DOCSLIB.ORG

Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs February 14, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32109 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The Navy’s FY2013 budget submission calls for procuring nine Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers in FY2013-FY2017, in annual quantities of 2-1-2-2-2. The five DDG-51s scheduled for procurement in FY2013-FY2015, and one of the two scheduled for procurement in FY2016, are to be of the current Flight IIA design. The Navy wants to begin procuring a new version of the DDG-51 design, called the Flight III design, starting with the second of the two ships scheduled for procurement in FY2016. The two DDG-51s scheduled for procurement in FY2017 are also to be of the Flight III design. The Flight III design is to feature a new and more capable radar called the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). The Navy for FY2013 is requesting congressional approval to use a multiyear procurement (MYP) arrangement for the nine DDG-51s scheduled for procurement in FY2013-FY2017. The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget requests $3,048.6 million to complete the procurement funding for the two DDG-51s scheduled for procurement in FY2013. The Navy estimates the total procurement cost of these ships at $3,149.4 million, and the ships have received $100.7 million in prior-year advance procurement (AP) funding. The FY2013 budget also requests $466.3 million in AP funding for DDG-51s to be procured in future fiscal years. The Navy’s proposed FY2013 budget also requests $669.2 million in procurement funding to help complete procurement costs for three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers procured in FY2007-FY2009, and $223.6 million in research and development funding for the AMDR. Potential FY2013 issues for Congress concerning destroyer procurement include the following: • the potential impact of a year-long continuing resolution (CR) and sequester on the DDG-51 program in FY2013; • whether actions should be taken to mitigate the projected shortfall in cruisers and destroyers; • whether to approve the Navy’s request for a DDG-51 MYP arrangement beginning in FY2013, and if so, whether it should include Flight III DDG-51s; • the possibility of adding a 10th ship to the proposed DDG-51 MYP arrangement; • whether there is an adequate analytical basis for procuring Flight III DDG-51s in lieu of the previously planned CG(X) cruiser; • whether the Flight III DDG-51 would have sufficient air and missile capability to adequately perform future air and missile defense missions; • cost, schedule, and technical risk in the Flight III DDG-51 program; • whether the Flight III DDG-51 design would have sufficient growth margin for a projected 35- or 40-year service life; and • schedule risk for recently procured Flight IIA DDG-51s. Congressional Research Service Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1 DDG-51 Program ...................................................................................................................... 1 General ................................................................................................................................ 1 Resumption of Flight IIA DDG-51 Procurement in FY2010 .............................................. 3 Procurement of First Flight III DDG-51 Planned for FY2016 ............................................ 3 Request for Multiyear Procurement (MYP) in FY2013-FY2017 ....................................... 4 DDG-1000 Program .................................................................................................................. 5 Projected Shortfall in Cruisers and Destroyers .......................................................................... 7 Surface Combatant Construction Industrial Base ...................................................................... 9 FY2013 Funding Request .......................................................................................................... 9 Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 10 Potential Impact on DDG-51 Program of Year-Long Continuing Resolution (CR) and Sequester in FY2013 ............................................................................................................ 10 Year-Long CR ................................................................................................................... 10 Sequestration ..................................................................................................................... 12 Projected Cruiser-Destroyer Shortfall ..................................................................................... 12 Request for Multiyear Procurement (MYP) in FY2013-FY2017 ............................................ 13 Potential for Additional Reductions to Planned Defense Spending Levels....................... 13 Design Stability ................................................................................................................. 13 th Adding a 10 Ship to the DDG-51 Multiyear Procurement (MYP) ........................................ 16 Flight III DDG-51: Analytical Basis ....................................................................................... 17 Flight III DDG-51: Adequacy of AAW and BMD Capability ................................................. 25 Flight III DDG-51: Cost, Technical, and Schedule Risk ......................................................... 28 July 2012 CBO report ....................................................................................................... 28 March 2012 Hearing.......................................................................................................... 28 March 2012 GAO Report .................................................................................................. 30 January 2012 GAO Report ................................................................................................ 30 Flight III DDG-51: Growth Margin ......................................................................................... 