Skip to Main Content

If More Money Buys a Smaller Fleet, What Will Less Money Buy?

America's Shrinking Navy

Part 1: If More Money Buys a Smaller Fleet; What Will Less Money Buy?

Part 2: More than the Navy's Numbers Could be Sinking

Part 3: Is the Fleet Steaming Forward .... or Backward?

This series first appeared on TIME's Battleland Blog. Part one of three.

During the third debate of the presidential campaign, President Obama hammered Mitt Romney with a clever retort when Romney pointed out-accurately-that the U.S. Navy had become "the smallest since 1917."

"We also have fewer horses.the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers.."Romney appeared to have been caught flat-footed and had no rebuttal, nor even an explanation of what he meant by his numerical comparison of today's Navy with the fleet of 1917.

All over the internet I read comments about how foolish Romney was to not understand that the 2012 Navy could easily sink the one we had in 1917; he clearly did not understand-they said-that today's navy was infinitely more capable: It may have been shrinking in numbers of ships in recent history, but each one is more effective-not only compared to any 1917 museum pieces, but also to what is being replaced now.

Moreover, no foreign navy can even begin to compare, they say: we have more aircraft carriers and at-sea strike aircraft than the rest of the world combined; we can deliver infinitely more precision-guided weapons than the U.S. Navy of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and, as one widely-respected analyst put it, "the more than 8,000 missile launchers on our surface fleet give it missile firepower greater than the next 20 navies all cases exceeding or greatly exceeding the rest of the world's fleet's combined.

Just like Romney's "smallest since 1917," the data portions of these statements may be technically accurate, but they also are irrelevant, if not misinforming: the threats we face at sea are neither from the Kaiser's High Seas Fleet nor from anyone seeking to mirror image the U.S. force.

The threats our Navy faces, just like the rest of our armed forces, come from known and unknown enemies who study us and are developing-more accurately, already have developed-potential ways to defeat us.

Against those real threats, we are in terrible shape-possibly worse than we were in 1917 relative to the naval threat from the Kaiser. And, if we proceed with business as usual, the threats loom only larger.

Shrinking Numbers

If numbers mean anything - and they do - we are headed in the wrong direction. Even if it is not President Obama's conscious plan to shrink the Navy from its current number of 284 "battleforce" ships to 250, as Romney and his surrogates disingenuously charged, that shrinkage-perhaps more-is what is very likely to happen.

Keep in mind that since 2001, the Navy's "base" budget (not including the additional amounts to fight the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere) increased dramatically. However, since 2001 the size of the Navy's battlefleet shrank.

According to the Congressional Research Service, during the George W. Bush years (2001-2008), the fleet shrank 11% (from 316 ships to 282) as the Navy's "base" (non-war) budget grew 51% in inflation-adjusted ("constant") dollars. With continuing budget increases, Obama has managed to increase the fleet since 2008 by a grand total of two ships, to 284. These trends are longstanding: for decades, the unit-cost of ships growing at a rate higher than the budget has meant more money buys fewer ships.

Recent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the prospects for the Navy's growing in the future are quite dim. CBO estimates that to implement the Navy's current 30-year shipbuilding plan (to increase the fleet from 284 to the projected 310 to 316 warships) will require average annual spending of $22 billion, not the $17 billion the Navy estimates. However, even the Navy's unrealistically-low projection is well above the $11 billion for shipbuilding in the Navy's 2013 budget, or the $12 billion it plans to seek, on average, for the next five years.

Table 7: Navy and CBO Estimates of Cost of 30 Year Shipbuilding

Congressional Budget Office

It is completely unrealistic to anticipate even the Navy's low-ball future spending levels: No one is anticipating the kind of Pentagon spending increases these higher shipbuilding figures will require, and for naval shipbuilding even to retain its current level of spending, let alone increase, will require it to "eat" spending elsewhere in the Navy's budget, or in one of the other military services' budgets.

CBO Estimates of Annual Shipbuilding Costs

Neither is particularly likely.

The Navy also seeks increases in other parts of its own budget, especially in other forms of procurement, specifically for the F-35C fighter-bomber (which will cost multiples to buy and operate compared to existing F-18 aircraft). As the Pentagon's and the Navy's budgets shrink in the foreseeable future, the money for an expanded Navy is simply not there.

