Back to news

November 28, 2018 | International, Naval

Panel: Navy May Have to Choose Between New Ballistic Missile Subs or 355 Ship Fleet

By:

The Navy could be forced to make hard choices sooner rather than later when it comes to finding the money to replace its aging ballistic missile submarines or reach its goal of having a fleet of 355 warships, a panel of security and budgetary experts said this week.

When asked by USNI News what the future holds for fleet size and ballistic missile submarines now that the Democrats control the House, Frank Rose, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former assistant secretary of state for arms control, he said: “There is not enough money” for both, and “priorities need to be taken.”

Rose and Jim Miller, a former undersecretary of Defense for policy, came down firmly on the side of building the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, the replacements for the current Ohio-class, in setting priorities for Navy spending.

For the U.S., the ballistic missile submarines “secures the second strike” in event of a nuclear attack. “It really is the backbone of our nuclear force now and for the next 70 to 80 years,” Rose said.

The Navy shouldn't be allowed to say, “sorry, we ran out of money” when it comes to paying for the ballistic missile submarine because the shipbuilding account was used for other kinds of warships. “The Navy needs to step up to that bill,” Miller said.

That line of thought is not confined to think-tanks.

Rep. Adam Smith, (D-Wash.), who is expected to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, has long expressed skepticism over the Navy's shipbuilding plan leading to a fleet of 355 warships. He has several times at recent public events referred to it as “simply a number thrown out there.”

A sense of how the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee will line up on fleet size and modernizing the nuclear triad could come Tuesday when the full panel looks at the recommendations of the commission on the National Defense Strategy and that afternoon its sea power subcommittee looks at current and future shipbuilding plans.

In his presentation, Miller said a fleet of 355 ships, meaning a growth of about 70 from the current size “are numbers that should be challenged” as should those increasing Army end strength from about 450,000 soldiers to 510,000. If all the services force structure numbers were challenged there would be funds for readiness and modernization, including the nuclear triad.

“Will this administration put its money where its strategy [of deterring new-peer competitors — Russia and China] is?” he asked rhetorically.

There is some concern that the Trump administration will pull back from long-term, continually rising Pentagon budgets. The Defense Department was planning for a request for Fiscal Year 2020 of $733 billion, but it has now been told by the Office of Management and Budget to work with a $700 billion top line.

The question for all the services is: “can they get by with current force structure” if missions are also re-examined to free money for readiness, modernization and investment in the future like cyber resilience and space, especially sensors for missile defense.

Michael O'Hanlon, who moderated the session at Brookings in Washington, D.C., added in answer to the USNI News question that for the Navy it means looking at the missions its accepts critically. For example, does the lack of an aircraft carrier strike group presence in the Persian Gulf upset security in the region. Or is it a way to free money for other things. He pointed out that when there was no carrier present there for months Iran did not act more aggressively.

“The Middle East was a mess before; the Middle East was a mess after. [The Navy] can be more flexible [and that] could be with a smaller fleet,” he said.

Miller said during the presentation and later with USNI there was a tradeoff that needed to be understood between “quantity and quality.”

Following the presentation, Miller said the Navy “is in a bind” when it has to choose between large capital surface ships, like carriers, “and places where it has an advantage, like submarines — boomers and attack and unmanned undersea vessels. He added modernizing the amphibious fleet remained a priority to meet the need for rapid response of Marines and special forces.

Overhanging all this discussion of where the Pentagon should spend its money is the old bugaboo — sequestration, the automatic across-the-board cuts in defense and domestic spending if deficits are not offset, as required by existing law.

Maya MacGuiness, president of the Committee for a Responsible Budget, said unless Congress reaches a spending agreement Pentagon spending would automatically fall back to $576 billion because the Budget Control Act of 2011 remains in place. As it has in the past, Congress has reached an agreement to lift the caps, but is no longer trying to offset those hikes in spending with comparable cuts in other programs.

With a trillion dollar deficit and national debt “the highest it has been since World War II,” she said the United States “faces incredible fiscal challenges,” but administrations and Congress aren't making the choices in where to cut, where to spend, how to find revenue to pay for programs, cover entitlements — in and out of the military, and meet the interest payments on the debt.

Instead, there has been “a doubling down” on spending and cutting taxes. The reality has become “I won't pay for mine; you won't pay for yours.”

MacGuiness said, “We have to stop the notion we can have it all” in federal spending on guns and butter. She did not predict whether the new Congress would make those decisions.

While expecting House Democrats to exercise more executive branch oversight, Elaine Kamerck, of Brookings, said didn't see their approach come the New Year as an all-out assault on Pentagon spending. The party's leadership is concerned about keeping its majority having taken seats in more conservative suburban areas after 2020. A more interesting question come January will be “how does the Republican leadership in Congress take the lessons from the elections” that saw “them decimated in the suburbs” and their winning margins cut in rural areas, she said, and apply them to the budget.

https://news.usni.org/2018/11/23/panel-navy-may-choose-new-ballistic-missile-subs-355-ship-fleet

On the same subject

  • Future US Navy weapons will need lots of power. That’s a huge engineering challenge.

