US Navy News

[James1978]

Navy delaying next-gen F/A-XX fighter spending for near-term investments
The combination of delaying F/A-XX development and shutting down F/A-18 production may not go well for Navy leadership when they testify to lawmakers.

By Justin Katz
March 11, 2024

WASHINGTON — The US Navy is delaying about $1 billion of funding into developing its next-generation strike fighter in its new budget, a move senior leaders said was a deliberate choice to sacrifice future modernization to keep current readiness high.

The funding delay means any major decisions about awarding a contract on the program will be kicked down the road, unwelcome news to the country’s top three aerospace prime contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — which have all signaled their intent to fight for a production contract.

“We’re absolutely committed to the capacity and lethality of the of the carrier wing,” Rear Adm. Ben Reynolds, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget, told reporters last week. “The capacity [and] the firepower of the air wing is orders of magnitude above anything else that that [the Defense Department] has.”

Reynolds said that funding for F/A-XX, the strike fighter intended to replace the service’s stalwart F/A-18 Super Hornet, was previously projected to receive around $1.5 billion in FY25, but the constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 forced the Navy to disperse much of that money into future budgets. The FRA, signed into law last June, provides an FY25 defense spending cap of $895 billion, and the Navy and Marine Corps’ share of that topline under the newly-released budget is $257.6 billion.

“In terms of what comes at the top of the list, it is readiness. It is people. It is the today issues that we have to get on top of,” Navy Under Secretary Erik Raven told reporters while speaking alongside Reynolds. “Where our guidance directs us to take risk is in future modernization.”

Details on what F/A-XX may look like have been thin, aside from DoD officials emphasizing that the Navy and Air Force have no interest in repeating the joint design experience from the F-35. A Navy spokesperson told Breaking Defense last August that the service “has identified operational reach, capacity, long range kill chains, autonomy, and next generation survivability as key enablers in the Air Wing of the Future and supporting Family of System.”

Industry has been taking seriously the chance to jump on F/A-XX. At the Barclays Industrials Conference in February, Northrop CEO Kathy Warden appeared to suggest proposals for a down-select were coming soon.

“And then of course, we’re looking at other sixth-generation aircraft proposals that we will be submitting this year for down-select, maybe next,” she said.

The service’s choice to delay its next-gen strike fighter development is punctuated by a previous decision to end production of the Boeing-made F/A-18 Super Hornet. The Navy has been signaling since 2020 that it wanted to stop buying Super Hornets in 2023 and explicitly told lawmakers the money saved would be invested directly into F/A-XX and the family of systems known as the Next Generation Air Dominance program.

The combination of F/A-XX now effectively delayed and Super Hornet procurement zeroed out could lead to serious blow-back for Navy brass when they testify to lawmakers, who were already skeptical of the service’s plans to resolve its strike fighter shortfall.

With its primary customer signaling a shift to a newer plane, Boeing in February 2023 announced its plans to cease F/A-18 production in 2025, ending an era for a warplane favored by the US Navy since the 1970s. The company at the time said last minute orders from the Indian Navy might have kept the line going until 2027, but in July, India opted for a French fighter, all but ensuring the production line in St. Louis will soon go cold.

[James1978]

U.S. Navy Budget Details T-45 Replacement Plan
Brian Everstine
March 13, 2024

The U.S. Navy appears set to begin buying replacements for its aging T-45 Goshawk training aircraft, with budget documents showing procurement to begin in 2026 after a contract has been awarded.

The Navy has in recent years conducted extensive market outreach for a potential T-45 replacement known as the Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS). A procurement chart released with the Navy’s fiscal 2025 budget request on March 11 shows procurement of a T-45 Training System (TS) aircraft starting with 10 in 2026, following by 12 in each of the following three years.

A U.S. Navy spokesperson confirmed that the T-45TS would be the UJTS replacement for the BAE Goshawk.

“The T-45TS is envisioned to be part of an overall training system for Undergraduate Jet Training,” the Navy said in a statement. “Further details are not available at this time as funding and contracting specifics are still predecisional.”

