Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs: Background and Oversight Issues for Congress
Congressional research reportFeb 1, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and
Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs:
Background and Oversight Issues for
Congress
Ronald O’Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
February 1, 2008
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL32513
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Summary
The Navy is proposing to maintain in coming years a Navy with 31 amphibious ships and an
additional squadron of 14 Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F), ships. The MPF(F)
squadron is intended to implement a new operational concept called sea basing, under which
forces would be staged at sea and used to conduct expeditionary operations ashore with little or
no reliance on nearby land bases.
The Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget requests $1,398.3 million in procurement funding for a
ninth San Antonio (LPD-17) amphibious ship to be procured in FY2008. The Navy estimates the
total procurement cost of this ship at $1,798.3 million. The ship received $296.2 million in
FY2008 advance procurement funding, and the Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget calls for the
final $103.2 million of the ship’s procurement cost to be provided in FY2009 as a “program
closeout” cost. Although the Navy’s proposed force of 31 amphibious ships includes ten LPD-17
class ships, the Navy is proposing in its FY2008 budget to end LPD-17 procurement with the
ninth ship.
The Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget also requests $1,377.4 million in procurement funding to
complete the procurement cost of LHA-6, a large-deck amphibious assault ship that was procured
in FY2007 using split funding (two-year incremental funding) in FY2007 and FY2008. The Navy
estimates the total procurement cost of LHA-6 at $2,806.2 million.
The Navy’s FY2008 unfunded programs list (UPL)—a list of programs that the Navy desires but
which are not funded in the Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget—includes, as its top item, an
additional LPD-17 at an estimated cost of about $1,700 million, and, as its second item, two
modified Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) dry cargo ships for the MPF(F) squadron, at an estimated
combined cost of about $1,200 million. These two TAKEs are currently scheduled for
procurement in FY2009 and FY2010. (The FY2008 budget also requests $456.1 million in the
National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for one “regular” TAKE-1 class ship intended for general
Navy use, not for the MPF(F)).
One potential issue for Congress is whether to fund an additional LPD-17 and/or one or more
additional TAKEs in FY2008. Additional potential oversight issues for Congress include cost
growth and construction problems in the LPD-17 program, the estimated cost of the two TAKEs
in the Navy’s FY2008 UPL, the adequacy of the 31-ship amphibious-ship force-level goal, the
stability of the amphibious and MPF(F) force-level goals, the clarity of the sea basing concept,
the potential affordability and cost-effectiveness of the sea basing concept, sea basing’s
relationship to the Navy’s new Global Fleet Stations (GFS) concept, and Navy and Marine Corps
coordination with other services in developing the sea basing concept.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Background ................................................................................................................................2
Current Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ships........................................................2
Amphibious Ships...........................................................................................................2
Maritime Prepositioning Ships ........................................................................................3
Amphibious and MPF(F) Force-Level Goals .........................................................................5
Sea Basing Concept ..............................................................................................................6
The Concept in General...................................................................................................6
Capability and Cost of MPF(F) Squadron........................................................................7
Related Transport Ships ..................................................................................................8
Global Fleet Station (GFS) Concept ......................................................................................9
Ship Procurement Programs ................................................................................................ 11
LPD-17 Program........................................................................................................... 12
LHD-8 .......................................................................................................................... 12
LHA-6/LHA(R) Program.............................................................................................. 12
MPF Lease Buyout ....................................................................................................... 13
Potential Issues for Congress..................................................................................................... 13
LPD-17 Cost Growth and Construction Problems................................................................ 13
Cost Growth ................................................................................................................. 13
Construction Problems .................................................................................................. 14
Funding Additional Ships in FY2008 .................................................................................. 18
Estimated Cost of Two TAKEs in FY2008 UPL .................................................................. 19
Adequacy of 30- or 31-Ship Amphibious Ship Force ........................................................... 19
Stability of Amphibious and MPF(F) Force Level Goals...................................................... 21
Crewing of Large-Deck MPF(F) Ships ................................................................................ 22
Clarity of Sea Basing Concept............................................................................................. 23
Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness of Sea Basing............................................................. 24
Navy Perspective .......................................................................................................... 25
CBO Perspective........................................................................................................... 26
CSBA Perspective......................................................................................................... 27
Potential Oversight Questions ....................................................................................... 27
Relationship to Global Fleet Station (GFS) Concept ............................................................ 28
Coordination with Other Services on Sea Basing................................................................. 28
Legislative Activity for FY2008 ................................................................................................ 31
FY2008 Budget Request ..................................................................................................... 31
LPD-17 Program........................................................................................................... 31
LHA-6/LHA(R) Program.............................................................................................. 31
TAKE Program ............................................................................................................. 32
Navy FY2008 Unfunded Priorities List (UPL)............................................................... 32
FY2008 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1585/S. 1547) .................................................... 32
House ........................................................................................................................... 32
Senate........................................................................................................................... 33
Conference.................................................................................................................... 34
FY2008 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3222/P.L. 110-116)........................................... 35
House ........................................................................................................................... 35
Senate........................................................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Conference.................................................................................................................... 36
Tables
Table 1. Funding For Acquisition of MPF(F) Ships......................................................................8
Table 2. FY2008-FY2013 Amphibious and MPF(F) Ship Procurement Plan .............................. 11
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 37
Congressional Research Service
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Introduction
The Navy is proposing to maintain in coming years a Navy with 31 amphibious ships and an
additional squadron of 14 Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F), ships. The MPF(F)
squadron is intended to implement a new operational concept called sea basing, under which
forces would be staged at sea and used to conduct expeditionary operations ashore with little or
no reliance on nearby land bases.
The Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget requests $1,398.3 million in procurement funding for a
ninth San Antonio (LPD-17) amphibious ship to be procured in FY2008. The Navy estimates the
total procurement cost of this ship at $1,798.3 million. The ship received $296.2 million in
FY2008 advance procurement funding, and the Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget calls for the
final $103.2 million of the ship’s procurement cost to be provided in FY2009 as a “program
closeout” cost. Although the Navy’s proposed force of 31 amphibious ships includes ten LPD-17
class ships, the Navy is proposing in its FY2008 budget to end LPD-17 procurement with the
ninth ship.
The Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget also requests $1,377.4 million in procurement funding to
complete the procurement cost of LHA-6, a large-deck amphibious assault ship that was procured
in FY2007 using split funding (two-year incremental funding) in FY2007 and FY2008. The Navy
estimates the total procurement cost of LHA-6 at $2,806.2 million.
The Navy’s FY2008 unfunded programs list (UPL)—a list of programs that the Navy desires but
which are not funded in the Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget—includes, as its top item, an
additional LPD-17 at an estimated cost of about $1,700 million, and, as its second item, two
modified Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) dry cargo ships for the MPF(F) squadron, at an estimated
combined cost of about $1,200 million. These two TAKEs are currently scheduled for
procurement in FY2009 and FY2010. (The FY2008 budget also requests $456.1 million in the
National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for one “regular” TAKE-1 class ship intended for general
Navy use, not for the MPF(F)).
The issue for Congress is whether to approve, modify, or reject the Navy’s plans for procuring
amphibious and MPF(F) ships. Decisions that Congress makes on this issue could affect Navy
and Marine Corps capabilities, Navy and Marine Corps funding requirements, and the
shipbuilding industrial base.
Congressional Research Service
1
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Background
Current Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ships
Amphibious Ships
Amphibious ships are one of four principal categories of combat ships that traditionally have
helped define the size and structure of the U.S. Navy. The other three are aircraft carriers, surface
combatants (e.g., cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and Littoral Combat Ships), and submarines.1
The primary function of amphibious ships is to transport Marines and their equipment to distant
operating areas, and enable Marines to conduct expeditionary operations ashore in those areas.
Amphibious ships have berthing spaces for Marines, flight decks and hangar decks for their
helicopters and vertical/short take-off and landing (VSTOL) fixed-wing aircraft, well decks for
storing and launching their landing craft,2 and storage space for their wheeled vehicles, their other
combat equipment, and their supplies. Although amphibious ships are designed to support Marine
landings against opposing military forces, they can also be used for Marine landings in so-called
permissive or benign situations where there are no opposing forces.
U.S. amphibious ships are Navy ships operated by Navy crews, with the Marines as passengers.
They are built to survivability standards similar to those of other U.S. Navy combat ships,3 and
are included in the total number of battle force ships in the Navy, which is the commonly cited
figure for the total number of ships in the fleet.4 Amphibious ships are procured in the Navy’s
shipbuilding budget, known as the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation
account. Designations of amphibious ship classes start with the letter L, as in amphibious landing.
Today’s amphibious ships can be divided into two main groups—the so-called “big-deck”
amphibious assault ships, designated LHA and LHD, which look like medium-sized aircraft
carriers, and the smaller (but still sizeable) LSD- and LPD-type amphibious ships.5 The LHAs
and LHDs have large flight decks and hangar decks for embarking and operating numerous
helicopters and VSTOL fixed-wing aircraft, while the LSDs and LPDs have much smaller flight
decks and hangar decks for embarking and operating smaller numbers of helicopters. The LHAs
1
The Navy also includes mine warfare ships and a variety of auxiliary and support ships.
A well deck is a large, garage-like space in the stern of the ship. It can be flooded with water so that landing craft can
leave or return to the ship. Access to the well deck is protected by a large stern gate that is somewhat like a garage
door.
3
To enhance their survivability in battle—their ability to absorb damage from enemy weapons—U.S. Navy ships are
built with features such as extensive interior compartmentalization and increased armor protection of certain critical
interior spaces.
4
Battle force ships are ships that are readily deployable overseas and which contribute to the overseas combat
capability of the Navy. They include both active duty and Naval Reserve Force combat ships as well Navy- and
Military Sealift Command-operated auxiliaries—such as oilers, ammunition ships, dry cargo ships, and multiproduct
resupply ships—that transport supplies from shore to Navy combat ships operating at sea.
5
LHA can be translated as landing ship, helicopter-capable, assault. LHD can be translated as landing ship, helicoptercapable, well deck. LSD can be translated as landing ship, well deck. LPD can be translated as landing ship, helicopter
platform, well deck. Whether noted in the designation or not, all these ships have well decks.
2
Congressional Research Service
2
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
and LHDs, as bigger ships, in general can embark more Marines and equipment than the LSDs
and LPDs. As of the end of FY2006, the Navy included 33 amphibious ships:
•
7 Wasp (LHD-1) class ships, commissioned between 1989 and 2001, each
displacing about 40,500 tons;6
•
4 Tarawa (LHA-1) class ships, commissioned between 1976 and 1980, each
displacing about 40,000 tons;
•
12 Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry (LSD-41/49) class ships, commissioned
between 1985 and 1998, each displacing about 16,000 tons;
•
1 San Antonio (LPD-17) class ship, commissioned in 2006, displacing about
26,000 tons; and
•
9 Austin (LPD-4) class ships, commissioned between 1965 and 1971, each
displacing about 17,000 tons.7
The Navy organizes its amphibious ships into expeditionary strike groups (ESGs). Each ESG
notionally includes one LHA or LHD, one LSD, and one LPD. The amphibious ships in an ESG
together can embark a Marine expeditionary unit (MEU) consisting of about 2,200 Marines, their
aircraft, their landing craft, their combat equipment, and about 15 days worth of supplies. Each
ESG also notionally includes three surface combatants (some or all armed with Tomahawk cruise
missiles), one submarine, and perhaps one or more P-3 long-range, land-based maritime patrol
aircraft. ESGs are designed to be independently deployable, strike-capable naval formations, but
they can also operate in conjunction with carrier strike groups (CSGs) to form larger naval task
forces. On average, two (or perhaps three) ESGs might be forward-deployed at any given time.
Maritime Prepositioning Ships
Today’s maritime prepositioning ships are large military cargo ships that are loaded with combat
equipment and supplies and forward-located to sea areas that are close to potential U.S. military
operating zones. They are essentially forward-located, floating warehouses. Most have a rollon/roll-off (RO/RO) capability, which means that they are equipped with ramps that permit
wheeled or tracked vehicles to quickly roll on or off the ship when the ship is at pier.
A total of 36 U.S. prepositioning ships, controlled by the Military Sealift Command (MSC), store
equipment and supplies for various parts of DOD. The 16 ships used primarily for storing Marine
Corps equipment and supplies are called Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) ships. The 10
ships used primarily for storing equipment and supplies for the Army are called the Combat
Prepositioning Force. The remaining 10 ships used primarily for storing equipment and supplies
for the Air Force, Navy, and Defense Logistics Agency are called Logistics Prepositioning Ships.
This report focuses on the 16 MPF ships.
6
For comparison, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier displaces about 100,000 tons, and a cruiser or
destroyer displaces about 9,000 tons.
7
The Navy also operates two Blue Ridge (LCC-19) class command ships. As their designation suggests, these ships
were originally built as amphibious command ships. In recent years, they have evolved into general fleet command
ships. Some listings of U.S. Navy ships include the two LCCs as amphibious ships, while others list them in a separate
category of command ships, along with one other fleet command ship—the Coronado (AGF-11), which is a converted
LPD.
