It must come from the sea,” said the chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, recently about any new U.S. Navy procurement, leaving open to interpretation the programs and projects that will be included in coming budgets.

The Navy is “reimagining naval power,” he said. “With cyber-power and unmanned systems we must ask ourselves fundamental questions.” If new capabilities proposed for procurement do not “come from the sea,” Roughead is not interested.

The Navy no longer has the luxury of being interested in every new program or platform. The defense budget is getting slimmer. And pressure is coming from above to trim programs deemed unnecessary or inefficient.

“The Navy and Marine Corps must reexamine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, threats and budget realities,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told an audience at the Navy’s Sea-Air-Space symposium here. “We cannot afford to perpetuate a status quo that heaps more expensive technologies onto fewer platforms.” He questioned whether a Navy that “relies on $3-6-billion destroyers, $7-billion submarines and $11-billion carriers” is affordable.

“The biggest question is what are we going to afford?” Roughead said. “There is no way we can spend our way out of this challenge. We have to think our way out.” This is not a local problem, it is a global issue, he added. Every country faces cutbacks, and partnerships among nations may prove one way to maintain a strong maritime presence without having to spend more money.

The fundamental need for power projection will not change, Roughead noted, although the global financial climate will. “In the U.S. we must juxtapose the realities of a compressed defense budget against the growing demand for military, and especially naval, power,” he said.

Roughead said “it is time to act,” and cited programs the Navy has trimmed or truncated. “We canceled two littoral combat ships because of excessive cost,” he said. “We’ve canceled missile programs because we were not getting the return on investment we would like.” He also noted the streamlining of departments within the Navy, a new focus on managing manpower, ownership and energy costs, and more solid budget plans.

But will it be enough? And will the cuts leave the Navy with gaps in capability? Gates thinks not. Referring to the Navy’s plan to have 11 carrier strike groups through 2040, Gates acknowledged, “The need to project power across the ocean will never go away . . . but consider the massive overmatch the U.S. already enjoys. Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its assessment in May that the Navy’s latest shipbuilding plan is not executable as written—it is underfunded and incapable of growing the fleet.

In a report publicized May 26, CBO noted the average total cost to implement the Navy’s current 30-year shipbuilding plan will come to $21 billion per year. That is about 18% higher than the Navy’s overall estimates. CBO said it accounted for steeper growth of labor and material costs than the Navy did in its estimates, which helps explain the divergence in figures. CBO’s estimates are 4% higher than the Navy’s in the first 10 years of the Navy plan, 13% higher for the next decade and 37% higher in the final 10 years.

CBO also noticed the Navy’s shipbuilding plan “appears to increase the required size of the fleet compared with earlier plans, while reducing the number of ships to be purchased—and thus the costs for ship construction—over the next three decades.” The Navy’s three previous long-term plans specified a 313-ship fleet at its peak, while the 2011 plan totals 322 or 323, according to CBO.

But Roughead stands behind the numerous plans and strategies that have emerged in recent months. “We are committed to our 2007 Maritime Strategy,” as well as to the National Security Strategy, the Navy’s future as laid out in the Quadrennial Defense Review and the latest Navy Operations Concept, he said. The service hopes to achieve its strategic goals despite financial problems with the fleet it has now. And Roughead believes the key to success lies in building strong bilateral relationships.

“The U.S. Navy does not need to do everything, nor do we want to,” he said. “Global challenges require global response.”

Credit: Northrop Grumman