A request for information released in August 2023 for UJTS calls for a potential contract award in 2026 for a minimum of 145 aircraft with a full-rate production of 25 per year. The latest request for information (RFI) says the aircraft would not be required to go to a carrier for training, unlike the current T-45. But it would need to be able to endure repeated unflared landings to practice the carrier flight profile. This would likely require additional evelopment for the aircraft in the running.

“The government assumes the development of [Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP)] is the main schedule driver,” the RFI says.

At least three competitors have emerged for UJTS. Aviation Week reported in September 2023 that Textron Aviation Defense and Leonardo were teaming up to offer the M-346N, a modified version of the M-346 already in operation in multiple countries.

Lockheed Martin is offering the TF-50N, a new version of the T-50 that it would produce in partnership with Korean Aerospace Industries.

Boeing is offering its T-7A Red Hawk, which the company is producing for the U.S. Air Force. Boeing will make 351 of the aircraft for the Air Force, though the program has faced delays. Those include the service’s new budget request, which now predicts initial operational capability in fiscal 2028—a four-year push.

[James1978]

US Navy nixed a Virginia sub amid spending frenzy to support suppliers
Here’s why the sea service argues that’s OK
By Megan Eckstein
March 11, 2024

The U.S. Navy’s fiscal 2025 budget request includes money for one Virginia-class attack submarine instead of the planned two, but still represents “a prioritization and very significant investment in undersea warfare capabilities,” the service’s undersecretary said Friday, arguing this is not contradictory.

The Navy has been buying its attack subs at a rate of two per year since FY11, but industry has not kept up in recent years, delivering closer to an average of 1.2 boats annually. The service spent $2.3 billion from FY18 to FY23 to change that, hoping to not only get industry up to an on-time delivery rate of two per year, but then to a rate between 2.3 and 2.5 to support the AUKUS submarine partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom.

The Navy, business leaders and lawmakers have all highlighted stable funding as a key to helping industry bolster its output. And yet, in a fiscal year with a top line capped by law and in which the Navy had to delay several major shipbuilding and modernization efforts, the sea service chose to save some $4 billion in the FY25 spending plan by nixing the second Virginia sub.

“We did reduce the funding to one Virginia-class submarine in FY25. But we maintain the funding for nine out of the planned 10 Virginia class” during the five-year Future Years Defense Program, or FYDP, Under Secretary Erik Raven told reporters.

The one FY25 boat will be the first of a new Block VI design. Navy budget books refer to seeking a nine-sub multiyear procurement contract for Block VI.

“In addition, we make significant investments in the submarine-industrial base. During last year’s budget rollout, I talked about $2.4 billion in submarine-industrial base investments that were planned over the FYDP. In this year’s budget, we plan an additional $8.8 billion on top of what was already programmed across the FYDP,” he added.

Raven said the FY25 budget also maintains its planned advance procurement for future submarines, which is “incredibly important in terms of supporting the supplier base to set themselves up for the needed production rate for Virginia class.”

And in the longer term, he explained, the Navy in last year’s long-range shipbuilding plan showed an intention to buy one boat a year in each of FY30 and FY31.

Now, the Navy believes it can buy two boats in each of those years, which will be reflected when the long-range shipbuilding plan comes out later this spring, he added.

“So taken as a whole, this budget presents a significant investment in the undersea capability area, and we feel like these are absolutely the needed moves to make sure that we’re set up for the long term, for success in both Virginia and the Columbia program,” he said, the latter being the ballistic missile submarine that the Navy still calls its top spending priority.

Rear Adm. Ben Reynolds, the deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for the budget, said Friday the total submarine-industrial base funding would be $3.9 billion in FY25 alone. That doesn’t include the cost of buying actual submarines, but rather the funds being poured into the supply chain to help vendors hire and train workers, retool existing facilities and build new ones, invest in additive manufacturing, and more.

That one-year sum is $1.5 billion more than the Navy planned to spend across the entire five-year FYDP last year, showing how thorny a challenge this has been and how important it remains to future American and AUKUS alliance needs.

