expanding the navy – USA Gov Policy

In yesterday’s report, we pointed out the dangers and challenges from an undersized U.S. Navy. Today, we provide a summary of the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the task in expanding America’s seapower to an adequate level.

In December 2016, the Navy released a new force structure assessment (FSA) that called for a fleet of 355 ships—substantially larger than the current force of 280 ships. In response to a request from the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces of the House Committee on Armed Services, CBO [Cogressional Budget Office] explored the costs of achieving that goal in a previous report. To expand on that analysis, CBO has estimated the costs of achieving a 355-ship fleet under two alternatives. The agency then compared those scenarios with two other alternatives involving smaller fleets. For all four alternatives, CBO explored shipbuilding and operating costs, the composition and capabilities of the fleet, and effects on the shipbuilding industry.

The four alternatives would affect the size and composition of the Navy in the following ways, CBO estimates:

Under the first alternative, the Navy would create a 355-ship fleet by building more ships over the next 20 years, achieving the force goal by 2037. The cost to build, crew, and operate a 355-ship fleet achieved by new construction would average $103 billion (in 2017 dollars) per year through 2047.
Under the second alternative, the Navy would attain a 355-ship fleet sooner, in about 2028, but would not achieve the composition that the service wants until 2037—by using a new-ship construction schedule similar to the schedule under the first alternative, and also by extending the service life of some large surface combatants, amphibious ships, attack submarines, and logistics ships. Its costs would average $104 billion annually through 2047.
Under the third alternative, the Navy would maintain a fleet comparable in size and composition to today’s fleet of 280 ships. It would cost an average of $91 billion annually through 2047.
The fourth alternative would cost the least and illustrates the long-term implications of funding the Navy at roughly the level it has received historically for ship procurement. By 2047, the fleet would fall to 230 ships. In total, that alternative would cost an average of $82 billion per year over the next 30 years.

The oil has got magical ingredients that can on line cialis icks.org not only help you get stronger and firmer erections, but also increase the length and the girth of the tool. ED icks.org viagra price is not a disease, but this condition is a problem that exists in many men. It boosts sexual performance in buy generic cialis see this pharmacy bed to satisfy her. You can use the ayurvedic remedies sildenafil india to enhance vigor and vitality, you need to consume zinc rich foods to revitalize reproductive organs.
Shipbuilding Costs

CBO estimates that, over the next 30 years, meeting the 355-ship goal with new-ship construction alone would cost an average of $26.7 billion annually (in 2017 dollars). Combining that shipbuilding program with service life extension programs (commonly called SLEPs) for some existing ships to achieve a 355-ship fleet faster would cost an average of $27.5 billion annually; the costs for those SLEPs would be concentrated over the next 10 years. The smaller fleets would cost less: If the Navy was kept at its current size, shipbuilding costs would average $22.4 billion annually. By contrast, if funding for the fleet was kept at roughly historical levels, shipbuilding costs would average $16.8 billion per year.

Operating Costs

CBO projects that the costs to operate and maintain the Navy’s ships will grow faster than general inflation in the economy. On the basis of historical experience, pay for military and civilians is projected to increase faster than inflation as are costs to supply and repair the Navy’s ships. As a result, CBO expects that the costs for operation and support for all of the alternatives—even a substantially smaller fleet—would be higher in 2047 in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than comparable costs for the existing fleet. By 2047, the annual cost (in 2017 dollars) of operating a 355-ship fleet would be about $38 billion (or 68 percent) more than the $56 billion the current fleet of 280 ships costs to operate. Overall, costs for the alternative that would include SLEPs would be higher in earlier years because some of the ships would be retired later than under the first alternative. A fleet that maintained the size and composition of the current fleet would cost $22 billion (or 39 percent) more in 2047. And the smallest fleet would still cost $12 billion (or 21 percent) more than the fleet costs to operate today.

Capabilities of the Different Fleets

CBO compared the four alternative fleets using several standard measures of capability. Not surprisingly, the larger fleets would provide the most capability, whereas the smallest fleet would provide the least. To measure capability during peacetime, CBO used the number of ships providing forward presence (those on patrol overseas in peacetime) and the number of vertical launch system (VLS) cells—missile tubes—on those ships. For a wartime measure, CBO used the number of ships that could be “surged” (that is, rapidly deployed) overseas within 30 days and the number of VLS cells on those ships. Because the alternative that includes SLEPs would retain more cruisers and destroyers in the fleet—retiring ships later than the other alternatives—and they carry large numbers of VLS cells, it would increase the fleet’s VLS inventory by 20 percent by 2032 for less than 2 percent additional cost compared with the 355-ship alternative without SLEPs.