Congressional Research Service
3
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
The 16-ship MPF fleet is organized into three squadrons of five or six ships each. Each squadron
stores enough combat equipment and supplies to equip and support a MEB for a period of 30
days. One squadron is normally forward-located in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, one is normally
forward-located in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia, and one is normally forward-located in the
Western Pacific at Guam and Saipan.8
Today’s MPF ships are designed to support Marine landings at friendly ports or ports that
Marines or other U.S. or friendly forces have previously seized by force. Under the basic MPF
concept of operations, the MPF ships would steam into such a port, while Marines would be
flown into a nearby friendly or seized airbase. The Marines would then travel to the port, help
unload the MPF ships, unpack and “marry up” with their equipment and supplies, and begin
conducting their operations ashore. MPF operations can be used to reinforce an initial Marine
presence ashore that was created by a Marine landing against opposing forces, or to establish an
initial Marine presence ashore in a permissive or benign landing environment.
The MPF concept permits a MEB-sized Marine force to be established in a distant operating area
more quickly than would be possible if the MEB’s equipment and supplies had to be transported
all the way from the United States. Unlike prepositioning of equipment and supplies on the soil of
foreign countries, maritime prepositioning in international waters does not require permanent host
nation access. The MPF concept also provides a degree of intertheater operational flexibility,
since an MPF squadron can be moved from one theater (e.g., the Mediterranean) to an adjoining
theater (e.g., the Indian Ocean) relatively quickly if needed to respond to a contingency. DOD
used the Mediterranean and Western Pacific MPF squadrons to supplement the Indian Ocean
MPF squadron in the 1991 Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) and the more recent Iraq War
(Operation Iraqi Freedom).
Today’s MPF ships are DOD sealift ships operated with civilian crews. They are built to
survivability standards similar to those of commercial cargo ships, which are lower than those of
U.S. Navy combat ships. They are not included in the total number of battle force ships in the
Navy. 9 Today’s MPF ships are designated TAKs. The “T” means the ships are operated by the
MSC; the “A” means auxiliary; and the “K” means cargo.
The MPF fleet was established in the mid-1980s. It includes 13 ships (TAK-3000 through TAK3012) that entered service with the MPF in 1984-1986, and three ships (TAK-3015 through TAK3017) that were added to the MPF fleet in 2000-2003 under the MPF Enhancement, or MPF(E),
program, so as to increase the storage capacity of the MPF fleet in accordance with lessons
learned during the 1991 Gulf War. One MPF(E) ship was added to each squadron.
The 13 earlier MPF ships, which each displace between about 44,000 and 49,000 tons, are owned
and operated by private companies under 25-year charters (i.e., leases) to MSC. The three more
recently added MPF(E) ships, which each displace between about 50,000 and 55,000 tons, are
owned by the U.S. government and are operated by private companies under contract to MSC.
8
The maritime prepositioning ships serving the other military services are located principally at Diego Garcia.
9
In contrast to Navy auxiliaries that are counted as battle force ships because they transport supplies from land to Navy
ships operating at sea, MPF ships, like most other DOD sealift ships, transport supplies from one land mass to another,
primarily for the benefit of a service (in this case, the Marine Corps) other than the Navy.
Congressional Research Service
4
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Since FY1993, new-construction DOD sealift ships similar to the MPF ships have been procured
not in the SCN account, but rather in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF), a DOD
revolving fund that is outside both the Department of the Navy budget and the procurement title
of the annual DOD appropriation act. NDSF funding is used for acquiring, operating, and
maintaining DOD sealift ships and certain Navy auxiliary ships.
As of the end of FY2005, the MPF fleet included the following ships:
•
5 Cpl. Louis J. Hauge Jr. (TAK-3000) class ships, which were originally built
in Denmark in 1979-1980 as civilian cargo ships for Maersk Line Ltd. Their
conversions into MPF ships began in 1983-1984. The ships are owned and
operated by Maersk.
•
3 Sgt. Matej Kocak (TAK-3005) class ships, which were originally built in the
United States in 1981-1983 as civilian cargo ships for the Waterman Steamship
Corporation. Their conversions into MPF ships began in 1982-1983. The ships
are owned and operated by Waterman.
•
5 2nd Lt. John P. Bobo (TAK-3008) class ships, which were built in the United
States in 1985-1986 as new-construction ships for the MPF. They are owned and
operated by American Overseas Marine.
•
1 1st Lt. Harry L. Martin (TAK-3015) class ship, which was originally built in
Germany in 1980 as a civilian cargo ship. Its conversion into an MPF ship began
in 1999.
•
1 LCPL Roy M. Wheat (TAK-3016) class ship, which was originally built in
Ukraine as a Soviet auxiliary ship. It was acquired for conversion in 1997.10
•
1 Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham (TAK-3017) class ship, which was
originally built in Denmark in 1980 as a commercial cargo ship. In the early
1990s, it was acquired for conversion into a kind of DOD sealift ship called a
large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) ship. It was used by MSC as an
LMSR under the name Soderman (TAKR-299) until 2000, when it was converted
into an MPF(E) ship, and renamed the Stockham. 11
Amphibious and MPF(F) Force-Level Goals
The Navy is proposing to maintain in coming years a fleet of 313 ships, including 31 amphibious
ships and a 14-ship MPF(F) squadron.12 The 31-ship amphibious force is to include the following:
10
The conversion of this ship took considerably longer than expected and was the subject of a lawsuit. For discussion,
see Christopher J. Castelli, “MSC Names and Deploys MPF(E) Vessel, While Bender Pursues Lawsuit,” Inside the
Navy, October 13, 2003; Christopher J. Castelli, “Finally, MSC Plans to Name Converted Cargo Ship This October,”
Inside the Navy, August 25, 2003; Christopher J. Castelli, “MSC: Beleaguered Cargo Vessel to Make First Deployment
This Year,” Inside the Navy, June 2, 2003; Christopher J. Castelli, “MSC Postpones Wheat Christening, Citing Current
Military Ops,” Inside the Navy, February 17, 2003; Christopher J. Castelli, “Cargo Ship Mired in Conversion Process to
Reach Fleet In 2003,” Inside the Navy, January 6, 2003.
11
Another LMSR was built as a new-construction LMSR and named the Soderman (TAKR-317).
12
For additional discussion of the proposed 313-ship fleet, see CRS Report CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force
Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
5
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
•
9 LHD- or LHA-type large-deck amphibious assault ships;
•
10 LPD-17 class amphibious ships; and
•
12 LSD-41/49 class amphibious ships.
The 14-ship MPF(F) squadron is intended to help implement a new operational concept called sea
basing, which is discussed in the next section. The squadron is to include 2 new-construction
amphibious assault ships, 1 existing LHD-type amphibious assault ship, 9 new-construction
sealift-type ships, and 2 existing, older-generation MPF ships. The 11 new-construction ships are
as follows:
•
2 modified LHA Replacement, or LHA(R), ships equipped with Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) command and control (C2) facilities;
•
3 modified Large, Medium-Speed, Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) sealift ships;
•
3 modified Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition resupply
ships; and
•
3 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships.
Sea Basing Concept
The Concept in General
The Navy and Marine Corps are proposing to implement a new concept of operations for staging
forces at sea and conducting expeditionary operations ashore with little or no reliance on nearby
land bases. The concept is called enhanced networked sea basing, or sea basing for short.
Under the traditional concept of operations for conducting expeditionary operations ashore, the
Navy and Marine Corps would establish a base ashore, and then use that base to conduct
operations against the desired ashore objective. Under sea basing, the Navy and Marine Corps
would launch, direct, and support expeditionary operations directly from a base at sea, with little
or no reliance on a nearby land base. 13
A key rationale for the sea basing concept is that in the future, fixed land bases ashore will
become vulnerable to enemy attack from weapons such as cruise missiles or short-range ballistic
missiles. Launching the operation directly from a base at sea, advocates of sea basing argue, will
enhance the survivability of the attacking Navy-Marine Corps force by putting the base out of the
range of shorter-range enemy weapons and targeting sensors, and by permitting the sea to be used
as a medium of maneuver for evading detection and targeting by longer-range enemy weapons
and sensors.
A second rationale for sea basing is that by eliminating the nearby base ashore—the logistical
“middleman”—sea basing will permit the Marine Corps to initiate and maintain a higher pace of
13
For an in-depth discussion of the sea basing concept, see Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, op. cit.
See also Otto Kreisher, “Sea Basing,” Air Force Magazine, July 2004, p. 64; Scott C. Truver, “Sea Basing: More Than
the Sum of Its Parts?” Jane’s Navy International, March 2004, pp. 16-18, 20-21; Art Corbett and Vince Goulding, “Sea
Basing: What’s New?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 2002, pp. 34-39.
Congressional Research Service
6
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
operations against the desired objective, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the operation. A third
rationale for sea basing is that it could permit the Marine force, once the operation is completed,
to reconstitute and redeploy—that is, get back aboard ship and be ready for conducting another
operation somewhere else—more quickly than under the traditional concept of operations.
The sea base being referred to is not a single ship, but rather a collection of ships, including the
MPF(F) squadron, other ships (such as an aircraft carrier strike group), and intertheater and sea
base-to-shore connector ships. Under sea basing, certain functions previously carried out from the
nearby base ashore, including command and control and logistics, would be transferred back to
the ships at sea that collectively make up the sea base.
The Defense Science Board (DSB) in August 2003 issued a report on sea basing which concluded
that “sea basing represents a critical future joint military capability for the United States.”14
In August 2005, the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously approved a Joint Integrating Concept (JIC)
document for sea basing.15 Approval of the JIC gave seabasing DOD recognition as a key future
U.S. military capability, and created a more formal requirement for seabasing to be implemented
in a way that satisfies joint requirements rather than those of the Navy and Marine Corps alone.
The seabasing concept must still complete DOD’s Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System (JCIDS) process and obtain acquisition milestone approvals.16
Capability and Cost of MPF(F) Squadron
The MPF(F) squadron will replace one of the three existing MPF squadrons. The MPF(F)
squadron was described in a June 2005 Navy report to Congress on the MPF(F) program17 that
was required by the conference report (H.Rept. 108-622 of July 20, 2005) on the FY2005 defense
appropriations act (H.R. 4613/P.L. 108-287 of August 5, 2004),18 and again in a February 2007
Navy report to Congress on the MPF(F) program19 that was directed by the report of the Senate
Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 109-254 of May 9, 2006) on the FY2007 defense
authorization bill (S. 2766).20
14
Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing, op.cit., p. xi. Italics as in the original. Similar statements are made
in two cover memos included at the front of the report, and on p. 87. For press reports about this study, see John T.
Bennett, “Marine Corps Commandant, DSB Describe Visions of Seabasing Concept,” Inside the Pentagon, October 30,
2004; Jason Ma, “DSB Study, Conference Examine Seabasing Needs and Challenges,” Inside the Navy, October 27,
2003; Jason Sherman, “Pentagon Group Details Sea Base Concept,” Defense News, October 27, 2003.
15
Christopher J. Castelli, “Joint Chiefs Endorse Pentagon’s Proposed Seabasing Concept,” Inside the Navy, September
19, 2005. See also David W. Munns, “Forward Progress,” Seapower, September 2005: 14-16, 18.
16
Jason Ma, “Navy Weighted U.S. Shipbuilding Capabilities When Crafting MPF(F) Plan,” Inside the Navy,
September 19, 2005.
17
U.S., Department of the Navy, Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force, Future, MPF(F), Washington,
2005, 8 pp. (Prepared by Program Executive Officer, Ships, Washington DC 20376, June 2005.) A 20-page appendix to
the report provides supporting budget details. Letters of transmission to Congress accompanying the report are dated
June 6, 2005.
18
The requirement for the report on the MPF(F) program is on page 360 of H.Rept. 108-622.
19
U.S., Department of the Navy, Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [or] MPF(F)
[Program], Washington, 2007, 22 pp. (Prepared by Director, Expeditionary Warfare Division (OPNAV N85), 1000
Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350, February 2007.)
20
The requirement for the report on the MPF(F) program is on pages 114-115 of H.Rept. 109-254.
Congressional Research Service
7
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
The February 2007 Navy report states that the key performance parameters for the MPF(F)
squadron include, among other things, an ability to deliver ashore, in a period of 8 to 10 hours,
one Marine Brigade Landing Team (BLT) by surface transportation from a range of up to 25
nautical miles, and a second BLT by air transportation (i.e., “vertically”) from a range of up to
110 nautical miles. The report states that
Affordability and industrial base considerations were key elements of the MPF(F) squadron
composition decision. The squadron includes existing assets (an LHD and two T-AKs)
which reduces overall squadron procurement costs. It also leverages hot production lines for
two ship classes (T-AKE and LHA(R)) which significantly reduces non-recurring costs,
reduces technical and cost risk, and takes advantage of learning curves during the production
process. The MPF(F) squadron includes an additional vessel type (MPF(F) LMSR) which is
based on an existing design, further reducing non-recurring costs. The MLP is the only new
design platform included in the MPF(F) squadron. The MLP was also selected with
affordability in mind, as the vessel will leverage existing commercial technology in
performing the mission.21
The February 2007 report estimates the acquisition cost of the MPF(F) squadron at $11.1 billion
to $13.8 billion in constant FY2008 dollars. The report states that this estimate includes test and
evaluation (T&E), outfitting, and post-delivery costs, but excludes the cost of additional shore
facilities. The report estimates the MPF(F) squadron’s life-cycle costs, including disposal costs, at
$25.8 billion to $33.5 billion in constant FY2008 dollars.22
Table 1 below shows annual funding for the acquisition of MPF(F) squadron ships in the
proposed FY2008 budget.