However, the Navy also asked for $3.3 billion more in the supplemental funding package that stalled in Congress. The package was meant to fund support to Ukraine and Israel, operations at the U.S.-Mexico border, and other emerging defense needs — including submarine-industrial base support, couched as pivotal to deterring China from attacking Taiwan.

Neither the FY24 defense spending bill nor the supplemental spending bill have passed Congress, so it’s unclear when or if any of that money will make it to the supply chain.

Reynolds said this massive spending for a targeted segment of the industrial base “gets us up to that place where we can get to one-plus-two [Columbia and Virginia production rates] towards the end of the FYDP.” That fund would total at least $16.8 billion by FY29 if everything, including the FY24 budget and supplemental, were to pass.

At least one member of Congress is pushing back. Rep. Joe Courtney, a Connecticut Democrat whose district includes the General Dynamics’ Electric Boat submarine construction yard, said Monday the reduced buy in FY25 “demands the highest scrutiny by the Congress” because it “contradicts the Department’s own National Defense [Industrial] Strategy issued January 11, 2024, which identified ‘procurement stability’ as critical to achieve resilient supply chains.”

Still, Raven, in a Monday afternoon briefing, maintained the Navy’s choice is best for industry.

“We removed one Virginia-class out of concern for the industrial base ability to produce yet one more, while in a capped environment making headroom for these historic investments in the submarine-industrial base,” he said.

[James1978]

USS Idaho Submarine Christened amid Unprecedented Demand for Workers
By Elizabeth Regan
March 18, 2024

GROTON — As a bottle of sparkling water broke against the hull of the USS Idaho, submarine test mechanic Spencer Holzschlag stood at the sail atop the massive ship to drown out the celebratory clink with the blast of a whistle that reverberated through the shipbuilding hangar for 10 deafening seconds.

It was the christening of the 26th submarine in the Virginia class of nuclear powered, fast-attack submarines. The Idaho, named for an unlikely hotspot in the world of maritime nuclear research and training, is the 13th in the class built at Electric Boat as part of a collaboration with Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

The opportunity to participate in the pomp and circumstance was a perk of the job for Holzschlag, whose responsibilities revolve around making sure things work so the ship can soon float off. The Montville resident is among more than 22,500 employees in Connecticut and Rhode Island, with an additional 5,000 hires expected by the end of the year.

About a dozen dignitaries lined the dais in front of the submarine to praise the industry for creating a ship worthy of the Navy crew that stood in formation to their right.

Ship sponsor Teresa Stackley, of Maryland, said a lot has changed since her father walked the deck plates as an employee of Electric Boat during a widespread career devoted to naval design. But she added the 125-year-old company's "expert craftsmanship and dedication" remains the same.

Stackley is married to former assistant secretary of the Navy Sean Stackley, with whom she spent almost 40 years at duty stations from California to Maine.

"In the name of the United States, I christen thee Idaho," she said before the glass flew and the whistle blew. "May God bless her, and all that sail in her."

Electric Boat President Kevin Graney said the christening marks the "pressure hull complete" stage of construction, which signifies the final section has been welded to the rest of the ship with weaponry and control modules in the bow.

"Our job, and every member of my team, is to ensure our sailors get every unfair advantage we can load into a boat," he said.

Interior construction, testing, dockside trials and sea trials must occur before the submarine can be delivered to the Navy.

A timeline from the USS Idaho Commissioning Committee, an Idaho-based nonprofit established to help support the project, estimated the submarine could be commissioned by spring of next year.

Bryan Caccavale, vice president of Navy programs at Newport News Shipbuilding, described a situation in Virginia that mirrors the one in this state as the companies struggle to find workers.

"Our nation's shipbuilding demand is higher than it's been in four decades," he said. "At the same time, the number of Americans employed in manufacturing is down more than 30% compared to where it stood 40 years ago."

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D- 2nd District, said demand for submarines exceeds levels experienced during the World War II period and the Cold War.

He pointed to the Manufacturing Pipeline Initiative, a program of the Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board, that has become a national model for recruiting unemployed or underemployed workers who don't necessarily have experience in the field.

"This renaissance of the metal trades is also happening at our trade schools and even regular comprehensive high schools, so that high school grads can literally go to work in the shipyard as soon as they receive their high school diploma," he said.

