Co-ed from the keel up, the new USS Benfold (DDG-65) is one of the latest of a proposed 57 Aegis destroyers to join the fleet. Also on the front burner is an arsenal ship and the new-age amphibious transport dock, the LPD-17.
Surface Line . . . Still Fine?
The Surface Combatant Force Level Study released last year confirmed the need for as many as 129 to 165 surface warships to ensure support of the two- major regional conflict strategy. Given these considerations, the Navy has called for a fiscal year 2001 force of between 126 and 138 active and reserve ships. In the meantime, to ensure that personnel and operating tempo guidelines are not violated, the Navy will retain two Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7)-class guided-missile frigates in the active force in fiscal 1997 and a third in fiscal year 1998.
Aegis. The Clinton administration’s fiscal year 1997-2001 plan includes funding for 14 additional Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)-class Aegis destroyers; a total of 57 DDG-51s are planned to complement the 27 Ticonderoga (CG-47)-class Aegis cruisers in the fleet. The 15th Arleigh Burke destroyer, the USS Benfold (DDG-65), commissioned on 6 April 1996, the first U.S. warship designed from the keel up to accommodate both male and female sailors. Of the ship’s crew, 46 women were plankowners.
The first five of the CG-47 warships, which have “Baseline 1” combat systems and two twin-armed Mk 26 guided-missile launchers instead of the upgraded combat systems and Mk 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) installed in the CG-52 and later units, have been identified for “non-battle group roles” and support to the recently formed Western Hemisphere Group (WHG). The Navy last year allocated 16 surface warships to the WHG. They will be employed to meet Western Atlantic and Caribbean needs.
Baseline 5 upgrades to the Aegis warships include combat system modifications to accommodate the SM-2 Block IV extended-range surface-to-air missile. Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) LINK 16/TADIL-J, a new combat direction-finder, and enhanced tactical graphics capability. Baseline 6 upgrades include the so-called “Littoral Warfare” SPY-ID(V) radar, the Evolved Seasparrow vertical launch self- defense missile, combat system modifications for Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD), the cooperative engagement capability (CEC), AN/UYQ-70 displays, and adjunct processors. Finally, Baseline 7 modifications comprise upgrades to the Tomahawk fire control system, a cuing sensor, Theater-Wide TBMD, and advanced processing. The Navy also intends to replace the “MIL-SPEC” AN/UYK-43 and -44 computers with commercial, off-the-shelf components and systems, with due regard, of course, for the numerous “legacy” systems that will remain in the fleet.
SC-21. The SC-21 Mission Need Statement called for the new multimission warship(s) to provide “independent forward presence and operate as an integral part of joint and allied maritime expeditionary warfare operations,” and to “carry the fight to the enemy.” The design process already has embraced a total ship architecture, systems-engineering approach that optimizes life-cycle cost efficiencies, operational flexibility, rapid upgrade and change to meet emerging requirements and technological developments, and the ability to “fight hurt.” Consideration is also being given to modular designs. Affordability is a principal objective, and the engineers are continuously addressing ship-wide autonomies for reduced manning (about a 50% reduction from traditional manning levels, with some expectations calling for no more than 100 crew members).
The Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved the SC-21 for Concept Studies in January 1995. Three SC-21 options are currently being examined in a comprehensive two-year analysis:
- Modernization and service-life extension of existing forces
- Modified-repeat designs of current surface and amphibious assault warships
- New ship concepts, several of which may be good options for the U.S. Coast Guard as it looks ahead to replacing its Hamilton (WHEC-713) and Bear (WMEC-901)-class cutters
- Most advanced, multi-mission ship— includes aviation cruiser, power-projection ship, and heavy cruiser concepts
- Affordable, multi-mission ship—“full-capability” warship designed to cost less than DDG-51
- Reduced mission combatant—maritime combatant, agile maritime patrol ship, armed supertanker, and sea dominance combatant concepts
- Family of modular combatants—expeditionary force support ship and tailored maritime support ship concepts
Smart Moves. The Navy has designated the Aegis guided-missile cruiser Yorktown (CG-48) in the Atlantic Fleet and the Pacific Fleet’s Spruance-class destroyer Harry W. Hill (DD-986) to the “SMART Ship” initiative. To incorporate extensive automation systems and radical changes in shipboard practices, with a goal of addressing significant manning reductions for areas such as damage control, crew support, maintenance, preservation, and watch-standing operations.
