By
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
on March 10, 2014 at 11:09 PM
Adm. Jonathan Greenert was talking about
the aircraft carrier fleet, but he could have meant almost any aspect of
the Navy’s 2015 budget .
“It’s a confusing budget,” the admiral admitted within minutes of
sitting down with five reporters in his E-Ring office this afternoon.
But he feels that three high-priority items have been particularly
misconstrued, so much so he invited the press in to clear them up:
aircraft carriers, aging
cruisers, and the
Littoral Combat Ship.
- Yes, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (spurred on by his acting deputy, Christine Fox)
wants an alternative to the relatively fragile LCS designs now in
production. Greenert will commission a task force from across the Navy
to look into options, with its recommendations for the 2016 budget due
back in July. No, Hagel isn’t demanding an all-new design — in fact,
coming up with one on time and on tight budgets would “be quite the
challenge” — and the LCS’s successor may well be a souped-up LCS.
- Yes, the Navy wants to take out of active service 11 of its 22 Ticonderoga-class
cruisers. No, it’s not trying an end run around Congress’s prohibition
against retiring the aging but still serviceable vessels. “My point,
Sydney, is we’re trying to be true to the intent [of Congress] as we do
this,” Greenert said, not find loopholes in the letter of the law. The
admiral insisted this is genuinely an attempt to avoid retiring
the cruisers and still save money by putting them, essentially, on ice —
not “in mothballs,” he said, they’ll be far better cared for than that
term implies — until the Navy has the money to upgrade their obsolete
equipment and send them back to sea. Fund it and time it right, said
Greenert, and you get 11 freshly modernized cruisers re-entering service
just as another 11 retire, keeping the Ticonderoga class going until the 2030s.
- Then there’re the flat tops. Does
the Navy’s proposal restore the fleet to 11 aircraft carriers from the
current 10, a historic low? Well, yes and no.
“I could see people getting confused,” Greenert said, because there
are two alternative defense spending plans — one assuming full
sequestration, the other the additional $115 billion the Pentagon has
requested for 2016-2019 — and when it comes to carriers, the two paths
don’t diverge until
2016, he said: “That’s the fork in the road.”
September 2016, to be precise, is when the USS
George Washington would come into the shipyard to start removing a quarter-century of spent
nuclear reactor fuel. That is the first step in
either refueling and refitting her for another 25 years of service
or in taking her out of commission. “No matter what you do with it, you’ve got to get the fuel out,” Greenert said.
The 2015 budget request
just funds the prep work for that first step. But in the 2016 budget,
Greenert said, “we have to have the money to take the carrier one way or
the other.” The problem is the Defense Department has to put together
its 2016 request this year, before Congress has finished debating 2015 —
which is why Hagel has once again directed the services to build two
alternative budgets at different funding levels.
It’s that uncertainty that got Greenert talking about how
overstretched the carriers have become. “That butter’s spread as thin as
I think we can,” he said. “We need 11 carriers.”
There are ways to get more days at sea out of any given carrier,
Greenert said, up to a point. To start with, the Navy’s cracking down on
the kind of deferred maintenance that resulted in deployment-derailing
breakdowns in the recent past. You can also make each deployment longer —
but doing that for years on end is what wore out the carriers in the
first place. To allow proper time for maintenance and training, the Navy
is resolved on
keeping carrier deployments down to eight months out of every 36. “I don’t see going beyond that,” Greenert said. “I don’t see how we can.”
Another possibility is more or less permanently
basing a carrier out of a foreign port where it would be constantly available to the theater commander. The Navy’s had a carrier homeported in
Japan since the Cold War and recently started moving
missile defense destroyers
to Spain. But today’s budgets are less roomy than the Cold War’s and
carriers take up more space than destroyers, physically and fiscally.
“One size will not fit all,” Greenert said. “Forward deploying a
carrier… we actually studied that; it’s actually mind-blowing how
expensive that would be to put the infrastructure in place.”
Of course, once you paid that up-front cost, you could reap the benefits for decades,
as the US has in the Pacific. But
thinking for the long term may be a luxury that sequestration won’t afford us anymore.