Production of the Virginia class submarines represents 38% of Electric Boat's business, according to the company. The largest source of revenue, at 44%, comes from the Columbia class ballistic missile program that currently represents the country's top strategic defense priority.

The Biden administration's $895 billion defense budget for 2025 eliminates funding for one of two Virginia-class submarines contained in previous budgets.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal in his remarks emphasized recruiting workers requires "constancy and continuity" in the nation's shipbuilding program.

"So let me be very blunt: Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to two submarines in the Virginia class every year," he said. "And reducing that number sends the wrong message not only to those shipbuilders, but to the world."

Idaho desert
Idaho Gov. Brad Little said the crew of the submarine once it is commissioned will benefit from history of underseas research and training in his state and the skilled workers in Connecticut and Virginia.

"It means that they will be safe, and that America will continue to be the biggest, badass warrior in the world," he said.

Idaho is known for the 890-acre U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory and some of the most important nuclear energy advancements in the world that have occurred there, according to the Associated Press.

One of those breakthroughs was the prototype for the nuclear propulsion system that came to be used in the USS Nautilus, the nation's first nuclear powered submarine. Construction on the ship began in 1952 at Electric Boat.

The Idaho National Laboratory is also known as the site of the only fatal nuclear accident in the nation's history after three operators were killed in the steam explosion and meltdown of an experimental reactor.

Little said the USS Idaho's nuclear fuel core upon decommissioning will be "stabilized in perpetuity" in the same desert where the national laboratory resides.

Part of history
After the ceremony, three-year Electric Boat employee Lisa Giassi of Pawtucket, R.I., was struck by the enormity of the day's event and the global significance of the locally produced submarine.

Giassi works in the warehouse picking parts large and small to be processed and distributed. She operates a forklift for bulk orders; for smaller parts — ranging from light switches to studs to micro screws — she gets on a larger machine designed to navigate narrow aisles with shelves rising 45-feet high.

"You name it, I pick it," she said.

She cited a sense of accomplishment in knowing she had a hand in something so powerful.

She gestured to the USS Idaho behind her.

"We helped build it," she said. "We're part of this: We're part of EB, we're part of Groton, we're part of history."

[James1978]

Navy delays next-generation submarine start to early 2040s
By Megan Eckstein
March 14, 2024

The U.S. Navy is pushing back the start of construction on its next-generation attack submarine by nearly a decade, citing tight budgets and a need to fund current and near-term operations.

A Navy spokesperson told Defense News construction on the lead ship of the SSN(X) program, which will follow the Virginia-class attack submarine, is now planned to start in the “early 2040s.” The Navy last year planned to begin the ship class in 2035, and it was previously set for a 2031 start.

In its fiscal 2025 budget, the Navy is seeking to delay spending on several modernization programs, including SSN(X), the DDG(X) next-generation destroyer, and the F/A-XX next-generation fighter.

Three years ago, in the spring of 2021, the Navy was readying for a FY28 start for DDG(X), an FY31 start to SSN(X), and a generic 2030s start to F/A-XX, the manned fighter that fits into a larger Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems.

The service has already delayed the DDG(X) program to a FY32 start, reflected in last year’s budget request. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro previously told Defense News he didn’t want to rush the DDG(X) program and wanted to ensure the technology and workforce are ready for the transition from the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer to the follow-on program.

The Navy spokesperson said the DDG(X) is still planned to go into construction in FY32, despite delayed research and development dollars in the FY25 budget.

The spokesperson did not have an updated timeline for F/A-XX, though the Navy has historically been tight-lipped about the program.

Navy Undersecretary Erik Raven spoke about the budget request on March 8, noting “our guidance directs us to take risk in future modernization when there are hard choices to be made.”

“If you look at F/A-XX, or the other X [next-generation] programs, we knowingly took risk in the schedule for development of those programs in order to prioritize those key investments — whether that’s readiness, or investing in our people, or undersea, to make sure that we make those programs whole,” he added.

