The draft Fiscal Year 2025 Defense Budget Request has been released. It indicates the current U.S. military priorities. This post analyzes these requests. The Navy and Marine Corps requests are summarized here (which is the source for block quote material in this post unless otherwise indicated).
Ships
The Navy wants to buy six battle force ships and decommission 19 ships in the next fiscal year . . . one Virginia-class attack submarine, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, one Constellation-class frigate, one San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock and one Medium Landing Ship. . . . The previous plan forecast the Navy buying two Virginia-class attack submarines, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, one Constellation-class frigate, one Medium Landing Ship, and a T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship instead of the LPD. . . . This year’s request continues the Navy’s plans to divest of older platforms, asking to decommission 10 hulls before the end of their service lives and nine additional ships. For the early retirements, the service wants to decommission two cruisers, the first four Expeditionary Fast Transports, one Whidbey Island-class docking landing ship, one Expeditionary Transfer Dock and two Littoral Combat Ships. Those ships are USS Shiloh (CG-67), USS Lake Erie (CG-70), USNS Spearhead (EPF-1), USNS Choctaw County (EPF-2), USNS Millinocket (EPF-3), USNS Fall River (EPF-4), USS Germantown (LSD-42), USNS John Glenn (ESD-2), USS Jackson (LCS-6) and USS Montgomery (LCS-8). . . .
The Decommissioning Proposals
The Decommissioning proposals in the Navy budget are appropriate.
Three of the ships to be decommissioned are just old and past their service life. CG-67 is 31 years old, CG-70 is 30 years old, and LSD-42 (which carried 402-504 Marines and their kit, to be deployed by hovercraft) is 37 years old.
The two, to be decommissioned Littoral Combat Ships have simply been a failed experiment even though LCS-6 is just 8 years old and LCS-8 is just 7 years old.
USNS John Glenn (T-ESD-2) naming, Feb 2014
The ESD-2 is a modified Alaska-class oil tanker built at a bargain $500 million per ship that has no armaments. The concept is that: "Troops, equipment, and cargo would be transferred to the ESD by large-draft ships, from where they can be moved ashore by shallower-draft vessels, landing craft like the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC), or helicopters. of both vessels while underway. . . . [transferring troops in via] skin-to-skin mooring of a host ship alongside the ESD, and the LCAC complement . . . [of] three. The new design is 785 feet (239 m) long, with a beam of 164 feet (50 m), a top speed of over 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph), and a maximum range of 9,500 nautical miles (17,600 km; 10,900 mi)." It was initially designed for a brigade sized force (about 5000 troops) but its capacity was downsized from that, with the idea of a barge barracks supplementing its capabilities.
Decommissioning the 9 year old ESD-2, a class of ship entering service in 2015, which is already on inactive, reduced operating status also makes sense, as Wikipedia explains at the link above:
In mid-2022, the Marine Corps announced its intention to retire the two ESD ships. Although they were cheap to buy compared to amphibious assault ships and demonstrated seabasing concepts, they were limited to connecting with sealift vessels at wave heights below three feet, and payload, fuel capacity and accommodation space were reduced to cut costs. This led to the decision to retire the ships to prioritize other vessels, such as the more successful ESBs. The proposed retirement of the two ships was rejected by Congress in December 2022.
The Navy also wants to divest itsself of the 1515 ton EPF-1 to EPF-4 which are 9-11 years old which costs $180 million, but three of which were reduced to "Inactive, Reduced Operating Status" in 2020. These are the fastest transport ships that the Navy has ever had carrying 312 troops/600 cargo tons at 49 mph (cruising at 40 mph) with a crew of 22 with a shallow 13 foot draft with a range of 1400 miles. It appears that the problem may be that:
During operations in 2015, Spearhead experienced bow damage from rough seas requiring more than $500,000 (USD) in repairs. It was determined that a design change that Austal recommended to the Navy late in the design phase to save weight has resulted in a weakened bow structure. The first five ships in the class will need to be returned to Austal to have upgrades done to improve the superstructure, at a cost of $1.2M each.
There are 11 in service with two more under construction, in addition to three that are in active. The Navy has also announced plans to buy three more "Expeditionary Medical Ship" variants of it. So, this appears to be an effort to decommission some early ships with a design flaw corrected in later ships, rather than to remove this class of ship from service generally, which seems to be sensible decision.
