DOCSLIB.ORG

The 2020S Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch Mackenzie Eaglen with Hallie Coyne MARCH 2021 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Cover image shows a US Air Force B-1B Lancer. US Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Peter Reft. © 2021 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. All rights reserved. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author(s). Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 Addressing the Tri-Service Spending Spike ...................................................................... 3 Why Does It Matter? ..................................................................................................... 4 What Factors Are Making the Modernization Spending Crunch Worse? ............................... 6 What Does Addressing the Modernization Crunch Mean for the US Military in the 2020s? .............................................................................................................. 15 What Went Wrong: Identifying the Causes of the 2020s Modernization Crunch ................... 16 The Shape and Size of the Tri-Service Modernization Crunch ............................................ 29 THE NAVY: THE CONSPICUOUS MODERNIZATION CRUNCH ............................................ 32 Navy Modernization Spending, FY21–FY25 ................................................................... 34 Navy Modernization Spending, FY26–FY31 ................................................................... 38 THE MARINE CORPS: A DEFERRED MODERNIZATION CRUNCH DRIVEN BY TRANSFORMATION .............................................................................................. 42 Marine Corps Modernization Spending, FY21–FY25 ........................................................ 43 Marine Corps Modernization Spending, FY26–FY31 ........................................................ 44 THE AIR FORCE: A MODERNIZATION CRUNCH FOR THE UNDERAPPRECIATED BILLPAYER .... 46 Air Force Modernization Spending, FY21–FY25 .............................................................. 47 Air Force Modernization Spending, FY26–FY31 ............................................................... 51 THE ARMY: A MODERNIZATION ABYSS AND HIDDEN CRUNCH ........................................ 54 Army Modernization Spending, FY21–FY25 ................................................................... 56 Army Modernization Spending, FY26–FY31 .................................................................. 57 ADDRESSING THE MODERNIZATION CRUNCH: ACTION TO TAKE NOW ............................. 61 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ............................................................................................... 72 NOTES .................................................................................................................... 73 iii Executive Summary resident Joe Biden’s new administration and War, the dominance of short-term spending priorities Pthe 117th Congress must respond to a uniquely during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the legacy of difficult political and fiscal environment; as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, and competing federal this mandate, they will be charged with addressing spending priorities and objectives. The results include the enduring mismatch of US defense strategy and climbing operations and maintenance costs for aging resources, which contributes to ongoing supply and military platforms—which put still more pressure on demand imbalances regarding requests for forces modernization programs—and the entrenchment of by combatant commanders. Since these challenges inefficient modernization decision-making patterns. have been growing unchecked for years, the com- This report also provides a comprehensive examina- ing decade looms large as the US military is facing tion of the bills facing each service to modernize over a massive spending spike to pay for modernization the next decade. While the Department of Defense pro- bills across the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and vides most modernization cost data for the next five Army that have been ignored, deferred, or inade- years—or over the Future Years Defense Program—in quately considered. Although this was foreseen and its annual budget requests, this report projects costs forewarned, insufficient action has been taken. Res- for a 10-year time frame to demonstrate the scale of the olution requires political courage, persistence, inno- challenges facing the armed forces. Although such cost vation, risk, and resources. data are inherently subject to change and variation, this Fleets of ships, aircraft, vehicles, and other equip- analysis identifies the overarching trends shaping the ment are reaching the end of their service lives, hit- modernization cost profiles of each service. Accord- ting the edge of their upgrade limits, and losing ingly, while the total costs of specific modernization combat relevance. As great-power competition accel- programs may evolve, many of the patterns discussed erates, the United States is offering a free and open in this report will not. For example, the Navy has no window of opportunity and advantage to its adver- choice but to continue replacing its old attack subma- saries. Unless policymakers take concrete steps now, rines, even though analysts may debate how many new defense leaders will continue America’s sleepwalk ones should be built and how quickly. into strategic insolvency and its consequences. The Finally, the report lays out policy recommenda- aptly named “Terrible 20s” have arrived. tions for how Congress, the White House, and the The intention of this report is not to propose ideal armed forces can begin developing and implement- or preferred defense investments. Rather, it aims to ing a serious plan to meet the modernization crunch. deliver an unvarnished overview of the existing mod- Such options include taking immediate action to ernization bill before the Pentagon today, forcing an relieve pressure on procurement and accelerating overdue confrontation with reality. the fielding of advanced technologies—in some cases The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch under- using legacy platforms as playgrounds for innovation. takes three paths of analysis. The report initially Unfortunately, as this report demonstrates, there reviews decades of defense investment decisions that is no easy way out of this fiscal bind for the US mil- resulted in the current composition of the US military. itary. Rather, now is the time for effective mitigation This history considers the ramifications of delayed strategies, urgent worst-case scenario planning, hard equipment recapitalizations from the end of the Cold choices, and political leadership. 1 Introduction s was long forewarned but easy to ignore to “Terrible 20s” to describe the modernization chal- A address more immediate problems, the United lenges before the US military this coming decade. He States military is now confronting a massive and offered an ominous overview of the next 10 years as underappreciated spending spike in paying for con- “that horrible mix of debt bombs, recapitalizing our tinuously delayed weapons modernization bills in the SSBN [ballistic missile submarines] fleet, and the 2020s. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to replace and modernize legacy aircraft, ships, Gen. Joseph Dunford testified in 2016 to Congress that and the concepts that designed them.”2 It is a brac- “my most significant concern is the bow wave of mod- ing and accurate summary of the following analysis. ernization that has been deferred.”1 In this case, the first step in addressing the problem is It was postponed in the 1990s after the Ronald reminding the policymakers that it exists. The second Reagan buildup and peace dividend, in the early 2000s step—incumbent on leaders in Congress, at the Pen- for the wars, and then during the 2010s to pay down tagon, and in the White House—is being honest about debt from the financial recession. Time is up, and the consequences. The third is generating the will- many pieces of military equipment can no longer power and spending the political capital to pay for it. limp along—having aged chassis, hulls, and airframes that cannot be upgraded with today’s technology and cannot generate the kind of power needed to survive Addressing the Tri-Service any fight. The solutions are simple, but they are far Spending Spike from easy. Chief among them are awareness, urgency, investment, and creativity. First things first: What is a spending spike? This phe- Unfortunately, while the solutions are simple to nomenon is known among analysts as the procure- conceive, they are more complicated to execute. Polit- ment or acquisition “bow wave,” a term derived from ical willpower is needed from Congress. The services the wave created by the bow of a ship pushing water must make difficult choices about their future spend- into a wave in front of it. At its most basic level, a ing trade-offs and accurately represent the real costs bow wave—or modernization spending crunch, to be of trying to address decades of postponed moderniza- more exact—describes
Recommended publications
  • Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2020 3

    Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2020 3

    SIPRI Fact Sheet March 2021 TRENDS IN INTERNATIONAL KEY FACTS w The volume of international ARMS TRANSFERS, 2020 transfers of major arms in 2016–20 was 0.5 per cent lower than in 2011–15 and 12 per cent pieter d. wezeman, alexandra kuimova and higher than in 2006–10. siemon t. wezeman w The five largest arms exporters in 2016–20 were the The volume of international transfers of major arms in 2016–20 was United States, Russia, France, 0.5 per cent lower than in 2011–15 and 12 per cent higher than in 2006–10 Germany and China. Together, they accounted for 76 per cent of (see figure 1).1 The five largest arms exporters in 2016–20 were the United all exports of major arms in States, Russia, France, Germany and China (see table 1). The five largest 2016–20. arms importers were Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, Australia and China w In 2016–20 US arms exports (see table 2). Between 2011–15 and 2016–20 there were increases in arms accounted for 37 per cent of the transfers to the Middle East (25 per cent) and to Europe (12 per cent), while global total and were 15 per cent there were decreases in the transfers to Africa (–13 per cent), the Americas higher than in 2011–15. (–43 per cent), and Asia and Oceania (–8.3 per cent). w Russian arms exports From 15 March 2021 SIPRI’s open-access Arms Transfers Database decreased by 22 per cent includes updated data on transfers of major arms for 1950–2020, which between 2011–15 and 2016–20.
  • [20Pt]Algorithms for Constrained Optimization: [ 5Pt]

    [20Pt]Algorithms for Constrained Optimization: [ 5Pt]