Fiber-optic local area networks, integrated bridge controls, remote/low-light-level televisions, and other off-the-shelf technologies have been identified by Vice Admiral Douglas Katz, Commander, Surface Force, Atlantic Fleet. “We want to evaluate some of these things before we actually introduce them into the fleet,” Katz remarked, “and ensure they are tried and tested before we incorporate them in the SC-21, the Arsenal Ship, or other ships of the future.”
Theater Air Defense Needs. While theater ballistic missiles may be more of a politically visible threat, by the year 2000 about 20 countries will have TBMs and 25 may also have their missiles armed with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads—and ballistic missiles have been used in six regional contingencies and conflicts since 1980. By the end of the decade more than 40,000 cruise missiles—some with stealth features or capable of extremely high speeds and radical end-game maneuvers—will be available. Hence the Navy’s approach focuses all hard- and soft-kill technologies, systems, and integration efforts in a single office, the Program Executive Officer for Theater Air Defense, in mid-1996 headed by Rear Admiral J. T. Hood.
Self-Defense/Cooperation. Two critical elements—ship self-defense system (SSDS) and cooperative engagement capability (CEC) programs—have made significant progress in sensor-fusion and weapons direction systems and software for non-Aegis ships. The SSDS program’s goal is to integrate and automate the ship’s sensor/sensor control functions and antiair weapons to enhance self-defense against a wide array of airborne threats. SSDS comprises several soft- and hard- kill systems that are being integrated to enhance single-ship self-defense. The SLQ-32A electronic warfare system may be upgraded if funds are available, and the follow-on advanced integrated electronic warfare system began engineering development in fiscal year 1995. Other SSDS elements include upgrades to the Mk 15 close-in weapon system for improved lethality against airborne and surface threats, the Nulka broad-band radio frequency repeater-decoy mounted on a hovering rocket, the SPQ-9B radar for the Mk 86 gunfire control system that provides an antiship missile capability for the Mk 45/54 naval gun, the vertical- launch evolved Seasparrow missile, the rolling airframe missile (RAM), and the quick-reaction combat capability and integrated ship-defense (QRCC/ISD) that facilitate the integration of the diverse systems, many of which were never intended to be linked so closely together. The USS Ashland (LSD-48) is the first Beet unit to have the full-up Mk 1 SSDS installed, scheduled to be completed in fall 1996.
The Mountain Top experiment conducted in January-February 1996 off Barking Sands. Hawaii, underscored cooperative engagement potential, according to Rear Admiral Rodney Rempt. Director, Theater Air Defense (N865) in the Navy’s Surface Warfare (N86) office. Navy Standard (SM-2) missiles fired from the Aegis cruisers Anzio and Cape St. George and Hawk missiles from a Marine Corps land-based launcher received cuing and fire control-quality data from an offboard sensor, which resulted in four-out-of-four successful engagements of cruise missile targets. This program will achieve initial operational capability on board the Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN- 69) later this year. Subsequently, all surface warships, E-2C Hawkeye and future Navy airborne early-warning aircraft, Marine Corps and Army ground-based air defense systems, and Air Force assets may be linked within this net.
Ballistic Missile Defense. The Navy’s TBMD programs are based on modifications to the phased-array radars and weapons control systems on board many of the 22 Aegis VLS cruisers and projected 57 Aegis destroyers (these ships alone will account for more than 7,800 VLS cells), the linking of defense built upon real-time networking of sensors and fire-control systems, the Navy’s improved Standard Missile, a new lightweight exo-atmospheric projectile with a kinetic- kill warhead, and perhaps new surface- launched missiles to provide both an area and theater-wide TBMD capability. The Aegis system’s capabilities against manned aircraft and cruise missiles will be retained.
