Shipbuilding plan sailing into turbulent seas.

CUTBACKS IN PERSONNEL, TRAINING and maintenance costs will fuel a moderate growth in Navy procurement programs starting in 2008, albeit at a slower pace than Navy leaders had forecast a year ago, analysts estimate.

The Navy had projected its 2007 budget of $127 billion would increase by 18 percent in 2008, but that is most probably "not achievable" unless the service trims more people from the force and slashes spending on weapon maintenance and operations, says James A. McAleese, defense industry analyst and attorney at McAleese & Associates.

Procurement spending of about $30 billion in 2007 was forecast to soar by 28 percent in 2008. But that is most certainly not going to happen, he adds. "The Navy cannot likely achieve currently planned procurement, even if it freezes both personnel and operations costs.

"However, the Navy can credibly achieve $12 billion to $14 billion a year in shipbuilding, plus $10 billion to $12 billion a year in aircraft procurement," McAleese predicts.

On the aviation side, the Navy is almost guaranteed to secure funding for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey, the MH-60R helicopter and the P-8A anti-submarine patrol aircraft, says McAleese. One program potentially on the chopping block is the broad area maritime surveillance unmanned aircraft.

The Navy has committed to funding an average of $14.4 billion a year for new ship construction in order to boost the size of the fleet from 280 to 313 during the next three decades.

Congressional budget analysts, meanwhile, assert that the 313 ship plan requires far more funding--$16 billion to $19 billion.

According to McAleese, "any increases significantly beyond $14 billion a year should be difficult to achieve," particularly between 2008 and 2010, when the Navy is slated to buy a new aircraft carrier. The carrier alone requires more than $10 billion over those three years. In those years when the carrier is funded, the Navy, realistically, will be "lucky" to afford $10 billion a year for other ships, he says.

McAleese notes that the political environment for shipbuilding has improved substantially with Democrats in charge of Congress. All indications are that lawmakers on the defense authorization and appropriations committees will support increases to the shipbuilding account, he says.

One of the winners of the shipbuilding budget will be the new Zumwalt-class destroyer, the DDG-1000, McAleese says. The Navy is expected to spend nearly $27 billion on the program, at roughly $3 billion to $4 billion a year.

The Navy plans to award two construction contracts this month--one to General Dynamics and one to Northrop Grumman--for the first two ships of the class, says Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, the program executive officer.

Hamilton says he is optimistic that the Navy has a "balanced" shipbuilding plan and that Congress will support it. Despite all the "drama" that shipbuilding generates on Capitol Hill, in 2007, "we got more ships than we asked for," Hamilton says at a recent conference hosted by the Surface Navy Association.

The Zumwalt class will be relatively small at seven ships. But each ship will contain technologies--in the form of sensors, weapons and propulsion systems--that will be far more advanced than any other vessel has ever seen, Hamilton says. The ship's high price tag, of about $3 billion each, forced the Navy to downsize the quantity of the buy and also prompted a redesign of the vessel so it can be built at $2.2 billion.

A smaller combatant, the littoral combat ship, or LCS, will be produced in much larger numbers and will become the workhorse of the surface fleet. (See related story)

The Navy so far has purchased four LCS ships--two are high-speed monohull vessels and two are trimarans. The program has been on a "rollercoaster ride" since it started in 2002, Hamilton says. "Four years later we put the first hull in the water." The Navy will purchase 55 ships in the LCS class. Each ship--including combat systems--is estimated to cost about $400 million.

Other major shipbuilding programs that will deliver several new vessels to the fleet in the coming years are the LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious and the TAKE logistics resupply ships.

The Navy is considering building a new guided-missile cruiser, called CG-X, although plans remain sketchy, Hamilton says. If the program gets funding, it could deliver the first ship in 2011, he says. An "analysis of alternatives" is ongoing to determine what missiles, sensors and propulsion will be employed. The hull, infrastructure and computing plant will be common with the Zumwalt class.

Another procurement that could get under way next year is the so-called "joint high speed vessel," which will serve as a transport for cargo and troops in coastal areas. The Navy, Marine Corps and Army have experimented with several commercial catamarans and are now prepared to make a large buy. The program could be worth as much as $1.5 billion during the next decade. Hamilton says the requirements still are being defined.