    SOL Optimization 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Summary 2020s Algorithms for Constrained Optimization: The Benefits of General-purpose Software Michael Saunders MS&E and ICME, Stanford University California, USA 3rd AI+IoT Business Conference Shenzhen, China, April 25, 2019 Optimization Software 3rd AI+IoT Business Conference, Shenzhen, April 25, 2019 1/39 SOL Optimization 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Summary 2020s SOL Systems Optimization Laboratory George Dantzig, Stanford University, 1974 Inventor of the Simplex Method Father of linear programming Large-scale optimization: Algorithms, software, applications Optimization Software 3rd AI+IoT Business Conference, Shenzhen, April 25, 2019 2/39 SOL Optimization 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Summary 2020s SOL history 1974 Dantzig and Cottle start SOL 1974{78 John Tomlin, LP/MIP expert 1974{2005 Alan Manne, nonlinear economic models 1975{76 MS, MINOS first version 1979{87 Philip Gill, Walter Murray, MS, Margaret Wright (Gang of 4!) 1989{ Gerd Infanger, stochastic optimization 1979{ Walter Murray, MS, many students 2002{ Yinyu Ye, optimization algorithms, especially interior methods This week! UC Berkeley opened George B. Dantzig Auditorium Optimization Software 3rd AI+IoT Business Conference, Shenzhen, April 25, 2019 3/39 SOL Optimization 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Summary 2020s Optimization problems Minimize an objective function subject to constraints: 0 x 1 min '(x) st ` ≤ @ Ax A ≤ u c(x) x variables 0 1 A matrix c1(x) B . C c(x) nonlinear functions @ . A c (x) `; u bounds m Optimization
  • Aviation 2030 Disruption and Its Implications for the Aviation Sector Thriving on Disruption Series

    Aviation 2030 Disruption and Its Implications for the Aviation Sector Thriving on Disruption Series

    Aviation 2030 Disruption and its implications for the aviation sector Thriving on disruption series Major disruption is promised by a range of powerful new technologies and public pressure. Players that turn these trends to their advantage have the opportunity to reshape the industry. In this piece, we evaluate the potential for alternative energy sources, maintenance robotics, and the return of supersonic. We do this through the lens of 5 key player types. Christopher Brown Jono Anderson KPMG in Ireland KPMG in the US Global Strategy Group Kieran O’Brien Charlie Simpson KPMG International KPMG in Ireland KPMG in the UK Introduction Aviation has long been glamorous, but for some players in the value chain, it has also often proved to be unprofitable. Despite current headwinds, aviation Elsewhere in KPMG’s Mobility 2030 has arguably experienced a golden series,3 we have looked at changes age: a phase of relatively profitable affecting ground transport, and in growth, driven especially by ‘Getting Mobility off the ground’4 commercial passengers in developing we considered air-based disruption markets. The International Air in short-distance travel. In KPMG’s Transport Association (IATA) forecasts annual Aviation Industry Leaders that global passenger numbers will Report,5 we look at the ‘traditional’ almost double by 2037, reaching aviation industry’s topical issues. 8.2 billion annually.1 To match that demand, the aviation industry is In this paper, we focus on select continuing to raise output to historic issues for traditional aviation, with highs. In July 2018, Airbus announced that longer-term 2030 lens. In that over 37,000 new aircraft – valued particular, we consider the disruption at $5.8 trillion – are required over 20 potential related to developments in: years.2 With regular retirement of • Alternative energy sources older fleet, that equates to a doubling of the world’s passenger fleet to • Maintenance robotics more than 48,000 aircraft.
  • Fm 6-02 Signal Support to Operations

    Fm 6-02 Signal Support to Operations

    FM 6-02 SIGNAL SUPPORT TO OPERATIONS SEPTEMBER 2019 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This publication supersedes FM 6-02, dated 22 January 2014. HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY This publication is available at the Army Publishing Directorate site (https://armypubs.army.mil/) and the Central Army Registry site (https://atiam.train.army.mil/catalog/dashboard). *FM 6-02 Field Manual Headquarters No. 6-02 Department of the Army Washington, D.C., 13 September 2019 Signal Support to Operations Contents Page PREFACE..................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ vii Chapter 1 OVERVIEW OF SIGNAL SUPPORT ........................................................................ 1-1 Section I – The Operational Environment ............................................................. 1-1 Challenges for Army Signal Support ......................................................................... 1-1 Operational Environment Overview ........................................................................... 1-1 Information Environment ........................................................................................... 1-2 Trends ........................................................................................................................ 1-3 Threat Effects on Signal Support .............................................................................
  • The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: an Assessment