During 1995 the Department of Defense carried out a TBMD review of the three programs—the Navy’s area defense system based on the Aegis weapon system and upgraded SM-2 Standard Missile, the Army’s Patriot advanced capability (PAC-3), and theater high altitude area defense (THAAD). the last also being considered for Navy use and three advanced capability programs: Navy theater-wide, the Army’s Corps surface-to- air missile (CORPS SAM) or the multinational medium extended air defense system (MEADS), and the ascent/boost- phase intercept (BP1). The review concluded that the “lower-tier” or endo-atmospheric systems remain the highest priority; the “upper-tier” or exo-atmospheric systems are needed to defend wide areas, to increase effectiveness against weapons of mass destruction, and to defeat longer-range ballistic missiles; and exploration of other concepts should continue. For the Navy, this resulted in the Congress recommending that the Area TBMD program—which will be capable of engaging aircraft, cruise missiles, and TBMs—be increased by about $150 million, and Navy theater-wide by $600 million during fiscal years 1997-2001.
An Aegis Area TBMD developmental/user operational evaluation system (UOES) of 35 missiles could be at sea in two Aegis cruisers—the Lake Erie (CG-70) and Port Royal (CG-73)—as early as the last quarter of fiscal year 1998, with full-scale production scheduled for the end of the decade. Congress has augmented the Navy’s fiscal year 1996 funding by $170 million, and has “recommended" that the theater-wide system be ready, with an accelerated schedule and additional increased funding.
Through the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Navy is also investigating the practicality of integrating the Army THAAD system with the Aegis and vertical launching systems, and a new, on-paper concept called Advanced Interceptor Technology. The sea- based/land-based TBMD issues have become highly politicized in the Congress, and have been clouded by Republican demands for a National Missile Defense system to be in place by the year 2003, at a near-term cost of some $60 billion that has not been programmed by the Defense Department.
The Next Generation. Last year the Director, Theater Air Defense (N865) established a team to address the projected threat (technologically and economically feasible threats and weapons proliferation) in the year 2015 and beyond, current science and technology initiatives, and operational scenarios for future ship self-defense systems. The goal is to define the options for the “Next-Generation Ship Defense” systems, identify cost and performance trade-offs, propose new ship defense technology development efforts, and recommend the preferred option.
These future assessments have as their foundation the 1996 Ship Class Anti- Air Warfare Self-Defense Capstone Requirements Report that identifies baseline self-defense suites for each in-service and building ship class. The “next-gen” study effort encompasses sensors, weapons, electronic warfare, integration, information, and command-and-control systems.
Arsenal Ships. A study conducted in late fall 1995 concluded that the Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA) should help the Navy develop and acquire an Arsenal Ship and form a joint DARPA-Navy Arsenal Ship Program Office. The lead Arsenal Ship could be in the fleet by 2000 to 2001.
The incipient operational concept calls for a total force of six Arsenal Ships, which would allow three to be stationed continuously with crew rotation in forward areas and thus be available for rapid movement to a crisis area, a concept similar to that of the Navy’s three squadrons of maritime prepositioning ships (MPS). But the similarity to the MPS squadrons diminishes quickly, as the Arsenal Ship will not have to wait to “marry up” with its “shooters” to be effective.
Currently envisioned as an Aegis warship, in the future this controlling platform could be a joint air defense commander on the ground or in an aircraft, whoever has the best picture of the strategic, operational, and tactical situation. Similarly, missile initialization and launch orders for fire support or strike missions will be provided to the Arsenal Ship via off-board weapon control systems. Thus, only the most rudimentary command, control, communications, and intelligence capabilities will reside in the Arsenal Ship. Joint connectivity, including targeting, mission planning, and weapons control, will be provided to the Arsenal Ship, and its 50-person crew will be primarily responsible for piloting and maintaining the ship and its weapons.
