DOCSLIB.ORG

The Aegis Warship Affordable Warfighting Capabilities That As- Sure Friends and Deter Adversaries—Should Deterrence and Conflict Prevention Fail

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Aegis Warship Affordable Warfighting Capabilities That As- Sure Friends and Deter Adversaries—Should Deterrence and Conflict Prevention Fail Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville recently completed combat systems update with latest Aegis Baseline 9 combat system, June 18, 2015 (U.S. Navy/Peter Burghart) joint force with credible, effective, and The Aegis Warship affordable warfighting capabilities that as- sure friends and deter adversaries—should deterrence and conflict prevention fail. Joint Force Linchpin for IAMD Complicating the combatant com- manders’ calculus are the advancing antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) capabili- and Access Control ties in the hands of potential adversaries and rogue states that pose a major chal- By John F. Morton lenge to the maritime domain. From the Arctic to the Arabian Gulf, Russia, North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, and Iran all nder defense strategic guidance, 2012 guidance calls “Joint Force in have to varying degrees either deployed or U.S. combatant commanders 2020” is to project stabilizing force to are developing nuclear weapon and bal- U have been rebalancing joint forces support our allies and partners, and to listic missile capabilities. Combined with along the Asia-Pacific Rim with recali- help maintain the free flow of commerce other A2/AD capabilities that include brated capabilities to shape the regional along sea lines of communication in the sea-skimming and high-diving supersonic security environments in their areas of globalized economic system.1 cruise missiles, these threats to the global responsibility. The mission of what the Forces postured forward for deter- maritime commons translate into power- rence and conflict prevention are a ful tools for diplomatic coercion. substantial component to U.S. global en- The 2014 Quadrennial Defense gagement. The combatant commanders, Review put specific priority on increasing John F. Morton is a Senior National Security Analyst for TeamBlue National Security Programs, joint community, and Services are work- overall joint force capabilities to counter Gryphon Technologies LC. ing together to plan and resource this growing A2/AD challenges. In what 110 Features / The Aegis Warship JFQ 80, 1st Quarter 2016 the Pentagon characterizes as the A2/ partner nation efforts in ballistic missile the Secretary of Defense for Policy has AD environment, defense officials are defense (BMD) in line with the European planned for initial operational capabil- now conceptualizing the high-end level Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), the ity [IOC] in July 2016. Phase III Aegis of the warfighting spectrum around administration’s missile defense strategy Ashore is due in Poland in 2018.) the integrated air and missile defense for Europe.4 Syring previously served (IAMD) mission. In December 2013, as the program executive officer for Modernized Aegis as the General Martin Dempsey, then Chairman integrated warfare systems (PEO IWS) IAMD Game Changer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released his in the Navy office that was responsible The linchpin of regional IAMD is Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense: for modernization of Aegis cruisers and surface warfare, then-Captain James Vision 2020 that spoke of the need for destroyers, new construction, and ongo- Kilby wrote in April 2014.5 The deputy IAMD to “be even more Joint—advanc- ing baseline upgrades to their combat for ballistic missile defense, Aegis ing interdependence and integrating new systems. combat systems, and destroyers in the capabilities.”2 Working with MDA in driving Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Senior military officials conceive of IAMD jointness is the Joint Staff’s Force (OPNAV) Surface Warfare Directorate high-end operations as IAMD-centric. Structure, Resources, and Assessment (N96), Kilby explained that the surface They view IAMD as a joint capability to Directorate (J8), specifically the Joint Navy’s fleet of 30 Aegis cruisers and be employed at the tactical, operational, Integrated Air and Missile Defense destroyers is capable of conducting bal- and strategic levels of war. Competitive Organization (JIAMDO). This group listic missile defense. His main points, IAMD strategies for today’s A2/AD leads in developing and fielding a however, addressed how a host of