement of a Navy of 355 or more ships within 10 years as a high priority. The Navy states that it is working as well as it can, within a Navy budget top line that is essentially flat in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted terms), toward achieving that goal while also adequately funding other Navy priorities, such as restoring eroded ship readiness and improving fleet lethality. Navy officials state that while the 355-ship goal is a priority, they want to avoid creating a so-called hollow force, meaning a Navy that has an adequate number of ships but is unable to properly crew, arm, operate, and maintain those ships.

The Navy states that its proposed FY2021 budget requests the procurement of eight new ships, but this figure includes LPD-31, an LPD-17 Flight II amphibious ship that Congress procured (i.e., authorized and appropriated procurement funding for) in FY2020. Excluding this ship, the Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget requests the procurement of seven new ships rather than eight.

A figure of 7 new ships is less than the 11 that the Navy requested for FY2020 (a figure that excludes CVN-81, an aircraft carrier that Congress authorized in FY2019) or the 13 that Congress procured in FY2020 (a figure that again excludes CVN-81, but includes the above-mentioned LPD-31 as well as an LHA amphibious assault ship that Congress also procured in FY2020). The figure of 7 new ships is also less than the 10 ships that the Navy projected under its FY2020 budget submission that it would request for FY2021, and less than the average ship procurement rate that would be needed over the long run, given current ship service lives, to achieve and maintain a 355-ship fleet.

In dollar terms, the Navy is requesting a total of about $19.9 billion for its shipbuilding account for FY2021. This is about $3.9 billion (16.3%) less than the Navy requested for the account for FY2020, about $4.1 billion (17.0%) less than Congress provided for the account for FY2020, and about $3.6 billion (15.3%) less than the $23.5 billion that the Navy projected under its FY2020 budget submission that it would request for the account for FY2021.

The Navy states that its FY2021 five-year (FY2021-FY2025) shipbuilding plan includes 44 new ships, but this figure includes the above-mentioned LPD-31 and LHA amphibious ships that Congress procured in FY2020. Excluding these two ships, the Navy’s FY2021 five-year shipbuilding plan includes 42 new ships, which is 13 less than the 55 that were included in the FY2020 (FY2020-FY2024) five-year plan and 12 less than the 54 that were projected for the period FY2021-FY2025 under the Navy’s FY2020 30-year shipbuilding plan.

The Navy’s 355-ship force-level goal is the result of a Force Structure Assessment (FSA) conducted by the Navy in 2016. A new FSA, referred to as the Integrated Naval FSA (INFSA), is to be published sometime during the spring of 2020. Statements from Department of the Navy (DON) officials suggest that the INFSA could result in a once-in-a-generation change in the Navy’s fleet architecture, meaning the mix of ships that make up the Navy. DON officials suggest that the INFSA could shift the fleet to a more distributed architecture that includes a reduced proportion of larger ships, an increased proportion of smaller ships, and a newly created category of large unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) and large unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs). Such a change in fleet architecture could alter the mix of ships to be procured for the Navy and the distribution of Navy shipbuilding work among the nation’s shipyards.

a21599005f05a8fff18ca9790444b4cc.jpg

VIDEO: Littoral Combat Ship USS St. Louis Commissioning Ceremony

August 11, 2020 9:38 AM

USNI.org

The following is the complete Aug. 8 commissioning ceremony for the Littoral Combat Ship USS St. Louis (LCS-19).

The following is the complete statement on the commissioning of the warship from U.S. Surface Forces Atlantic. 

The U.S. Navy commissioned Freedom-variant littoral combat ship USS St. Louis (LCS 19), August 8.

Due to public health safety concerns and restrictions of large public gatherings related to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Navy commissioned St. Louis at a private event.

