Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a relatively inexpensive Navy surface combatant equipped with modular “plug-and-fight” mission packages. The Navy wants to field a force of 55 LCSs.

The first two LCSs (LCS-1 and LCS-2) were procured in FY2005 and FY2006 and were commissioned into service on November 8, 2008, and January 16, 2010, respectively. Six more (LCSs 3 through 8) were procured in FY2009-FY2011 at a rate of two ships per year; these ships are now under construction.

The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requests funding to procure four more LCSs (hulls 9 through 12). Navy plans call for procuring an additional 15 LCSs in FY2013-FY2016 in annual quantities of 4-4-4-3.

There are two very different LCS designs—one developed and produced by an industry team led by Lockheed, and another developed and produced by an industry team led by General Dynamics. The Lockheed design is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI; the General Dynamics design is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL.

On November 3, 2010, the Navy notified congressional offices that it was prepared to implement a dual-award acquisition strategy under which the Navy would award each LCS builder a 10-ship contract for the six-year period FY2010-FY2015. The Navy needed additional legislative authority from Congress to implement the dual-award strategy. Congress granted the authority in Section 150 of H.R. 3082/P.L. 111-322 of December 22, 2010. On December 29, 2010, the Navy implemented the dual-award strategy, awarding a 10-ship, fixed-price incentive (FPI) block-buy contract to Lockheed, and another 10-ship, FPI block-buy contract to Austal USA. LCSs 5 through 8 are the first four LCSs executed under the two block-buy contracts.

Current issues for Congress concerning the LCS program include the Navy’s lack of economic order quantity (EOQ) authority for executing the two block-buy contracts, changes or potential changes to the composition of LCS mission modules announced by the Navy in January 2011, the combat survivability of the LCS, and hull cracking on LCS-1.


Date of Report: June 23, 2011
Number of Pages: 77
Order Number: RL33741
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

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

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

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 in February 2006 presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of 313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. Since then, the Navy has changed its desired quantities for some of those ship types, and the Navy’s goals now add up to a desired fleet of 328 ships.

The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requests funding for the procurement of 10 new battle force ships (i.e., ships that count against the 328-ship goal). The 10 ships include two Virginia-class attack submarines, one DDG-51 class Aegis destroyer, four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), one LPD-17 class amphibious ship, one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship (i.e., a maritime prepositioning ship), and one Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV). The Navy’s five-year (FY2012- FY2016) shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress in conjunction with the Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget, includes a total of 55 new battle force ships, or an average of 11 per year. Of the 55 ships in the plan, 27, or almost half, are relatively inexpensive LCSs or JHSVs.

The Navy’s FY2012 30-year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan, submitted to Congress in late May 2011, includes 276 ships. The FY2012 30-year plan does not include enough ships to fully support all elements of the Navy’s de facto 328-ship goal over the long run. Among other things, the Navy projects that the cruiser-destroyer and attack submarine forces would drop substantially below required levels in the latter years of the 30-year plan.

A June 2011 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the cost of the Navy’s FY2012 30- year (FY2012-FY2041) shipbuilding plan estimates that the plan would cost an average of $18.0 billion per year in constant FY2011 dollars to implement, or about 16% more than the Navy estimates. CBO’s estimate is about 7% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the first ten years of the plan, about 10% higher than the Navy’s estimate for the second ten years of the plan, and about 31% 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.

Issues for Congress include the sufficiency of the Navy’s FY2012 30-year shipbuilding plan for achieving and maintaining the Navy’s 328-ship goal, the affordability of the FY2012 30-year shipbuilding plan, and proposals that some study groups have made for Navy ship force structure.


Date of Report: June 23, 2011
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: RL32665
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

The Navy has been procuring Virginia (SSN-774) class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) since FY1998. Fourteen have been procured through FY2011, and another two are requested for FY2012. The eight boats to be procured in the five-year period FY2009-FY2013 (boats 11 through 18, in annual quantities of 1-1-2-2-2) are being procured under a multiyear procurement (MYP) arrangement.

The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requests $3,232.2 million in procurement funding to complete the procurement cost of the 15th and 16th Virginia-class boats. The FY2012 budget estimates the combined procurement cost of these two boats at $5,142.8 million, and under Navy budget plans the boats are to receive a total of $1,910.5 million in prior-year advance procurement (AP) and Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) funding. The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget also requests $1,524.8 million in AP funding for Virginia-class boats to be procured in future years.

The Navy’s 30-year SSN procurement plan, if implemented, would not be sufficient to maintain a force of 48 SSNs consistently over the long run. The Navy projects that the SSN force will fall below 48 boats starting in 2024, reach a minimum of 39 boats in 2030, and remain below 48 boats through 2041.

Potential issues for Congress regarding the Virginia-class program include the following: 

• the Virginia-class procurement rate in coming years, particularly in the context of the projected SSN shortfall and the larger debate over future U.S. defense strategy and defense spending; 
• the Navy’s plans for inserting new technologies into the Virginia-class design; 
• whether the Navy should build at least some Virginia-class boats in future years with an additional mid-body section equipped with large-diameter vertical launch tubes suitable for cruise missiles, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), and other payloads; and 
• the reliability of in-service Virginia-class boats.

