By Emelie Rutherford
If the Obama administration doesn’t seek $17 billion to $18 billion next fiscal year for naval shipbuilding, Congress should shift monies from elsewhere in the defense budget to secure that level of funding, an influencial analyst recommended yesterday.
Robert Work, the vice president of strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), unveiled a shipbuilding report with proposed changes to the Navy’s longterm plans. Recommendations for the service include: reducing the fleet of Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to 12 vessels and beginning design work on the SSBN(X) as soon as possible; slowing the production rate of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers; delaying the start of the CG(X) cruiser by at least four years; canceling current plans for the future maritime propositioning force (MPF); ending the DDG-1000 destroyer line after three ships; buying 11 more DDG-51 destroyers; and building more Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) than the 55 planned.
The report is intended to assess the adequacy of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans in light of budget constraints, operational demands, and trends in naval warfare.
Yet Work told a Capitol Hill audience that since he completed the report late last summer he has become less optimistic about the likelihood of his proposed longterm ship plan, which he said could have an average annual cost of approximately $22 billion or $18 billion.
“In August last year I thought getting $18 billion a year might have been reasonable; Now I’m not so sure,” Work said. If the shipbuilding budget dips as low as $14 billion, he said, “you have some serious choices you’re going to have to make,” such as reducing plans for large combatants and LCSs.
“I think $17 billion to $18 billion is a good target that the Congress should shoot for,” Work told a gathering that included congressional staffers. “And the things I would take a look at…(in the defense budget are) you’re going to have to look at personnel costs across the force. And you’re going to have to look at your strategy for how many of these long-duration (irregular-warfare) campaigns you’re going to go into, and make some judgments there.”
Securing an $18 billion shipbuilding budget while “long-duration, high-number campaigns continue” would be “very very tough,” said Work, a retired Marine Corps officer. He advised looking at overall force numbers, and seeing “if you can bring people down.”
While he noted the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will address if and how Navy shipbuilding decisions should be dictated by China’s actions, he said he believes the U.S. military is indeed in a shipbuilding “capabilities competition” with China requiring a $17 billion to $18 billion “strategic downpayment” on shipbuilding.
Work said there will be “a lot of debate” while formulating the QDR about whether to do three things: buy LCSs, include the SSBN(X) in the Navy’s plan, and buy the future MPF.
He called for the Navy to reduce the number of ship hulls, and noted his proposed shipbuilding plans are dependent on building desired numbers of complementary naval aircraft such as P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission Aircraft and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aerial System.
Work offered a strong endorsement for the once-troubled LCS program, saying: “In my mind this ship is well worth pursuing if the two ships perform…as advertised. If there are no problems with their propulsion plans, if there’s no hull cracking, something we don’t know about, that they can operate the way the Navy thinks they can, they’ll be worth the money.”
He suggested the Navy rethink its plan to build 55 LCSs up until 2018 or 2019, and instead build four LCSs each year, indefinitely. If the Navy has excess LCSs, older versions could be given as grants to allies, he said.
Work also predicted, “The chances of us getting a nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser in this environment, on this budget in my mind, is zero.” Congress has called for future Navy cruisers to have nuclear propulsion.
The Obama administration is expected to release topline figures for the FY ’10 base defense budget request this month, and a more detailed rundown in late March or early April.