Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress - RL32665

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget requests funding for the procurement of 8 new battle force ships (i.e., ships that count against the Navy’s goal for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 306 ships). The 8 ships include two Virginia-class attack submarines, one DDG-51 class Aegis destroyer, four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), and one Mobile Landing Platform/Afloat Forward Staging Base (MLP/AFSB) ship. The Navy’s proposed FY2014-FY2018 five-year shipbuilding plan includes a total of 41 ships—the same number as in the Navy’s FY213-FY2017 five-year shipbuilding plan, and one less than the 42 ships that the Navy planned for FY2014-FY2018 under the FY2013 budget submission.

The planned size of the Navy, the rate of Navy ship procurement, and the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been matters of concern for the congressional defense committees for the past several years. The Navy’s FY2014 30-year (FY2014-FY2043) shipbuilding plan, like the Navy’s previous 30-year shipbuilding plans in recent years, does not include enough ships to fully support all elements of the Navy’s 306-ship goal over the long run. The Navy projects that the fleet would remain below 306 ships during most of the 30-year period, and experience shortfalls at various points in cruisers-destroyers, attack submarines, and amphibious ships.

In its October 2013 report on the cost of the FY2014 30-year shipbuilding plan, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the plan would cost an average of $19.3 billion per year in constant FY2013 dollars to implement, or about 15% more than the Navy estimates. CBO’s estimate is about 6% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the first 10 years of the plan, about 14% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the second 10 years of the plan, and about 26% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the final 10 years of the plan. Some of the difference between CBO’s estimate and the Navy’s estimate, particularly in the latter years of the plan, is due to a difference between CBO and the Navy in how to treat inflation in Navy shipbuilding.

Proposed issues for Congress in reviewing the Navy’s proposed FY2014 shipbuilding budget, its proposed FY2014-FY2018 five-year shipbuilding plan, and its FY2014 30-year (FY2014- FY2043) shipbuilding plan include the following:

• the impact on Navy shipbuilding programs of the March 1, 2013, sequester on FY2013 funding and unobligated prior-year funding; 
• the potential impact on Navy shipbuilding programs of a possible sequester later this year or early next year on FY2014 funding and unobligated prior-year funding; 
• the potential impact on the size of the Navy of reducing DOD spending (through sequestration or regular appropriations activity) in FY2013-FY2021 to levels at or near the lower caps established in the Budget Control Act of 2011; 
• the future size and structure of the Navy in light of strategic and budgetary changes; 
• the sufficiency of the 30-year shipbuilding plan for achieving the Navy’s goal for a 306-ship fleet; and 
• the affordability of the 30-year shipbuilding plan.

Funding levels and legislative activity on individual Navy shipbuilding programs are tracked in detail in other CRS reports.


Date of Report: November 8, 2013
Number of Pages: 92
Order Number: RL32665
Price: $29.95


To Order:

RL32665 .pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881


For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing

Coast Guard Cutter Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress - R42567

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

The Coast Guard’s program of record (POR) calls for procuring 8 National Security Cutters (NSCs), 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters (OPCs), and 58 Fast Response Cutters (FRCs) as replacements for 90 aging Coast Guard cutters and patrol craft. The NSC, OPC, and FRC programs have a combined estimated acquisition cost of about $21.1 billion, and the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requests a total of $716 million in acquisition funding for the three programs.

NSCs are the Coast Guard’s largest and most capable general-purpose cutters. They have an estimated average procurement cost of about $684 million per ship. The first three are now in service, the fourth, fifth, and sixth are under construction, and long lead time materials (LLTM) for the seventh are being procured. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $616 million in acquisition funding for the seventh NSC; it does not request any funding for long lead time materials (LLTM) for the eighth NSC, which is scheduled to be procured in FY2015. OPCs are to be smaller, less expensive, and in some respects less capable than NSCs. They have an estimated average procurement cost of about $484 million per ship. The first OPC is to be procured in FY2017. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $25 million in acquisition funding for the OPC program.

FRCs are considerably smaller and less expensive than OPCs. They have an estimated average procurement cost of about $73 million per boat. A total of 24 have been funded through FY2013, and the first seven had been commissioned into service as of November 16, 2013. The Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $75 million in acquisition funding for two FRCs and associated program costs.

Potential oversight issues for Congress regarding the NSC, OPC, and FRC programs include the following:

•         the impact on the NSC, OPC, and FRC programs of the March 1, 2013, sequester on FY2013 funding;

• the potential impact on the NSC, OPC, and FRC programs of a possible sequester on FY2014 funding that might occur in late 2013 or early 2014 under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011;

• the adequacy of the Coast Guard’s planned NSC, OPC, and FRC procurement quantities;

• the lack of a request in the Coast Guard’s proposed FY2014 budget for acquisition funding for long lead time materials (LLTM) to support the procurement of an eighth NSC in FY2015;

• the Coast Guard’s FY2014 request for acquisition funding for two (rather than six) FRCs;

• delays, cost growth, and testing issues in the FRC program;

• the $25 million in acquisition funding requested for FY2014 for the OPC program, which is one-half of the $50 million that was projected for FY2014 under the Coast Guard’s FY2013 budget submission;


• the Coast Guard’s acquisition strategy for the OPC;

• the potential for using multiyear procurement (MYP) in acquiring new cutters;

• whether 8 NSCs, 25 OPCs, and 58 FRCs is the best mix of cutters that could be procured for roughly the same total amount of acquisition funding; and

• the adequacy of information available to Congress to support review and oversight of Coast Guard procurement programs, including cutter procurement programs.

Date of Report: November 18, 2013
Number of Pages: 62
Order Number: R42567
Price: $29.95


To Order:

R42567 .pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881


For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processin

Navy Ship Names: Background For Congress - RS22478

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers in recent years have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships. The report, which was submitted in response to Section 1014 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of December 31, 2011), states: “Current ship naming policies and practices fall well within the historic spectrum of policies and practices for naming vessels of the Navy, and are altogether consistent with ship naming customs and traditions.”

For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows:

• Aircraft carriers are generally named for past U.S. Presidents. Of the last 14, 10 were named for past U.S. Presidents, and 2 for Members of Congress.

• Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states.

• Destroyers are named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy.

• Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) are being named for regionally important U.S. cities and communities.

• Amphibious assault ships are being named for important battles in which U.S. Marines played a prominent part, and for famous earlier U.S. Navy ships that were not named for battles.

• San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S. cities and communities, and cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001.

• Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition ships were named for famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers.

• Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships/Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSBs) are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S. Marines.

The Navy historically has only rarely named ships for living persons. Since 1973, at least 15 U.S. military ships have been named for persons who were living at the time the name was announced. Members of the public are sometimes interested in having Navy ships named for their own states or cities, for older U.S. Navy ships (particularly those on which they or their relatives served), for battles in which they or their relatives participated, or for people they admire.

Congress has long maintained an interest in how Navy ships are named, and has influenced the naming of certain Navy ships. The Navy suggests that congressional offices wishing to express support for proposals to name a Navy ship for a specific person, place, or thing contact the office of the Secretary of the Navy to make their support known. Congress may also pass legislation
relating to ship names. Measures passed by Congress in recent years regarding Navy ship names have all been sense-of-the-Congress provisions.


Date of Report: November 19, 2013
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: RS22478
Price: $29.95


To Order:

RS22478 .pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881


For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processin