    The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: an Assessment

    DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD Submitted to the Secretary of Defense The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: An Assessment DBB FY 20-01 An assessment of the effectiveness, responsibilities, and authorities of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense as required by §904 of the FY20 NDAA June 1, 2020 DBB FY20-01 CMO Assessment 1 Executive Summary Tasking and Task Force: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Public Law (Pub. L. 116-92) required the Secretary of Defense (SD) to conduct an independent assessment of the Chief Management Officer (CMO) with six specific areas to be evaluated. The Defense Business Board (DBB) was selected on February 3, 2020 to conduct the independent assessment, with Arnold Punaro and Atul Vashistha assigned to co-chair the effort. Two additional DBB board members comprised the task force: David Walker and David Van Slyke. These individuals more than meet the independence and competencies required by the NDAA. Approach: The DBB task force focused on the CMO office and the Department of Defense (DoD) business transformation activities since 2008 when the office was first established by the Congress as the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), and in 2018 when the Congress increased its statutory authority and elevated it to Executive Level (EX) II and the third ranking official in DoD. The taskforce reviewed all previous studies of DoD management and organizations going back twenty years and completed over ninety interviews, including current and former DoD, public and private sector leaders. The assessments of CMO effectiveness since 2008 are focused on the performance of the CMO as an organizational entity, and is not an appraisal of any administration or appointee.
  • ATP 3-57.70. Civil-Military Operations Center

    ATP 3-57.70. Civil-Military Operations Center

    ATP 3-57.70 Civil-Military Operations Center May 2014 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. FOREIGN DISCLOSURE RESTRICTION (FD 1): The material contained in this publication has been reviewed by the developers in coordination with the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School foreign disclosure authority. This product is releasable to students from all requesting foreign countries without restrictions. Headquarters, Department of the Army This publication is available at Army Knowledge Online (https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html). To receive publishing updates, please subscribe at http://www.apd.army.mil/AdminPubs/new_subscribe.asp. Army Techniques Publication Headquarters, No. 3-57.70 Department of the Army Washington, DC 5 May 2014 Civil-Military Operations Center Contents Page PREFACE..............................................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................v Chapter 1 OPERATIONS .................................................................................................... 1-1 General ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Unified Land Operations ..................................................................................... 1-2 Decisive Action ..................................................................................................
  • FOIA) Document Clearinghouse in the World

    FOIA) Document Clearinghouse in the World

    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com Received Received Request ID Requester Name Organization Closed Date Final Disposition Request Description Mode Date 17-F-0001 Greenewald, John The Black Vault PAL 10/3/2016 11/4/2016 Granted/Denied in Part I respectfully request a copy of records, electronic or otherwise, of all contracts past and present, that the DOD / OSD / JS has had with the British PR firm Bell Pottinger. Bell Pottinger Private (legally BPP Communications Ltd.; informally Bell Pottinger) is a British multinational public relations and marketing company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. 17-F-0002 Palma, Bethania - PAL 10/3/2016 11/4/2016 Other Reasons - No Records Contracts with Bell Pottinger for information operations and psychological operations. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2007 To 12/31/2011) 17-F-0003 Greenewald, John The Black Vault Mail 10/3/2016 1/13/2017 Other Reasons - Not a proper FOIA I respectfully request a copy of the Intellipedia category index page for the following category: request for some other reason Nuclear Weapons Glossary 17-F-0004 Jackson, Brian - Mail 10/3/2016 - - I request a copy of any available documents related to Army Intelligence's participation in an FBI counterintelligence source operation beginning in about 1959, per David Wise book, "Cassidy's Run," under the following code names: ZYRKSEEZ SHOCKER I am also interested in obtaining Army Intelligence documents authorizing, as well as policy documents guiding, the use of an Army source in an FBI operation.
  • 2018 Sales Sheet