34 Flight IIA DDG-51: Schedule Risk ......................................................................................... 36 Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 38 Adjunct Radar Ship ................................................................................................................. 39 Flight III DDG-51 With Increased Capabilities....................................................................... 40 DDG-1000 Variant With AMDR ............................................................................................. 41 New-Design Destroyer ............................................................................................................ 41 Legislative Activity for FY2013 .................................................................................................... 42 FY2013 Funding Request ........................................................................................................ 42 FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310/P.L. 112-239) ................................ 42 House ................................................................................................................................. 42 Senate ................................................................................................................................ 44 Conference ........................................................................................................................ 45 th FY2013 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5856 of 112 Congress) ......................................... 46 House ................................................................................................................................. 46 Senate ................................................................................................................................ 46 Congressional Research Service Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress Figures Figure 1. DDG-51 Class Destroyer .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Cobra Judy Replacement Ship ....................................................................................... 40 Tables Table 1. Projected Cruiser-Destroyer Shortfall ................................................................................ 8 Appendixes Appendix A. Additional Background Information on DDG-1000 Program .................................. 48 Appendix B. Additional Background Information on CG(X) Cruiser Program ............................ 56 Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 59 Congressional Research Service Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fy15 Table of Contents Fy16 Table of Contents
    FY15FY16 TABLE OF CONTENTS DOT&E Activity and Oversight FY16 Activity Summary 1 Program Oversight 7 Problem Discovery Affecting OT&E 13 DOD Programs Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Best Practices 23 Defense Agencies Initiative (DAI) 29 Defensive Medical Information Exchange (DMIX) 33 Defense Readiness Reporting System – Strategic (DRRS-S) 37 Department of Defense (DOD) Teleport 41 DOD Healthcare Management System Modernization (DHMSM) 43 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 47 Global Command and Control System – Joint (GCCS-J) 107 Joint Information Environment (JIE) 111 Joint Warning and Reporting Network (JWARN) 115 Key Management Infrastructure (KMI) Increment 2 117 Next Generation Diagnostic System (NGDS) Increment 1 121 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Increment 2 123 Theater Medical Information Program – Joint (TMIP-J) 127 Army Programs Army Network Modernization 131 Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) 135 Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) Main Battle Tank (MBT) 139 AH-64E Apache 141 Army Integrated Air & Missile Defense (IAMD) 143 Chemical Demilitarization Program – Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (CHEM DEMIL-ACWA) 145 Command Web 147 Distributed Common Ground System – Army (DCGS-A) 149 HELLFIRE Romeo and Longbow 151 Javelin Close Combat Missile System – Medium 153 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) Family of Vehicles (FoV) 155 Joint Tactical Networks (JTN) Joint Enterprise Network Manager (JENM) 157 Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) 161 M109A7 Family of Vehicles (FoV) Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) 165
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 30, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 SUMMARY RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) September 30, 2021 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Specialist in Naval Affairs Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. MDA’s FY2022 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2022 there will be 48 total BMDS [BMD system] capable ships requiring maintenance support.” The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requested a total of $1,647.9 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s annual procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; what role, if any, the Aegis BMD program should play in defending the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • American Naval Policy, Strategy, Plans and Operations in the Second Decade of the Twenty- First Century Peter M