Date of Report: June 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: RL32418
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs

Procurement of Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers resumed in FY2010 after a fouryear hiatus. Congress funded the procurement of one DDG-51 in FY2010, and two more in FY2011. The Navy’s FY2012 budget submission calls for procuring one DDG-51 in FY2012, and seven more in FY2013-FY2016.

DDG-51s to be procured through FY2015 are to be of the current Flight IIA design. The Navy wants to begin procuring a new version of the DDG-51 design, called the Flight III design, starting in FY2016. The Flight III design is to feature, among other design changes, a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). The Navy plans to begin preliminary design work on the Flight III DDG-51 in FY2012, and wants to use a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract for DDG-51s to be procured from FY2013 through FY2017.

The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget requests $1,980.7 million in procurement funding for the DDG-51 planned for procurement in FY2012. This funding, together with $48.0 million in advance procurement funding provided in FY2011, would complete the ship’s total estimated procurement cost of $2,028.7 million. The Navy’s proposed FY2012 budget also requests $100.7 million in advance procurement funding for two DDG-51s planned for procurement in FY2013, $453.7 million in procurement funding to help complete procurement costs for the three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers that were procured in FY2007 and FY2009, and $166.6 million in research and development funding for the AMDR.

Issues for Congress include the following: 

• whether actions—such as adding DDG-51s to the Navy’s shipbuilding plan and/or extending the lives of existing Flight I/II DDG-51s beyond current Navy plans—should be taken to mitigate a significant shortfall in cruisers and destroyers that is projected to begin in the 2020s; 
• the contract status of the second and third ships in the DDG-1000 program; 
• whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s proposal to develop the Flight III DDG-51 design and start procuring it in FY2016; 
• whether it would be appropriate for the Navy to use a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract in FY2013-FY2017 to procure one or more Flight III DDG-51s; 
• the development status of the AMDR; 
• whether Flight III DDG-51s should be procured to a lengthened configuration that includes an additional 32 vertical launch system (VLS) missile cells in the forward part of the ship; and 
• whether to procure, in addition to DDG-51s, one or more adjunct radar ships to further strengthen Navy air and missile defense capabilities.

Date of Report: June 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 38
Order Number: RL32109
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Military Construction: Analysis of the FY2012 Appropriation and Authorization

Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense

This report focuses on those government activities funded under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 military construction appropriation, examines trends in military construction funding, and outlines military construction issues extant in each of the major regions of U.S. military activity.

President Barack Obama submitted his FY2012 appropriations request to Congress on February 14, 2011. His military construction appropriations request for $14.7 billion in new budget authority fell approximately $9.9 billion below the amount enacted for FY2010 and $3.0 billion below that enacted for FY2011. Much of that reduction came from military base closure accounts. Initiated in late 2005, the current base realignment and closure (BRAC) round is expected to conclude in September 2011. Funding needed in FY2010 and FY2011 for construction and movement of organizations will not be needed in FY2012 and subsequent years. In addition, the President requested less regular military construction for FY2012 than in earlier years. Finally, funding for construction supporting Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO, or active military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), appropriations for which totaled $1.4 billion in FY2010 and $1.3 billion in FY2011, has been virtually eliminated, with only $217 million in the regular FY2012 appropriation requested for construction within U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The first military construction bill (H.R. 2055) was passed by the House on June 14, 2011.

Construction issues within the United States center on relocations associated with the BRAC movements, the proposed transfer of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from Norfolk, VA, to Mayport, FL, the potential to move detainees from Naval Station Guantanamo, and the possible expansion of the Army’s Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site.

In the Pacific region, topics of major interest include planned relocations of U.S. Marine forces within the Japanese Prefecture of Okinawa and from Okinawa to the U.S. Territory of Guam, movement of U.S. garrisons in the Republic of Korea, and normalization of duty there, which will lengthen tours and bring many more military families to Korea.

Troops are also moving within Europe and redeploying to the United States. Active duty military personnel stationed in Europe now number only one-quarter of the force present in 1980, and garrisons in Germany are being concentrated into two large military communities near Landstuhl and Vilseck. At least one major combat formation scheduled to move to the United States during the past few years has been retained at its garrison in Germany pending a military basing review.

Military responsibility for much of Africa is now exercised by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Though headquartered in Germany, AFRICOM has one enduring military garrison site on the continent, at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti. Press accounts have indicated that a new permanent home for AFRICOM headquarters might be located in southeastern Virginia.

Southwest Asia, the area of responsibility for CENTCOM, has seen ongoing military operations for almost a decade. Since FY2004, Congress has given DOD special authority to use some operations and maintenance funds for military construction outside of the normal appropriations process. H.R. 1540, the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, would extend that authority into FY2012. Funds for military construction had been provided through special emergency supplemental appropriations, but beginning in FY2010, these funds were folded into the base budget—though still categorized separately from normal construction requests. CENTCOM construction has fallen with the FY2012 request.


Date of Report: June 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41885
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.