New Ships
We have too many Arleigh Burke-class destroyers already. 73 are in currently service. They have their place, but we don't need two more at a cost of $2.2 billion each. These are an old design and vulnerable to a host of threats including submarines, sea mines, hypersonic and conventional anti-ship missiles launched from land, sea, and air, and guided bombs dropped from aircraft. They lack the automation possible in a more modern design putting more sailors (it has a crew of 323) in harm's way. They are slow (peak speed 35 mph and cruising speed of 20 mph), large (9,900 ton and 510 feet long, 66 feet wide and 31 feet of draft) targets. While they have active defenses are still highly vulnerable in peer to peer combat. Their primary offensive capability - about 96 vertically launched missiles (which can't be reloaded at sea) - can be met be fighter and bomber aircraft and submarines instead. It also has a variety of armaments for close range defense against a variety of threats: two torpedo tubes, a 5" naval gun, SeaRAM missiles for anti-aircraft/cruise missile defense, a 20 mm Phalanx CIWS, two 25 mm (0.98 in) Mk 38 machine gun systems, an Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy, and one on the DDG-88 one High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance.
The 25,300 ton San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, that the Navy wants to buy another one of, is designed for conventional amphibious assault carrying to LCAC (hovercraft landing craft) or one LCU (conventional landing craft), can carry up to 5 MV-22 Osprey VTOL transport aircraft, 14 amphibious assault vehicles (armored personnel carriers) and a 699 Marine landing force in addition to a crew of 361 sailors for a total of 1,060 military personnel on board. It has a light, but adequate defense oriented set of armaments: 2 × Bushmaster II close-in-guns, 2 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launchers, 2 × 8 cell Mark 41 Vertical Launching System for quad-packed ESSMs (not fitted), and several twin M2 Browning machine gun turrets.
The San Antonio-class ship it proposes is a good ship for what it does. But, its purpose isn't obvious a high priority at this moment that justifies the $2 billion sticker price. The D-Day style amphibious forced entry assault it is designed to support hasn't had a militarily important use since the Korean War in the 1950s. The Navy has twelve already and four more being fitted, under construction, or ordered. The marginal benefit of one more ship of this class, designed for a mission that is very low demand and will continue to be for the foreseeable future doesn't make that much sense.
Seen as an island hopping asset rather than as a forced entry asset, buying a 4000 ton Medium Landing Ship for about $188 million (very cheap for a ship) as a proof of concept makes some sense. It could provide flexibility and new capabilities not found in the Navy's existing LHA/LHD-type ships (basically helicopter carrier ships) that are 844 to 855 feet long and have a full load displacements between 40,000 and 45,000 tons, or its San Antonio-class ships. According to this October 16, 2023 source (see also here):
The Landing Ship Medium (LSM) is billed as the “affordable shore-to-shore USMC maneuver capability,” . . . The class of 18 to 35 LSMs – formerly known as the light amphibious warship – will ferry elements of the three Marine Littoral Regiments between isolated islands, reefs and atolls as part service’s shift to its modern campaign of island hopping. . . . Requirements for the ship call for an LSM capable of carrying at least 75 Marines, hauling 600 tons of equipment, and having an 8,000 square foot cargo area. . . . “Specific configuration details will be determined during the detailed design phase, but generally the ship will be less than 400 feet long, have a draft of less than 12 feet, an endurance speed of 14 knots, and roll on/roll off beaching capability,” . . . the ship will have a light defense capability, – two 30mm guns and positions for six .50-caliber guns around the ship – a helicopter pad and a crew of about 70 sailors.
The U.S. attack submarine capability is also probably overkill, but less glaringly so, because its current buy is mostly designed to replace an older class of subs that will have to be retired before too long.
The Navy has three classes of SSNs in service. Los Angeles (SSN 688)-class submarines are the backbone of the submarine force with 40 now in commission. Thirty Los Angeles-class SSNs are equipped with 12 Vertical Launch System tubes for firing Tomahawk cruise missiles.The Navy also has three Seawolf-class submarines. Commissioned on July 19, 1997, USS Seawolf (SSN 21) is exceptionally quiet, fast, well-armed, and equipped with advanced sensors. Though lacking Vertical Launch Systems, the Seawolf class has eight torpedo tubes and can hold up to 50 weapons in its torpedo room. The third ship of the class, USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23), has a 100-foot hull extension called the multi-mission platform. This hull section provides for additional payloads to accommodate advanced technology used to carry out classified research and development and for enhanced warfighting capabilities.The Navy continues to build the next-generation attack submarine, the Virginia (SSN 774) class. Twelve VIRGINIA's have been commissioned to date and they will replace Los Angeles Class submarines as they retire.