    American Naval Policy, Strategy, Plans and Operations in the Second Decade of the Twenty- first Century Peter M. Swartz January 2017 Select a caveat DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. CNA’s Occasional Paper series is published by CNA, but the opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of CNA or the Department of the Navy. Distribution DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. PUBLIC RELEASE. 1/31/2017 Other requests for this document shall be referred to CNA Document Center at [email protected]. Photography Credit: A SM-6 Dual I fired from USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) during a Dec. 14, 2016 MDA BMD test. MDA Photo. Approved by: January 2017 Eric V. Thompson, Director Center for Strategic Studies This work was performed under Federal Government Contract No. N00014-16-D-5003. Copyright © 2017 CNA Abstract This paper provides a brief overview of U.S. Navy policy, strategy, plans and operations. It discusses some basic fundamentals and the Navy’s three major operational activities: peacetime engagement, crisis response, and wartime combat. It concludes with a general discussion of U.S. naval forces. It was originally written as a contribution to an international conference on maritime strategy and security, and originally published as a chapter in a Routledge handbook in 2015. The author is a longtime contributor to, advisor on, and observer of US Navy strategy and policy, and the paper represents his personal but well-informed views. The paper was written while the Navy (and Marine Corps and Coast Guard) were revising their tri- service strategy document A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, finally signed and published in March 2015, and includes suggestions made by the author to the drafters during that time.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of the Navy's New Frigate
    OCTOBER 2020 The Cost of the Navy’s New Frigate On April 30, 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri Several factors support the Navy’s estimate: Marinette Marine a contract to build the Navy’s new sur- face combatant, a guided missile frigate long designated • The FFG(X) is based on a design that has been in as FFG(X).1 The contract guarantees that Fincantieri will production for many years. build the lead ship (the first ship designed for a class) and gives the Navy options to build as many as nine addi- • Little if any new technology is being developed for it. tional ships. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office examines the potential costs if the Navy exercises • The contractor is an experienced builder of small all of those options. surface combatants. • CBO estimates the cost of the 10 FFG(X) ships • An independent estimate within the Department of would be $12.3 billion in 2020 (inflation-adjusted) Defense (DoD) was lower than the Navy’s estimate. dollars, about $1.2 billion per ship, on the basis of its own weight-based cost model. That amount is Other factors suggest the Navy’s estimate is too low: 40 percent more than the Navy’s estimate. • The costs of all surface combatants since 1970, as • The Navy estimates that the 10 ships would measured per thousand tons, were higher. cost $8.7 billion in 2020 dollars, an average of $870 million per ship. • Historically the Navy has almost always underestimated the cost of the lead ship, and a more • If the Navy’s estimate turns out to be accurate, expensive lead ship generally results in higher costs the FFG(X) would be the least expensive surface for the follow-on ships.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Platforms and Combat Systems
    W. G. Bath Overview of Platforms and Combat Systems William G. Bath ABSTRACT Air and missile defense is a complex process involving the coordinated operation of equipment and computer programs. The most effective defense generally is multiple layers of defense using different technologies in each layer such as long-range hard-kill, followed by hard-kill area defense, followed by both hard-kill and soft-kill (electronic warfare) self-defense. A combat system must merge, fuse, and de-conflict many sources of sensor data to produce a single usable track picture for decision-making. Throughout, sensors are controlled and sensor resource use is man- aged to meet the overall defense needs. As technical direction agent and technical adviser for many of the combat system elements, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) performs the systems engineering, analysis, and experimentation that helps the Navy select the most combat system capability at an affordable cost. INTRODUCTION Most Navy warships have combat systems capable of in overall air and missile defense capability shown in air and missile defense. Those combat systems are well Figure 1. described by the “detect–control–engage” paradigm; Aegis destroyers and cruisers are the Navy’s most that is, the components of the combat system can be capable air defense units because of their long-range, notionally grouped as follows: multifunction phased-array radars; their inventory of • Detect components that find and track air and many different anti-air warfare, ballistic missile defense, missile targets and electronic warfare weapons; and their complex control processes for processing sensor data, making • Control components that identify the targets and engagement decisions, and controlling those weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background for Congress
    Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background for Congress Updated January 13, 2011 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL34179 Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background for Congress Summary The Navy’s FY2011 budget proposed canceling the CG(X) program as unaffordable and instead building an improved version of the Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyer called the Flight III version. This report provides background information on the CG(X) program as it existed prior to its proposed cancellation. For further discussion of the proposal to build Flight III DDG-51s in lieu of CG(X)s, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service Navy CG(X) Cruiser Program: Background for Congress Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 CG(X) Cruiser Program Prior to Proposed Cancellation .......................................................... 1 Announcement of Program ................................................................................................. 1 Replacement for CG-47s ..................................................................................................... 2 Planned Procurement Schedule ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Can SPY-7 Radar Do for You?