Raven on March 13 told Defense News that, for “any acquisition program, we are looking to move out in the most responsible way forward. And that includes the ability to develop the technologies to the right level of maturity, to make sure that they are inserted in programs at the right point.

“That does take investment, and again, we are taking risk in some of these areas. But fundamentally, no matter what our budget levels, we have to run good acquisition programs,” Raven continued.

The Navy is asking for $586.9 million for SSN(X) design and development efforts in FY25, up slightly from the $544.7 million it requested in FY24.

It seeks $102.7 million for DDG(X), down from FY24′s $187.4 million request. And for F/A-XX, the Navy wants $454 million in FY25, compared to $1.5 billion in FY24.

[James1978]

U.S. Navy: F/A-XX Delay Forced By Congressional Budget Caps
Brian Everstine
April 03, 2024

The U.S. Navy’s drastic cut to its next-generation fighter was a conscious decision to deal with congressionally imposed budget cuts and prioritizes near-term modernization over long-term plans.

The service’s comptroller says, however, that the limited funding in current budget plans will be enough to fund the F/A-XX to the “next decision point.”

In the fiscal 2025 budget request, the Navy is calling for just $453.8 million for research and development on the Next Generation Fighter program, with about $3.3 billion total requested over the next four years. That number is dramatically less than the long-term plan outlined in the fiscal 2024 budget request, which called for $2.2 billion in fiscal 2025 and $10.2 billion total over the four-year period.

Russell Rumbaugh, assistant secretary of the Navy for financial management, said April 3 that the dramatic change came largely because of budget limits under the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). That measure, passed last summer, limited Pentagon spending for fiscal 2024 and prompted last-minute changes to budget plans.

Because of those cuts, Rumbaugh says the Navy must delay its large research programs, including F/A-XX. The current funding plan will continue research and development until it can be reconsidered. Pentagon leaders, in rolling out the fiscal 2025 budget plan last month, said the department expects the FRA limits to be a one-time blip, with funding returning to expected levels beginning next year.

The Navy was forced to make a choice to balance its portfolio, both “across the globe and across time as well,” Rumbaugh said during an American Enterprise Institute event in Washington.

The next-generation programs would not be delivered until later—beyond 2030—so the Navy had to prioritize near-term shipbuilding and critical modernization efforts, Rumbaugh says.

“You can’t just always be thinking about the future, and that was a conscious choice in this budget and the clearest representation of hard choices being made because we’re under caps,” he says.

The Navy announced in August 2023 that Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are in competition for the F/A-XX program, with GE Aerospace and Pratt & Whitney competing for the engine. The F/A-XX will replace the service’s Boeing F/A-18 fleet.

[James1978]

Constellation Frigate Delivery Delayed 3 Years, Says Navy
By Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone
April 2, 2024

THE PENTAGON – The lead ship in a new class of guided-missile frigates for the U.S. Navy may be up to three years late, USNI News has learned.
Constellation (FFG-62), under construction at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Wisconsin, may not deliver to the fleet until 2029, three years later than the original 2026 delivery goal, according to a service shipbuilding review.

The program’s delay came to light as part of the 45-day shipbuilding review that Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro ordered earlier this year. In addition to the frigate delay, the Navy confirmed delays in delivering aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-80), the lead boat for the Columbia-class ballistic missile nuclear submarine, and the Virginia-class attack boats.

In a one-page summary of the review, the service cited lead ship problems like design maturation, supply chain issues, and difficulty finding skilled workers as factors in the program delays.

The future USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826) is facing a 12 to 16-month delay, according to the Navy’s summary. Last month, USNI News reported that the Navy was looking at a potential one year delay for District of Columbia due to ongoing supplier issues.

Enterprise is facing an 18 to 16-month delay, while the Block IV Virginia-class attack boats are looking at a three-year delay. The Block V Virginia-class submarines, which are larger and feature the new Virginia Payload Module, are currently two years behind schedule. Delays for the Navy’s new T-AGOS(X) ocean surveillance ship, which Austal USA won a contract to build last year, depend on when the program starts new construction.