Table 1. Funding For Acquisition of MPF(F) Ships
(millions of then-year dollars)
FY06
and
prior
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
Beyond
FY13
Total
95
86
68
1,682
2,612
3,748
1,015
2,074
1,381
12,761
Source: U.S., Department of the Navy, Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [or] MPF(F)
[Program], Washington, 2007, 22 pp. (Prepared by Director, Expeditionary Warfare Division (OPNAV N85),
1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350, February 2007.)
Related Transport Ships
In addition to the MPF(F) squadron ships, the Navy and Army plan to procure several Joint High
Speed Vessels (JHSVs) for high-speed intra-theater transport of Marine Corps and Army forces
and equipment. The JHSV is to be a 35- to 45-knot, shallow-draft, intratheater transport ship
similar to the leased commercial high-speed ferries that DOD has used experimentally in recent
years. The Navy also plans to procure sea base-to-shore connector (SSC) ships for transporting
personnel and equipment from the sea base to the shore area of operations. The SSCs would
replace the Navy’s current LCAC air-cushioned landing craft.
21
22
Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [or] MPF(F) [Program], op cit, p. 14.
Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [or] MPF(F) [Program], op cit, p. 15.
Congressional Research Service
8
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Global Fleet Station (GFS) Concept
In connection with the sea basing concept and the concept of adaptive force packaging (which
refers to the ability of U.S. naval forces to be split apart and recombined into force packages of
various sizes and mission orientations, so as to meet the needs of various contingencies), the
Navy is proposing to establish what it calls global fleet stations, or GFSs. A 2006 Navy
operations concept document states that one method for furthering the Navy’s contribution to
national security will involve:
Providing operational maneuver and assured access to the joint force while significantly
reducing our footprint ashore and minimizing the permissions required to operate from host
nations. With a sustainable logistics tail safely at sea, sea basing leverages the ability to
operate from international waters. We are exploring innovative operational concepts that
combine sea basing with adaptive force packaging that will further support national security
and the Combatant Commanders’ objectives worldwide. One such concept is the Global
Fleet Station (GFS). GFS is a persistent sea base of operations from which to coordinate and
employ adaptive force packages within a regional area of interest. Focusing primarily on
Phase 0 (shaping) operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Global Maritime Awareness,
and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror, GFS offers a means to increase
regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and
multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations. Like all sea bases, the
composition of a GFS depends on Combatant Commander requirements, the operating
environment, and the mission. From its sea base, each GFS would serve as a self-contained
headquarters for regional operations with the capacity to repair and service all ships, small
craft, and aircraft assigned. Additionally, the GFS might provide classroom space, limited
medical facilities, an information fusion center, and some combat service support capability.
The GFS concept provides a leveraged, high-yield sea based option that achieves a persistent
presence in support of national objectives. Additionally, it complements more traditional
CSG/ESG training and deployment cycles. 23
The document describes a hypothetical scenario in which a future GFS is organized around an
LPD-type ship that operates in the region for up to two years. In the scenario, the LPD-type ship
acts as a host or support platform for sailors, Marines, Army personnel, Air Force personnel, and
a Coast Guard small boat unit.24
A March 20, 2006, Navy white paper on the GFS concept posted online by InsideDefense.com
states that
The purpose of a GFS is to establish a base of operations from which to coordinate and
launch a variety of missions within a regional area of interest, focusing primarily on Phase
0/Shaping and Stability operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Maritime Domain
Awareness, and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror.... These activities range
from traditional counter piracy, MIO, and security patrols, to mobile training teams (MTTs),
construction assistance, medical outreach, and information sharing....
By taking advantage of existing host nation basing arrangements, it is anticipated that five
Fleet Stations could be developed within the next five to seven years, based upon the
availability of trained personnel, ships, helicopters and equipment. Possible locations for
these initial Global Fleet Stations include Guam or Singapore (GFS - SE Asia); Bahrain or
23
24
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Operations Concept 2006, Washington, 2006, pp. 30-31
U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Operations Concept 2006, op. cit., p. 32.
Congressional Research Service
9
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
UAE (GFS - East Africa, Arabian Gulf); Diego Garcia (GFS—South Asia); Rota (GFS West Africa); and, Key West (GFS—South and Central America). These locations were
selected due to the availability of facilities that could support a US military presence with
dependents. As a pilot, Naval Station Key West could serve as the site for proof of concept....
Each GFS is a self-sustaining home base from which to conduct regional Phase 0 operations
ranging from Theater Security Cooperation (TSC) activities to Maritime Interdiction and
counter-piracy. It is a base from which tailored and adaptive force packages can be launched
in response to humanitarian crises, natural disasters, and counter-terrorism tippers. It is a
center for intelligence and information fusion in support of enhanced Maritime Domain
Awareness, and when networked with other Fleet Stations, each GFS fusion center will serve
as an intelligence feeder for Global Maritime Intelligence Integration. Most importantly,
these information fusion centers will offer increased regional maritime domain awareness to
host nation partners and will provide timely queuing to interdict illegal transnational
activities.
Each GFS is a base from which to sustain and deploy riverine units throughout the region,
whether in concert with Mobile Training Teams and other Phase 0 activities or to conduct
missions in direct support of GWOT (surveillance, MIO [maritime intercept operations],
combat insertion, etc). Each GFS will serve as the logistics and C2 HQ for regional
expeditionary operations, to include the basing of Blue and Gold crews to sustain high
OPTEMPO [operational tempo] throughout the region with a limited number of ships, small
craft, helicopters and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles]. Each GFS is home base for regional
NECC [Naval Expeditionary Combat Command] detachments consisting of Seabees
[construction battalions, or CBs], salvage divers, EOD [explosive ordnance disposal], and
security force personnel as well as small expeditionary medical and logistics teams. It is also
the hub for FAOs [Foreign Area Officers] dedicated to supporting activities within the
region, tailored to the needs of the host nations involved. Further, each GFS will leverage
existing SOFA’s [Status of Forces Agreements with other countries] and MOU’s
[Memoranda of Understanding] to manage bilateral and multi-lateral cooperation as well as
IMET [International Military Education and Training] funds and other incentive programs,
and will be the focal point for coordination with local representatives from the Inter-Agency,
International Organizations, and NGOs [non-governmental organizations]....
At a minimum, each GFS must include at least one expeditionary warfare ship
LPD/LSD/HSV [high-speed vessel] capable of serving as a mother/command ship to
transport a variety of riverine craft and helicopters/UAVs, mobile training teams, Seabees
and materiel, medical teams, and a limited security force. This ship should also provide
sufficient C4I, limited medical facilities, and configurable classroom space to sustain Phase 0
operations throughout the region. Initially one or two FFGs [frigates] (to be replaced by
LCSs [littoral combat ships]) would provide limited NSFS [naval surface fire support],
MIO/VBSS [visit, board, search, and seizure], AAW [anti-air warfare] and ASW [antisubmarine warfare] support (as well as the ability to train with larger regional and coastal
Navy’s). Each GFS must serve as a self-contained Group HQ for regional operations, and
should have the capacity to repair and service all ships, small craft, and aircraft assigned.
Additionally, the GFS should have a limited combat service support capability. The GFS
(and mother ship) must maintain robust and secure Joint C4I capabilities to support a
JFMCC [Joint Force Maritime Component Commander] or JFLCC [Joint Force Land
Component Commander] command structure. There should be a medical treatment facility at
the GFS (and/or on the command ship assigned) to provide medical support/humanitarian
assistance as well as sufficient combat construction equipment and material to support Phase
0 operations in remote locations. The intelligence fusion cell should be equipped with
sufficiently robust and secure communications to handle the fusion of open source
information as well as tactical and strategic intelligence (to include IMINT, SIGINT,
HUMINT [imagery, signal, and human intelligence] and other sensitive intelligence
Congressional Research Service
10
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
sources). Each GFS would include at least two small boat units and eventually, perhaps, an
entire riverine squadron. Additionally, at least one helicopter detachment (and eventually a
UAV detachment) would be assigned to each GFS. The GFS would ideally have regular
access to, and contact with, inter-agency, international community, and NGO representatives
throughout the region. There would be sufficient language expertise on board the Station,
through FAO and other personnel, to provide direct interaction with indigenous populations
throughout the region....
The most feasible place to test the Global Fleet Station concept would be Key West (Naval
Station Annex and Truman Annex) serving Central and South America.25
Ship Procurement Programs
Table 2 shows the Navy’s plan for procuring amphibious and MPF(F) ships in FY2008-FY2013.
Table 2. FY2008-FY2013 Amphibious and MPF(F) Ship Procurement Plan
(Ships fully funded in FY2006 shown for reference)
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
For the 31-ship amphibious force
LPD-17
1
LHA(R)
(0)a
For the 14-ship MPF(F) squadron
LHA(R)-MPF(F)
TAKE-MPF(F)
1
(1)b
1
LMSR-MPF(F)
MLP-MPF(F)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sources: Department of the Navy, Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2007 Budget, Chart 15 (p. 5-3),
and Draft Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2007.
Key:
LPD-17—San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship
LHA(R)—LHA(R) class amphibious assault ship. Also known as the LHA-6 class.
LHA(R)-MPF(F)—Modified LHA(R) intended for MPF(F) squadron
TAKE-MPF(F)—Modified Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class resupply ship intended for MPF(F) squadron
LMSR-MPF(F)—Modified large, medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) sealift ship intended for MPF(F) squadron
MLP-MPF(F)—Mobile Landing Platform ship intended for MPF(F) squadron
25
a.
FY2008 budget request includes funding for an LHA(R) procured in FY2007 using split funding in FY2007
and FY2008.
b.
The Navy’s FY2008-FY2013 shipbuilding plan includes a “regular” TAKE in FY2008 intended for general
Navy use rather than the MPF(F) squadron.
“Navy White Paper on Global Fleet Stations,” posted online at InsideDefense.com [subscription required].
Congressional Research Service
11
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
LPD-17 Program
As a replacement for older LPDs and other older amphibious ships, the Navy is currently
procuring new San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships. The ships are built primarily at
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS), which includes, among other things, the old Avondale
shipyard near New Orleans, LA, and the old Ingalls shipyard at Pascagoula, MS.26
A total procurement of 12 LPD-17s was originally planned. The Navy’s proposed 31-ship
amphibious fleet includes a total of 10 LPD-17s. In spite of this 10-ship goal, the Navy plans to
end LPD-17 procurement with the ninth ship, which is to be procured in FY2008.
The Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget requests $1,398.3 million in procurement funding for ninth
ship. This ship received $296.2 million in FY2008 advance procurement funding, and the Navy’s
proposed FY2008 budget calls for the final $103.2 million of the ship’s procurement cost to be
provided in FY2009 as a “program closeout” cost.
The Navy’s FY2008 unfunded programs list (UPL)—a list of programs that the Navy desires but
which are not funded in the Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget—includes, as its top item, an
additional (i.e., tenth) LPD-17 at an estimated cost of about $1,700 million.
LHD-8
To replace one of its five aging LHAs, the Navy in FY2002 procured LHD-8—an eighth Waspclass ship27—at a total budgeted cost of about $2.06 billion. At the direction of the FY2000 and
FY2001 defense appropriation bills, the ship was incrementally funded in the SCN account, with
the final funding increment being provided in FY2006. The ship is being built by the Ingalls
shipyard at Pascagoula, MS, that now forms part of NGSS. The Ingalls shipyard is the builder of
all previous LHAs and LHDs, and is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in May 2008.
LHA-6/LHA(R) Program
As a successor to the Wasp-class design, the Navy is procuring a new class of amphibious assault
ships called the LHA Replacement (LHA[R]) or LHA-6 class. The Navy estimates the
procurement cost of the first such ship, LHA-6, at $2,806.2 million. The ship was procured in
FY2007 using split funding (two-year incremental funding) in FY2007 and FY2008. The ship
received $149.3 million in FY2005 advance procurement funding, $148.4 million in FY2006
advance procurement funding, and $1,131.1 million in FY2007 procurement funding. The Navy’s
proposed FY2008 budget requests $1,377.4 million in procurement funding to complete the
procurement cost of the ship. The ship is scheduled to be delivered to the Navy in December
2011.
As shown in Table 2, the Navy’s FY2008-FY2013 shipbuilding plan does not include any
additional “regular” LHA(R)s through FY2013, but does include two modified LHA(R)s for the
MPF(F) squadron—one in FY2010 and the other in FY2013. The Navy’s 30-year (FY200826
LPD-17-related work is also done at Northrop’s Ingalls shipyard at Pascagoula, MS, and at a third Northrop facility
at Gulfport, MS. The Avondale, Ingalls, and Gulfport facilities together make up Northrop Grumman Ship Systems
(NGSS).