Implications for the Shipbuilding Industry

CBO anticipates that shipyards would need to make significant investments in facilities and infrastructure to build the larger fleets. For the smaller fleet alternatives, maintaining the Navy at its current size would require little change to the industrial base that builds warships, whereas a fleet based on historical funding would lead to less ship construction business for the shipyards, with the possibility that one or more could leave the industry.

Photo: The U.S. Navy Harpers Ferry-class dock landing ship USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) comes into port following the conclusion of Eager Lion 2018.

A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office reports that “Since January 2017, the Navy has suffered four significant mishaps at sea that resulted in serious damage to its ships and the loss of 17 sailors.”

The fact is, the U.S. Navy is overstretched. The problem is getting worse as both Russia and China continue to build up their fleets, leading to strains on both ships and personnel.

In September, Admiral Moran expanded on his worrisome theme: “The Navy has deployed, on average, about 100 ships around the world each day, collectively steaming thousands of underway days each year, despite having the smallest battle fleet since before World War I, and significantly smaller than the Navy we had immediately after 9/11 over a decade ago. 2 Although warfighting capabilities of ships have dramatically increased in the last century, the size and scope of U.S. responsibilities around the world have also increased.”

While the U.S. Navy struggles, America’s maritime adversaries grow larger and bolder. According to a study by the Brookings Institute “Russia is, impressively, both retrofitting older vessels and procuring newer ones. And the [Russian] navy has unveiled a significant capability: Its Caspian Sea corvettes and frigates can fire cruise missiles at targets over 900 miles away. This is a previously unknown capability. To put things in perspective, the two variants of the U.S. Littoral Combat Ship, Freedom and Independence, are substantially larger at roughly 2,900 tons and 3,100 tons respectively—but they do not possess any cruise missile or similar power projection capability.”

The United Kingdom’s Royal United Services Institute, reports the Daily Mail,
Even though levitra pharmacy purchase there are certain controllable variables during early stages of pregnancy that can predict a possibility of the switch in the inside to have broken. However, the level of success depends on the underlying cause of their erectile dysfunction, the severity of levitra sales online the cause and the degree of sexual issues that affect their performance in the bedroom. It cures the underlying cause of problem and improves the reproductive health india generic viagra of person. It offers effective cure http://www.midwayfire.com/required-reporting-information/ online cialis australia for male infertility.
“has warned the Kremlin is building up its maritime arsenal. It calls on Nato to prepare for how to deal with Russian hybrid warfare at sea ‘before it is too late.’ Its study notes that “Russia could send new submarines and ships to launch undersea attacks to ‘paralyse’ Europe…”

China’s threat may exceed Russia’s, and the two nations are closely allied, and increasing their coordination through joint training exercises. In its Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2016 the Department of Defense notes that “Over the past 15 years, China’s ambitious naval modernization program has produced a more technologically advanced and flexible force. The PLAN now possesses the largest number of vessels in Asia, with more than 300 surface ships, submarines, amphibious ships, and patrol craft. China is rapidly retiring legacy combatants in favor of larger, multi-mission ships equipped with advanced anti-ship, antiair, and anti-submarine weapons and sensors. China continues its gradual shift from “near sea” defense to “far seas” protection.”…China is expanding its access to foreign ports to pre-position the necessary logistics support to regularize and sustain deployments in the “far seas,” waters as distant as the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, and Atlantic Ocean. In late November, China publicly confirmed its intention to build military supporting facilities in Djibouti…This Chinese initiative both reflects and amplifies China’s growing geopolitical clout, extending the reach of its influence and armed forces…”

Real Clear Defense notes the consequences of America having an undersized Navy: “the consequences of…a shortfall could be dire…Deterrence is the peacetime U.S. Navy’s chief purpose. After the navy faces down aggression, it does the wonderful things navies can do with freedom of the sea. Showing the flag in foreign seaports, alleviating human misery following natural disasters or other emergencies, scouring the sea of unlawful trafficking—such worthwhile endeavors depend on free use of the global commons… A big, capable navy can deter even if the bulk of the fleet is dispersed, remote from hotspots, or both. The United States, that is, can discourage mischief if would-be aggressors know U.S. commanders can bring overbearing combat power to bear. Virtual deterrence comes with a world-beating navy.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow.