As for America-class amphibious assault ships, the San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the John Lewis-class fleet replenishment oilers, the deliveries are “late to contract” but “are stable and tracking to Program Manager estimates,” according to the Navy’s summary.

Constellation-class Frigates
In January, just before Del Toro announced the 45-day shipbuilding review, USNI News reported that the lead Constellation-class ship was delayed at least a year due to ongoing workforce challenges and design maturation issues.

During a media roundtable with reporters on Tuesday, Naval Sea Systems Command chief Vice Adm. James Downey told reporters that the detail design for the frigate – which is based on Fincantieri Marinette Marine’s FREMM parent design that’s in service with the Italian and French navies – still isn’t complete. The goal is to finalize the detail design this year and the service and contractors are nearing 80 percent completion, Downey said.

“Some of the mix of the contracting roles have changed between prime and sub,” Downey told reporters. “And finishing the design has been critical for us. That’s why we’ve co-located the design force from Fincantieri and their sub with the government in a collaboration center up there to finish.”

In August of 2022, when the Navy green lit Fincantieri to begin building the first frigate, Rear Adm. Casey Moton, then the program executive officer for unmanned and small combatants, said the detail design was just over 80 percent complete.

Asked what’s driving the delays at Marinette, Downey cited the yard’s increased workload, difficulty hiring and keeping talent, and the varying stages of the three programs currently under construction there. The yard is finishing the end of the Littoral Combat Ship line, while also building Saudi Arabia’s multi-mission surface combatant and the U.S. Navy’s new frigate.

Downey said the attrition at Marinette is “significantly different” with the yard building those three programs compared to when it was only building the LCS.

The Navy selected Fincantieri Marinette Marine’s FREMM parent design in 2020 using the rapid requirements process developed by Naval Sea Systems Command. The service awarded the U.S. yard a fixed-price contract for the frigates.

What would become the Constellation-class (FFG-62) followed withering criticism from the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) of the LCS program. In part due to McCain’s consistent disapproval – he put the LCS on a wanted poster in 2016 – the Navy cut the LCS line and instead pursued a guided-missile frigate based on a parent design.

While the design was based on a long-serving warship, design agent Gibbs & Cox heavily modified the FREMM design to meet NAVSEA requirements, like tougher survivability standards than those of European navies, Navy officials have told USNI News.

At one point the Constellation design shared about 85 percent commonality with the original FREMM design, but the alterations have brought that commonality down to under 15 percent, a person familiar with the changes told USNI News.

Those changes have compounded the already challenged workforce issues at the Wisconsin shipyard, which has struggled to hire in both its blue and white collar workforce. To tackle the workforce shortfalls, the Navy plans to give Marinette $50 million for the surface combatant industrial base. The yard is using those funds to incentivize both its blue and white collar workforce with bonuses to stay at Marinette.

Fincantieri is currently on contract to build the first four frigates. The delivery dates for the second, third and fourth ships “are under review,” according to the Fiscal Year 2025 budget justification documents released last month.

Columbia-class Boats
The lead boat in the Columbia-class program was scheduled to deliver in October 2027. A 12 to 16-month delay would put that delivery date out to October 2028, or potentially early 2029.

Asked about the delay, Navy acquisition executive Nickolas Guertin said it’s “related to the whole of ship and getting all the modules in.”

Downey said some parts – including those that are shared between the aircraft carriers and submarines – are late, but the technology aboard the boat has not been an issue. The permanent magnet motors – a new technology that will drive the submarine’s propulsion system – are not “driving” the delays, he said.

The program, which recapitalizes the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad, is operating under a thin margin because the new Columbia boats need to replace the Ohio-class submarines one-for-one.

The heart of the Columbia-class ballistic nuclear missile submarine is a complex electrical system that aims to make the class quieter than the legacy Ohio-class boats.

The turbines, powered by the steam from the submarine’s nuclear reactors, don’t connect mechanically to the propulsion system. Instead, the turbines power a complex electrical grid inside the submarine that reduces the number of mechanical connections inside the boat, reducing noise. While USNI News has reported that delayed delivery of the turbines has been a challenge for production, little has been said about the progress of assembling the electric drive system.

