Rough Seas Ahead for Navy’s Surface Fleet?

In its markup of the National Defense Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Committee proposed a number of changes to the Obama administration’s plans for the U.S. Navy. The NDAA rescinds the retirement of three cruisers and restricts retirement of ballistic-missile submarines (so as not to fall below a minimum of twelve). The bill also contains an amendment which authorizes a GAO review of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. The amendments collectively reflect the committee’s concern that the navy won’t be able to fulfill its current missions with fewer and perhaps less capable ships. Unfortunately, no one is asking whether any of those missions could be modified, eliminated or shifted to others.

I will address some of those issues at a Cato policy forum this Monday, May 21, at noon. I am particularly thrilled to be joined by Undersecretary of the Navy Robert O. Work, Ben Freeman of the Project on Government Oversight and Eric J. Labs of the Congressional Budget Office. Those three make this an all-star cast to discuss the future of a U.S. surface fleet that is undergoing some major changes. With the retirement of the navy’s cruisers and frigates, the development of bigger and more complex destroyers, and the introduction of the LCS, tomorrow’s surface fleet will look quite different than today’s.

Congress is particularly concerned about the LCS because of reports of design and construction flaws and operational problems, including this letter issued by the Project on Government Oversight and a subsequent article in Aviation Week. But some are also concerned that even though LCSs eventually will constitute about one-third of the navy’s surface combatants, the LCS is not supposed to engage in combat. In addition, its mission modules, especially the antisubmarine-warfare package, are years away from operability.

Our panel will address many of the questions swirling around the surface fleet today, including: How will the replacement of thirty frigates with the still-untested LCS affect the navy’s overall capability? Will the ballistic-missile-defense requirement reduce the availability of destroyers for other missions? Could the navy pursue a different strategy to advance U.S. national security that could be executed with fewer ships? Of course, the answers to all of those questions are framed within the context of declining procurement budgets. Given that reality, one could argue that the greatest threat to the U.S. Navy’s surface fleet is its undersea fleet: the looming SSBN(X) program could devour the shipbuilding budget for a decade.

So, with no shortage of difficult and far-reaching decisions ahead for the navy, it is a privilege to have Undersecretary Work, Ben and Eric to help us navigate the way. I hope you can join us on Monday.

More by


yousaf (May 17, 2012 - 1:59pm)

I had a letter in the FT about this: quote: "Sir, Robert Kaplan bemoans the current US navy warship numbers and advocates an increase from the current fleet of 284 to about 350, lest US ability to police global shipping lanes deteriorates (Comment, November 30).Ted Postol of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and I recently analysed the proposed system and found, like previous studies, that the sea-based system could be easily defeated by the use of simple countermeasures and decoy warheads. The Pentagon’s Defense Science Board has since released a report that agrees with our assessment and highlights new problems.Mr Kaplan ought to be concerned about the 45 or so high-technology ships that the navy will – essentially – waste on the delusional “phased adaptive approach” missile defence dream.These “Aegis” missile defence interceptor ships, together with their support crews and naval bases, could instead be carrying out real military missions such as those Mr Kaplan suggests.The flawed missile defence plan will stretch the navy’s limited destroyer fleet and will actually hurt the effort to police the global world order. It should be abandoned.  In this time of tight budgets, the US military ought to stick to core military missions and not indulge in the fanciful and expensive fantasy of an unworkable missile defence. Yousaf M. Butt, Cambridge, MA, US; Scientific Consultant, Federation of American Scientists 

ExieLandau (March 17, 2014 - 11:27pm)

Have you ever considered about including a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is valuable and all. Nevertheless think of if you added some great visuals or video clips to give your posts more, "pop"! Amazing blog! seo check

Follow The National Interest

April 18, 2014