    2018 Sales Sheet

    2018 Sales Sheet Core Home ATL Showroom Building 2, #885B 42 W 39th Street Fl 4 & 5- New York, NY 10018 Ph: 646-845-6000 | Fax: 866 800 6971 | [email protected] 2 16832 16833 16817 16842 9pc Utensil Set – NS/SP/SG 9pc Utensil Set – PP/SM/LB 5pc Bamboo Utensil Set – Cool B&S LG & Mini Case: 6 Cost $7.50 Case: 6 Cost $7.50 Case: 6 Cost $6.00 Spoon - LB Case: 6 Cost $5.00 16834 16835 16703 16868 3pc Utensil Set – 3pc Utensil Set – 5pc Beech & Silicone Utensil Set 5pc Mini Utensil Set NS/SP/SG PP/SM/LB Case: 6 Cost $10.00 Cool Case: 6 Cost $5.00 Case: 6 Cost $5.00 Case: 6 Cost $7.50 16867 16863 16852 18314 5pc Mini Utensil Set 3pc Mini B&S Spoon/Ptd 2pc Mini Utensil Set 16860 2pc Mini Utensil Set – Warm Spat/Brush - LY/SP/NS Case: 6 Cost $4.00 2pc Mini Utensil Set Whisk/Tongs SM/LB Case: 6 Cost $7.50 Case: 6 Cost $4.50 AVAILABLE 7/13 Case: 6 Cost $4.00 Case: 6 Cost $4.50 3 18309 16870 16869 16872 2pc Mini Tongs – SG/PP Set of 5 Mini Silicone Utensils - Set of 5 Mini Silicone Utensils - Dual Prep Silicone Utensils – Case: 6 Cost $5.00 Cool Warm LY/HT Case: 6 Cost $10.00 Case: 6 Cost $10.00 Case: 6 Cost $6.00 17027 17030 17033 5pc Nylon Utensil Set -- Lychee 5pc Nylon Utensil Set 5pc Nylon Utensil Set Case: 6 Cost $7.50 – Sea Mist – Sangria Case: 6 Cost $7.50 Case: 6 Cost $6.00 18295 16693 16909 16910 16913 5pc Nylon Utensil 3pc Flexi Nylon Turner 2pc Whisk Set - Warm 2pc Whisk Set - Cool Set of 2 Locking Tongs – Set Tongs Set – NS Case: 12 Cost $4.00 Case: 12 Cost $4.00 NS/LB Case: 6 Cost $10.00 Case: 6 Cost $6.50 Case: 6 Cost $8.00 AVAILABLE
  • Systems Development and Production Issue Area Active Assignments

    Systems Development and Production Issue Area Active Assignments

    United States General Accounting Office GAO National Security and International Affairs Julyl1995 Systems Development and Production Issue Area Active Assignments GAO/AA-95-4(3) Foreword This report was prepared primarily to inform Congressional members and key staff of ongoing assignments in the General Accounting Office's Systems Development and Production issue area This report contains assignments that were ongoing as of July 6, 1995, and presents a brief background statement and a list of key questions to be answered on each assignment. The report will be issued quarterly. This report was compiled from information available in GAO'S internal management information systems. Because the information was downloaded from computerized data bases intended for internal use, some information may appear in abbreviated form. If you have questions or would like additional information about assignments listed, please contact Louis Rodrigues, Director; Brad Hathaway, Associate Director; or Thomas Schulz, Associate Director, on (202) 5124841. Page 1 GAO/AA-95-4(3) Contents Page WEAPON SYSTEMS JUSTIFICATION ,MONITORING OPERATIONAL TEST OF B-l1B BOMBER. 1 ,STATUS OF NAVY TACTICAL AIRCRAFT MODERNIZATION EFFORTS. I , EVALUATION OF THE INTEGRATION OF ATCCS INTO THE ARMY BATTLE COMMAND SYSTEM. I , SHALLOW WATER ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO. 2 , ACQUISITION OF THE ENHANCED FIBER OPTIC-GUIDED MISSILE (EFOG-M) SYSTEM. 2 , REVIEW OF AV-8B REMANUFACTURE PROGRAM. 2 COMBAT AIR POWER ASSESSMENT--SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE. 3 New , THE NAVY'S EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A COMBAT SYSTEM FOR THE NSSN. 3 New , SURVEY OF B-lB CONVENTIONAL MISSION UPGRADE PROGRAM. 3 WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION PROCESS , EVALUATION OF THE SERVICES' EFFORTS TO DEVELOP COOPERATIVE IFF SYSTEMS.
  • The Ohio FBM.Pdf