The 7,291 ton Constellation-class frigate, which is really almost a destroyer anyway, has the virtue of being a fully modernized design, a $1.05 billion price tag that is about half the price of a new Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, and having had very low development costs or risk since it is a modified French warship model already in service with minor modifications. Its crew of 200 is significantly less than that of a destroyer. It has 32 VLS missiles, 16 Naval Strike Missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, a 2" naval gun, some machines guns, a helicopter, and a helicopter drone, in addition to advanced sensors, so significantly fewer missiles than a destroyer. One is under construction and three more have been ordered so far. It lacks the largely obsolete large naval guns of other U.S. surface combatants and has no torpedoes. It has the ability to detect submarines but not dedicated anti-submarine weapons. Its active defenses are less vigorous than a destroyer. The first twelve will be based in Washington State, presumably to support Pacific and Arctic Ocean operations primarily concerned with Russian, North Korean and Chinese naval forces and more heavily armed pirates and smugglers. This said, it is vulnerable to all of the threats that a destroyer would be, particularly coastal and blue water attack submarines, which all three of its likely opponents have in meaningful numbers.
In sum, if I could propose a Navy ship budget, I would limit the new buys to one Virginia-class attack submarine, one Constellation-class frigate, and one Medium Landing Ship, saving $6.4 billion.
Missiles
The Navy’s weapons procurement request seeks to build upon the multi-year procurement strategies for several munitions programs – the Standard Missile 6, the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, the Naval Strike Missile, and the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. . . . The Navy wants to buy 125 SM-6s . . . . This year’s request also asks for 22 Tactical Tomahawks for the Navy and Marine Corps, 102 Naval Strike Missiles for both services, 30 LRASMs, 261 AMRAMs, and 60 LRASMs Extended Range.
The request does not ask to buy any Conventional Prompt Strike weapons. CPS is a hypersonic missile that the Navy planned to field on the Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyer in FY 2025 and the Virginia-class attack submarine in FY 2028. But the plans to field the weapon on the Zumwalt-class destroyers are delayed until FY 2026 . . . .
It makes sense that the Navy needs more proven missiles, which it has been using in anger at a high rate to take on the Houthis in Yemen, and which would be front and center in any conflict with China. Delaying a naval hypersonic missile buy by a year isn't troubling either.
The hypersonic missile is pretty much exclusively directed at the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, because no other country has a large navy that is a serious potential threat for which the conventional anti-ship missile v. hypersonic missile distinction matters. This would be a nice capability to have, but making sure that Taiwan itself has the military resources it needs to defend itself as much as possible is more important. Also, China, unlike Iran, North Korea, or Russia, has a huge vested interest in keeping robust and varied international trade with the West going, which undermines its bluster on Taiwan, so the threat of an imminent invasion of Taiwan needs to taken with a grain of salt.
Hypersonic missiles can also be deployed by air or from land based launchers, which probably makes more sense in most cases and is being developed parallel to this effort.
Naval Aviation
The Fiscal Year 2025 procurement profile includes nine F-35C Joint Strike Fighters for the Navy, four F-35Cs for the Marine Corps, 13 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, 15 Multi-Engine Training Systems for the Navy, 12 Multi Engine Training Systems for the Marine Corps, 19 CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters for the Marine Corps, and three MQ-25A Stingrays for the Navy’s carrier air wing, according to a service summary. . . .the service is continuing its development of the F/A-XX next-generation fighter program, the FY 2025 request is seeking significantly fewer research and development dollars for the effort. While last year’s request sought $1.5 billion for F/A-XX, this year’s submission is asking for $454 million. . . . The F/A-XX funding is specifically for research and development of the fighter and does not include funding spent on the Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems, some of which are classified. . . .
A modest number of new jet fighters and helicopters for the Navy and Marines and more training aircraft are par for the course. The foray into buying three unmanned carrier based refueling planes is very encouraging, even though they have failed to make a bolder purchase of unmanned carrier based fighter sized reconnaissance aircraft and armed drones. The F/A-XX program, building an F/A-18 Superhornet replacement, when the Navy is already buying F-35Cs, seems not very urgent or necessary, so cutting R&D funding for this program makes sense. This program can afford to be on the back burner.
Drones
The service is asking for $54 million in research and development funding for the Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle and $21 million in R&D funding for the Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle. It’s a substantial decrease compared to the FY 2024 request, which asked for $117 million for LUSV and $104 million for XLUUV. . . .
Developing naval drone capabilities, in contrast, is a quite urgent need that has a long lead time, and significant funding cuts here don't necessarily make sense.
Marine Corp Equipment
The service is asking for 80 Amphibious Combat Vehicles, the same number it sought in FY 2024. The Marine Corps wants to buy 674 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, 123 Anti-Armor Missile Javelins, eight Long Range Fires, and 12 Medium Range Interceptor Capability launchers and missiles.
These purchases seem very appropriate.
The Marine Corps is not asking to buy any of its Navy/Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction Systems, also known as NMESIS, nor is it asking to buy any Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR).
It isn't clear why it won't buy systems to deploy Naval Strike Missiles from land bases, and a capability which Ukraine's attacks on Russia's Black Sea Fleet have proved the usefulness of, and its missile purchases seem to indicate that overall the Marines are moving in that direction. Likewise, advanced ground based, mobile air defense radar would seem to be very desirable for the Marine Corps and it isn't clear why it doesn't want those right now.