US, Japan to Jointly Develop Littoral Combat Ship
The U.S. and Japan will jointly develop a littoral combat ship (LCS) for quick intervention in shallow waters.
By
J. Michael Cole
March 07, 2014
Amid escalating tensions between Japan and China, a 12.2 percent
budget increase in China’s defense spending, and fears that budget cuts for the U.S. military could have a
negative impact
on the United States’ ability to “pivot” to Asia, U.S. and Japanese
officials have announced plans to co-develop a new high-speed vessel
capable of carrying helicopters.
Following a meeting between U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy
and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida on March 4, the two
governments announced that the Japanese Defense Ministry and the U.S.
Department of Defense would hold studies for the joint development of
the vessel under the bilateral Mutual Defense Assistance (MDA)
agreement.
Although very little information has been released about the project,
analysts contend that the trimaran would likely be a lighter variant of
the U.S. Navy’s 3,000-tonne littoral combat ship (LCS), a platform
designed primarily for missions in shallow coastal waters.
According to reports in Japanese media, the high-speed J-LCS would
give the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) the ability to
quickly intervene during incursions by Chinese vessels near the
Senkaku/Diaoyu islets and other contested areas of the East China Sea.
Chinese analysts
speculate that the J-LCS could be intended as a counter to the PLA Navy’s (PLAN)
Type 056 corvettes and
Type 022
fast-attack boats, two types of vessels that could be deployed to the
region should relations continue to deteriorate. Furthermore, early
reports indicate that the slightly enlarged hull of the 1,000-tonne-plus
vessels could accommodate
SH-60K anti-submarine helicopters and
MCH-101 airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM) helicopters.
Coincidentally, the announcement came as the U.S. Navy unveiled a
substantial reduction
in the number of LCSs it will acquire, from 52 as initially planned to
32. A total of US$1.5 billion was set aside to buy three LCS during
FY2015 (down one from a planned four), for a total of 14 through 2019
(twenty LCSs have been funded through FY2014). As a large share of the
LCSs in the U.S. Navy was expected to be deployed to the Asia-Pacific,
the joint project with Japan could serve as a much-needed supplement to
compensate for a trimmed U.S. force deployment, both in terms of reduced
production costs and an increased number of surface combatants that,
through burden sharing, the U.S. Navy and JMSDF could bring into play
during hostilities.
Additionally, the outcome of this project could lead to the
development of an alternative version to the current (and expensive)
LCS. The U.S. Navy is reportedly seeking such an alternative amid
criticism that the platform, sometimes referred to as an “undergunned
corvette,”
doesn’t pack enough firepower
and would be no match against the better-armed — and cheaper — surface
combatants (including the PLAN’s 220-tonne Type 022 and 1,800-tonne Type
056) that would see action during combat operations in the
Asia-Pacific.
By
Otto Kreisher
on March 04, 2014 at 5:55 PM
Even
if Congress somehow rolls back sequestration,
the Navy’s fiscal situation will be uncomfortably tight, like trying to
steer a battleship through the Panama Canal. Under the president’s
five-year budget plan —
which assumes sequester away
— the “real buying power” for the Navy and the Marine Corps declines
after fiscal year 2016, the Navy Department’s official budget book
admits. And the Navy budget director,
Rear Adm. William Lescher,
told reporters at the Pentagon today that if funding stays at
sequestration levels, the Navy would lose $39 billion and “would not be
able to execute the strategy.”
Although the ’15 request for $174.7 billion fits under the Budget
Control Act caps, Navy spending jumps above the spending cap by $12
billion in fiscal year 2017 and stays well over the limit through FY19.
Yet despite going over sequestration levels, the budgeted funding across
the 2015-2019 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) is $38 billion less than
envisioned in the FY14 request.
The Navy budget, similar to the overall DoD plan, focuses on
improving readiness and global “presence,” which the Navy and Marine
Corps claim as their primary reason to exist. That is reflected in a
request for $46.8 billion in operations and maintenance funding, up
slightly over the current year. Personnel spending at $45 billion also
is higher, despite a continued reduction in Marine end strength to
182,700, while Navy personnel are leveling off at about 323,000: Pay and
benefits per person are simply going up faster than the services are
cutting people.