Photo: U.S.S. Theodore Navy (U.S. Navy photo)

Quick Analysis

Russian-Belarus Preparations for an Attack on the West

While Russia is celebrating May Day at home this week, it is also growing closer to breaching the threshold triggering a nuclear event in Western Europe. Military analysts in Washington consider the recent deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus a political sign designed to unnerve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) easternmost flank. Alexander Taranov, of the Jamestown Foundation calls it “practical preparation for nuclear escalation.” Last week the Kremlin publicly repeated its threat of nuclear war against the West. It immediately followed the US Congress’ vote to provide $61 billion in military assistance to Ukraine. Up for debate is whether Russia’s storage of nuclear warheads in Belarus is short-term preparation for their operational use. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov openly declared that increasing aid to Ukraine increases the threat of a direct military clash. From Moscow’s perspective, he points out, Ukraine is backed by three nuclear states, including the US, UK, and France. He uses it to justify the Kremlin’s moves in Belarus as Russia considers the situation a serious strategic risk. The nuclear environment in Europe is moving beyond simple rhetoric this spring. Russian-Belarus preparations for an attack on the West include war gaming a simulated nuclear event in Ukraine and Eastern Europe. The operating assumption for the games is that the West is “morally too weak to respond with retaliatory strikes,” according to Taranov. The representative for national defense of the Belarusian opposition-in-exile’s United Transitional Cabinet and former commander of the Belarusian 38th Separate Guards Air Assault Brigade (Brest), Valery Sahashchyk, says that the militaries are war-gaming and preparing for an attack on Lithuania. Last week the publication RIA Novosti suggested that the Kremlin may take matters into its own hands and that Russia is fighting a “long war” against the collective West and Ukraine. Just over a month ago, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) confirmed the establishment of a nuclear warhead storage facility near Asipovichy, Belarus, where, according to Taranov, the 1405th Artillery Ammunition Base is located. The 465th Missile Brigade is almost co-located and supplied with Russian Iskander-M operational-tactical missile (RMB) systems that are also known as TNW carriers. Pre-deploying tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) raises the potential that Russia could choose to use them should the war in Ukraine go badly this summer. Western powers are divided on how to view the Russian nuclear moves. Some military planners are arguing that the West needs to be prepared, despite the possibility that Putin is simply posturing and not preparing for war. Other Western commentators suggest it is only posturing since prior to the recent nuclear deployment in Belarus, Russia already had the capability to launch a strike in Eastern Europe using its modernized nuclear weapons storage facilities in Kaliningrad. Taranov points out that the Belarusian nuclear site is only modernized with added perimeter security and an access point and that “No underground bunker-type fortifications, designed for the long-term storage of TNWs… were built on the Belarusian base’s territory. Instead, the nuclear warheads were placed in one of the arsenals of the ammunition base, which also stores operational-tactical missiles for the Iskander-M system.” He says this co-location with their launch vehicles is an indication that a repair and maintenance base has been organized there to support and prepare the TNWs for operational use. Personnel on the site are likely tasked with fitting the nuclear warheads on the missiles. What makes this more concerning is that during a peacetime environment, the standard Russian practice is to store TNWs in a special bunker-type fortified facility while RMBs typically are located off base. Military procedures in the past called for moving TNWs off base to the TNW carrier and delivery vehicle site only after receiving an order or special command from: 1) the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, 2) the Minister of Defense, and 3) the Chief of the Russian General staff. Co-positioning marks a change in standard operating procedures that indicates the weapons are, essentially, in field-ready conditions. This reduces the time to place the nuclear warheads on the missiles. This “indicates preparation for operational use,” according to Taranov. There are additional signs that Putin is prepping for an escalation in the Ukrainian conflict. The Polish government says Russian Aerospace Forces are using Belarusian-based Kh-55 nuclear-capable cruise missiles with imitators of nuclear warheads against targets in Poland and Ukraine. This points to Russia’s practicing for at minimum of a tactical nuclear strike. The summer months may become very active in Europe if Putin sees it as an opportune time to act while the US is in the middle of a presidential election. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Photo: RS-24 Yars (SS-27 Mod 2) ICBM. Photo: Wikimedia Commons / Vitaly V. Kuzmin