Much depends on related Navy programs for Strike Warfare, Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS), and Theater Air Defense weapons, however. Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAM) continue to be the focus of upgrade initiatives for strategic conventional strike, and the addition of Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) weapons and other “smart” submunitions could provide TLAMs with the capability to attack mobile targets. A cost and operational effectiveness study undertaken during 1993-1994 settled on the 155-mm gun with advanced projectiles, but the Navy—largely because of funding constraints—has instead embarked on a program of improvements to the 5-inch guns, propellants, and extended-range guided munitions for the near-to mid-term future. The next-stage development of a naval 155-mm gun is touted as providing a significant increase in both range and projectile weight compared to the 5- inch gun, and could be a candidate for next-generation warship needs and later variants of the Arsenal Ship.
Even without the 500-plus VLS cells in each Arsenal Ship, by the end of the decade the Navy will have more than 7,000 VLS cells in the fleet. A VLS- launched battlefield missile could meet the full over-the-horizon range requirement at an affordable price, but the only current U.S. battlefield missile is the 24- inch diameter Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which is being evaluated for VLS launch (from surface warships and submarines) or launch from a modified ATACMS launcher fixed on amphibious ships. Still other NSFS battlefield missile concepts now being investigated for the Arsenal Ship and other VLS surface warships include:
- A surface-launched Sea SLAM variant of the air-launched Standoff Land-At- tack Missile (SLAM) that itself is a modification of the Harpoon missile
- A land-attack variant of the Navy’s Standard Missile, a.k.a. “Strike Standard”
For theater air defense roles, the Navy will employ upgraded SM-2 Block III, IV and IV A Standard Missiles.
Six Arsenal Ships could, according to the various conceptual designs revealed by industry, provide from 3,000 to 6,000 additional VLS holes to be filled. Add to that the VLS-capable surface warships that will be in the fleet, and total VLS loadouts on the order of 10,000 to 14,000 cells could be available by 2008 or so—not counting the Navy’s VLS-capable submarines.
The joint DARPA-Navy initiative will pursue these principal characteristics for the Arsenal Ship:
- 500 VLS cells
- Space for a future extended-range gun system (e.g., 5-inch/62 gun or 155-mm gun and 600 rounds)
- Cooperative engagement capability, common data link (LINK 16) management capabilities, open architecture approach to information handling
- Additional ship self-defense and passive survivability features in the future
- Limited crew size to no more than 50 men and women (who might be Military Sealift Command/Civil Service personnel, augmented by a small Navy detachment)—and high reliability, availability, and maintainability for “rock-bottom” operation and maintenance costs
- Robust damage-control and fire-fighting systems
- Sustained speed (80% of installed power) of at least 22 knots, endurance of approximately 10,000 nautical miles (96 hours at sustained speed, 45 days at 4 knots, 96 hours at sustained speed, with a 25% fuel reserve margin)
- Consumable storage for 60 days of operations (chilled provisions, 30 days; medical stores, 180 days); underway replenishment for fuel and provisions, but not for rearming VLS weapons
The DARPA-Navy team will require an “affordable balance” of active and passive on-board ship self-defense measures. The vertical-launched evolved Seasparrow missile could be a candidate for Arsenal Ship self-defense. The Navy is also calling for passive defense to capitalize on the benefits of mass (sheer size and tonnage of the ship) and innovative applications of multiple-hull integrity and signature reduction initiatives. Other “low-observable” concepts have included a ship that could “ballast-down” once in theater or a “semi-submersible” ship that would leave only antennae exposed above the sea surface. The last idea has spawned interest in the submarine warfare community to modify some of the early Ohio (SSBN-726)-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines for truly stealthy Arsenal Ships (see “Tomorrow’s Fleet Part I” in the July Proceedings).
Expeditionary and Mine Warfare
’Gator Aid! The Navy’s stated requirement is to maintain an amphibious fleet capable of lifting 2.5 Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) equivalents during wartime and sustaining approximately three forward-deployed Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) in peacetime. As a result of the continuing decommissioning of several classes of obsolescent amphibious ships, perhaps as little as a 1.8 MEB lift capability is currently available in one critical area—vehicle “square”—that will not be completely satisfied until the 12 new-construction LPD-17s enter the fleet during the next decade. Taking into account as well the various ship-to-shore movement assets, the U.S. General Accounting Office concluded that there was at least a $ 16-billion gap in the funding required for modernizing the amphibious force.
