Home » Budget Industry » Document: Report to Congress on Increasing U.S. Navy Fleet Size


Document: Report to Congress on Increasing U.S. Navy Fleet Size

The following is the Sept. 16, 2016 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Force Structure: A Bigger Fleet? Background and Issues for Congress. 

  • Marcd30319

    Unbelievable. In the late 1970s, when Reagan and Lehman were advocating for a 600-ship Navy, the opposition asserted that the US Navy could get by with a 450ship Navy. Now we are debating about a 300-ship Navy with a high-end of 350. And lest we forget, our Navy is still benefiting from the 600-ship Navy that Ronald Reagan and John Lehman helped to create in the 1980s. Where is the vision? Where is the political courage to support our Navy?

  • Machia

    Trump . He will be your “Reagan “.
    A vote for the liar and you’ll see that 300 ship Navy .

    • PolicyWonk

      According to the GOP, the Democrats, PolitiFact, the foreign press, and anyone who follows foreign/military affairs, understands out government, and is seriously current in national affairs – Trump IS the liar.

      Don’t bother pretending that Mr. Trump will hallucinate up or double the size of the navy or anything else, because its obvious from his speeches he doesn’t have the slightest idea of how the government (or military) works. And BTW, Mr. Trump is NO Ronald Reagan – he is as far from Reagan as one can get while still pretending to be a republican.

      But thanks for posting – I needed a good laugh 😀

  • John Locke

    Too many can’t see through the numbers to realize the increase in capability. It’s not that we don’t have enough ships to counter our foes, it’s that our ships are being employed poorly.

  • John B. Morgen

    We should shoot for a 500 ship Navy, until we have established a better intelligence about the Russian and Chinese navies. Our Navy needs a new cruiser class, and a new Burkes DDGs Flight IV. We should cancel the Admiral Zamwalt program, and also the two LCS programs. We also need to increase the submarine, minesweeper, and auxiliary, fleets.

    • Secundius

      We’ll Be LUCKY JustTo Reach the Proposed 308-Ships…

      • John B. Morgen

        Trump has stated that he [will] increase the size of the United States military. Of course, I really don’t know what Hillary will do, I just hope that she doesn’t follow President Obama’s foot steps of handling the military.

        • Secundius

          Unless TRUMP plans to Reactivate the “Enrollment” Act of 1863 or Send Militarized “Press Gangs” Out On the Street, For FORCED Enrollment to Fill the Ranks. He’s Going To Have A Problem. The Air Force is already Projecting a ~2,000-Pilots “Shortfall” Over the Next 5-Years. Since 2000, Less That 0.037% of the Country’s Population Actually Serve? And WHY Should Day, When the US Congress KEEPS Cutting and Eliminating “Benefits” Promised To Them Upon Enlistment. The Military of Today, is Like the Roman Legions. 25-year Enlistments and You’re Free To Go…

          • John B. Morgen

            I’m too old to be in the service, I’m a senior citizen. The American military wouldn’t have the need for me, unless they rehire me as military/naval historian. The People would revolt against Trump’s actions, if he wanted to reactivate the Enrollment Act. Or he start drafting people into military service for four years, or longer terms depending on what MOS the draftees have been assigned to. I doubt Trump would resort to such political action because Congress would have spend a lot more funding; plus, there’s some possible Constitution issues that the lawyers will challenge Trump in the Federal courts

          • Secundius

            ME TOO! The Military as it Stands is Set Up to Fight 2.5 Wars and 4 “Brush” Wars at One Time. Currently Were (the USA) are In THREE Wars. The War in North-West Pakistan (2004 to ?), Operation: Inherent Resolve” aka War on ISIL (2014 to ?) and the Second War in Afghanistan (2015 to ?). NOW were Facing a Possible “Joint” War with the PRC & the Russian Federation, War with Mexico (the WALL) and the 3%’s WISHING for a Second Revolutionary/Civil War within the United States…

          • John B. Morgen

            Building the [WALL] and having Mexico to pay for it. This idea is coming from a delusional man. This issue will destroy our relationship with Mexico, or start small brush fires along the border. As for the Second Revolutionary War or Civil War, it is quite possible. All empires do come to an end, and the American Roman Empire is [NO] exemption. Something is going to pop in form of riots over shootings by police, and the non-existence of justice. The American Roman Empire is going to fall apart because it is unable to adjust to the changing times.