27
LHD-8 will differ from the earlier LHDs in terms of propulsion plant and other respects.
Congressional Research Service
12
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
FY2037) shipbuilding plan shows the next “regular” LHA(R) being procured in FY2017. Both
“regular” LHA(R)s and modified LHA(R)s built for the MPF(F) squadron will be built at the
Ingalls shipyard that forms part of NGSS.
The LHA(R) design is to have enhanced aviation features compared to the basic Wasp-class
design, but would lack a well deck, making it the first amphibious ship in decades built without a
well deck. The sacrifice of the well deck appears to be, in part at least, a consequence of building
enhanced aviation features and other improvements into the design while staying within the
envelope of the Wasp-class hull.
MPF Lease Buyout
The Navy’s FY2008 UPL includes, at the 17th of 20 items, a $430-million proposal to buyout the
leases of the nine ships in the existing MPS force still under lease. Buying out the leases means
DOD would purchase the ships from the private companies that currently lease them to DOD.
DOD estimated in 2005 that buying out the leases on all 13 MPS ships would save about $840
million in payments between FY2006 and FY2020 (when the last of the 13 ships is to be phased
out of service). Since five of these 13 ships (the TAK-3000 class ships) were built in a foreign
country (Denmark), DOD requested legislative authority to spend NDSF funds to purchase these
five ships.28 The owners of some of these 13 ships reportedly believed in 2005 that the Navy
underestimated the market value of their ships, and that buying out the leases on them would cost
at least $500 million more than the Navy has budgeted. 29
Potential Issues for Congress
LPD-17 Cost Growth and Construction Problems
The LPD-17 program has experienced considerable cost growth and construction problems.
Cost Growth
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) testified in July 2007 that the first LPD-17 experienced
cost growth of about 70% and was, on a per-ton basis, the most expensive amphibious ship ever
built for the Navy. 30 When LPD-17 procurement began, follow-on ships in the class were
estimated to cost roughly $750 million each. Estimated procurement costs for the follow-on ships
subsequently grew to figures between about $1,200 million and about $1,500 million. The Navy
estimates the procurement cost of the ninth ship at $1,798.3 million.
28
Christopher J. Castelli, “Pentagon Seeks Authority on Carl Vinson, LHA(R), Prepositioning Ships,” Inside the Navy,
May 2, 2005; Geoff Fein, “Navy Underestimated Cost to Buyout Leases on MSC Ships, Source Says,” Defense Daily,
May 10, 2005.
29
Geoff Fein, “Navy Underestimated Cost to Buyout Leases on MSC Ships, Source Says,” Defense Daily, May 10,
2005.
30
CBO Testimony, Statement of J. Michael Gilmore, Assistant Director for National Security, and Eric J. Labs, Senior
Analyst, [on] The Navy’s 2008 Shipbuilding Plan and Key Ship Programs, before the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Expeditionary Forces, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives, July 24, 2007, pp. 13 and 20.
Congressional Research Service
13
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
A relatively small portion of the cost growth in the program since its inception is attributable to
the decision to reduce the program’s sustaining procurement rate from two ships per year to one
ship per year. Most of the program’s cost growth is attributable to other causes.31
Construction Problems
The first LPD-17, which was procured in FY1996, encountered a roughly two-year delay in
design and construction. It was presented to the Navy for acceptance in late June 2005. A Navy
inspection of the ship conducted June 27-July 1, 2005, found numerous construction
deficiencies.32 The ship was commissioned into service on January 14, 2006. In April 2007, it was
reported that the first LPD-17 had thousands of construction deficiencies.33
The Navy accepted delivery of LPD-17 with about 1.1 million hours of construction work
remaining to be done on the ship. This equates to about 8.7% of the total hours needed to build
the ship, and (with material costs included) about 7% of the total cost to build the ship.
The Navy accepted delivery of LPD-18 with about 400,000 hours of construction work remaining
to be done on the ship. This equates to about 3.3% of the total hours needed to build the ship.
The Navy projects that it will accept delivery of LPD-19 with about 100,000 hours of
construction work remaining to be done on the ship. This would equate to about 0.8% of the total
hours needed to build the ship.
The Navy states that it accepted LPD-17 in incomplete condition for four reasons:
•
It permitted the fleet to begin sooner the process of evaluating LPD-17 through
operational use so as to identify problems with the LPD-17 class design that need
to be fixed in follow-on LPD-17s.
31
RAND estimates that halving a shipbuilding program’s annual procurement rate typically increases unit procurement
cost by about 10%. (Mark V Arena, et al, Why Has the Cost of Navy Ships Risen? A Macroscopic Examination of the
Trends in U.S. Naval Ship Costs Over the Past Several Decades. RAND, Santa Monica (CA), 2006. p. 45. (National
Defense Research Institute, MG-484-NAVY). The December 2006 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) summary table,
available online at http://www.acq.osd.mil/ara/am/sar/2006-DEC-SST.pdf, states that in then-year dollars, changes in
the LPD-17 program’s production schedule (including the reduction in annual procurement rate) account for
$768.1million in increased costs for the program, or about 11.2% of the increased costs caused by all factors. The other
factors leading to increased costs were economic errors (meaning errors in projected rates of inflation), which account
for $361.7 million; estimating errors, which account for $4,648.8 million; and “other,” which accounts for $1,093.4
million. The LPD-17 program’s total cost was also reduced by $4,037.8 million due to the reduction in program
quantity from an originally planned total of 12 ships to the currently planned total of 9 ships. The resulting net change
in the program’s estimated cost is an increase of $2,832.2 million.
32
Associated Press, “Shipbuilder: Navy Will Accept New Vessel,” NavyTimes.com, July 21, 2005; Christopher J.
Castelli, “Naval Inspection Report Finds Numerous Problems With LPD-17,” Inside the Navy, July 18, 2005; Dale
Eisman and Jack Dorsey, “Problems On New Ship A Bad Sign, Analyst Warns,” Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, July 14,
2005; Nathan Hodge, “Navy Inspectors Flag ‘Poor Construction’ On LPD-17,” Defense Daily, July 14, 2005. A copy
of the Navy’s inspection report, dated July 5, 2005, is posted online at http://www.coltoncompany.com/
newsandcomment/comment/lpd17insurv.htm.
33
See, for example, Louis Hansen, “New Navy Ship San Antonio Found To Be Rife With Flaws,” Norfolk VirginianPilot, April 14, 2007; Christopher P. Cavas, “Thousands of Problems Found On New Amphibious Ship,”
DefenseNews.com, April 23, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
14
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
•
It avoided further delays in giving the LPD-17’s crew an opportunity to conduct
post-delivery tests and trial events that are intended to identify construction (as
opposed to class design) problems with LPD-17 itself.
•
It permitted LPD-17 to leave the shipyard sooner and thereby mitigated schedule
and cost impacts on other ships being built at the shipyard (other LPD-17s, LHD8, and DDG-51s) that would have resulted from having LPD-17 remain in the
shipyard longer.
•
It reduced the cost of the remaining construction work to be done on LPD-17
because the work in question could be performed by repair shipyards that charge
lower rates for their work than the construction shipyard.
Of the approximately $160 million in post-delivery work performed on LPD-17, $108 million
was for the 1.1 million hours of construction work remaining to complete the ship. (The rest was
for post-shakedown and other work that normally occurs after a ship is completed and delivered
to the Navy.)34 This $160 million in work was funded through the post-delivery part of the
outfitting/post-delivery (OF/PD) line item in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN)
account. Since OF/DP costs are not included in ship end cost, the reported end cost of LPD-17
will understate the ship’s actual construction cost by $108 million.
The Navy plans to fund post-delivery construction work on LPD-18 and LPD-19 through the
completion of prior-year shipbuilding line item in the SCN account—a line item that is included
in ship end cost.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified in July 2007 that:
The Navy moved forward with ambitious schedules for constructing LPD 17 and [the
Littoral Combat Ship] despite significant challenges in stabilizing the designs for these ships.
As a result, construction work has been performed out of sequence and significant rework
has been required, disrupting the optimal construction sequence and application of lessons
learned for follow-on vessels in these programs.
In the LPD 17 program, the Navy’s reliance on an immature design tool led to problems that
affected all aspects of the lead ship’s design. Without a stable design, work was often
delayed from early in the building cycle to later, during integration of the hull. Shipbuilders
stated that doing the work at this stage could cost up to five times the original cost. The lead
ship in the LPD class was delivered to the warfighter incomplete and with numerous
mechanical failures, resulting in a lower than promised level of capability. These problems
continue today—2 years after the Navy accepted delivery of LPD 17. Recent sea trials of the
ship revealed problems with LPD 17’s steering system, reverse osmosis units, shipwide area
computing network, and electrical system, among other deficiencies. Navy inspectors noted
that 138 of 943 ship spaces remained unfinished and identified a number of safety concerns
related to personnel, equipment, ammunition, navigation, and flight activities. To date, the
Navy has invested over $1.75 billion constructing LPD 17.35
34
On July 16, 2007, CRS and CBO asked the Navy to break down the $160 million figure into ship-construction work
and other work. The Navy’s response was not provided to CRS in time to be incorporated into this statement.
35
Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Realistic Business Cases Needed to Execute Navy
Shipbuilding Programs, Statement of Paul L. Francis, Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team,
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, July 24, 2007 (GAO-07-943T), p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
15
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
In late June and early July 2007, it was reported that Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter had
sent a letter to the chairman and chief executive officer of Northrop Grumman, Ronald Sugar,
dated June 22, 2007, expressing deep concerns about NGSS’s performance, particularly in
connection with the LPD-17 program. According to these news reports, Winter’s letter contained
the following statements among others, although not necessarily in the order shown below:
•
“I am deeply concerned about Northrop Grumman Ship Systems’ (NGSS) ability
to recover in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, particularly in regard to
construction of LPD 17 Class vessels.”
•
“I am equally concerned about NGSS’ ability to construct and deliver ships that
conform to the quality standards maintained by the Navy and that adhere to the
cost and schedule commitments agreed upon at the outset by both NGSS and the
Navy.”
•
“... even prior to Katrina [NGSS’s performance] was marginal, resulting in
significant cost overruns that forces the Navy to take delivery of the LPD-17 with
numerous outstanding deficiencies....”
•
“NGSS’ inefficiency and mismanagement of LPD 17 put the Navy in an
untenable position.”
•
“By taking delivery of ships with serious quality problems, the Fleet has suffered
unacceptable delays in obtaining deployable assets. Twenty-three months after
commissioning of LPD 17, the Navy still does not have a mission-capable ship.”
•
“These delays create further problems as work must be completed or redone by
other shipyards that are not as familiar with the ship’s design.”
•
“The Navy also took delivery of LPD-18 (USS New Orleans) in an incomplete
fashion, albeit more complete than LPD-17.”
•
“... persistent shortcomings at the NGSS yards are troubling and causing me not
only grave concern about the LPD program, but also the LHA and DDG-1000
programs.”
•
“The Navy does not wish to find itself in the same situation [with other ships
that] it faces with LPD 17 & 18.”
•
“It is imperative that NGSS deliver future ships devoid of significant quality
problems and that it meet its cost and schedule obligations.”
•
One press report stated: “‘Continued, focused management’ is necessary to
successfully deliver the remainder of the class, according to Winter.”
•
“[Navy acquisition executive] Dr. [Delores] Etter will be closely monitoring
metrics with NGSS and the acquisition team as we move forward.”36
36
Sources for these reported passages from the June 22 letter: Louis Hansen, “Navy Ship $840 Million Over Budget
And Still Unfinished,” Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, June 30, 2007; Tony Capaccio, “Northrop Grumman Criticized For
‘Mismanagement’ By U.S. Navy, Bloomberg News, July 2, 2007; Geoff Fein, “Navy To Monitor Work At Northrop
Grumman Gulf Coast Shipyards, Official Says,” Defense Daily, July 5, 2007; Christopher P. Cavas, “U.S. Navy
Furious Over LPD-17,” DefenseNews.com, July 9, 2007. InsideDefense.com on July 9, 2007, posted on the subscribersonly portion of its website a copy of what it says is the June 22 letter.
Congressional Research Service
16
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Northrop chairman and CEO Sugar reportedly sent a reply letter to Winter dated June 29, 2007.
According to one press report, Sugar stated in the letter: “I share your concern regarding the need
to fully recover and improve our shipyards, and produce completed LPD 17 class vessels of the
highest quality with increasing efficiency.... Irrespective of Hurricane Katrina, Northrop has much
work to do to meet the needs of the U.S. Navy.”37 Another press report stated:
Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC) has ‘much more work to do’ to improve its performance on
Navy ships, but problems with a $13.6-billion amphibious ship program were not solely the
contractor’s making, Chief Executive Ron Sugar said in a June 29 letter.