addi- environments are comparable to those comprehensive, integrated joint and tional Aegis ships are undergoing mod- strategies formulated during the Cold combined air and missile defense force in ernization and will be equipped with a War with reference to the Fulda Gap, support of Joint IAMD. Since June 2014, new combat system baseline that pro- such as the Follow-on Forces Attack JIAMDO directors have been two other vides advanced IAMD capabilities. Now subconcept. The strategies inform IAMD Navy flag officers, Rear Admiral Jesse A. a rear admiral, Kilby became the first requirements generation and acquisition, Wilson, Jr., and his recent successor, Rear commander of the newly established as well as the Planning, Programming, Admiral Ed Cashman. They have led Naval Surface and Mine Warfighting Budgeting, and Execution process for JIAMDO in planning, coordinating, and Development Center in San Diego in systems and architectures. overseeing joint air and missile defense mid-2014. Prior to his OPNAV service, Joint IAMD describes the IAMD requirements, operational concepts, and he commanded the cruiser USS Mon- environment as an expanding battlespace operational architectures. They have also terey (CG 61), the first Aegis BMD requiring plans and operations that range headed the U.S. delegation to the North ship to deploy to the Mediterranean in across global, regional, transregional, and Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) March 2011 to support EPAA. homeland domains. “The regional and Air and Missile Defense Committee Kilby stated that the key feature intercontinental reach of ballistic mis- that develops and steers Alliance IAMD of Aegis IAMD modernization is the siles,” it continues, “alters the strategic policy, all the more important in view Baseline 9 combat system upgrade that and operational decision space.”3 IAMD of the current situation in the Eastern provides the ability to conduct integrated forces in a specific theater can extend to Mediterranean. fires via a sensor net linking ships and regional, transregional, and homeland These Navy appointments to the aircraft. Four Baseline 9 ships—two operations. As such, combatant com- joint community reflect the reality cruisers and two destroyers—underwent mander plans must allow for coordination that the foundational maritime IAMD certification in 2015. An additional BMD and handoff across combatant command enablers for active defense will be the destroyer, the lead Baseline 9 destroyer areas of responsibility. surface Navy’s modernized fleet of USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), is home- Since May 2013, the Missile Defense Aegis-equipped warships. Mobile, ported in Hawaii. In August 2014, the Agency (MDA) has had technical author- forward-deployed Aegis cruisers and John Paul Jones replaced the Aegis cruiser ity over the IAMD mission. MDA now destroyers, variously upgraded, will serve USS Lake Erie (CG 70) as the deployable leads all joint IAMD engineering and as the combatant commanders’ net- BMD test ship assigned to the Barking integration efforts, including defining enabling nodes for globally integrated Sands Pacific Missile Range Facility on and controlling the IAMD interfaces joint force operations for access control. Kauai to support MDA and Navy testing and the allocation of IAMD technical (Augmenting the missile defense capabil- of IAMD capabilities. (The John Paul requirements. MDA’s current director ity of at-sea Aegis platforms in the NATO Jones Baseline 9 upgrade was co-funded is Vice Admiral James Syring, the first area of responsibility will be the land- by the Navy and MDA. Although the Navy head of the agency. His arrival in based Aegis Ashore variant. Under EPAA ship is an “integrated baseline ship” that 2012 coincided with a time when the Phase II, Aegis Ashore is in Romania is also deployable, it is not a combatant Aegis ship-based combat system came with a technical capability declaration that command asset.) John Paul Jones has to to be seen as a core element of U.S. and came at the end of 2015; the Office of date successfully completed four flight JFQ 80, 1st Quarter 2016 Morton 111 Crew of guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones successfully engaged 6 targets with 5 Standard Missiles during live-fire test, June 19, 2014 (U.S. Navy) test events intercepting both short-range Engagement Capability (CEC), and 5th- cruiser. The lead Baseline 9 cruiser, USS ballistic missile and cruise missile targets generation F-35 fighter aircraft will be Chancellorsville (CG 62), is now under using the Standard Missile (SM)-6 Dual I “IAMD game