From Navy Times

 

Carrier numbers, budget issues await Obama

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jan 5, 2009 6:32:07 EST

 

Affordability remains high on the list of requirement and acquisition challenges in the coming year, the Navy’s top weapon buyer said last month.

 

And according to one congressional source, 2009 could also see a lively debate on whether the Navy truly needs 11 carriers.

 

Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, offered several keys to his service’s goal of affordability during a Surface Navy Association luncheon Dec. 11 in Washington.

 

Design and program stability is key, Stackley declared. “Say no to change,” he said in regard to design changes, and use industrial competition to keep costs down and build efficiency.

 

Difficulties in estimating system integration costs have become a major factor in cost growth.

 

“Frankly, we’re less skilled at estimating those,” he said.

 

Stackley urged closer cooperation with Congress and industry and strongly supported multiyear procurement deals — a funding profile often opposed by Congress. But Stackley, a former Navy program manager and Senate Armed Services Committee staffer, noted that “some of our greatest success stories are in those multiyear procurements.”

 

He cited DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, SSN 774 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines and the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

 

Stackley, who likely will step down when the Obama administration is sworn in Jan. 20, noted that “the Navy needs a healthy industrial base and a healthy government acquisition work force.”

 

“We do not merely seek to grow government and the work force,” he said, “but to restore core competencies.”

Upcoming issues

 

The Obama administration has yet to indicate its choices for the new Navy civilian leadership, but on Capitol Hill, Congress is expected to bore in on several key programs. Likely candidates for scrutiny include the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), the VH-71 presidential helicopter and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

 

“JSF is so far behind and so expensive that we might have a 200-plane shortfall by 2015,” said one congressional source. “We’re going to have to do something about that.”

 

The source agreed that the decision to continue Robert Gates in his post as defense secretary provides continuity in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but leaves questions about the future of a number of programs.

 

“Gates wants to spend money on what we’re doing right now, but what about the future?” the congressional source asked. The picture will become clearer, the source said, when a deputy secretary and the various under secretaries are named.

The future of LCS

 

Pressure might be building on the Hill to force the Navy to decide this year about the future of the LCS program. Two competing designs are being built: Freedom, the first ship from a Lockheed Martin team, was commissioned in November and will carry out systems trials throughout 2009, while the Independence, from General Dynamics, isn’t expected to begin sea trials until late spring at best.

 

The Navy has said it wants to wait until 2010 to compare the designs and make a decision whether to buy only one or build both types. But some on the Hill see an early decision as leading to cheaper costs, including a chance to reduce the expense of buying and fielding two distinct LCS combat systems.

 

The Navy is expected to again ask for a congressional waiver to temporarily reduce the aircraft carrier force from 11 to 10 ships during a 33-month gap between the decommissioning of the Enterprise and introduction to service of the new Gerald R. Ford. Congress resoundingly turned down the request last year during the elections, but many observers said the Navy has a better chance of winning permission this year.

Carrier reduction?

 

But an even greater issue may arise: Should the carrier force be permanently shrunk, perhaps to as few as seven flat tops?

 

“The carrier force structure is a legacy from the Cold War,” the congressional source said.

 

“Once all that was over, the Navy Department continued to justify carrier force structure based on a couple of [war-fighting] scenarios. I think you’re missing the point by doing that. Don’t base it on a specific threat — base it on what the nation needs, what it can afford, what the best bang for the buck is. When you do that you’re drawn to the question of why we need all those carriers. I’m not sure you need 11 or 12.”

 

Such a discussion has long been considered cultural anathema inside the Navy, but that might be changing, the congressional source noted.

 

“I think there are some people in the Navy — younger officers, now wearing stars — who aren’t so contaminated with old thinking. It’s not so much heresy.”

 

Those officers, the source said, now are whispering, “Why do you need more than seven carriers?”

 

Driving down the size of the carrier force could take several forms, the congressional source said, including drawing out the construction time for each ship from about six years currently to eight years or more. Other options would include canceling expensive three-year refueling overhauls and instead decommissioning ships that have run out of nuclear fuel.

 

Significant reductions in the carrier force would also fix the fighter gap problem.

 

“It absolutely solves that,” the congressional source declared.

So, with respect to the number of carriers, are they saying that they can cover the same number of patrol stations with fewer carriers now? Do they think there are fewer spots that need a carrier watching now? I would think you'd at least want one carrier in the far east, one for IOPG/west Africa, and one for the Med/east Africa. At 3 afloat to keep one up front, that means 9, and one or two more for contingencies and the hot spot du jour seems like a good idea. Heck, even back when there were a dozen carriers in the cold war, I remember reading about an admiral complaining that the USN was trying to fulfill a three-ocean requirement with a one-and-a-half ocean navy ...