“The original acquisition strategy was changed after contract award, there was funding
instability, limited early funding for critical vendor information, and the ‘integrated’
Navy/contractor design team produced constant design churn and thousands of design
changes,” Sugar wrote, responding to a tersely worded letter from Navy Secretary Donald
Winter.
Northrop “certainly had performance problems,” but the unprecedented effects of Hurricane
Katrina, which severely damaged Northrop’s three shipyards in the Gulf region in August
2005, “only served to greatly exacerbate the situation.”...
Sugar said he shared Winter’s concerns and vowed that Northrop would invest, train and
manage its operations to produce Navy ships of the highest quality with increasing
efficiency. “Irrespective of Hurricane Katrina, Northrop has much more work to do to meet
the needs of the U.S. Navy.”
“We are not happy with this history,” Sugar added in the letter obtained by Reuters, “but we
are incorporating the lessons from this experience into our operational plans going forward
for new ships in the design, planning and production stages.”
He noted that Navy recently praised Northrop’s work on a destroyer that was damaged by
Hurricane Katrina, and termed it “one of the best ships ever delivered.”
Sugar said Northrop officials had given the Navy a list of efforts under way to improve
training, quality, processes, productivity and facilities at the Gulf Coast shipyards. He
promised “substantial investment,” but gave no details.
He said Northrop was aggressively reworking schedules for delivery of all ships affected by
the hurricane. “We know we must do our part,” Sugar said.38
Potential oversight issues for Congress, including the following:
37
38
•
To what extent are cost growth and construction problems in the LPD-17
program due to poor performance by NGSS, poor performance by other
contractors, inadequate program management and oversight by the Navy,
Hurricane Katrina, and other factors?
•
What specific actions have NGSS, other contractors, and the Navy taken, and
what additional actions do they plan to take, to avoid further cost growth and
construction problems in the LPD-17 program?
Christopher P. Cavas, “U.S. Navy Furious Over LPD-17,” DefenseNews.com, July 9, 2007.
Andrea Shalal-Esa, “Northrop Says Katrina Exacerbated Ship Problems,” Reuters, July 10, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
17
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
•
Although the Navy in the past has accepted delivery of ships that were not
complete, has the Navy previously accepted delivery of a ship with one million
or more hours of shipyard construction work remaining to be done, and if so,
when?
Funding Additional Ships in FY2008
A potential key issue for Congress in marking up the Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget is whether
to procure an additional LPD-17 and/or one or two modified TAKEs in FY2008. As discussed
earlier, the additional LPD-17 is not currently in the Navy’s shipbuilding plan, and the two
modified TAKEs are currently in the plan for procurement in FY2009 and FY2010.
Supporters of procuring an additional LPD-17 in FY2008 could argue that this is the top item on
the Navy’s FY2008 UPL, and that building this ship would give the Navy a force of ten LPD-17s,
as called for in the Navy’s 313-ship plan. Supporters could argue that if Congress decides that it
has the funding available in FY2008, but perhaps not in a future year, to procure an additional
LPD-17, it should procure the ship in FY2008, even if the shipyard is not able to start work on it
right away, because the shipyard will eventually be able to build it, and because what will matter
more in the long run is the presence of this additional ship in the force structure, not the fact that
it took longer than average to build.
Opponents of procuring an additional LPD-17 in FY2008 could argue that unless the Navy’s
budget top line were increased, the $1,700 million or so needed to procure the ship might have to
come from other FY2008 Navy programs, disrupting these other programs and possibly creating
operational risks for the Navy in other areas. Opponents could argue that the shipyard that would
build this ship—the Avondale yard near New Orleans, LA, that forms part of NGSS—would not
be able to start work right away on an additional LPD-17 procured in FY2008 due to disruption
of the yard’s workforce and work schedule caused by Hurricane Katrina. Consequently,
opponents could argue, procuring this ship in FY2008 would amount to booking but not
(immediately) building a ship. Such an action, they could argue, would tie up $1,700 million in
budget authority that would not result in immediate obligations and expenditures.
Supporters of procuring one or two modified TAKEs in FY2008 could argue that this is the
second item on the Navy’s FY2008 UPL, and that accelerating these two ships from FY2009 and
FY2010, where they are currently planned, into FY2008, could release funding in the Navy’s
FY2009 and FY2010 budgets for additional ships or other programs. Supporters could argue that
funding one or both of these TAKEs in FY2008 in addition to the “regular” TAKE for Navy use
that is requested in the Navy’s FY2008 budget could improve economies of scale for these ships,
reducing their costs.
Opponents of procuring one or two modified TAKEs in FY2008 could argue that unless the
Navy’s budget top line were increased, the $1,200 million or so needed to procure the ship might
have to come from other FY2008 Navy programs, disrupting these other programs and possibly
creating operational risks for the Navy in other areas. Opponents could argue that the $1,200
million cost listed in the FY2008 UPL for these two ships suggests that procuring one or two
modified TAKEs in addition to the “regular” TAKE being procured in FY2008 will not
significantly reduce their cost.
Congressional Research Service
18
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Estimated Cost of Two TAKEs in FY2008 UPL
As mentioned above, the Navy’s FY2008 UPL includes, as its second item, two modified TAKEs
for the MPF(F) squadron at an estimated combined procurement cost of about $1,200 million,
implying a unit procurement cost of about $600 million per ship. The “regular” TAKE that the
Navy wants to procure in FY2008 has an estimated procurement cost of $456.1 million. The
difference in unit procurement cost between the “regular” TAKE and the two modified TAKEs
raises a potential oversight question for Congress: Why does the Navy estimate that the two
modified TAKEs in the Navy’s FY2008 UPL would be approximately one-third more expensive
to procure than the “regular” TAKE that the Navy wants to procure in FY2008?
At a May 3, 2007, markup meeting of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee of
the House Armed Services Committee, the Representative Bartlett, the subcommittee’s ranking
member, stated the following in connection with the subcommittee’s decision to recommend $456
million in FY2008 for the procurement of an additional TAKE for the MPF(F) squadron:
Mr. Chairman, as we discussed earlier this week, I would ask that as we move forward, we
continue to refine funding for T-AKE. I understand that while the mark in Title III [in the
National Defense Sealift Fund] fully funds the procurement cost for an additional T-AKE in
Fiscal Year 2008, the actual cost of an additional T-AKE in 2008, may be $122 million $145 million greater than the amount provided in the mark. This is due to additional post
delivery and outfitting costs, which are separate from procurement costs, and also due to
material cost escalations, not reflected in the baseline budget request for the Fiscal Year 2008
ship.39
Adequacy of 30- or 31-Ship Amphibious Ship Force
The Navy and Marine Corps currently appear to disagree on whether a 30 or 31-ship amphibious
force would be adequate. The Marine Corps has testified that it would prefer a 33-ship force, so
as to support a required total force of 30 operationally available ships (i.e., ships not in depotlevel maintenance and repair) at any given point:
For forcible entry, the Marine Corps’ requirement is a single, simultaneously-employed two
Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) assault capability. One MEB requires seventeen
amphibious warfare ships; however, given the fiscally constrained environment, the Navy
and Marine Corps have agreed to assume risk by only using fifteen. Historical amphibious
ship availability rates dictate a minimum of eleven ships of each of the current types of
amphibious ship—a minimum of thirty-three total ships—resulting in a Battle Force that
provides thirty operationally available amphibious warfare ships. In that Battle Force, ten
aviation-capable big deck ships (LHA/LHD/LHA(R)) and ten LPD 17 class ships are
required to accommodate the MEB’s aviation combat element.40
The Navy has testified that when the capabilities of the MPF(F) squadron, which includes three
amphibious assault ships, are taken into account, a force of 30 amphibious ships (one fewer than
the 31 called for in the 313-ship plan) is adequate:
39
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Roscoe Bartlett, Mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008, May 3, 2007.
40
See, for example, Statement of General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Before the Senate
Armed Services Committee on Marine Corps Posture, March 29, 2007, p. 24. Italics and underlining as in the original.
Congressional Research Service
19
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
The ability of our future fleet to meet the demand signal for amphibious forces must be
viewed in the aggregate. Given the cost of ships today, we cannot discount the value of ships
procured to support prepositioned equipment. Prepositioned assets must be included in the
overall force availability equation—ignoring MPF(F) as the lift component of an additional
MEB is would be incongruous with today’s fiscal environment. The capabilities provided by
the MPF(F) mitigate concerns regarding the operational availability of the assault echelon
force required to deliver 2.0 Marine Expeditionary Battalion (MEB) lift, vehicle square
footage, and passenger requirements. As reflected in our 30 year shipbuilding plan, we
believe 30 amphibious ships will meet these requirements, when supported by, and
supporting, the MPF(F).41
A May 2007 press report states:
Navy and Marine Corps officials are engaged in a major debate about the kind of fleet the
sea service will need in the future, but senior leaders are pledging to resolve their differences.
The debate focuses on the number of amphibious ships that will be built in future years as
well as plans for new vessels designed to create bases at sea.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael
Mullen recently agreed to “come to grips” with these issues, Conway told Inside the Navy on
May 2, noting both sides need to understand each other’s philosophies.
“We’re going to meet on that,” he said. “We’ve got a meeting coming up as soon as Mike
Mullen can get with us.” The meeting will be the “next step in the process,” he said.
Mullen made similar remarks the next day at a Senate Armed Services seapower
subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill.
The admiral said he and Conway agreed there is a requirement to have 30 amphibious ships
operationally available in the future. Based on past experience, the services estimate 33 ships
would be needed to ensure 30 are always available, Mullen said.
“Now that’s how we’ve done it historically,” Mullen said.
But the Navy’s shipbuilding plan maintains only 30 amphibious vessels from fiscal year
2015 onward, which has sparked complaints from Conway....
Mullen told senators he has committed to providing the Marine Corps with the lift capability
it needs. But he seemed to suggest alternatives to buying more amphibious ships.
“We’ve got to look at how we’re going to fight in the future and specifically how we’re
going to move this 2.0 [i.e., Marine expeditionary brigades] into the fight,” Mullen said.
“Gen. Conway and I have agreed to figure out a way together to make that work.”
The fixes could include achieving a higher availability rate for ships (some of which would
depend on the warning time involved in particular situations), Mullen said.
The admiral also said new maritime prepositioning ships—MPF(F) vessels designed to form
sea bases—could help move Marines to the fight in the future.
41
Statement of Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the Senate Armed Services
Subcommittee on Seapower, May 3, 2007, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
20
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
But MPF(F) has been a contentious subject. The Marine Corps has argued civilian-manned,
unarmed MPF(F) ships cannot provide the forcible-entry capability associated with
amphibious warships.
Sorting through these issues will not be easy, but the outcome will have very important
implications for plans to build sea bases with MPF(F) ships, Mullen said....
[T]he cost of the [MPF(F)] squadron—which Mullen called “significant”—has been a source
of tension with the Marine Corps because the Navy argues it cannot afford to develop
MPF(F) ships without buying fewer traditional amphibious ships, which carry Marine
forces....
Further, unlike amphibious warships, the MPF(F) squadron’s amphibious vessels will lack
active self-defense systems and will not be operated by Navy sailors.
Conway has publicly argued MPF(F) vessels will not provide forcible-entry capabilities and
should not be considered part of the traditional amphibious fighting force known as the
assault echelon....
Further, officials have discussed the idea of having the big-deck amphibious ships associated
with MPF(F) sail with other amphibious ships in the expeditionary strike force and not with
the unarmed, civilian-manned ships.
Vice Adm. Jonathan Greenert, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities
and resources, acknowledged this discussion late last month, but did not say how the Navy
views the idea.
“It’s an option,” he told [Inside the Navy] on April 24, following a congressional hearing....
Greenert declined to predict the outcome of the talks.
“I can’t tell you how it’s going to come out because we’re having the debate,” he said. “And
it’s more of a discussion than a debate. Debate would imply that there’s only two ways to
solve this. We’re sitting down and going through the capabilities in the aggregate.”42
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
What are the potential operational risks of having a force of 30 or 31 amphibious
ships rather than 33? What steps can be taken to mitigate these risks?
•
What are the operational risks of having 15 operational amphibious ships for
each MEB, rather than 17?
Stability of Amphibious and MPF(F) Force Level Goals
Perhaps reflecting the apparent disagreement between the Navy and Marine Corps regarding the
required size of the amphibious force, the Navy has suggested that it might change its required
numbers of amphibious and MPF(F) ships. The Navy’s February 2007 report on the 30-year
(FY2008-FY2037) shipbuilding plan stated:
42
Christopher J. Castelli, “Conway and Mullen Seek To Resolve Debate On Future Fleet,” Inside the Navy, May 7,
2007.