A big question mark in the Navy's ship-building plan is what the service will do about acquiring large cargo vessels to serve as "sea bases." During the past two years, Navy officials had expressed support for a "maritime pre-positioning force future" ship that would be equipped with advanced cargo handling equipment and storage to accommodate an Army brigade and provide a floating base for the ground force.

That idea appears to be fizzling out as the Navy has recently contended it already has ships that serve as sea bases and it should not have to spend billions of dollars on customized floating ships for ground forces.

The Army, however, continues to stand behind the concept. "Who is a big fan of the sea basing concept? The U.S. Army," says Brig. Gen. Robin Swan. He says the Army is concerned about future enemies blocking traditional points of entry into theaters, and would view sea bases as a means of deploying troops rapidly into battle.

Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, deputy director of Navy surface warfare, says the service still supports the idea, but it has yet to define exactly what sea bases should be. "We are still building forces that are going to enable a sea base," he says. "To me, it's what we've always have done, with different groups of ships."

Norman Polmar, an analyst and author specializing in naval issues, says the Navy "was never enthusiastic about" sea bases. "It was a Defense Department initiative so the Navy had to support it."

--additional reporting by Grace Jean

Email your comments to [e-mail]

RELATED ARTICLE: Fleet expansion hinges on littoral combat ship.

THE NAVY TOOK ITS NEW warship, the littoral combat ship, from concept to reality in record speed. The service, however, may take years to define the vessel's future missions and develop its various weapon systems.

The first of the LCS vessels, the USS Freedom, already is in the water. Three others are in varied stages of construction. And all this happened in a relatively short four years, officials point out.

Designed for operations in the shallow seas and coastal waters, the littoral combat ship will carry interchangeable "mission modules," each of which will be customized for different operations, such as mine warfare, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare.

The mine warfare module, particularly, is in high demand. "Frankly, we can't get it fast enough," says James Thomsen, program executive officer for littoral and mine warfare. Technologies that are part of that mission package, such as a remote mine hunting system, an airborne mine neutralization system and a sonar mine detecting set, are undergoing tests.

The LCS contractors--Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics--are building two hull designs. Lockheed's is a steel semi-planing hull design, and General Dynamics' is an aluminum trimaran.

Officials are exploring the possibility of going to one hull, but that decision will not be made until 2009, says Rear Adm. Mark Buzby, deputy director of the Navy's surface warfare division.

That means 15 ships will be built before the Navy determines whether it will keep both designs. "Until we get both ships in the water and both ships operating, we're all sort of guessing," says Buzby. "Both on paper have strong attributes and they have some drawbacks."

The cost of building the LCS hull has grown from $220 million to $270 million. But the average cost of the mission modules has dropped, from $180 million to $70 million.

The Navy is saying each ship will require 1.5 mission modules, so the total amounts average out to about $400 million per ship, says Robert Work, naval analyst with the Center for Budgetary and Strategic Studies.

The ship was made to appeal to foreign navies as well. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel have expressed interest in acquiring the LCS for their navies.

The Navy is on track to buy 55 of these ships, says Buzby. But Work predicts the Navy will build more, especially if foreign navies purchase the LCS.

The strict timelines make the LCS challenging, says Fred P. Moosally, president of Lockheed Martin maritime systems and sensors. "It's a program you have to manage very carefully," he says.

By 2015, Buzby predicts the Navy will have 30 littoral combat ships in the water and may have many other mission modules in production.

The Navy Third Fleet, based in San Diego, is responsible for developing new ways to employ the ship, says Buzby.

Navy officials are encouraged by the excitement that the LCS has spawned in the fleet, says Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, the executive officer for Navy ships. "The intellectual fervor generated from mission modules has given rise to a whole cottage industry," Hamilton tells a Surface Navy Association conference. "If you have the interface, they will come," he adds. Special operations forces, for example, are considering employing the ship for various missions. Others are suggesting that the LCS should have a hospital module and a logistics module to transport cargo. "This is just a start," says Hamilton.

Breaking yet another Navy tradition, the littoral combat ship will be manned by sailors whose complete training will take place ashore in ship-specific facilities.

The first such shore-based training center, being built in the San Diego homeport of the first four LCS ships, will become operational in June, says David Shikada, LCS training manager for Lockheed Martin Corp., which built the first ship, the USS Freedom.