    June 26, 2018 | International, Naval

    Future US Navy weapons will need lots of power. That’s a huge engineering challenge.

    David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is convinced that the next generation of ships will need to integrate lasers, electromagnetic rail guns and other power-hungry weapons and sensors to take on peer competitors in the coming decades. However, integrating futuristic technologies onto existing platforms, even on some of the newer ships with plenty of excess power capacity, will still be an incredibly difficult engineering challenge, experts say. Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager who worked on the DDG Flight III, told the audience at last week's American Society of Naval Engineers symposium that adding extra electric-power capacity in ships currently in design was a good idea, but that the weapons and systems of tomorrow will pose a significant challenge to naval engineers when it comes time to back-fit them to existing platforms. “Electrical architecture on ships is hard,” Vandroff said. Vandroff considered adding a several-megawatt system to a ship with plenty of power to spare, comparing it with simultaneously turning on everything in a house. “When you turn everything on in your house that you can think of, you don't make a significant change to the load for [the power company],” Vandroff explained. “On a ship, if you have single loads that are [a] major part of the ship's total load, [it can be a challenge]. This is something we had to look at for DDG Flight III where the air and missile defense radar was going to be a major percentage of the total electric load ― greater than anything that we had experienced in the previous ships in the class. That's a real technical challenge. “We worked long and hard at that in order to get ourselves to a place with Flight III where we were confident that when you turned things on and off the way you wanted to in combat, you weren't going to light any of your switchboards on fire. That was not a back-of-the-envelope problem, that was a lot of folks in the Navy technical community ... doing a lot of work to make sure we could get to that place, and eventually we did.” In order to get AMDR, or SPY-6, installed on the DDG design, Vandroff and the team at the DDG-51 program had to redesign nearly half the ship — about 45 percent all told. Even on ships with the extra electric-power capacity, major modifications might be necessary, he warned. “We're going to say that in the future we are going to be flexible, we are going to have a lot of extra power,” Vandroff said. “That will not automatically solve the problem going forward. If you have a big enough load that comes along for a war-fighting application or any other application you might want, it is going to take technical work and potential future modification in order to get there.” Even the powerhouse Zumwalt class will struggle with new systems that take up a large percentage of the ship's power load, Vandroff said. “Take DDG-1000 ― potentially has 80-odd megawatts of power. If you have a 5- or 6-megawatt load that goes on or off, that is a big enough percentage of total load that it's going to be accounted for. Electrical architecture in the future is still an area that is going to require a lot of effort and a lot of tailoring, whatever your platform is, to accommodate those large loads,” he said. In 2016, when the Navy was planning to install a rail gun on an expeditionary fast transport vessel as a demonstration, service officials viewed the electric-power puzzle as the reason the service has not moved more aggressively to field rail gun on the Zumwalt class. Then-director of surface warfare Rear Adm. Pete Fanta told Defense News that he wanted to move ahead with a rail gun demonstration on the JHSV because of issues with the load. “I would rather get an operational unit out there faster than do a demonstration that just does a demonstration,” Fanta said, “primarily because it will slow the engineering work that I have to do to get that power transference that I need to get multiple repeatable shots that I can now install in a ship.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/24/future-navy-weapons-will-need-lots-power-thats-a-huge-engineering-challenge/

  • A Shift by Biden Brings F-16s Closer for Ukraine

    May 19, 2023 | International, Aerospace

    A Shift by Biden Brings F-16s Closer for Ukraine

    U.S. officials said the president was prepared to let other countries train Ukrainian pilots on F-16s and also send the U.S.-made warplanes to Kyiv. President Zelensky was expected to attend a G7 meeting in Japan.

  • Les industriels de la Défense s’organisent pour produire plus vite

    July 9, 2022 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land

    Les industriels de la Défense s’organisent pour produire plus vite

    L'Etat, par la voix du Président de la République, ou celle du ministre des Armées, intimant aux acteurs industriels de la Défense d'accélérer leurs cadences de production, ceux-ci s'organisent pour apporter une réponse adéquate. Un exemple de ces délais jugés trop long, la production d'un radar militaire standard, une fois la commande passée, les pièces des sous-traitants réceptionnées, dure entre 24 et 36 mois, hors pénurie de matières. Au sein de la filière, donneurs d'ordre et sous-traitants planchent en toute discrétion pour proposer au ministre des Armées, Sébastien Lecornu, des leviers d'action applicables à court terme, en s'inspirant des méthodes de l'aéronautique civile. Une réflexion a lieu pour avoir des doubles sources sur certains composants, la norme dans le civil mais pas dans le militaire, et pour passer d'une logique de production à la commande, comme c'est le cas aujourd'hui, à une stratégie de flux. C'est une stratégie qui a aussi ses limites, le stockage de pièces ayant un coût significatif. Ainsi, une partie de la réponse se trouve du côté de l'industrie, mais l'autre est au niveau du ministère des Armées et de la Direction Générale de l'Armement (DGA). Les clients eux-mêmes vont sans doute devoir accepter de revoir les règles actuelles. Les tests pouvant durer 6 mois sur certains équipements, si les délais étaient revus à la baisse, il faudrait accepter un niveau de dysfonctionnements supérieur à la normale.

All news