The President’s fiscal year 1997 future years plan provided the basis for achieving lift objectives by ensuring a force of 43 active (41 amphibious lift and two command ships) and two Naval Reserve Force ships through 2001. To help meet near-term force level goals within budget constraints, two of the 41 lift ships will be maintained in a reduced operating status with cadre crews for call-up in an emergency, and another nine others will be placed in “maintenance category B,” which would enable them to be reactivated within 180 days. The USS Guam (LPH-9) has been retained in the active fleet for a year longer than planned, to fiscal year 1998. Finally, two new Wasp-class amphibious assault ships—the Bataan (LHD-5) and Bon Homme Richard (LHD-6)—will join the fleet in 1997 and 1998, and another two Whidbey Island (LSD-49)-class landing dock ships—the Oak Hill (LSD-51) and Pearl Harbor (LSD-52)—will commission in 1996 and 1998, respectively.
Congressional Activism: LHD-7. Congress in 1996 accelerated the acquisition of the final Wasp (LHD-7)-class amphibious assault ship. The Marine Corps at various times had indicated a preference for as many as 10 LHDs, but the Navy truncated the program to five ships in 1993. The $1.2 billion sixth ship, the Bon Homme Richard, was inserted at Congress’s insistence into the Navy’s budget in fiscal year 1994, and in fiscal year 1995 the Congress appropriated—but did not authorize—$50 million for the seventh LHD.
The Navy last year had delayed the request for the ship until fiscal year 2001 because of funding constraints. However, had an option clause in the contract for the LHD-6 been allowed to lapse, as would have been the case for the seventh ship so far to the right in the “out-years” of the plan, the cost would have increased significantly. Thus, a convergence of an astute—if informal—political cabal involving Navy managers. Marine Corps planners, industry, and sympathetic members of Congress assured that LHD-7 would be approved.
Ditto: LPD-17 The Navy had been planning to buy 12 LPD-17s, with the lead ship costing about $1.15 billion when requested for fiscal year 1998. Originally planned for a fiscal year 1996 start, two years ago funding constraints compelled the Navy to slip the lead ship to fiscal year 1998. But the convergence of Marine Corps and Navy amphibious interests that led to the LHD-7 last year also contributed to refocusing congressional interest in the LPD-17. At the insistence of the Congress, the lead LPD- 17 was funded in fiscal year 1996—at a bargain cost of about $939 million—and is expected to be delivered in fiscal year 2002. Five more LPD-17s are in the current program, one each in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, with the two-ship-per-year schedule beginning in 2000 and continuing until all 12 are acquired, if the funding becomes available.
With the seven LHDs, five Tarawa (LHA-1)-class ships, and the 12 LPDs, the Navy will have the foundation for the 12 Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) needed to sustain the three forward-deployed MEUs in peacetime operations. Now, the Navy must work to get funds for the Integrated Ship Defense System to be installed in the LHD-7, to ensure that the final Wasp-class LHD (perhaps because the Marines for years had been arguing for ten LHDs) has the most capable non-Aegis surface antiair warfare system—the Integrated Ship Defense system—that is already planned for the LPD- 17 and numerous other surface and amphibious warfare ships. Then, attention can turn to the new-design LX to begin acquisition in 2010 or so to replace the LHAs and LHDs.
Fleet-Wide Mine Consciousness? In a December 1995 white paper on mine warfare, then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral J. M. Boorda said of mine warfare: “Mines are a way to stop us. We’re getting better, but we’re not there yet.” Notable during the past year, the Navy crafted an innovative mine countermeasures (MCM) concept of operations clearly focused on the total fleet, not just the dedicated MCM community. Admiral Boorda and Marine Corps Commandant General Charles Krulak underscored this fleet-wide perspective in the third edition of the Navy’s Mine Warfare Plan.
