US Navy can’t hide its flagging fleet
US Navy brass goes quiet on internal report showing 11 years of shipbuilding delays and setbacks, and no clear plan to fill emerging capability gaps
The US Navy faces shipbuilding delays and setbacks threatening multiple critical capabilities, challenges the service is apparently trying to hide from public view and scrutiny.
The US Navy broke with tradition by canceling ship briefings at its largest US trade show, the Sea-Air-Space Exposition held earlier this month in Washington DC, Politico reported.The cancellation followed a damning internal report outlining the failure of the service and its industrial partners to make expected progress on two submarine programs, an aircraft carrier and a new class of frigates.
Politico states that the US Navy’s top admiral and civilian secretary have not responded to questions about the report, which highlights 11 years of delays across the affected programs.
The report asserts that the delays in so many programs critical to how the US projects power across the globe are virtually unprecedented and result from decades of underinvestment in shipyards while relying on a shrinking number of shipbuilders to build the US fleet.
In particular, the US Navy faces delays in its Constellation-class frigate program based on the FREMM design used by several European navies. The Politico report mentions that the US Navy aims to keep 85% of the frigate as-is and avoid including too many new technologies to reduce costs and risks.
However, it says the version built at a Wisconsin shipyard shares only 15% commonality with the original design, and that the US Navy is still modifying it. The report adds that the US Navy is working to finalize plans this year but the constant changes have led to increased costs and delays.
Politico mentions that the Pentagon is investing billions in modernizing shipyards and ensuring well-funded supply chains. However, it notes that legislators have criticized the US Navy’s plans to grow the fleet as too slow and that lawmakers are expected to press the issue with US Navy brass when they visit Capitol Hill to defend their budget proposal.
The shipbuilding woes may have a cascading effect on multiple naval capabilities, ranging from force projection to nuclear deterrence and surface warfare.
This month, Asia Times reported that the US amphibious warfare ship fleet faces a severe capability gap. Aging ships, long-range standoff weapons and indecision about fleet modernization have conspired to compromise America’s forward presence and expeditionary warfare capabilities.
US Marine Corps (USMC) officials have made public remarks about the number of in-service amphibious ships that are not operationally ready due to maintenance and repair work.
In that connection, the US Navy has proposed to decommission three Whidbey-class amphibious dock landing ships in its 2024 budget, citing their poor condition despite not reaching the end of their planned 40-year lifespan.
However, the US Navy is legally required to maintain a fleet of 31 amphibious warfare ships and cannot decommission older ships without replacements. As such, the navy has been unable to fully meet requests from regional combat commanders to maintain a forward presence or respond to contingencies.
Delays in the US carrier program, meanwhile, could further strain the overstretched US carrier fleet, opening gaps in US power projection capabilities.
This month, Asia Times noted that delays in the next Gerard R Ford supercarrier until September 2029 could further impact the US naval shipbuilding base, resulting in losses of hard-to-replace skilled manpower.
This delay could also affect the US nuclear submarine industrial base, as both share critical technologies such as nuclear propulsion.
Moreover, long carrier production gaps will shrink the US Navy’s 11 already-overstretched carriers. The definite lifespan of their nuclear cores means the US Navy can only keep two out of an ideal three carriers forward-deployed indefinitely.
The US sea-based nuclear deterrent may also suffer due to delays in the US carrier program. The loss of nuclear-propulsion know-how, combined with other factors, may result in fewer nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) for strategic deterrence.
This month, Asia Times noted that the US might operate even fewer SSBNs due to a long-term disarmament policy, rising costs and improvements in anti-submarine sensor technology.
The long-term US nuclear disarmament policy means each new generation of SSBNs has 40% fewer ships than the previous one and that the high cost of deploying a few warheads on an expensive system may lead the US to operate just seven next-generation SSBNs by 2060.
While the US Navy has attempted to increase fleet numbers by reintroducing frigates into its force mix, it seems unlikely that a surge in production of these general-purpose warships can match China’s fleet numbers.
In May 2023, Asia Times reported that the US plans to increase production of Constellation-class frigates from two ships at one shipyard per year to production at two shipyards. The US Navy initially committed to acquiring 20 ships but the desire to add a second shipyard could yield 40 more ships in the next ten years, with around 50 being the ideal number.
However, that may be a tall order given the numerical disparity between the US Navy and China’s People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N), the world’s largest in ship numbers.
With 370 ships as of October 2023, the PLA-N fleet is expected to grow to 400 by 2025 and 440 by 2030, making the US plan for 280 ships by 2027 and 363 ships by 2045 small in comparison.
China owes its naval shipbuilding prowess to its civil-military fusion strategy, which leverages its position as the world’s largest shipbuilder into warship production.
Tellingly, most naval engagements throughout history have been won by superior fleet numbers and rarely by technological advantage.
While the US has considered outsourcing naval shipbuilding to allies and partners, that approach faces legal and strategic challenges.
Patrick Dennan notes in a July 2023 Real Clear Defense article that the US Navy is studying using Japan’s shipyards for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) tasks to reduce service backlogs in the US. He mentions that the concept could be applied to South Korea, Singapore and the Philippines.
Along those lines, the Korea Herald reported in February 2024 that US Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro visited the shipyards of HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (HD HHI) and Hanwha Ocean to explore their naval shipbuilding capabilities for supporting the US Navy fleet in Asia. The Korea Herald also mentions that HD HHI applied for a Master Ship Repair Agreement in 2023 to qualify for US Navy ship MRO tasks.
However, the protectionist 1920 Jones Act requires all US warships and merchant ships to be assembled and serviced in the US by American staff and manned by American crews.
Matthew Paxton argues in a March 2024 Defense News article that outsourcing US naval shipbuilding would act to further weaken America’s naval shipbuilding base and ultimately undermine US sovereignty.
Paxton argues that many of the capabilities needed to boost US naval shipbuilding can already be found in the US. He states that the best way forward would be to adopt a naval shipbuilding approach that applies economies of scale and leverages US best commercial shipbuilding practices.