changers.” operational control of U.S. 7th Fleet. The and SM-2 Block IV missiles. OPNAV’s Surface Warfare third Baseline 9 cruiser, USS Princeton The most complex variant of inte- Directorate is working to enhance the (CG 59), underwent combat system ship grated fires, wrote Kilby, is the emerging utility of NIFC-CA. Among the concepts qualification trials and integrated testing Navy Integrated Fire Control–Counter considered is making the Baseline 9 ships in July 2015. The initial NIFC-CA con- Air (NIFC-CA) capability that dramati- less reliant on assets of the carrier strike cept of operations, however, still requires cally extends the sensor net to allow for group by using an organic unmanned additional testing and refinement as the missile engagements beyond the radar aerial vehicle with the necessary data links Navy delivers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2014 Ships and Submarines of the United States Navy
    AIRCRAFT CARRIER DDG 1000 AMPHIBIOUS Multi-Purpose Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear-Propulsion) THE U.S. NAvy’s next-GENERATION MULTI-MISSION DESTROYER Amphibious Assault Ship Gerald R. Ford Class CVN Tarawa Class LHA Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 USS Peleliu LHA-5 John F. Kennedy CVN-79 Enterprise CVN-80 Nimitz Class CVN Wasp Class LHD USS Wasp LHD-1 USS Bataan LHD-5 USS Nimitz CVN-68 USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 USS Harry S. Truman CVN-75 USS Essex LHD-2 USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 USS George Washington CVN-73 USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 USS Kearsarge LHD-3 USS Iwo Jima LHD-7 USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77 USS Boxer LHD-4 USS Makin Island LHD-8 USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 SUBMARINE Submarine (Nuclear-Powered) America Class LHA America LHA-6 SURFACE COMBATANT Los Angeles Class SSN Tripoli LHA-7 USS Bremerton SSN-698 USS Pittsburgh SSN-720 USS Albany SSN-753 USS Santa Fe SSN-763 Guided Missile Cruiser USS Jacksonville SSN-699 USS Chicago SSN-721 USS Topeka SSN-754 USS Boise SSN-764 USS Dallas SSN-700 USS Key West SSN-722 USS Scranton SSN-756 USS Montpelier SSN-765 USS La Jolla SSN-701 USS Oklahoma City SSN-723 USS Alexandria SSN-757 USS Charlotte SSN-766 Ticonderoga Class CG USS City of Corpus Christi SSN-705 USS Louisville SSN-724 USS Asheville SSN-758 USS Hampton SSN-767 USS Albuquerque SSN-706 USS Helena SSN-725 USS Jefferson City SSN-759 USS Hartford SSN-768 USS Bunker Hill CG-52 USS Princeton CG-59 USS Gettysburg CG-64 USS Lake Erie CG-70 USS San Francisco SSN-711 USS Newport News SSN-750 USS Annapolis SSN-760 USS Toledo SSN-769 USS Mobile Bay CG-53 USS Normandy CG-60 USS Chosin CG-65 USS Cape St.
    [Show full text]
  • OASD Satellite Engagement Communications Plan (Feb
    The University of Mississippi School of Law The National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law Informational resources on the legal aspects of human activities using aerospace technologies USA-193: Selected Documents Compiled by P.J. Blount P.J. Blount, editor Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, editor This page intentionally left blank. Disclaimer The information contained in this compilation represents information as of February 20, 2009. It does not constitute legal representation by the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law (Center), its faculty or staff. Before using any information in this publication, it is recommended that an attorney be consulted for specific legal advice. This publication is offered as a convenience to the Center's readership. The documents contained in this publication do not purport to be official copies. Some pages have sections blocked out. These blocked sections do not appear in the original documents. Blocked out sections contain information wholly unrelated to the space law materials intended to be compiled. The sections were blocked out by the Center's faculty and staff to facilitate focus on the relevant materials. i National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law Founded in 1999, the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law is a reliable source for creating, gathering, and disseminating objective and timely remote sensing, space, and aviation legal research and materials. The Center serves the public good and the aerospace industry by addressing and conducting education and outreach activities related to the legal aspects of aerospace technologies to human activities. Faculty and Staff Prof. Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, Director Prof.