The Navy’s dedicated MCM force includes 14 Avenger (MCM-l)-class ships, all of which have been commissioned, With ten in the active force and four in the reserve; 12 Osprey (MHC-51)-class coastal minehunters, all of which have been commissioned or are under construction, with 11 ships slated for the Naval Reserve Force; the USS Inchon (MCS-12, formerly LPH-12), which was converted and modernized in 1995 (completed in spring 1996) to serve as a Reserve Force mine warfare command and control ship, with a combined active and reserve crew; and two integrated active- reserve airborne mine countermeasures helicopter squadrons (HM-14 and -15), each with 12 MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Naval Special Warfare, and Marine Corps Combat Engineers round out the Naval Service’s dedicated MCM elements. No new-design MCM ships or command-and-control ships are in the current plan, although future needs continue to be addressed.
Important near-term programs include the development and acquisition of the remote minehunting system and the airborne mine neutralization system, as well as increased focus on shallow-water mine countermeasures, especially the shallow-water assault breaching system, new laser detection and classification systems, and the establishment of a “joint” Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal-SEAL Very Shallow Water MCM Unit based in Coronado, California. Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office concluded that “critical areas. . . remain unmet,” and that the “Navy has identified shortfalls of about $99.5 million in the development of shallow-water projects.”
The Navy has requested funding to ensure the continuous deployment of four Avenger-class ships overseas, two planned for the Arabian Gulf to complement the two that have been homeported in Japan since 1995. The concept of operations calls for rotating crews on a six- month basis. The two Arabian Gulf ships—the USS Ardent (MCM-12) and Dextrous (MCM-13)—arrived in theater in March 1996.
Almost tragically, the latest and most sophisticated U.S. mine target detection device (TDD Mk 71) for the Navy’s Quickstrike mines, which would greatly expand these weapons’ capabilities against a wide spectrum of submarine and ship targets, has not been procured despite being approved for production.
The Navy’s submarine community, however, recognized that a critical littoral warfare mission would go begging as the 1960s-era Submarine Launched Mobile Mine (SLMM) Mk 67 has already reached obsolescence and would not in any event be capable of launch from the New Attack Submarine. (The Navy’s premier anti-submarine mine, the CAPTOR Mk 60, is not appropriate for many shallow-water conflict environments.) Thus the decision has been taken to modify and convert early versions of the Mk 48 wire- guided heavy-weight torpedoes to enable long-range planting of perhaps two mine warheads at ranges well in excess of what is capable with the Mk 67 SLMM today. Beyond that, as the 1996 Plan recognizes, "no new mine development program has, as yet, been initiated.”
Special Warfare. . . Special Craft The last of the 13 Cyclone (PC-l)-class of Patrol Coastal craft were delivered in January 1996. Two of these ships—one in camouflage paint scheme—deployed to the Mediterranean during 1995 to test operational concepts in support of other U.S. and allied naval forces.
The first two of 20 Mark V Special Operations Craft were delivered in August 1995; the remaining 18 will be delivered through summer 1997. Current plans call for the 20 Mk Vs to be organized into 10 detachments of two craft each; Special Boat Squadron One, Coronado, California, and Special Boat Squadron Two, Little Creek. Virginia, will each have five detachments. At 25 meters in length, with a beam of 5.3 meters, draft of 1.5 meters, and a 57-ton displacement, the Mk Vs are intended for medium-range (600-nautical-mile) high-speed insertion and extraction of special operations forces. Armament includes hand-held Stinger antiair missiles, Mk 19 40-mm grenade launchers, 12.7mm heavy machine guns, or M60 7.62-mm medium machine guns.
The Special Operations Command is also acquiring three Advanced Swimmer Delivery Systems (ASDS) that figure prominently in special warfare missions for the Navy’s attack submarines. All three are expected to be operational by fiscal year 2001.
Combat Logistics/Auxiliaries/Sealift
The Navy (active fleet and Military Sealift Command) in 1996 operates about 40 combat logistic force ships. Another 20 to 25 mobile logistics support ships are available to establish temporary support sites in forward areas.