The Marine manning includes most of the additional 1,000 Marines Congress ordered for increased embassy security.
Meanwhile, modernization suffers, with procurement down to $38.4
billion. The proposed funding would buy 44 ships over the FYDP, which
includes 14
Littoral Combat Ships, 10
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers, and 10
Virginia-class attack submarines.
The Littoral Combat Ship buy drops by one LCS in FY15 but stays at
three over the rest of the plan, instead of going down to two a year as
previously planned. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the Navy to
stop procurement of the LCS at 32, 20 less than planned, and consider
whether to buy a modified LCS or an entirely different design.
The budget also would fund
another Ford-class aircraft carrier, with construction starting in FY18; one
America-class amphibious assault ship; four fleet ocean tugboats; one Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB), an addition over prior budgets that reflects
the importance of these low-cost vessels to the Navy strategy; and
three T-AO(X) fleet oilers, the first one in FY16. Design and contract
awards for the oiler have not been awarded, but they would likely go to
San Diego-based NASSCO, which would have no other Navy work after the
AFSB.
The Navy budget funds operating the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
George Washington through the fiscal year. But, Lescher said, a decision on whether to put the
Washington into the multi-billion-dollar overhaul and refueling or retire it —
taking the carrier fleet permanently down to 10 — would be made next year, based on whether sequestration remains in effect.
The budget also calls for putting 11 of the Navy’s 22 cruisers into a
“phase maintenance” status, which means they will be out of service
with minimal manning, until money becomes available to put them through a
modernization program. Members of Congress fear that would mean a
permanent loss of those ships, which are about halfway through their
planned service life. But Lescher insisted the Navy was committed to
upgrading those cruisers.
On the aviation side, the budget would buy 470 aircraft over the
2015-2019 future years defense plan (FYDP). That includes a total of 105
Joint Strike Fighters: 69
F-35B jump jets for the Marines and 36
carrier-capable F-35Cs for the Navy. It also would fund 25
E-2D Hawkeyes across the FYDP, 56
P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft, one KC-130J for the Marines , and 29 MH-60R and eight MH-60S helicopters for the Navy.
The total aircraft number is down substantially, reflecting a cut of
29 Navy MH-60R helicopters planned for FY16 and a slowdown in the F-35C
buy. The budget asks for no FA-18 Super Hornets or EA-18G Growlers,
which would end the procurement of the Boeing-built jets, unless
Congress overrides that decision. There’ve been
growlings on Capitol Hill about buying more Growlers and Hornets, and
the many F-35 skeptics in the Navy wouldn’t mind — but so far no one’s found the money.
US Navy, OSD Battle Over LCS Future - New Frigate Could Be Considered
WASHINGTON —
The contentious question of how many littoral combat ships to build has
been batted back and forth this year between the US Navy’s top
leadership and senior Pentagon leaders. By the end of the day on Jan.
17, a certain kind of standoff appears to have been reached, foregoing —
for the moment — a final decision.The result could be a compromise.
Reportedly, LCS is being put on something of a probation: The buy would
be limited to 26 or 28 ships — the exact number couldn’t be confirmed by
press time — but the ship will need to pass evaluation by the
Pentagon’s Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
(DOT&E) before further ship buys can proceed, according to
multiple Pentagon sources, who stressed that no final decisions have
been reached.The first salvo of the year was fired Jan. 6 by Christine
Fox, acting deputy defense secretary, when, in a classified memo, she
directed the Navy to halt LCS production after 32 ships and begin
development of a “more capable surface combatant.”Navy officials have
strenuously defended the service’s plan to build a total of 52 of the
small, fast and adaptable ships. Three are in service, with a fourth set
to join the fleet in April. Another 20 ships are under construction or
on order.Navy leaders fought back almost immediately. Service staff
members argued with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to keep
the status quo of 52 ships.Fox is one of the key people within OSD
urging a severe cutback of the LCS program, if not outright
cancellation. She often questioned the combat effectiveness of the
program in her previous position as director of the Pentagon’s Office of
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.A Jan. 15 Defense News web story
detailing the decision to cap the ships at 32 set off a renewed round
of events inside the Pentagon last week. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus
personally argued his case before Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Fox
that evening, urging the program’s continuation, Pentagon sources
confirmed.A similar probation was issued in January 2011 by then-Defense
Secretary Robert Gates regarding the F-35B version of the joint strike
fighter. The probation was lifted in January 2012 — short of the two
years Gates initially declared — after program performance
improved.Neither the Navy nor OSD would confirm an agreement by close of
business on Jan. 17.DOT&E routinely criticizes the LCS program,
irked in particular by the Navy’s 2010 decision to take the first ship
out of the normal testing cycle and instead send it to sea. As the first
of a new ship class, the service was anxious to get underway time
rather than keep it in a rigorous testing cycle.The 2012 DOT&E
report noted concerns about the ship’s survivability, writing that “it
is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a
significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” There was no
discussion of a comparable 3,200-ton ship that could meet that
requirement, and DOT&E did not differentiate between the two LCS
designs, which are considerably different.Neither LCS design has
undergone Navy survivability tests, which are performed on all new ship
classes.