The Army
According to this source:
The Army requested $185.9 billion for fiscal 2025, according to budget documents released Monday. That’s an increase of 0.2 percent over the 2024 budget request, though it works out to a cut when adjusted for inflation. The funding is meant to support an active force of 442,300 active duty soldiers, 325,000 Army National Guard members and 175,800 reservists—a decrease in force structure that reflects Army plans to cut billets amid recruiting difficulties.The service will continue buying large amounts of munitions that have been used heavily in Ukraine, such as missiles and multiple launch rocket systems. It is asking $5.7 billion for missiles, up from $4.4 billion last year.Increases in the missiles category were included a $744 million request for the Army’s Long Range Hypersonic Weapon system, $517 million in lower air and missile defense, $493 million for Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM), and $326 million for Javelin anti-tank missiles. The PrSM buy will get the Army 230 missiles, according to budget documents.The Army also wants $1.2 billion for guided multiple launch rocket systems (GMLRS), an increase over last year’s $943 million. “I believe that’s the highest budget number for GMLRS probably ever,” said Army acquisition chief Doug Bush at a media briefing Friday.
The Army's focus on restocking and building up its advanced guided missile capabilities including hypersonic missiles is appropriate. Reducing the number of active duty Army soldiers is probably unwise, because experience is increasingly showing that relying on mobilizing reserves or conscripts is difficult and ineffective, and that the experiences of seasoned veterans is very valuable. It isn't clear why air and missile defense budgets are down given their increased salience.
This particular budget story doesn't highlight key issues: the ill-advised purchase of the M10 Booker "light" tank, the purchase of too many modified Bradley vehicles for dubious purposes (like mortar carriers and command stations), and insufficient efforts to equip National Guard guard forces in a manner specialized for their primary homeland defense function as opposed to just treating them as a second Army Reserve.
The Air Force
The 2025 budget predicts a total aircraft inventory of 4,903 aircraft, according to a service accounting of total aircraft inventory.
Fiscal Year 2025 Divestments
| Aircraft | Number of Airframes |
|---|---|
| F-22 | 32 |
| HH-60G | 12 |
| F-15C/D | 65 |
| A-10 | 56 |
| F-15E | 26 |
| F-16C/D | 11 |
| C-130H | 6 |
| EC-130H | 1 |
| CV-22 | 2 |
| E-11 | 1 |
| KC-135 | 16 |
| T-1 | 22 |
| TOTAL | 250 |
The Air Force is heavily focused on modernization, so protecting research and development comes at the cost of new aircraft purchases in the latest budget, according to top service officials. The aircraft divestment plan is worth over $2 billion in savings, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for budget Maj. Gen. Mike A. Greiner said.“For the most part, our divestments were planned because we need to start moving the funding into the modernization programs,” Kristyn E. Jones, the acting undersecretary of the Air Force told reporters March 11.The Air Force wants to purchase 42 F-35As and 18 F-15EXs—a total of 60 new fighters. That will not meet the service’s stated long-term goal of at least 72 new fighters annually. The Air Force is moving towards awarding the first contracts for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs), semi-autonomous aircraft that will accompany the manned fighter fleet. CCAs will “rethink our definition” of the USAF fighter fleet, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin said on March 7.
Fiscal Year 2025 Procurements
| Aircraft | Number of Airframes |
|---|---|
| F-35A | 42 |
| F-15EX | 18 |
| KC-46 | 15 |
| MH-139 | 8 |
| T-7A | 7 |
| C-40 (a modified Boeing 737) | 1 |
| TOTAL | 91 |
The aircraft resulted from the U.S. Department of Defense' Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD CAPE) study in 2018 to recapitalize the aging F-15C/D fleet due to inadequate numbers of F-22s, delays in the F-35 program, and maintaining diversity in the U.S. fighter industrial base through Boeing's St. Louis division (former McDonnell Douglas). The F-15EX is expected to replace the F-15C/D in performing homeland and air defense missions and also serve as an affordable platform for employing large stand-off weapons to augment the frontline F-22 and F-35.
There are much cheaper and better alternatives than the F-15EX for homeland defense short of an all out air invasion from Russia which seems exceedingly unlikely.
The . . . HH-60G Pave Hawk's core mission is recovery of personnel under hostile conditions, including combat search and rescue. Both versions conduct day or night operations into hostile environments. Because of its versatility, the HH-60G may also perform peacetime operations such as civil search and rescue, emergency aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC), disaster relief, international aid and counter-drug activities. The USAF HH/MH-60G are in the process of being replaced by the new HH-60W Jolly Green II.
No comments:
Post a Comment