Congressional Research Service
21
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
Future combat operations may require us to revisit many of the decisions reflected in this
report, including those associated with amphibious lift. As the Navy embarks on production
of the Maritime Prepositioning Force in this FYDP, the Navy will continue to analyze the
utility of these ships in terms of their contribution to, and ability to substitute for, the assault
echelon forces in the Navy’s future battle-force inventory. The current force represents the
best balance between these forces available today. However, changing world events and
resulting operational risk associated with the various force structure elements that make up
these two components of overall lift will be analyzed to ensure the Navy is not taking
excessive risk in lift capability and capacity. While there needs to be a balance between
expeditionary and prepositioning ships for meeting the overall lift requirement, future reports
may adjust the level of support in one or both of these solutions. Any adjustments made in
these capabilities will have to be accommodated in light of the resources available and could
require the Navy to commit additional funding to this effort in order to support the overall
balance of our shipbuilding program.43
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
When might the Navy know whether it wants to change its required numbers of
amphibious and/or MPF(F) ships?
•
How might these numbers change?
•
How much confidence can Congress have in the stability of the Navy’s current
stated requirements for amphibious and MPF(F) ships?
•
Should Congress take actions to hedge against the possibility of the Navy
changing its requirements for amphibious and MPF(F) ships, and if so, what
actions?
Crewing of Large-Deck MPF(F) Ships
The Navy and Marine Corps have not yet determined what combination of civilian mariners and
Navy personnel will be used to crew the three large-deck amphibious assault ships in the MPF(F)
squadron. The February 2007 Navy report on the MPF(F) program contains a section devoted to
the question of crewing MPF(F) ships, which states in part:
The use of Civilian Mariners or MSC contracted Mariners as operational crews for MPF(F)
ships has been proposed and briefed to Navy Judge Advocate General (JAG) representatives
on August 30, 2006. The Navy JAG provided a memorandum on September 19, 2006,
confirming that there are no legal objections to developing the two options defined. The one
option is to initially designate the aviation big decks as naval auxiliaries (USNS), manned
with 100% civilian crew, but develop the capability to timely and seamlessly convert them to
warships (USS) in order to employ them during an international armed conflict. The other
option is to designate the big decks as warships (USS) upon initial commissioning, and man
them with mixed military-civilian crews. Regardless of option, when operating as a warship,
the platforms will need a Navy Commanding Officer and selected senior staff (this
requirement may be met by Mariners who are in the Navy Reserve). Ship crew not engaged
in warfighting functions may remain civilian mariners, performing propulsion, ship
auxiliaries, and housekeeping type operations. With both options the other ships in the
squadron (due to their roles and logistics centric activities) may be permanently designated
43
U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2008, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
22
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
as USNS throughout their employment. Precedence has been established for selected
capabilities by ships such as the USNS STOCKHAM and USS MOUNT WHITNEY.44
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
What are the potential cost and operational implications of manning options for
the large-deck amphibious assault ships in the MPF(F) squadron?
•
When do the Navy and Marine Corps anticipate making a decision on the
manning strategy for these ships?
Clarity of Sea Basing Concept
The February 2007 report to Congress on the MPF(F) program refers to sea basing as “an
emerging concept.”45 Some observers have expressed concern about a lack of clarity regarding
the meaning of sea basing, and consequently about what kinds of shipbuilding and other
programs are needed to implement it. For example, Robert Work, a naval analyst at the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), an independent defense-policy research institute,
states the following in a lengthy report on sea basing released in November 2006:
“Seabasing” is a new defense buzzword of growing importance and prominence in both joint
and naval circles. Unfortunately, despite the increasingly common use of the term by both
joint and naval planners alike, there still remains much mystery and misunderstanding about
this important “new” concept. Indeed, one of the key problems that has hindered meaningful
debate and discussion about seabasing—and especially the priorities revealed in its
associated plans and programs—is that its contemporary definition and the important ideas
that support it are poorly understood except among the relatively small group of officers and
planners who have been intimately involved with their development.
To make matters worse, since its grand unveiling by the Department of the Navy (DoN) in
2002, the concept’s definition has constantly changed. For example, in August 2005, the
Seabasing Joint Integrating Concept (JIC) defined seabasing as “the rapid deployment,
assembly, command, projection, reconstitution, and re-employment of joint combat power
from the sea, while providing continuous support, sustainment, and force protection to select
expeditionary joint forces without reliance on land bases within the Joint Operations Area
(JOA). These capabilities expand operational maneuver options and facilitate assured access
and entry from the sea.” However, in the very month the Seabasing JIC was published, The
DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, amended through August 31, 2005,
defined seabasing as, “in amphibious operations, a technique of basing certain landing force
support functions aboard ship which decreases shore-based presence.” Moreover, as is
explained in this report, both of these definitions—and others like them—are unduly
restrictive, incomplete, confusing, or all of these things.
Partly as a result, there remains much uncertainty over exactly what seabasing is, and over
the current programmatic and budgetary direction of joint seabasing programs....
[T]he current definition for seabasing and the direction of its programs are narrowly focused
on one thing: revitalizing the DoN’s seabased operational maneuver and seabased
expeditionary power-projection capabilities which were allowed atrophy during the Cold
44
45
Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [or] MPF(F) [Program], op cit, p. 14.
Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [or] MPF(F) [Program], op cit, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
23
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
War. The list of seabasing functions is much longer.... Only if all of these seabasing
functions are understood and compared can a rational prioritization of planned seabasing
improvements occur....
[A]lthough seabasing concept development within both the Department of the Navy and the
Department of Defense (DoD) is focused on seabased operational maneuver and
expeditionary power-projection capabilities, its disjointed development since the end of the
Cold War has only served to confuse an urgently needed open debate and discussion about
the future of naval maneuver in general and amphibious operations in particular, and the best
mix of platforms to support both. Central to this debate is whether or not future forcible entry
operations from the sea should be conducted from amphibious warships or commercialstandard MPF(F) ships, or a combination of both; and whether or not these operations should
emphasize surface maneuver, aerial maneuver, or a combination of the two. The current
understanding of both these issues need to be thoroughly questioned and reviewed.46
A January 8, 2008 defense trade press article states:
The Navy and Marine Corps have spent the past year working to better define the
requirement for sea base operations, looking at platform needs and how best to move
warfighters and their equipment from ship to shore, a Marine Corps official said.
The cornerstone of the sea basing effort is the Navy’s Maritime Preposition Force Future or
MPF(F).
“We learned a lot in the last year in developing the requirement,” Maj. Gen. Thomas Benes,
director, Expeditionary Warfare, told Defense Daily in a recent interview.
The two services took a step back and spent a lot more time reviewing the MPF(F), he
added. “We needed to define the requirement a little bit more between the two services, and
we did that.
“There is alignment between the Commandant (Gen. James Conway) and the CNO (Chief of
Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead). They definitely understand and have given us
guidance as to where we need to develop this,” Benes said. “MPF(F) is now going to be a
reinforcing capability to deliver a MEB (Marine Expeditionary Brigade) from a sea base.”47
Affordability and Cost-Effectiveness of Sea Basing
One issue in assessing the cost of the sea basing concept concerns the accuracy of the Navy’s
procurement cost estimate for the new-construction sea basing ships. If these estimates turn out to
be too low, the sea basing concept would be more difficult to afford. Navy ship construction costs
in recent years have risen more quickly than some anticipated. Several recent Navy ships
procured in recent years have turned out to be more expensive to build than the Navy originally
46
Robert Work, Thinking About Seabasing: All Ahead, Slow. Washington, CSBA, 2006. pp. iii-v.
47
Geoff Fein, “Navy, Marine Corps Gaining Better Understanding of Sea Basing Requirements,” Defense Daily,
January 8, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
24
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
projected. 48 CBO believes the Navy is currently underestimating the procurement cost of
proposed ships.49
In addition, as previously discussed, fully implementing the sea basing concept will involve
procuring connector ships as well as research and development work to develop supporting sea
basing technologies. The costs of these development and procurement efforts are currently
unclear, making it difficult to assess the potential overall affordability of the sea basing concept.
Although sea basing offers potential advantages in terms of eliminating vulnerable intermediate
land bases, enabling higher-paced operations ashore, and permitting more rapid reconstitution and
redeployment of the expeditionary force, uncertainty regarding the total potential cost to
implement sea basing makes it difficult to assess its potential cost-effectiveness compared to
alternative concepts for conducting future expeditionary operations ashore or compared to
programs for meeting other, unrelated defense priorities. Potential alternative concepts for
conducting future expeditionary operations include making improvements to today’s capabilities
for conducting amphibious operations and making improvements to Army capabilities for
inserting airborne forces.50
Skeptics of the Navy’s plan for implementing the sea basing concept could argue that the
capability to be provided by the MPF(F) squadron is more than what is needed for the Navy’s
contribution to the global war on terrorism (GWOT), and of uncertain relevance to U.S.
participation in a conflict with China in the Taiwan Strait area.51 Navy and Marine officials
disagree with this view (see discussion below).
Navy Perspective
Regarding the affordability of the MPF(F) squadron, the February 2007 Navy report on the
MPF(F) program states:
The MPF(F) squadron will be affordable over its lifecycle (research, development,
acquisition, operation and maintenance costs). Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel,
Leadership and education, Personnel and Facilities (DOTMLPF) cost will be considered.
Life cycle cost reduction will be stressed in the development of the one new design, the
MLP, to ensure long term value to the Navy and Marine Corps.
The Navy’s independent cost estimating arm, NAVSEA Code 017, led all AoA [Analysis of
Alternatives] and post AoA cost analyses and produced all comparative cost estimates using
approved Navy and DoD cost estimating practices. The threshold and objective values below
48
See, for example, Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Improved Management Practices
Could Help Minimize Cost Growth in Navy Shipbuilding Programs. (GAO-05-183, February 2005)
49
See, for example, Congressional Budget Office, Resource Implications of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2008 Shipbuilding
Plan, March 23, 2007, and CBO Testimony, Statement of J. Michael Gilmore, Assistant Director for National Security,
and Eric J. Labs, Senior Analyst, [on] The Navy’s 2008 Shipbuilding Plan and Key Ship Programs, before the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives,
July 24, 2007.
50
See also John P. Patch, “Sea Basing: Chasing the Dream,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2005: 38-43.
51
For more discussion of these two issues, see CRS Report RS22373, Navy Role in Counterterrorism and Irregular
Warfare: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke, and CRS Report RL33153, China Naval
Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
25
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
represent a more affordable prepositioned lift and delivery of warfighting capability than
other alternatives with the same or similar capability.52
Navy and Marine Corps officials argue that seabasing is relevant to a spectrum of potential future
operations, ranging from humanitarian and disaster-relief operations to stability operations and
major combat operations (MCOs). In support of this argument, they note the recent use of U.S.
naval forces in providing disaster relief following the December 2004 tsunami in the Indian
Ocean and Hurricane Katrina along the U.S. Gulf Coast.53
CBO Perspective
A November 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Navy’s amphibious and
maritime prepositioning ship forces expressed concerns about the Navy prospective ability to
expressed concerns about the Navy’s potential ability to afford desired numbers of both MPF(F)
ships and ships for the regular amphibious force.54
A July 2007 CBO study compared the potential costs and capabilities of eight alternatives for
deploying and/or sustaining ground combat forces—the Navy’s proposed MPF(F) squadron
(referred to in the CBO report as Alternative E1) and seven other approaches. The report states:
Five of the alternatives would include some form of a base at sea. The other three would
deliver forces and supplies by aircraft. To examine the potential benefits of new
technologies, four of the alternatives would develop new systems—rotorcraft able to carry a
greater payload of passengers and cargo and with a longer range than existing rotorcraft, and
large airships with greater payloads than conventional aircraft.
The eight alternatives are grouped into two sets of four. The first group of four (Alternatives
E1 through E4) could both employ one brigade and sustain two brigades; the second group
of four (Alternatives S1 through S4) could only sustain two brigades that were already in
place. Although the alternatives are generally structured to employ and/or sustain ground
forces that are similar in size, their specific capabilities would vary considerably.
CBO’s analysis of those alternatives points to several general conclusions.
—The planned MPF(F) would provide a capability similar to today’s amphibious task forces
but with improved responsiveness—a MEB-sized force could be ready one to two weeks
earlier for a conflict in the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean region—and with a much smaller
logistics presence required ashore.
—Alternative systems could provide lesser but still substantial improvements in capability at
a significantly lower cost than that of the MPF(F). For example, although Alternative E3
(adding sea-based logistics to amphibious task forces) would not improve response time, it
52
Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [or] MPF(F) [Program], op cit, p. 15.
53
See, for example, Geoff Fein, “Relief Efforts In Gulf Demonstrate Sea Basing Capability, CNO Says,” Inside the
Navy, October 7, 2005; Nathan Hodge, “Marine Corps Commandant Stumps For ‘Sea Basing’ Capability,” Defense
Daily, August 19, 2005; John Liang, “Hagee: Seabasing Can Contribute To More Than Just Combat Ops,” Inside the
Navy, August 15, 2005.
54
U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The Future of the Navy’s Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Force,
November 2004, pp. xiii-xv. See also Aarti Shah, “Unclear Seabasing Concept, High Costs Worry Military Officials,”
Inside the Navy, February 14, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
26
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
would offer most of the logistics improvements expected from the MPF(F) but at less than
one-fifth of the cost.