    [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]
  • Esps Canarias
    European Union Naval Force - Mediterranean ESPS CANARIAS Frigate Santa Maria class Frigate Santa Maria class Length / Beam / Draft 138 m / 14,3 m / 7,5 m Displacement 3,900 t Speed 29 knots (maximum turbine) Source: Spanish Defense website http://www.armada.mde.es The Ship ESPS CANARIAS is the sixth frigate of the 41st Escorts Squadron; she was built by Navantia in Ferrol, and delivered to the Navy in December 1994. ESPS CANARIAS home port is Rota Naval Base in the south of Spain. ESPS CANARIAS is fitted with a helicopter SH-60 and Marine Boarding Team that completes her capabilities and ensures she is capable of conducting the missions and tasks assigned by EUNAVFOR MED. The Santa Maria Class is a multirole warship able to carry out missions ranging from high intensity warfare integrated into a battle group and conducting offensive and defensive operations, to low intensity scenarios against non-conventional threats. Designed primarily to act in the interests of the State in the maritime areas overseas and participate in the settlement crises outside Europe, this leading warship can also be integrated into a naval air force. It may operate in support of an intervention force or protection of commercial traffic and perform special operations or humanitarian missions. The Santa Maria class frigates, like destroyers and corvettes, are given the generic name of escorts with the main task of protecting other units and maintaining sea lines of communications. However, their versatility allows the F-80 frigates to carry out a wide range of missions, which can be grouped into two broad categories: • Maritime Interdiction Operations: known as 'MIO operations', these consist of shipping control in a given area to ensure the maintenance of safe passage within any given restrictions or regulations as ruled by International Organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2020 Full Issue
    Naval War College Review Volume 73 Number 1 Winter 2020 Article 1 2020 Winter 2020 Full Issue The U.S. Naval War College Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Naval War College, The U.S. (2020) "Winter 2020 Full Issue," Naval War College Review: Vol. 73 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol73/iss1/1 This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Naval War College: Winter 2020 Full Issue Winter 2020 Volume 73, Number 1 Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2020 1 Naval War College Review, Vol. 73 [2020], No. 1, Art. 1 Cover Two modified Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IV interceptors are launched from the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) during a Missile Defense Agency (MDA) test to intercept a short-range ballistic-missile target, conducted on the Pacific Missile Range Facility, west of Hawaii, in 2008. The SM-2 forms part of the Aegis ballistic-missile defense (BMD) program. In “A Double-Edged Sword: Ballistic-Missile Defense and U.S. Alli- ances,” Robert C. Watts IV explores the impact of BMD on America’s relationship with NATO, Japan, and South Korea, finding that the forward-deployed BMD capability that the Navy’s Aegis destroyers provide has served as an important cement to these beneficial alliance relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Navy Ships-Of-The-Line
    U.S. Navy – Ships-of-the-line A Frigate vs A Ship-of-the-Line: What’s the difference? FRIGATE: A vessel of war which is: 1) “ship” rigged, i.e. – with at least three masts (fore, main, & mizzen) & each mast carries the horizontal yards from which the principle sails are set; 2) this “ship-rigged vessel of war” is a FRIGATE because it has one covered, principle gun deck – USS Constitution is therefore a FRIGATE by class (illus. left) SHIP-OF-THE-LINE: A vessel of war which is: 1) “ship” rigged (see above); 2) this “ship-rigged vessel of war” is a SHIP-OF-THE-LINE because it has two or more covered gun decks – HMS Victory is therefore a SHIP-OF-THE-LINE by class (illus. right) HMS Victory (1765); 100+ guns; 820 officers Constitution preparing to battle Guerriere, & crew; oldest commissioned warship in the M.F. Corne, 1812 – PEM Coll. world, permanently dry docked in England Pg. 1 NMM Coll. An Act, 2 January 1813 – for the construction of the U.S. Navy’s first Ships-of-the-line USS Independence was the first ship-of-the-line launched for the USN from the Boston (Charlestown) Navy Yard on 22 June 1814: While rated for 74-guns, Independence was armed with 87 guns when she was launched. USS Washington was launched at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, 1 October 1814 USS Pennsylvania – largest sailing warship built for the USN USS Pennsylvania – rated for 136 guns on three covered gun decks + guns on her upper (spar) deck – the largest sailing warship ever built.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Postgraduate School Thesis