          • Secundius

            Mexican Military is ~290,000 Strong! And a “Bunch” of 3%’s Want to Start a 2nd Revolution/Civil War and have a “Possible” Shooting War with Mexico Too. And THESE “Idiots” think that Putin will Come To the Rescue and Save the Day. And Make Thing RIGHT Again in the USA as it was SET IN STONE by the “Founding Fathers”. “GMAFB”…

          • John B. Morgen

            We got too many conflicts going on , and we [do not need a conflict with Mexico]. Let’s face it, the United States Constitution is being eroded by partisan politics, which the document is showing cracks in the system. As for President Putin, he will consolidate the former Soviet Union Empire, by retaking the Ukraine by force; and we will not do bloody thing about it. Because our leaders are not Lions or Tigers, but as mere house cats.

          • Secundius

            I’m in Total Agreement. But Explaining IT to All Those “3%’s Knuckleheads”, is Go to Be Daunting Task. Because There ALL “Kadavergehorsam”, Unquestioning Blind Obedient to a Perceived Cause of the Own Making. Total Abandonment, without Compromise to Others that AREN’T Following “THEIR” Cause…

          • John B. Morgen

            There’s no chance of changing the 3% delusional minds, so we could afford to lose them, if that type of option becomes available. There’s always an antithesis and thesis at work, it is just picking right time to remove these dangerous people. Several nation-states have gone through such up-evil events in history that required military action. Sometimes the State will win, and sometimes the State loses to the delusional minds.

          • Secundius

            What the So Called 3%’s Think that the Founding Fathers DIDN’T Leave Safeguards Inside the US Constitution Preventing “Insurrection”. The Founding Fathers Weren’t STUPID! If they Actually Look Hard Enough, They’ll Find Them. And After 247-years, ~11,000 Additional Safeguards were Amended into the US Constitution Making It EVEN Harder to Start a Revolution/Civil War. The Ironic Thing Is, In Endorsing the “Patriot Act”, Sealed Their Fate. US Congress, Used Their Own FEARS to Create What They Feared the Most, CHANGE…

          • John B. Morgen

            The United States Constitution cannot prevent any form of [insurrection] from taking place. The Fifth Column is always organized in secret from the authorities, and also, always have the initiative to carryout the first strike at the government. At the most part I agreed with your last comment—[“Change’] is an evil word.

          • Secundius

            Proclamation 104 of 15 September 1863: “Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus Throughout the United States” . Or 12 Statue 755 (3 March 1863), The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act…

          • John B. Morgen

            All that is quite fine if you want to govern the state during bad times, but, and again, the Constitution cannot prevent uprisings from starting. The Constitution really deals with the after effects, which will end up in the courts.

          • Secundius

            the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, was already used during WW2. the West Coast was Attacked by the Imperial Japanese at Least 4 Times during WW2 and NEVER made Press or Radio UNTIL After WW2…

          • John B. Morgen

            I have heard about a Japanese submarine destroyed a light house by using its main deck gun.

          • Secundius

            They Attacked an Southland Oil Field, North of Santa Barbara in 24 February 1942 and a Oil Derrick owned by the Bankline Oil Company in California. Attacked Ft. Stevens near Astoria, Oregon and started a National Forest Fire by 3 Aichi M6A “Seiran” Submarine-Launched Dive/Torpedo Bomber Floatplanes in June 1942. Attacked the Aleutian Islands, Alaska in 1942. The Estevan Point Lighthouse on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada on 20 June 1942 and Torpedoed an Shelled the SS. Fort Camosun (pre-WW1 Coastal Steamer) off Cape Flattery, Washington State Attacked Reactor B (by Happenstance) while Under Construction by Fu-Go’s (Balloon Bombs) at Hanford Washington State in 10 March 1945. And the Family of the Rev. Archie Mitchell near Bly, Oregon in 5 May 1945 by a Fu-Go. And That Was JUST the Imperial Japanese…

          • John B. Morgen

            My mom told me about a Japanese submarine took out a Canadian light house, but then again I have read about the Japanese submarines sunk a few merchant ships off the West coasts of the United States; furthermore, I knew about forest fires in Oregon and Washington. However, I never heard anything about the Japanese attacking Santa Barbara, California. That’s news for me—thank you!

          • Secundius

            Guess What Country “NOT” in Europe “WANT’S” to become a Member of the NATO Alliance?

          • John B. Morgen

            It’s either Vietnam or the Philippines. Right?

          • Secundius

            New Granada-Saundra…

          • John B. Morgen

            That island nation-state wants to join NATO. I wonder why? Isn’t this nation-state under the protection of Great Britain?

          • Secundius

            Not Quite? The Republica de Colombia…

          • John B. Morgen

            Oh! Please explain?

          • Secundius

            It was by Happenstance? I was Looking Up Information about “Bismuth” Suppliers to the United States. And an Adjacent Article talked about Columbia participating in NATO Naval Exercises. And Have Been Doing So for Many Years Know. They Want Spain to Sponsor THEM as a Possible Membership into NATO. Columbia, is a “Wee Bit Leary” Venezuelan Neighbors. In the Article it Mentions “ASM”, ASM being a NATO Reference to American Samoa. Which NATO Considers a Unincorporated Territory of the United States and a Associate Member of the NATO Alliance. Columbia, is Trying through the Help of Spain, to be an Unincorporated Territory of Kingdom of Spain. “A Foot Through the Back Door Approach” to Membership in the Alliance. Likelihood, “Extremely Slim” but Not Impossible…

          • John B. Morgen

            I don’t see it as being impossible, and I would think NATO would be more than happy to allow an ex-Spanish colony (Columbia) to join its organization.

          • Secundius

            Me Neither! But My ONLY Concern is Columbia’s PROXIMITY to Venezuela, and/or Excuse of Joining Because of IT’S Proximity Too Venezuela…

          • John B. Morgen

            It just shows that Columbia fears Venezuela at a profound level than the other Central American nation-states.

          • Secundius

            Two Good Things, Would Be. BOTH Pacific and Atlantic Protective Coverage of the Panama Canal Zone…

          • John B. Morgen

            The Panama Canal does have some importance; although. our carriers cannot pass through. The canal needs to be widen, if not updated.

          • Secundius

            Canal Has been Widen to Accept Super-Panamax class Container Ships. Which have a Water-Line Beam of 180-feet, Nimitz class Aircraft Carriers Water-Line Beam in 134-feet…

          • John B. Morgen

            When was the canal widen because I have not heard any such enterprise from taking place….?

          • Secundius

            The Widened Panama Canal was Reopened 26 June 2016. But in 27 September 2005, CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt was the First US Navy “Nimitz” class Aircraft Carrier “TO” Traverse the Panama Canal Zone…

          • John B. Morgen

            I’d must of have been sleeping when that event took place. Thank you for the information. It was ironic for the United States Navy sent the USS Theodore Roosevelt through the canal, a warship named after the United States president who pushed the construction of the canal.

          • Secundius

            Actually, it was mentioned in an USNI News Article not to Long Ago. Probably within the Last SIX Months…

          • John B. Morgen

            Then it might be in one of my USNI Proceedings, and luckily for me I have been keeping all of my Proceedings as references.

          • Secundius

            As I Recall, it was Either In or Associated with an Article Talking About the Suez Canal…

          • Secundius

            USNI News Archives, doesn’t Seem to Go Back Any Further than 2012. But the was a August 14, 2012 Video Record Titled, Video: USS Theodore Roosevelt Transits the Suez Canal. Nothing Can Be Found As Far As Theodore Roosevelt or ANY OTHER Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier Transiting the Panama Canal. You’ll Probably have to Check “Google, Yahoo or YouTube”…

          • John B. Morgen

            Thanks!

          • Secundius

            It’s Old German “John”! Kadavergehorsam means “Blind Obedience” or “Unquestioning Loyalty”…

          • John B. Morgen

            Bush the Younger was profoundly into [blind obedience] from his loyal subjects.

  • PolicyWonk

    Interesting that none of the ships listed included smaller ships such as the Cyclone class. Instead, they still put a premium on the so-called “littoral combat ship”, which by any measure is heinously expensive, and according to former CNO Adm Jonathan Greenert, “never intended to venture into the littorals to engage in combat”.

    Since we’re building ships that cannot fend for themselves, an additional support network will be required to protect what the navy is still inexplicably pretending is a warship.

    If the Navy needs to move up to 350 ships, acquisition reform would go a long way to helping them get to those numbers. This would still require that they do something about manning the ships – which is very expensive over time. The HoR’s have so far been unwilling to remedy the revenue problems they caused in 2002 that helped lead to the Great Recession (items listed in the CBO report on the topic), so while increasing the size of the navy (to me) is a great idea, the money has to come from somewhere (killing corporate welfare programs and tax breaks for the super wealthy would be a good start).

    Fixing acquisition could save (according to some) more than $100B/year. But that option (even in lean times) never seems to be on the table. Hence – one has to conclude that folks like the system the way it is, and despite there being what they claim is a national security crisis, few are interested in reforming a system that easily garners the US taxpayer the lousiest deal for defense dollar spent.

  • Curtis Conway

    Concerning the LCS Program:
    The US Navy failed to produce something effective, but representing it as a be-all/do-all in the realm of a Small Surface Combatant, have mostly relented to the conclusions drawn by practically every credible critique from Congress (both houses) to your average Surface Warfare naval veteran that has commented on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) from the beginning. The US Navy disappointed many trying to protect the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and its little pet project, while destroying one of the most effective forces in the US Navy, the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate Force. Two factors that were ignored DELIBERATELY and with knowledge of forethought, was the COCOM real-time ‘Presence Mission’ requirements . . . and platforms for US Coast Guard Legal Detachments (LEDET) to have a ride for an expanding US Fisheries Police, Anti-Drug, Anti-Piracy operations. Remember, this US Navy FFG-7 platform was a US Navy Surface Combatant in FACT and capability, not just in name like current LCS designs. How this charade managed to persist for so long is indicative of just how powerful and influential the current MIC is that Dwight David Eisenhower warned us about, and it has taken CHAOS transpiring around the planet in the COCOMs before everyone woke up and figured out what was going on, and WHO was responsible. Now that the ‘Jig Is Up’, the US Navy has decided to do the right thing after all, except for replacing this marginally decent combat system now envisioned, upon an all-ocean Arctic capable platform. They want to keep their speed boat, but they do NOT want to do what is necessary to make it work, and that is have a highly trained and dedicated crew that is the expert of operating each and every one of these unique and temperamental platforms, every one of which will have its own operational and equipage personality. The current US Navy has lost the ability to understand what an average ‘Motorhead’ knows, and that is all equipment, even exactly equal shipsets and parts lists, have their own personality.

    The US Navy now has been driven to make an argument they are building exactly what they said their little platform was not, but has now been represented to be, all because the Blue Water mindset thought they could capture the Brown/Green Water mission with a new platform, while stiffing funds from the US Navy Expeditionary Combat Command and its mission. Our new little frigate will now be a marginally capable small surface combatant escort in the guise of looking like the Destroyer Escorts of old (at least in mission set but not range), all in the pursuit of completing the desired ship-count with as few dollars as possible invested. The LCS design and capabilities has NEVER been equal to the frigate it is replacing, and a cursory review of the program can see it like a blind man from beginning to end. The LCS Program has turned into a delusional pursuit of the impossible with new technology, where a full understanding of the elements at play did not exist, and current concrete missions were ignored, or were given lip service.

    A quote from a recent article about LCS: “The ship [Lockheed-Martin (monohull)] did very well, with far fewer (about 90 percent fewer) problems (or “material deficiencies”) than is usual with the first warship in a class.” . . . UUHHUHHH!

    Then Aviation Week & Space Technology went on board for a tour, and we and all sailors with any integrity, discovered the truth. There were far more deficiencies than had been reported, including huge gaps in the rear access hatch for the boats, and this is on a ship where the US Navy Regulations for Watertight Integrity & Compartmentalization has been waived for this new US Navy Surface Combatant. This demonstrated a mentality and a mindset that cared not for the safety of the crew. Then the US Navy takes the crew away from this highly complex new technology equipment, and gives it to another crew on a rotating basis.

    We now have the reality of a ‘sales job’ by the US Navy on Congress, and the American taxpayer, that cost just a few dollars less than that of an all-ocean Arctic capable National Security Cutter (NSC) for the US Coast Guard, and has less capability, and can marginally perform COCOM Presence Missions. How’s them apples?