    The Ohio FBM.Pdf

    1 The U.S. Navy has 18 of the most deadly and feared weapons ever created. 2 Let’s look at some facts about America’s last line of Defense…the “Boomers”. 3 Meet the Ohio-class submarine. In naval terms, it makes up the Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines (FBMs). 4 Aside from USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730), all of the Ohio-class subs are named after a state. 5 These 18 weapons are also known as “Trident” subs because they’re a part of America’s “Nuclear Triad”. 6 The Nuclear Triad is our Military’s 3-prong nuclear weapons delivery arsenal which covers Land, Air and Sea. 7 Air: Strategic Bombers (the B-52 Stratofortress, B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit-pictured above) 8 Land: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs such as the Minuteman III-pictured above) 9 Why do we have a 3-branches of nuclear capabilities? 10 It reduces the chances that another country’s first-strike attack could destroy all of our nuclear delivery system. 11 This means that, in a worst case scenario (nuclear war)… 12 …America has the ability to launch a second attack. 13 What weapon can lurk anywhere in 2/3rds of the Earth? 14 You got it man, our Ohio-class subs. 15 To be specific, the Earth’s surface is made up of 71 percent ocean water (97% of total water on the planet). 16 Aside from the ocean our subs can also enter fresh water such as our Great Lakes (which already has US Navy’s USS Kentucky SSBN-737 and other smaller Los Angeles-class Attack Submarines).
  • Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

    Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress

    Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress September 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32665 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the annual rate of Navy ship procurement, the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, and the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years. In December 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship goal was made U.S. policy by Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115- 91 of December 12, 2017). The Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been working since 2019 to develop a successor for the 355-ship force-level goal. The new goal is expected to introduce a new, more distributed fleet architecture featuring a smaller proportion of larger ships, a larger proportion of smaller ships, and a new third tier of large unmanned vehicles (UVs). On June 17, 2021, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that presents the Biden Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The document calls for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77 to 140 large UVs. A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the fleet envisioned in the document would cost an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure.
  • HOW to COMPLY with NORTH CAROLINA's LAW on GROWLER SALES, FILLS and REFILLS

    HOW to COMPLY with NORTH CAROLINA's LAW on GROWLER SALES, FILLS and REFILLS

    HOW TO COMPLY WITH NORTH CAROLINA’S LAW ON GROWLER SALES, FILLS and REFILLS Updated with new 2015 law to include Hard Ciders and Wine Effective June 19, 2015 BACKGROUND Prior to passage of HB 829 in 2013, state law only allowed for the sale of pre-filled, filled or refilled growlers at breweries. The N.C. Retail Merchants Association (NCRMA) drafted HB 829 to expand current North Carolina law, based on the success of South Carolina’s growler sales at grocery stores and other off-premise retailers to allow for retailers to fill growlers with malt beverages. In 2015, NCRMA was instrumental in the passage of HB 909 to further expand the law to allow for the sale of hard ciders and wines, dispensed from a keg, into growlers. It remains permissible only for brewery permittees to sell, ship or deliver prefilled growlers (only of their own brews). Therefore, permit holders that do not have a brewery permit cannot prefill growlers from their draft lines for retail sale. However, growlers may now be filled or refilled at breweries that also have retail permits, as well as businesses having the following permits issued by the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Commission: • On-premises malt beverage permit; • Off-premises malt beverage permit; and • Wine Shop permit With the expanding popularity and ever-growing selection of craft beers, hard ciders and wine on tap, retailers will now have an additional tool to introduce this growing market segment to North Carolina consumers. Until the ABC Commission updates and adopts further rules specific to the 2015 law, the rules pertaining to the 2013 growler law will apply to growlers of unfortified wines, which include hard ciders.