—Achieving greater capabilities than those currently envisioned for the MPF(F) would
probably require significantly higher investment—either larger numbers of systems or new,
more capable, and therefore more expensive systems.
The alternatives examined by CBO in this study would satisfy the primary objectives of the
third and/or fourth of the [Joint Chiefs of Staff Sea Basing Joint Integrating Concept’s, or
JIC’s] lines of operation (employment and sustainment, respectively). Alternatives E1
through E4 are structured to provide a ship-to-shore delivery capacity sufficient to employ a
Marine expeditionary brigade in 8 to 10 hours and to deliver enough supplies per day by
aircraft to support the MEB plus an Army light brigade. Alternatives S1 through S4 are
structured to deliver enough supplies per day by aircraft to sustain those two types of
brigades. The extent to which the alternatives meet the performance objectives for the JIC’s
other lines of operation varies.55
CSBA Perspective
Robert Work of CSBA characterized sea basing in 2004 as “a rich man’s approach to solving the
[access denial] problem.”56 In his November 2006 report on sea basing, Work states that
seabasing programs
are being conceived of and pursued long before the full range of desired and possible joint
seabasing capabilities have been adequately explored and debated. The end result: current
seabasing plans are rather narrowly focused on two rather limited capabilities—landing a
single brigade on a hostile shore in 11 to 17 days from the “go” order, and thereafter
providing seabased logistical support for two early entry brigades until follow-on joint forces
arrive.
It is true that these two key capabilities reflect the “top level requirements” identified in the
aforementioned Seabasing JIC. However, these two capabilities reflect a view of seabasing
that rests upon questionable assumptions and analysis.57
Potential Oversight Questions
Potential oversight and policy questions for Congress include the following:
•
If the procurement costs of the new-construction ships in the proposed MPF(F)
squadron turn out to be higher than the Navy estimates, how might this affect the
affordability of the sea basing concept?
•
When does DOD intend to present to Congress an estimate of the potential total
cost to fully implement all aspects of the sea basing concept? How does the
current absence of such an estimate affect Congress’s ability to assess the
potential affordability of sea basing or its potential cost effectiveness compared
55
Congressional Budget Office, Sea Basing and Alternatives for Deploying and Sustaining Ground Forces, July 2007:
ix.
56
As quoted in Otto Kreisher, “Sea Basing,” Air Force Magazine, July 2004. Material in brackets as in the article.
57
Thinking About Seabasing: All Ahead, Slow, op. cit., p. iv.
Congressional Research Service
27
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
to potential alternatives for conducting future expeditionary operations ashore or
compared to programs for meeting other defense priorities?
•
What is the potential applicability of the capability to be provided by the MPF(F)
squadron to the GWOT or to other potential conflict or non-conflict scenarios?
•
Would an ability to employ one surface Marine battalion and one vertical Marine
battalion from a sea base in a period of 8 to 10 hours be worth the cost to field
this capability? What are the potential costs and merits of alternatives to sea
basing for conducting future expeditionary operations ashore? How do land bases
and sea bases compare in terms of vulnerability to attack and cost to defend
against potential attacks of various kinds?
•
What other defense programs might need to be reduced to finance the
implementation of sea basing?
•
What are the potential operational risks of not implementing sea basing?
Relationship to Global Fleet Station (GFS) Concept
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Global Fleet Station (GFS) concept
and its relationship to the form of sea basing to be implemented with the planned MPF(F)
squadron. Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
Since the Navy has stated that each of a potential total of five GFSs might be
built around an LPD- or LSD-type amphibious ship, or around a high-speed
vessel (HSV), how might implementing the GFS concept affect planned
deployments and force-structure requirements for these kinds of ships?
•
What is the relationship between the GFS concept and the form of sea basing to
be implemented with the MPF(F) squadron? Can the GFS concept be viewed as
“sea basing light”? How might the existence of up to five GFSs in various
regions affect requirements for the planned MPF(F) squadron, or for the ships
that are to make up that squadron? Is the Navy proposing the GFS with the
partial aim or hope that the concept will eventually take the place in Navy
planning of the MPF(F)-based notion of sea basing?
Coordination with Other Services on Sea Basing
Regarding interservice coordination in the development of sea basing, the February 2007 Navy
report on the MPF(F) program states:
Joint Force requirements are included and validated via the Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System (JCIDS) process. The MPF(F) CDD [Capability Development
Document] has been introduced and fully vetted to the Joint community within JCIDS,
which will result in a Joint Requirement Oversight Council (JROC) review in March 2007.
Additionally, the MPF(F) CDD provides traceability to the emerging Seabasing concept, and
to associated capability gaps. The Seabasing Capabilities Based Assessment Functional
Needs Assessment has identified capability gaps (JROC approved November 6, 2006).58
58
Report to Congress, Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) [or] MPF(F) [Program], op cit, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
28
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
A January 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report states:
While DOD has taken action to establish a joint seabasing capability, it has not developed a
comprehensive management approach to guide and assess joint seabasing. GAO’s prior work
showed that sound management practices for developing capabilities include involving top
leadership, dedicating an implementation team, and establishing a communications strategy.
DOD is developing a joint seabasing concept and various DOD organizations are sponsoring
seabasing initiatives. However, DOD has not provided sufficient leadership to guide joint
seabasing development and service initiatives are outpacing DOD’s analysis of joint
requirements. DOD also has not established an implementation team to provide day-to-day
management to ensure joint seabasing receives the focused attention needed so that efforts
are effective and coordinated. Also, DOD has not fully developed a communications strategy
that shares information among the organizations involved in seabasing. Without a
comprehensive management approach containing these elements, DOD may be unable to
coordinate activities and minimize redundancy among service initiatives.
DOD has not developed a joint experimentation campaign plan, although many seabasing
experimentation activities—including war games, modeling and simulation, and live
demonstrations—have taken place across the services, combatant commands, and other
defense entities. No overarching joint seabasing experimentation plan exists to guide these
efforts because the U.S. Joint Forces Command has not taken the lead in coordinating joint
seabasing experimentation, although it has been tasked with developing a biennial joint
experimentation campaign plan for future joint concepts. While the U.S. Joint Forces
Command is in the process of developing the plan, it is unclear the extent to which this plan
will address joint seabasing or will be able to guide joint seabasing experimentation efforts.
Without a plan to direct experimentation, DOD and the services’ ability to evaluate
solutions, coordinate efforts, and disseminate results could be compromised.
While service development efforts tied to seabasing are approaching milestones for
investment decisions, it is unclear when DOD will complete development of total ownership
cost estimates for a range of joint seabasing options. Joint seabasing is going through a
capabilities-based assessment process that is intended to produce preliminary cost estimates
for seabasing options. However, DOD has not yet begun the specific study that will identify
potential approaches, including changes to doctrine and training as well as material solutions,
and produce preliminary cost estimates. DOD officials expect the study will not be complete
for a year or more. Meanwhile, the services are actively pursuing a variety of seabasing
initiatives, some of which are approaching milestones which will guide future program
investments. Until total ownership cost estimates for joint seabasing options are developed
and made transparent to DOD and Congress, decision makers will not be able to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of individual service initiatives.59
Robert Work’s November 2006 report on sea basing states that
under no circumstances should seabasing be viewed as a naval concept that “enables” joint
operations. As a maritime concept and key component of emerging forms of joint littoral
warfare marked by the widespread use of guided weapons, seabasing initiatives should be
prioritized and pursued by a joint organization. Therefore, the 2004 decision by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) not to stand up a Joint Project Office for Seabasing and to
instead consign the concept to the new Joint Concept Integration and Development System
59
Government Accountability Office, Force Structure[:] Joint Seabasing Would Benefit from a Comprehensive
Management Approach and Rigorous Experimentation before Services Spend Billions on New Capabilities, GAO-07211, January 2007.
Congressional Research Service
29
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
process was a serious mistake—one only compounded by assigning the Navy to be the lead
agent for the Seabasing [Joint Integrating Concept]....
[Observations developed throughout this report] suggest that OSD should order a thorough
zero baseline review of the joint seabasing concept. This review should take its basic
guidance from the 2005 National Defense Strategy and the 2005/06 Quadrennial Defense
Review. These two documents provide guidance that is broad enough to facilitate a thorough
and independent zero baseline seabasing review that is free of any preconceived notions or
concepts. In this regard, while such a review should consider all concept work and program
definitions to date, it is important that the review be in no way constrained by them. In this
regard, OSD should not make the same mistake it made in 2002, when it directed the
Defense Science Task Force on Seabasing to use an existing naval seabasing concept as its
start point. It should instead direct the group conducting the review—either a newly formed
Joint Project Office on Seabasing or a group composed of retired Combatant Commanders—
to start from a clean sheet of paper, and to recommend the seabasing program with the
highest joint payoff in the 21st century.60
An October 2005 press article stated:
Cultural differences between the services are one of the stumbling blocks holding up
development of the U.S. Navy’s new Sea Basing concept, a former officer told a group of
industry representatives here last week.
Greg Cook, a U.S. Air Force colonel who retired in August after working to develop Sea
Basing plans and concepts for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the “roles-and-missions debate”
centered on how different services and commands viewed the idea of a squadron of large
ships gathered as an operating base about 100 miles off an enemy shore.
“If the Army operates from the sea, isn’t that what the Marines do?” Cook asked an audience
gathered here Oct. 26 to discuss future naval planning. “If the Air Force operates from the
sea, isn’t that what the Navy does?”
Cook said the services view the Sea Basing concept in light of their own traditional missions.
The Army looks at the idea as allowing for faster and greater strategic access via the highspeed, shallow-draft connectors to transfer troops, vehicles and gear between the ships and
shore.
The Air Force doesn’t see the concept as supporting its core competencies and is concerned
about costs, said Cook, a former pilot for that service’s Air Mobility Command.
“The Air Force is not that excited” about the idea, he said.
The Navy, he said, looks at Sea Basing as “a foundation of strategic access and power
projection,” but the Marine Corps is looking at it simply as a faster means to deliver a
Marine Expeditionary Brigade to the fight.
Special Operations Command sees it as a “high-speed mothership for rapid access,” while
joint commanders have a wider view, regarding it as a mobile base that provides options and
flexibility that increases global presence and provides strategic access.
60
Thinking About Seabasing: All Ahead, Slow, op. cit., p. iv-v, vi.
Congressional Research Service
30
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
“These things have to be worked out,” Cook said. The question of who should operate the
ships is another issue, he said.61
Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following:
•
To what degree, if any, does the Navy-Marine Corps concept for sea basing
conflict with emerging Army or Air Force concepts of operation for conducting
future expeditionary operations? Are the Navy and Marine Corps taking potential
Army, Air Force, and Special Operations Command requirements sufficiently
into account in developing the sea basing concept?
•
How might the Army’s new plan for reorganizing itself into modular, brigadesized entities called units of action (UAs)62 affect, or be affected by, the sea
basing concept? How might the Army’s plans for procuring its own nextgeneration sealift ships affect, or be affected by, the sea basing concept?
•
Should OSD order a review of the seabasing concept by a newly formed joint
project office on seabasing or a group composed or retired combatant
commanders, as suggested by the 2006 CSBA report?
Legislative Activity for FY2008
FY2008 Budget Request
LPD-17 Program
The Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget requests $1,398.3 million in procurement funding a ninth
San Antonio (LPD-17) amphibious ship to be procured in FY2008. The Navy estimates the total
procurement cost of this ship at $1,798.3 million. The ship received $296.2 million in FY2008
advance procurement funding, and the Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget calls for the final $103.2
million of the ship’s procurement cost to be provided in FY2009 as a “program closeout” cost.
Although the Navy’s proposed force of 31 amphibious ships includes 10 LPD-17 class ships, the
Navy is proposing in its FY2008 budget to end LPD-17 procurement with the ninth ship.
LHA-6/LHA(R) Program
The Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget also requests $1,377.4 million in procurement funding to
complete the procurement cost of LHA-6, a large-deck amphibious assault ship that was procured
in FY2007 using split funding (a two-year form of incremental funding) in FY2007 and FY2008.
The Navy estimates the total procurement cost of LHA-6 at $2,806.2 million.
61
Christopher P. Cavas, “‘Cultural Differences’ Slow USN Sea Basing Progress,” DefenseNews.com, October 31,
2005.
62
For more on this plan, see CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by (name r
edacted).
Congressional Research Service
31
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
TAKE Program
The Administration’s proposed FY2008 defense budget requests $1,044.2 million for the National
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF). Included in this request is $456.1 million for a “regular” Lewis
and Clark (TAKE-1) class dry cargo ship to be used a Navy auxiliary (rather than as part of the
MPF(F) squadron).
Navy FY2008 Unfunded Priorities List (UPL)
The Navy’s FY2008 unfunded programs list (UPL)—a list of programs that the Navy desires but
which are not funded in the Navy’s proposed FY2008 budget—includes, as its top item, an
additional LPD-17 at an estimated cost of about $1,700 million, and, as its second item, two
modified TAKE-1 class ships for the MPF(F) squadron, at an estimated combined cost of about
$1,200 million. These two TAKEs are currently scheduled for procurement in FY2009 and
FY2010.