A New Approach?If the LCS
fails the tests, it is not clear what the next step would be. But
whether the LCS is cut short or built out to 52 ships, the service
already has been thinking about what a follow-on small combatant would
look like.Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, routinely
champions LCS, but already has directed the surface warfare community to
begin thinking about a follow-on.“We need to look and think about what
the next small combatant is,” said Capt. Danny Hernandez, the CNO’s
spokesman. “Regardless of what the number is going to be, there’s going
to be something after LCS, and we need to look at our options. It’s also
the prudent and responsible thing to do.”One concept being thought
about as an LCS alternative or follow-on has been a small frigate, able
to defend several ships and provide escort services for merchant
convoys, amphibious ships or support ships.A capability gap already has
been identified for an escort ship, said Bryan Clark, a naval analyst
with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.
Until last year, Clark also was a special assistant to Greenert, where
he led the development of Navy strategy.“The real need is for an escort
to accompany convoys, logistic ships, even parts of the battle fleet.
Analysis shows that as a gap. But LCS cannot provide air defense to
ships it’s escorting — it only has self-defense,” Clark said.“The Aegis
destroyer is more than what is necessary for this mission. So this
escort mission is one that cries out for a solution. That’s what a
frigate can do,” he noted.A frigate of about 4,100 tons, he said, would
be a ship less capable than a 9,200-ton Aegis destroyer, but larger than
the LCS.“A frigate study would need to focus on designs that currently
exist, that could be rapidly implemented at a US yard. And they’d
probably include designs based on the LCS as well,” he said. “The study
could include existing designs as well as starting from scratch. Foreign
designs would be part of the mix — just as LCS is a derivative of
foreign designs.”Both LCS design teams, led by Lockheed Martin and
Austal USA, have produced versions of their ships aimed at foreign
sales, heavily loaded with permanently installed combat systems.
Lockheed in particular is offering larger versions of its Freedom-class
LCS, as well as smaller models.“The Navy doesn’t really have an escort
vessel that can do this mission. If you get into a large conflict you
need to protect ships,” Clark said.Key to that is effective
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-air combat systems. The ASW
mission package under development for LCS is getting early rave reviews
from surface warfare officers, but the ships are too small to install
Mark 41 vertical missile launchers needed for Standard anti-air
missiles. An effective anti-air system also needs search and fire
control radars, along with an expanded combat system.“That’ll be the
toughest part of the frigate study, trying to figure how to handle the
air defense mission in a way that doesn’t involve the start of a new
design,” Clark said.Work on a new frigate is not being driven by OSD’s
current efforts to cut back the LCS, Clark said, although it would
provide a basis for a new ship should the LCS fail.Work on future
surface combat ships already is underway at the Pentagon by the director
of surface warfare, and under the direction of the surface warfare
commander in San Diego, but neither of those efforts is focused on a
frigate. A new study, Clark said, would be aimed at a ship that could be
developed within only a few years.Regardless of the LCS debate, “this
need was starting to emerge anyway,” he said. ■
Jan. 19, 2014 - 03:45AM |
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS
