The Navy’s plan to reach its desired fleet goal is impossible under the current levels of funding, the service’s warfighting, requirements and capabilities officer said this week.
Last year, the Navy delivered an assessment to Congress stating that “a future battle force objective of 381 ships is required to meet future campaigning and warfighting demands,” according to a report in USNI News.
The Navy’s budget would have to grow 3 to 5 percent above inflation to meet that goal, Vice Adm. James Pitts told an audience at an event hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Tuesday.
Instead, Pitts said the budget requests for the Pentagon could fall to about 2 percent of gross domestic product which would “the lowest since the 1920s.” If kept at that level, the 381-ship fleet would be unobtainable.
The 381 ship fleet goal is included in the service’s Fiscal Year 2024 30-year shipbuilding plan. There are 297 ships in today’s battle force.
Speaking at an event hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he said “the Number 1 capability [for the future] is the Columbia-class submarine,” followed closely by secure communications.
The immediate complication facing the Navy and the Pentagon is that 14 out of the last 15 fiscal years have started with a continuing resolution instead of an enacted budget, putting a hold on spending plans.
“That means you’re kind of slow out of the gate” because spending is largely capped at the last fiscal year’s approved levels and new starts are generally not exempted, Pitts said, “There’s a misalignment of appropriations” that includes critical weapons procurement under continuing resolutions.
This year’s first continuing resolution, which expires in December, does not include $1.95 billion the White House requested for two Virginia-class submarines.
Congress passed four stopgap spending bills before approving the final appropriations package for Fiscal Year 2024 on March 23, almost halfway through the fiscal year.
In describing Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti’s recently released Navigation Plan, Pitts said the emphasis is to “improve our readiness to face potential high-end conflict.”
She said in a release accompanying the plan that “This Navigation Plan drives toward two strategic ends: readiness for the possibility of war with the People’s Republic of China by 2027 and enhancing the Navy’s long-term advantage. We will work towards these ends through two mutually reinforcing ways: implementing Project 33 and expanding the Navy’s contribution to the Joint warfighting ecosystem.”
Among the Project 33 objectives that Pitts cited at the event were fielding robotic and autonomous systems in all domains. He added that the offices of non-traditional sea denial and disruptive capabilities are designed to fill those readiness gaps.
The idea is to “rapidly swarm a problem and get a solution to the fleet in two years” or less. Disruptive capabilities help “turn data faster” and “[make] sure you’re prepared” for whatever might come next.
Several times during the discussion Pitts cited the value of enhanced training so sailors “are better able to face the integrated fight” expected in high-end conflict. He mentioned sonar operators on submarines using artificial intelligence tools to “best identify targets” at the tactical level.
Franchetti in the NAVPLAN set a goal of 80 percent readiness across platforms to be prepared for a conflict with China. Pitts said the emphasis in recent years placed on aircraft readiness has seen it improve from “50-60 percent … to now more than 80,” hitting the target for “combat surge” by improving maintenance.
The NAVPLAN reads: “we will only accomplish this by getting platforms in and out of maintenance on time; in addition, we must embrace novel approaches to training, manning, modernization, and sustainment to ready the force. By 2027, we will achieve and sustain an 80 percent combat surge-ready posture for ships, submarines and aircraft.”
As for longer-range capabilities, Pitts said an important way to build on the Navy’s “enduring advantage” in undersea warfare is to “deny other people’s use of the sea.” He mentioned the use of the seabed, but did not elaborate, citing classification.