“Nearly 200 years after the first ship to bear the name was launched, today we commission the seventh USS St. Louis,” said Secretary of the Navy Kenneth J. Braithwaite. “Much like that sloop of war did in 1828, LCS-19 and her crew will protect the U.S. and our interests near and abroad. Whether conducting counter-narcotic operations in the Caribbean or working to enhance interoperability with partners and allies at sea, USS St. Louis will provide maneuverability, stability and lethality in today’s era of Great Power Competition.”

Adm. Craig Faller, commander of U.S. Southern Command, said littoral combat ships, like the St. Louis, have played an important role supporting operations in his command’s geographic area of focus.

“The littoral combat ship has proven to be an effective and adaptable platform capable of multiple missions in our area of responsibility,” Faller said. “It has become an end-game enabler for U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement authorities who disrupt transnational criminal organizations and the smuggling of deadly narcotics. Adding the LCS to our Enhanced Counter Narcotics Operation is helping save lives.”

Rear Adm. Brad Cooper II, Commander, Naval Surface Force Atlantic, welcomed the ship that brings capabilities to counter diesel submarine, mines, and fast surface craft threats to the world’s premier Surface Force.

“St. Louis brings speed and agility to the fleet,” said Cooper. “Congratulations to St. Louis’ captain and crew for all of your hard work to reach this milestone. You join a proud Surface Force that controls the seas and provides the Nation with naval combat power when and where needed.”

Barbara Broadhurst Taylor, the ship’s sponsor, offered congratulations to everyone who played a role in delivering USS St. Louis to service.

“To witness the skill and commitment of the officers and crew of USS ST LOUIS as they brought our magnificent ship to life has been one of the greatest honors of my life. All of us in the great city of St. Louis are proud to be part of our ship’s historic legacy and extend our appreciation and lasting friendship to the crew and their families,” Taylor said. “Your patriotism and dedication to preserving peace and freedom inspires us. May God bless our ship and all who sail her.”

Charles Williams, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment expressed gratitude to the ships sponsor for their commitment to the Navy. “I want to express the Navy’s deep appreciation to the Taylor family. Much of what they do is anonymous but believe me when I say they are the preeminent philanthropic family of the St. Louis community and a donor to Navy causes,” said Williams.

St. Louis’ commanding officer, Cmdr. Kevin Hagan, reported the ship ready.

“I’m incredibly proud of the work the crew of St. Louis put in to get this ship ready to sail. I am absolutely honored to lead this crew through all of the trials required of a brand-new ship in the fleet,” said Hagan. “Their perseverance and dedication will set the foundation for our crew and for all future crews that will call USS St. Louis their home.”

St. Louis is the 22nd LCS to be delivered to the Navy, and the tenth of the Freedom-variant to join the fleet and is the seventh ship to bear the name. The first St. Louis, a sloop of war, was launched in 1828. It spent the majority of its service patrolling the coasts of the Americas to secure interests and trade. In addition, it served as the flagship for the West Indies Squadron working to suppress piracy in the Caribbean Sea, the Antilles and the Gulf of Mexico region.

The littoral combat ship is a fast, agile and networked surface combatant, and the primary mission for the LCS includes countering diesel submarine threats, littoral mine threats and surface threats to assure maritime access for joint forces. The underlying strength of the LCS lies in its innovative design approach, applying modularity for operational flexibility. Fundamental to this approach is the capability to rapidly install interchangeable mission packages (MPs) onto the seaframe to fulfill a specific mission and then be uninstalled, maintained and upgraded at the Mission Package Support Facility (MPSF) for future use aboard any LCS seaframe.

Participating in the ceremonial flyover for the commissioning of the Navy’s newest littoral combat ship included two MH-60R, assigned to Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 60 and HSM-70, based out of Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville. Primary missions of the MH-60R include Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Surveillance, Communications Relay, Combat Search and Rescue, Naval Gunfire Support and logistics support.

When the USS St. Louis is paired with world’s most advanced maritime helicopter, the MH-60R, it will have a robust anti-submarine mission capability that is fully interoperable with the U.S. Navy and its coalition partners.