The fourth Supply (AOE-6)-class fast combat support ship will be delivered in fiscal year 1998, solidifying the AOE force at eight ships. A fifth Supply-class ship will be requested during the first decade of the next century to meet long-term requirements.
The Navy has also started initial design studies for a new class of support ships, the ADC(X), the first of which will be procured in fiscal year 2000. These ships will replace ammunition and dry cargo ships that are reaching the ends of their useful service lives. Although the actual number and design attributes of the ADC(X) class remain to be determined, the new ship will provide logistics lift from sources such as forward logistics support sites in ports or from specially equipped merchant ships. It will transfer this cargo at sea to station ships and other underway replenishment ships and will be capable of helicopter vertical replenishment. Only a minimum self-defense capability will be provided.
The Navy operated 13 destroyer/submarine tenders in fiscal year 1993, an element of the active fleet that will be reduced to three ships by fiscal year 1999, and a fourth tender will be placed in reduced operating status with the Military Sealift Command.
The Mobility Requirements Study Bottom-Up Review Update in 1994-1995 revalidated the need to acquire 19 Large. Medium-Speed, Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) ships. The current program calls for eight of the LMSRs to be allocated to Army forward prepositioning of combat and support equipment and the remaining 11 ships for transporting combat and combat-support material for the early-deploying Army divisions. The program has been under way for several years, with five converted commercial vessels (two at Newport News Shipbuilding and three at National Steel and Shipbuilding Company) scheduled for delivery in fiscal years 1996-1997. The LMSR conversion program, however, has endured delays of 14 to 17 months and cost-overruns. Seven of the Bob Hope (T-AKR-300)-class new- construction LMSRs are under construction or on order at Avondale (four) and National Steel (three), and the first three ships are scheduled for delivery in fiscal year 1998.
The update also underscored the need for an additional 2.8 million square feet of RO/RO lift in the Ready Reserve Force maintained and operated by the Military Sealift Command. During the past year, maritime special interest groups successfully lobbied Congress to investigate the needs for a National Defense Features (NDF) program that would provide funds to make active, U.S.-flag commercial vessels more useful for military requirements. The Defense Department and the Navy, however, remain adamant that an NDF program is not a high priority.
The Marine Corps in 1994-1995 pushed for the acquisition of another prepositioning ship for the three-squadron Maritime Prepositioning Force-Enhanced (MPF-E), funds for which were provided by the Congress in fiscal year 1995. A requirement for another two ships has been validated, and the Navy will request these ships early in the next decade. The House National Security Committee, however, was unimpressed by this timetable, and provided an extra $250 million for the two MPF-E ships desired by the Marines in its fiscal year 1997 authorization bill. The committee also approved $1.2 billion for four roll-on/roll- off ships for Army prepositioning, $611 million and two more ships than the Clinton administration had requested.
Vision Redux
It was to be his vision for the future, but it may ultimately be his legacy for the U.S. Navy as it contemplates the way ahead, into the 21st century. "We will be ready, 20 minutes or 20 years from now, to answer the ‘911’ emergency calls that are sure to come,” the late Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Boorda, explained in a document that was to have been released in May.
Labeled 2020 Vision: A Navy for the 21st Century, the document articulated a plan that would ensure the Navy will “continue to be a vital element of the nation’s military force, undergirding stability in an uncertain world and protecting America’s global interests in peace, crisis, and war. To do so,” the CNO’s draft revealed, “the Navy will continue to embrace advanced technologies and systems, innovative operational concepts, and far- reaching doctrine for precision operations and maneuver warfare.”
How Admiral Boorda’s vision will be realized no doubt would be an arduous task in even the best of times. It will, however, be made much more difficult in an environment of fiscal austerity, difficult program choices, and increasing commitments abroad that will continue to challenge the service for years to come.
Dr. Truver is Executive Director, Center for Security Strategies and Operations, TECHMATICS, Inc.. Fairfax, Virginia. He thanks Steve Keller and David Nelson, of the Center's Naval & Maritime Programs staff, for their research assistance and Thomas Malloy for his graphics support. All judgments are the responsibility of the author, alone.