In October, Admiral Mark Ferguson, the vice chief of naval operations, testified to the inevitable naval force reductions; he estimated that the budget levels contemplated by the Budget Control Act's sequestration-i.e. spending levels just nine percent below currently projected spending levels-could result in a fleet somewhere between 230-235 ships in about ten years. It is possible that Obama's current budget negotiations with the Republicans on Capitol Hill may end up with a Pentagon budget not at low as that mandated by sequestration, at least for the short term. But spending levels even lower-over the longer term-are also highly possible. In any case, the major increases needed for achieving the Navy's current shipbuilding plan are not going to materialize.

The Effect of Unaffordable Ships and Planning Gimmicks

CBO has testified that a realistic long-term inventory is somewhere between 170 and 270 ships, depending on the type of ships that the Navy seeks to buy. Considering the Navy's strong preference for high-end ships, the potential for further cost growth and CBO's substantially higher re-estimates, the number of actual ships is likely to be in the mid-to-lower parts of the 170-270 range.

For example, CBO estimates the new-generation aircraft carrier, CVN-78, to cost $14.2 billion, not the $13.1 billion the Navy projects; CBO projects the "Flight III" DDG-51 to cost $2.4 billion, not $2.2 billion, and another study found that CBO estimate may be $1.2 billion too low. Also, CBO estimates the existing Littoral Combat Ships to cost $770-800 million and the for total program average to be $500 million per ship; meanwhile the Navy projects a $440 million unit cost (all in constant dollars). The Navy's habitual under-estimating its own costs simply means that still more money in the future can buy only fewer ships, and if costs are even higher than CBO's estimate, which CBO says may happen, it all gets worse.

None of this is helped by the way the Navy bureaucracy games its own shipbuilding plans. For example, although the Navy reduced the number of ships in the 2013 30-year ship building plan, compared to the 2012 plan, the cost of the new-smaller-plan is actually higher (again in constant dollars): the Navy removed many lower cost ships and added higher cost ones, while reducing the total number only marginally.

In doing so it also dropped 24 logistics ships which it knows will have to be added back in later on, thereby insuring that the funds projected to complete the fleet are even more inadequate, and proving CBO was right to say that its own estimates may be too low.

In addition, the Navy arbitrarily assumed ships, such as destroyers, would have a lifespan of 40 years, rather than the 30 years that such combatants have typically served. Recently, the Navy has attempted to retire some ships even before 30 years.

Finally, to achieve its increased fleet, the Navy's immediate plan is to decrease the number of ships built each year: with a plan that requires an average of nine ships to be built each year, the Navy plans to reduce the number of ships procured to seven in 2014 and eight in 2015. In as much as it is the near term budgets that are the ones that actually occur, the short term plan to reduce shipbuilding should be taken as prologue for the most likely budget future.

Put simply, the Navy's under-estimates of its own costs, unrealistic projections of what money will be available, and shipbuilding plan gimmicks all add up to a fleet that will be declining in numbers, even with increased funding.

The precise size of the future fleet is unknown, but it is unreasonable to expect it to retain its current size. The shrinkage will be exacerbated if the Navy retains its multiple shipbuilding psychoses: the number of battleforce ships may tend toward the lesser numbers (approaching 170) that CBO has testified to.

In the likely event of less, not more, money, the negative trends will accelerate.

Next: The Navy's capabilities-threats mismatch

By: Winslow Wheeler
Director, Straus Military Reform Project, CDI at POGO, POGO

Winslow Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight Mr. Wheeler's areas of expertise include Congress, the Defense Budget, National Security, Pentagon Reform and Weapons Systems