    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS A STUDY OF THE RUSSIAN ACQUISITION OF THE FRENCH MISTRAL AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT WARSHIPS by Patrick Thomas Baker June 2011 Thesis Advisor: Mikhail Tsypkin Second Reader: Douglas Porch Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2011 Master‘s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS A Study of the Russian Acquisition of the French Mistral Amphibious Assault Warships 6. AUTHOR(S) Patrick Thomas Baker 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
    [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]
  • The Naval Forces of Belligerents
    International Law Studies—Volume 50 THE LAW OF WAR AND NEUTRALITY AT SEA Robert W. Tucker (Author) The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of the U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of the Navy or the Naval War College. III. THE NAVAL FORCES OF BELLIGERENTS A. THE NAVAL FORCES OF BELLIGERENTS ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONAL LAW In warfare at sea it is important to be able to identify clearly the naval forces of belligerents. The reason for this is that many of the rules regu­ lating inter-belligerent and neutral-belligerent relations are dependent for their operation upon the possibility of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Only the naval forces of a belligerent are permitted to conduct offensive operations against an enemy. In addition, the treat­ ment accorded to a belligerent vessel depends, in the first place, upon whether or not the vessel forms a part of the belligerent's naval forces. Whereas the naval vessels of a belligerent are subject to attack and destruc­ tion on sight, enemy merchant vessels are normally exempt fro1n such treat­ ment. Whereas title to a vessel in the military service of an enemy immedi­ ately vests in the government of the captor by virtue of the fact of capture, title to an enemy merchant vessel normally depends upon adjudication by a prize court. So also may the treatment of personnel taken from enemy ves­ sels differ, depending upon the status of the vessel. Finally, the traditional rules governing neutral-belligerent relations in naval war presuppose throughout the possibility of distinguishing between the naval forces of belligerent and belligerent merchant vessels.
    [Show full text]
  • US Navy Program Guide 2012
    U.S. NAVY PROGRAM GUIDE 2012 U.S. NAVY PROGRAM GUIDE 2012 FOREWORD The U.S. Navy is the world’s preeminent cal change continues in the Arab world. Nations like Iran maritime force. Our fleet operates forward every day, and North Korea continue to pursue nuclear capabilities, providing America offshore options to deter conflict and while rising powers are rapidly modernizing their militar- advance our national interests in an era of uncertainty. ies and investing in capabilities to deny freedom of action As it has for more than 200 years, our Navy remains ready on the sea, in the air and in cyberspace. To ensure we are for today’s challenges. Our fleet continues to deliver cred- prepared to meet our missions, I will continue to focus on ible capability for deterrence, sea control, and power pro- my three main priorities: 1) Remain ready to meet current jection to prevent and contain conflict and to fight and challenges, today; 2) Build a relevant and capable future win our nation’s wars. We protect the interconnected sys- force; and 3) Enable and support our Sailors, Navy Civil- tems of trade, information, and security that enable our ians, and their Families. Most importantly, we will ensure nation’s economic prosperity while ensuring operational we do not create a “hollow force” unable to do the mission access for the Joint force to the maritime domain and the due to shortfalls in maintenance, personnel, or training. littorals. These are fiscally challenging times. We will pursue these Our Navy is integral to combat, counter-terrorism, and priorities effectively and efficiently, innovating to maxi- crisis response.