FY2008 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1585/S. 1547)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 110-146 of May 11, 2007) on H.R.
1585, recommended approving the Navy’s FY2008 request for procurement funding in the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account for the LPD-17 and LHA-6
programs, and also recommended adding $1,700 to the SCN account for the procurement of an
additional LPD-17. The report states:
The committee understands that a tenth [LPD-17 class] ship is the top priority on the Chief
of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority list. The committee recognizes that authorizing a
tenth ship of this class would allow the Marine Corps to more fully meet its requirement for
amphibious assault.
The committee recommends $1.4 billion for the [LPD-17 class] ship contained in the budget
request and recommends an increase of $1.7 billion, to include advance procurement, for the
construction of an additional San Antonio [i.e., LPD-17 class] class amphibious assault ship.
(Page 79)
According to the committee’s press release on its markup of H.R. 1585, the markup also
recommends an increase of $456 million for the procurement of an additional TAKE-1 class dry
cargo ship.63 Section 302 of the House-reported version of H.R. 1585 recommends authorizing a
total of $1,535.2 million for the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF)—an increase of $456
million over the requested amount. The NDSF is the part of the DOD budget in which TAKE-1
class ships are procured. The committee’s press release states:
The Committee understands that accelerating the construction of the T-AKE class of vessels
would more fully support the Maritime Prepositioning Force, Future (MPF(F)) concept and
63
House Armed Services Committee press release, “House Armed Services Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2008
Defense Authorization Bill,” May 9, 2007, p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
32
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
notes that acceleration of this ship class is the Chief of Naval Operations number two priority
on his Unfunded Priority List.64
Senate
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 110-77 of June 5, 2007) on S. 1547,
recommended approving the Navy’s FY2008 request for procurement funding in the Shipbuilding
and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation account for the LPD-17 and LHA-6 programs.
Regarding planned numbers of amphibious ships and the option of procuring a tenth LPD-17
class ship, the report states:
The budget request for fiscal year 2008 included funding for the ninth ship of the USS San
Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship program. The Secretary of the Navy’s 2007 report
to Congress on the long-range plan for construction of naval vessels calls for a “below
threshold” expeditionary warfare force. Specifically, the plan would reduce expeditionary
force size, including a reduction in the LPD-17 class from a total of 12 to 9 ships. The
committee is concerned that this plan does not provide the total number of amphibious ships
needed to support the Department of the Navy’s two Marine Expeditionary Brigade lift
requirements for forcible entry operations. In testimony before Congress in fiscal years 2005,
2006, and 2007, Marine Corps leadership stated that a class of 10 LPD-17 ships was required
to meet Marine Corps forcible entry requirements, with acceptable risk. The Chief of Naval
Operations has identified procurement of a tenth LPD-17 ship in 2008 as the Navy’s top
unfunded priority.
The committee is aware that construction for a tenth LPD-17 ship would not commence until
fiscal year 2009, but delaying procurement beyond 2009 would cause significant cost growth
and jeopardize industrial base stability by introducing production breaks in the program.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report not later than
November 1, 2007, that outlines the funding required for a “smart buy” of LPD-26,
maintaining continuous, uninterrupted production at critical vendors’ and shipbuilders’
facilities. (Page 134)
Regarding MPF(F) ships, particularly the LHA(R), and the National Defense Sealift Fund
(NDSF), the report states:
The fiscal year 2008 budget request included $96.6 million within the National Defense
Sealift Fund (NDSF) for various research and development activities, including $67.8
million for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), MPF(F). This amount includes $4.9
million for amphibious assault replacement ships which are to be assigned to the MPF(F),
designated MPF(F) LHA(R).
The Navy’s concept for MPF(F) operations indicates that these ships will be multi-mission
vessels capable of afloat prepositioning, sea basing operations in support of amphibious
assault, and routine operations in support of lesser contingencies. MPF(F) ships are planned
to be operated by a Military Sealift Command crew. However, the MPF(F) concept of
operations differs sharply from current maritime prepositioning ships as a result of the
MPF(F) contribution to the Navy’s sea basing capability.
64
Ibid, p. 38.
Congressional Research Service
33
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
The MPF(F) role to embark and deploy marines ashore while sustaining expeditionary
warfare operations potentially exposes these ships and embarked marines to hostile fire. The
Navy plans to protect the MPF(F) ships through employment of the naval “sea shield,” and
therefore the Navy does not plan to outfit MPF(F) ships with self defense features. The
committee has expressed concern regarding the Navy’s MPF(F) survivability concept and, in
particular, the Navy’s proposal to eliminate the self defense features for the MPF(F)
LHA(R). The restoration of the ship’s combat system would allow the MPF(F) LHA(R) to
fill current shortfalls to the Navy’s forcible entry lift capability.
The committee is aware that the Department of the Navy is continuing to review the military
features for the MPF(F), and that the Navy expects to present the program plan to the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) later in fiscal year 2007. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees within 30 days of the JROC MPF(F) decision outlining the findings of the
JROC. The report shall include a detailed vulnerability assessment of MPF(F) for major
combat operations.
The committee has been advised by the Navy that the Department of the Navy will need to
rephase into fiscal year 2009 certain MPF(F) research and development efforts. Therefore,
the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million for MPF(F) research and
development. Furthermore, the committee does not agree with funding development and
procurement for amphibious assault ships within the NDSF.
This ship type is specifically not included within the scope of sealift vessels eligible for
NDSF, defined within section 2218 of title 10, United States Code. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $4.9 million in PE 48042N, and a corresponding increase of $4.9
million in PE 64567N for MPF(F) LHA(R).
The committee recommends a total authorization of $32.9 million in PE 48042N for
MPF(F). (Page 429)
Conference
The conference report (H.Rept. 110-477 of December 6, 2007) on H.R. 1585 states:
The Senate report (S.Rept. 110-77) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (S. 1547) contained direction for the Navy to maintain decommissioned
LHA—1 class amphibious assault ships in a reduced operating status until such time that the
active fleet could deliver 2.0 Marine Expeditionary Brigade forcible entry lift capability in
response to a national emergency. Total forcible lift entry capability was to be assessed under
the assumption that no less than 10 percent of the force will be unavailable due to extended
duration maintenance availabilities.
The conferees agree with the intent of this provision. The conferees understand that the
Navy’s preferred method of meeting this intent would be to retain decommissioned LHA-1
class amphibious assault ships in a mobilization category B status.
The conferees agree to direct the Navy to: (1) maintain these ships in mobilization category
B status until such time that the active fleet could deliver 2.0 Marine Expeditionary Brigade
forcible entry lift capability in response to a national emergency; and (2) assess total forcible
lift entry capability under the assumption that no less than 10 percent of the force will be
unavailable due to extended duration maintenance availabilities. (Pages 981-982)
Congressional Research Service
34
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
FY2008 Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3222/P.L. 110-116)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 110-279 of July 30, 2007) on H.R.
3222, recommended reducing by $7 million the Navy’s FY2008 SCN funding request for the
ninth LPD-17—the LPD-17 that the Navy requested for procurement in FY2008. Of the $7
million reduction, $5 million was for C4ISR equipment on the ship, and $2 million was for a
guided missile launch system on the ship. (Page 226)
The committee also recommended an additional $1,700 million in the SCN account for the
procurement of an additional (i.e., tenth) LPD-17. Taking into account the recommended $7
million reduction for the ninth LPD-17, the committee recommended a net increase of $1,693
million to the LPD-17 program for FY2008. (Page 226)
The committee’s report recommended reducing by $2 million the Navy’s FY2008 SCN funding
request for the LHA(R) program. The $2 million reduction is for the Cooperative Engagement
Capability (CEC) system on the ship. (Page 226)
The Administration’s budget requested $456.1 million in the National Defense Sealift Fund
(NDSF) for the procurement of a final “regular” TAKE-1 class cargo ship for use as a Navy
auxiliary. The committee’s report recommended $1,866.1 million NDSF for the procurement of
four TAKEs—an increase of $1,400 million and three ships over the requested amount. The
additional three TAKEs are to be for the MPF(F) squadron, which is to include three TAKEs.
(Page 390)
Regarding the LPD-17 and TAKE programs, the committee’s report stated that
the Committee believes that more stability can be gained in the shipbuilding program by
increasing the throughput of ships with proven design and construction processes. Therefore,
funding is being added to the request for an additional LPD-17 amphibious transport dock
ship, three additional T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ships (which will buy out the
requirement for the Maritime Pre-positioned Force (Future)), and advance procurement for a
Virginia Class attack submarine. (Page 227)
Regarding the LPD-17 program, the report stated:
The request includes $1,398,922,000 for the procurement of the ninth San Antonio Class
(LPD-17) Amphibious Transport Dock Ship. This ship is the final LPD-17 class ship that the
Navy has in the budget. The Committee notes that the 313 ship fleet that the Navy has stated
as a goal requires ten San Antonio Class ships and that this tenth ship was the highest
priority listed on the Navy’s unfunded priority list. In an effort to achieve stability in the
Navy’s shipbuilding program by increasing throughput and helping the Navy meet its stated
requirement for LPD-17 Class ships, the Committee provides an additional $1,700,000,000
for the procurement of a tenth San Antonio Class Amphibious Transport Dock Ship. (Page
228)
Regarding the TAKE program, the report stated:
The Lewis and Clark Class of Dry Cargo/Ammunition Ships (T-AKE) will provide logistic
lift capability as a shuttle ship from supply sources to ships at sea. The request includes
Congressional Research Service
35
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
$456,110,000 for the acquisition of the eleventh Lewis and Clark Class T-AKE Dry
Cargo/Ammunition Ship. In an effort to provide stability to the Navy’s shipbuilding program
by increasing throughput, the Committee provides $1,866,110,000 for the procurement of 3
additional T-AKE ships, which is $1,410,000,000 above the request. In addition to providing
stability, this effort satisfies the second highest priority on the Navy’s unfunded priority list.
This increase will allow the Navy to buy out the T-AKE requirement for the Maritime Prepositioned Force (Future) while at the same time promoting stability to the construction yard
and sub-vendors and achieving volume efficiencies. (Page 390)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 110-155 of September 14, 2007) on
H.R. 3222, recommended approving the Navy’s request for FY2008 procurement funding for the
LPD-17 and LHA-6 programs. The committee’s report states:
The Committee fully supports the CNO’s [Chief of Naval Operations’] goal of a 313 ship
Navy as a minimum requirement for the Nation. The Committee, however, has serious
concerns with the Navy’s ability to deliver on the current shipbuilding program of record.
The Navy’s track record for building ships on time and on budget has not been good. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recently pointed out that the ships under
construction at the beginning of the current fiscal year have experienced cumulative cost
growth of almost $5,000,000,000 above their original budgets. Significant cost growth,
schedule delay, or both have occurred in the LPD-17 program, Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
program, the T-AKE program, as well as the next-generation destroyer and aircraft carrier
programs. While supportive of additional funding for shipbuilding, the Committee is very
concerned that accelerating any of the current shipbuilding programs is unexecutable and
would have the effect of just “banking” funds.
Naval shipbuilding has been plagued with too frequent design changes, requirements creep,
poor cost estimating, and poor government performance in program management and
contractor oversight. Under staffing of critical government oversight functions has also been
a major problem for the Navy. The Committee believes that the acquisition changes
proposed by current Navy leadership is movement in the right direction, however, the
Committee would like to see some positive results in cost, schedule and performance of the
current program of record before supporting significant increases to the shipbuilding
account. (Page 133)
Conference
The conference report (H.Rept. 110-434 of November 6, 2007) on H.R. 3222/P.L. 110-116 of
November 13, 2007, reduced by $7 million the Navy’s FY2008 SCN funding request for the ninth
LPD-17—the LPD-17 that the Navy requested for procurement in FY2008. Of the $7 million
reduction, $5 million was for C4ISR equipment on the ship, and $2 million was for a guided
missile launch system on the ship.
The conference report also provided an additional $50 million in the SCN account for the
procurement in a future fiscal year of an additional (i.e., 10th) LPD-17. Taking into account the
$7-million reduction for the ninth LPD-17, the conference report provided a net increase of $43
million to the LPD-17 program for FY2008. (Page 189)
Congressional Research Service
36
Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship Programs
The conference report reduced by $2 million the Navy’s FY2008 SCN funding request for the
LHA(R) program. The $2 million reduction is for the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)
system on the ship. (Page 189)
The Administration’s budget requested $456.1 million in the National Defense Sealift Fund
(NDSF) for the procurement of a final “regular” TAKE-1 class cargo ship for use as a Navy
auxiliary. The conference report approved this request and provided an additional $300 million in
funding “for advance procurement of long-lead time material and advance construction activities”
for three other TAKEs that the administration currently plans to procure in FY2009-FY2011.
These three other TAKEs are intended for the MPF(F) squadron. The conference report stated that
the $300 million in additional funding is “to support economic order quantity purchases of
materials in fiscal year 2008 that could yield additional savings and reduce pressure on the
outyear shipbuilding budget.” (Page 350)
Author Contact Information
Ronald O’Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
37
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.