    What Can SPY-7 Radar Do for You? The AN/SPY-7 radar is the world’s latest technology radar offering the most capability and the most affordable price. It is a modular and scalable software defined digital solid state radar that can pace the evolving threats. Integrated with the Aegis Weapon System, it will provide advanced technology for Aegis Ship and Ashore programs Superior Radar Capabilities International Protection • Has the Ability to Detect, Track, and Engage • Royal Canadian Navy: Canadian Surface Sophisticated Ballistic Missile and Advanced Air Threats Combatant Program • Engages Multiple Targets Simultaneously with Proven • Spanish Navy: F-110 Frigate Program Interceptors • United States Government • Modular and Scalable Software Defined Digital Solid State Radar Most Compatible Proven Performance • Interoperable with Other Radars and Platforms • Solid State Solution Meets the Need Now • Fully compatible with the Aegis Combat System • Provides the Most Technically Advanced Capabilities Warfighters Require • World’s Latest Technology Selected Worldwide Aegis has been trusted for 50 years and Lockheed Martin has a trusted history of producing, integrating, and delivering radars and combat systems. Lockheed Martin and the Aegis Combat System continue to keep pace with evolving integrated air and missile threats, introducing new capabilities to create the latest generation of advanced solid state technologies, integrated with the Aegis system, to provide world-class defense and ensure future safety and security. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/ This Document Does Not Contain Export Controlled Data. products/aegis-combat-system.html © 2020 Lockheed Martin Corporation. All Rights Reserved. (6/2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Ships' Technical Manual, Chapter 583, Boats and Small Craft
    S9086-TX-STM-010/CH-583R3 REVISION THIRD NAVAL SHIPS’ TECHNICAL MANUAL CHAPTER 583 BOATS AND SMALL CRAFT THIS CHAPTER SUPERSEDES CHAPTER 583 DATED 1 DECEMBER 1992 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE, DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED. PUBLISHED BY DIRECTION OF COMMANDER, NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND. 24 MAR 1998 TITLE-1 @@FIpgtype@@TITLE@@!FIpgtype@@ S9086-TX-STM-010/CH-583R3 Certification Sheet TITLE-2 S9086-TX-STM-010/CH-583R3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter/Paragraph Page 583 BOATS AND SMALL CRAFT ............................. 583-1 SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES ............................ 583-1 583-1.1 BOATS AND SMALL CRAFT .............................. 583-1 583-1.1.1 DEFINITION OF A NAVY BOAT. ....................... 583-1 583-1.2 CORRESPONDENCE ................................... 583-1 583-1.2.1 BOAT CORRESPONDENCE. .......................... 583-1 583-1.3 STANDARD ALLOWANCE OF BOATS ........................ 583-1 583-1.3.1 CNO AND PEO CLA (PMS 325) ESTABLISHED BOAT LIST. ....... 583-1 583-1.3.2 CHANGES IN BOAT ALLOWANCE. ..................... 583-1 583-1.3.3 BOATS ASSIGNED TO FLAGS AND COMMANDS. ............ 583-1 583-1.3.4 HOW BOATS ARE OBTAINED. ........................ 583-1 583-1.3.5 EMERGENCY ISSUES. ............................. 583-2 583-1.4 TRANSFER OF BOATS ................................. 583-2 583-1.4.1 PEO CLA (PMS 325) AUTHORITY FOR TRANSFER OF BOATS. .... 583-2 583-1.4.2 TRANSFERRED WITH A FLAG. ....................... 583-2 583-1.4.3 TRANSFERS TO SPECIAL PROJECTS AND TEMPORARY LOANS. 583-2 583-1.4.3.1 Project Funded by Other Activities. ................ 583-5 583-1.4.3.2 Cost Estimates. ............................ 583-5 583-1.4.3.3 Funding Identification.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle Group Antiair Warfare Coordination
    CHESTER C. PHILLIPS and EDWARD C. PRETTYMAN BATTLE GROUP ANTIAIR WARFARE COORDINATION Considering the demands placed on Naval Battle Group defense by the density and speed of poten­ tial air attacks, the coordination of antiair warfare ships and aircraft - now possible through the AEGIS Combat System - becomes essential to the full exploitation of a Battle Group's capability for survival. INTRODUCTION Table 1 Throughout the history of naval warfare, changes in offensive tactics and weaponry have required cor­ BENEFITS OF THE BGAA WC PROGRAM responding changes in defensive tactics and technol­ Coordinated Battle Control ogy. To employ new weapons or to counter new Large-screen Battle Group tactical display threats, techniques of coordinating military opera­ Coordination by information exchange tions must change to keep pace with equipment capa­ Aircraft! missile coordination bilities. New coordination techniques are essential to Automated force response survival of Naval Battle Groups in the combat envi­ ronment of the 1980's, an environment characterized Accurate Real-Time Data Exchange by a potential for large numbers of rapidly evolving, Continuous automatic gridlock capability simultaneous missile attacks. The development of Improved data for non-AEGIS combatants such an antiair warfare coordination capability is AEGIS data sharing treated in