Topics: National Security

Authors: Winslow Wheeler

Submitted by Ted in CA at: January 25, 2013
I am sorta shocked by the comments on this piece. I am a big fan of POGO and I think that there is a lot of truth in this report. However, the reaction to it is astounding to me. The one comment that is cogent and directly relates to the article is also wildly flawed. Mr. Charles, you took one class at Harvard however the concepts you think you know about are based upon knowledge that is incomplete or has become less relevant over time. You are right in some regards, there should be a closer examination on what is being acquired and what we need to complete our mission. There are many that think F35, LCS, and other programs are misguided and over priced. While you are right in one regard, you are very wrong in your threat analysis. We don't have to just worry about a first strike or deterring one country from our shores. The Navy's purpose is much greater than that and I don't think that you are qualified to offer an opinion on the needs of the Navy or what the right size of our fleet should be just because you studied for a little while at Harvard. I singled your comment out because it was the only one worth replying to, the others are mostly rubbish. At least yours was based upon some sort of logic and directly related to the material at hand.
Submitted by ZZZelda at: December 19, 2012
It clearly is time to slash the bloated military budget! The $ are needed for mental health care, infrastructure, and countless other important aspects of Am life.
Submitted by skyhawkmaintainer at: December 17, 2012
Instead of all these super high tech one aircraft for all missions, there should be fighter and attack aircraft and kept as simple as possible. The Northrop F-20 was one of the best fighter aircraft designed, but when the Air Force ignored it, no third world countries wanted it, and that was designed for them. I spoke with the test pilot at an airshow at NAWS Point Mugu, CA and he said that was one of the best fighter type aircraft he had ever test flown. It was simple and inexpensive. If I were a defense minister, I'd want that airplane in my skies.
Submitted by skyhawkmaintainer at: December 17, 2012
If Anton Flettner could power a ship with wind in 1925 without the conventional sails, why can't we? Hopefully this link with the images will work. Yes, I am a Veteran of Naval Aviation.
Submitted by Charles M. Smith at: December 17, 2012
Back in the 1980s I studied Defense Force Planning and Budgeting with William W. Kaufman at Harvard. While the actual methodology was a bit complex, the principle was simple. Wahat is the threat and what size force do we need to ensure victory against the threat? So, what is the naval threat? As you point out, adding all of the naval power of the rest of the world does not come close to our power. So we need to seriously do the analysis of what we need to counter real threats. My judgement would be we do not need 11 aircraft carrier battle groups, nor the naval version of the F-35 fighter. Re-sizing these programs would just be for starters. The Navy is a great target of opportunity for the needed cuts in the Defense budget. These cuts must be made for the simple reason that we have other domestic issues which can also weaken our country and which must be addressed. Remeber we believe, and it may be partly true, that Reagan forced Soviet military spending to a level which caused the downfall of the Soviet Union.
Submitted by ivanczar at: December 17, 2012
I can see it now drone air craft carriers , loaded with drones , protected by drone subs . Now all we will need are some drone Marines and Sailors . We won't even need Halliurton ripping off defense dollars to provide poison food and water .
Submitted by Dfens at: December 16, 2012
This is a good example of where the outsourcing of naval ship design has basically destroyed our Navy. Back when the Navy designed its own ships, we had a 600 ship Navy that was ready to take on the Soviet Union and China both. Today we can hardly mount a naval assault on a single small South Pacific island without help from other countries. We are our own worst enemy. Our defense contractors are destroying our Navy just to make a buck, and our Navy officers are right there with them selling us out. These people are an embarrassment to our nation!
Submitted by at: December 15, 2012
Congratulations - you not-in-the-know have produced one of the stupidest e-mails I've gotten. Do you really think you know more than the President, Defense Dept, Cia, Congress, Congressional Appropriations committee??? Tell me abour Coast Guard "rightables," & the elite, new line of high-speed cutters, and where in the world do they go ? Then, start with the Navy. I assume you're all in active & reserve service, with high ranks. Who has 3 times more fighters, Air Force, or Navy, and why? Where is the Naval Subsurface Atlantic fleet stationed, and why? How about the Russias?
Submitted by Jack at: December 15, 2012
America has no need for this bloated navy that was never designed to rule the world. We need to end corporate militarism and replace it with peaceful missions that will make America a wold leader in peace instead of a world leader in terrorism.

Leave A Comment

Enter this word: Change

Browse POGOBlog by Topic

POGO on Facebook

POGOBlog Contributors

See All Blog Contributors

Latest Podcast

Podcast; Social Media, Internet Provides Opportunities, Challenges for Lawmakers

The Congressional Management Foundation offers the Gold Mouse Awards annually to members of Congress who make the most of the opportunity the digital world offers them. POGO spoke with members of Rep. Mike Honda's communications team about their award.