Lockheed is building simulation-based trainers designed to instruct LCS crews in bridge management, ship navigation and handling, propulsion plant operations and mission control center operations.

"We are actually training officers in simulators before they get to the ship," says Buzby. "What a novel idea, to have training facilities in place before the ship is ready to go."

Current training programs prepare sailors in classrooms before they are sent aboard ships for on-the-job training.

"What we're doing in the LCS is we are reducing and, hopefully, eliminating the on-the-job training piece," says Shikada.

Because the LCS operating concept calls for ships to remain forward deployed, crews will swap out on rotations. The Navy is planning to man the first four littoral combat ships with blue and gold crews, says Buzby. When one crew is deployed, the other crew will have access to the shore-based training facility.

Lockheed is working to get the simulation systems up and running by June. "We're in scramble mode. We're trying to sweep up funding from a variety of sources that are available to develop the initial capability," says Shikada. "There's so much more to be done that we're not on task or on contract to do, because of the trickle stream of funding."

--GRACE JEAN

RELATED ARTICLE: Are autonomous naval vessels the next big wave?

JUST AS DRONES have proliferated in the skies, Navy and industry officials say unmanned systems also will take to the world's waterways in greater numbers.

"I think there's a lot of growth potential," Capt. Paul Ims, program manager of unmanned maritime systems, tells National Defense.

With a variety of unmanned platforms set to play a large role in the littoral combat ship fleet in the next several years, the sea service is working on a roadmap for unmanned surface vehicles. "The roadmap is really a vision document. It lays out the missions that the Navy intends to pursue in unmanned surface vehicles, and what are the capabilities, what are the technologies that we need to develop," Ims says. "We're looking at where we want to be in 2015, 2020 with this capability."

As the Navy is reducing the size of ship crews, it is using new technologies to enable an individual sailor to do more, says Ims. "That's one of the real promises of unmanned surface vehicles."

An example is mine warfare, which is one of the missions planned for the new littoral combat ship.

General Dynamics Robotic Systems in October was awarded a $12.7 million contract to build four unmanned surface vehicles for the LCS anti-submarine warfare mission module. The 11-meter vehicles will carry payloads of towed arrays, dipping sonar sensors and acoustic sources.

"We're on track to put unmanned vehicles on LCS," says Ims.

The Navy declined to elaborate on the specifics of the unmanned surface vehicle roadmap, but at a technology demonstration of an unmanned maritime vessel at the Washington Navy Yard, service representatives expressed interest in systems that would fit on the LCS, have robust non-line-of-sight communications and have advanced artificial intelligence capabilities.

Unmanned maritime vessels require a high level of artificial intelligence to conduct missions, says Ims.

"The awareness of where it is, and the ability to utilize sensors and either make the decision on board or go back to the manned platform and get a decision, that artificial intelligence, that autonomy--that's one of the challenges," says Ims.

Unmanned surface vehicles have been around for the last decade or two, but their numbers were limited because the need for such systems was low. Acts of terrorism such as the 2000 attack on the USS Cole have reignited the appetite for remote-operated maritime vessels.

"There's a clear operational need right now for unmanned surface systems for riverine operations, port and harbor security, fixed and mobile asset security, such as oil rigs and piers around the world, and maritime intercept operations," says Sean Patton, of Lockheed Martin's littoral combat ship and systems business development team.

The company partnered with BAE Systems to introduce Rafael's unmanned surface vehicle, the Protector, to the United States.

The Protector comes in 9-meter to 11-meter aluminum, rigid deep-v hull configurations with a modular design to accommodate varying payloads. It reaches speeds of more than 30 knots and uses a non-line-of-sight communications link, called LightLink, which was developed for Israeli defense forces.

In Israel, the system has demonstrated a 20-kilometer range of operations, says Patton.

The Protector can be controlled from a station ashore or aboard a manned vessel. It requires two operators, but they also could control multiple vessels with an officer in charge, says Dan Deputy, director of Coast Guard programs at BAE Systems.

The company is anticipating that the unmanned surface vehicle market will follow in the footsteps of the unmanned aerial vehicle market. "We would see maybe something like that growth in unmanned surface vehicles as navies and naval agencies get comfortable operating them," says Steve Kelly, director of naval systems at BAE Systems.

--GRACE JEAN