    [Show full text]
  • US Ships in Commission, Under Construction, and in Mothballs 1 September 1939
    US Ships in Commission, Under Construction, and in Mothballs 1 September 1939 Ships in commission (Total 339 ships) Battleships USS Arizona (BB-39) USS Arkansas (BB-33) USS California (BB-44) USS Colorado (BB-45) USS Idaho (BB-42) USS Maryland (BB-46) USS Mississippi (BB-41) USS Nevada (BB-36) USS New Mexico (BB-40, ex-California) USS New York (BB-34) USS Oklahoma (BB-37) USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) USS Tennessee (BB-43) USS Texas (BB-35) USS West Virginia (BB-48) Aircraft Carriers USS Enterprise (CV-6) USS Lexington (CV-2, ex CC-1, ex Constitution) USS Ranger (CV-4) USS Saratoga (CV-3, ex CC-3) USS Yorktown (CV-5) Heavy Cruisers USS Astoria (CA-34, ex CL-34) USS Augusta (CA-31, ex CL-31) USS Chester (CA-27, ex CL-27) USS Chicago (CA-29, ex CL-29) USS Houston (CA-30, ex CL-30) USS Indianapolis) (CA-35, ex CL-35) USS Lousiville (CA-28, ex CL-28) USS Minneapolis (CA-36, ex CL-36) USS New Orleans (CA-32, ex CL-32) USS Northampton (CA-26, ex CL-26) USS Pensacola (CA-24, ex CL-24) USS Portland (CA-33, ex CL-33) USS Quincy (CA-39, ex CL-39) USS Salt Lake City (CA-25, ex CL-25) USS San Francisco (CA-38, ex CL-38) USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37, ex CL-37) USS Vincennes (CA-44, CL-44) USS Wichita (CA-45) Light Cruisers USS Boise (CL-47) USS Brooklyn (CL-40) USS Cincinnati (CL-6, ex CS-6) USS Concord (CL-10, ex CS-10) USS Detroit (CL-8, ex CS-8) USS Honolulu (CL-48) USS Marblehead (CL-12, ex CS-12) 1 USS Memphis (CL-13, ex CS-13) USS Milwaukee (CL-5, ex CS-5) USS Nashville (CL-43) USS Omaha (CL-4, ex CS-4) USS Philadelphia (CL-41) USS Phoenix (CL-46) USS Raleigh (CL-7, ex CS-7) USS Richmond (CL-9, ex CS-9) USS St.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated July 22, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46374 SUMMARY R46374 Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) July 22, 2020 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Navy’s new Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program envisions procuring a class of 28 to Specialist in Naval Affairs 30 new amphibious ships to support the Marine Corps, particularly in implementing a new Marine Corps operational concept called Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO). The Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget requests $30 million in research and development funding for initial industry studies and concept design work on the ship. The Navy envisions procuring the ships on an expedited schedule, with the first LAWs potentially being procured in FY2023 and a total of 28 notionally being procured by FY2026. The EABO concept was developed with an eye toward potential conflict scenarios with China in the Western Pacific. Under the concept, the Marine Corps envisions, among other things, having reinforced-platoon-sized Marine Corps units maneuver around the theater, moving from island to island, to fire anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and perform other missions so as to contribute, alongside Navy and other U.S. military forces, to U.S. operations to counter and deny sea control to Chinese forces. The LAW ships would be instrumental to these operations, with LAWs embarking, transporting, landing, and subsequently reembarking these small Marine Corps units. As conceived by the Navy and Marine Corps, LAWs would be much smaller and individually much less expensive to procure and operate than the Navy’s current amphibious ships.
    [Show full text]