this article. BATTLE GROUP ANTIAIR WARFARE Improved Antiair Warfare Effectiveness Improved application of aircraft COORDINATION PROGRAM Improved reaction time for non-AEGIS ships The Battle Group Antiair Warfare Coordination Reduction of missile expenditure per target kill (BGAAWC) Program has evolved as an integral part Improved utilization of AEGIS in Battle Group of the AEGIS development program. Its objective is operations to improve the overall antiair warfare effectiveness of a Battle Group by building on the capabilities of AEGIS and developing its capability to coordinate The Battle Group Antiair Warfare coordination (BGAA wC) Pro­ other Battle Group weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 16/Friday, January 24, 2020/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 16 / Friday, January 24, 2020 / Notices 4301 assault. The Committee will conduct National Defense Authorization Act length of such oral statements may be final deliberations on its draft Fourth Presentation and Discussion; 3:15 p.m.– limited based on the time available and Annual Report. The Committee will also 3:30 p.m. Meeting Wrap-Up and Public the number of such requests. Oral receive updates from the DAC–IPAD’s Comment; 3:30 p.m. Public Meeting presentations by members of the public Case Review, Policy, and Data Working Adjourned. will be permitted from 3:20 p.m. to 3:30 Groups regarding each group’s ongoing Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 p.m. on February 14, 2020, in front of projects. Finally, DAC–IPAD staff will U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102–3.140 the Committee members. through 102–3.165, and the availability provide updates to the Committee on Dated: January 21, 2020. the military installation site visit plan of space, this meeting is open to the Aaron T. Siegel, for members in 2020; sexual assault public. Seating is limited and is on a court-martial attendance by Committee first-come basis. Individuals requiring Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. members; and the new tasks for the special accommodations to access the DAC–IPAD contained in the National public meeting should contact the DAC– [FR Doc. 2020–01209 Filed 1–23–20; 8:45 am] Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal IPAD at BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Year 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Ships Built by the Charlestown Navy Yard
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Boston National Historical Park Charlestown Navy Yard Ships Built By The Charlestown Navy Yard Prepared by Stephen P. Carlson Division of Cultural Resources Boston National Historical Park 2005 Author’s Note This booklet is a reproduction of an appendix to a historic resource study of the Charlestown Navy Yard, which in turn was a revision of a 1995 supplement to Boston National Historical Park’s information bulletin, The Broadside. That supplement was a condensation of a larger study of the same title prepared by the author in 1992. The information has been derived not only from standard published sources such as the Naval Historical Center’s multi-volume Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships but also from the Records of the Boston Naval Shipyard and the Charlestown Navy Yard Photograph Collection in the archives of Boston National Historical Park. All of the photographs in this publication are official U.S. Navy photographs from the collections of Boston National Historical Park or the Naval Historical Center. Front Cover: One of the most famous ships built by the Charlestown Navy Yard, the screw sloop USS Hartford (IX-13) is seen under full sail in Long Island Sound on August 10, 1905. Because of her role in the Civil War as Adm. David Glasgow Farragut’s flagship, she was routinely exempted from Congressional bans on repairing wooden warships, although she finally succumbed to inattention when she sank at her berth on November 20, 1956, two years short of her 100th birthday. BOSTS-11370 Appendix B Ships Built By The Navy Yard HIS APPENDIX is a revised and updated version of “Ships although many LSTs and some other ships were sold for conver- Built by the Charlestown Navy Yard, 1814-1957,” which sion to commercial service.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated October 13, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program Summary The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. Under the FY2021 budget submission, the number of BMD-capable Navy Aegis ships is projected to increase from 48 at the end of FY2021 to 65 at the end of FY2025. The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requests a total of $1,805.1 million (i.e., about $1.8 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s FY2021 funding procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; required numbers of BMD-capable Aegis ships versus available numbers of BMD-capable Aegis ships; the burden that BMD operations may be placing on the Navy’s fleet of Aegis ships, and whether there are alternative ways to perform BMD missions now performed by U.S.
    [Show full text]