Another issue contributing to the delay is the construction of the boat’s bow section, which HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding builds in Virginia. The building arrangement for the Columbia program has lead contractor General Dynamics Electric Boat assembling the middle of the boat’s hull at its yard in Groton, Conn., and manufacturing facility in Quonset Point, R.I. The bow and stern sections get barged from Newport News to New England, where the different sections are then put together. But Newport News has been late in getting its sections up to Electric Boat.

The Navy has developed a plan to extend the service lives of up to five Ohio boats to provide the service with some cushion. The short extensions would give each boat three more years of service life. Last year, Navy officials said they had several years and budget cycles before they need to make a final decision about whether or not to perform the service live extensions.

[James1978]

U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Running Behind Schedule
By Mike Stone
April 2, 2024

WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) – Virginia-class submarines, an aircraft carrier and frigates being built for the U.S. Navy are now years behind schedule because of skilled labor shortages, design issues, and supply chain challenges stemming from the pandemic, the Navy said on Tuesday.

U.S. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro in January ordered a comprehensive review to examine national and local causes of the challenges to shipbuilding with Tuesday’s results showing that five classes of ships being built for the U.S. Navy were running years behind schedule.

Shipyard labor retention remains a stubborn problem long after the end of the pandemic which led to high retirement rates for older and more skilled workers, Vice Admiral James Downeytold reporters at the Pentagon.

“We still have seen attrition continue in a negative direction in multiple regions, in some places its doubled from where it was at the beginning of the pandemic, in other cases it’s more,” Downey said.

The first ship in the new class of Frigate warships, being built at Fincantieri SpA’s Marinette Marine shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin, was about three years behind, as was the Virginia Class block IV submarine being built by General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries.

The Virginia block V, a related but separate design with more missile launch tubes, was two years behind, theNavy’s assessment determined.

The Navy’s Columbia Class submarine, capable of launching nuclear missiles, is 12-16 months behind schedule “based on current performance” by the contractors General Dynamics and Huntington.

The year-plus delay beyond a current October 2027 goal is forcing the Navy to examine extending the life of the Ohio Class of nuclear capable submarines, Navy officials told reporters at the Pentagon.

The Navy wants to maintain Columbia as a top priority because it is the launch platform for the sea-launched leg of the nuclear “triad” of nuclear-tipped weapons which also include ground-based inter-continental ballistic missiles and nuclear-capable bomber aircraft.

The Navy also said the Ford Class aircraft carrier, CVN 80, was running 18-26 months behind schedule, an estimate based on current performance. Previously it had been scheduled for delivery in 2028.

[James1978]

US Navy ship programs face years-long delays amid labor, supply woes
By Megan Eckstein
April 2, 2024

Several of the U.S. Navy’s top shipbuilding programs are running one year to three years behind schedule, as the service and the industrial base grapple with workforce and management challenges.

Navy leaders conducted a 45-day review of its shipbuilding portfolio, following news in January that a first-of-class guided-missile frigate was behind schedule due in part to a workforce shortage at Fincantieri’s Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin.

Coupled with existing delays to the Virginia-class attack submarine construction line and worries those delays might spill over to the top-priority Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro that month ordered an “assessment of national and local causes of shipbuilding challenges, as well as recommended actions for achieving a healthier U.S. shipbuilding industrial base that provides combat capabilities that our warfighters need, on a schedule that is relevant.”

A snapshot of delays
The review’s leaders, Navy acquisition chief Nickolas Guertin and Naval Sea Systems Command head Vice Adm. James Downey, told reporters April 2 the review provided a snapshot of shipbuilding delays and challenges.

Based on current performance, the Navy projects the first Columbia-class SSBN will deliver 12 to 16 months later than its contractual delivery date of October 2027. The submarine is built by General Dynamics’ Electric Boat and HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding.

This is particularly worrisome because the vessel is expected to deploy shortly after its post-delivery testing and training. The Navy is obligated to have 10 SSBNs ready to deploy, lurking beneath the oceans while carrying nuclear missiles. The service is counting on the lead Columbia boat to deliver in 2027 so it can go on its maiden patrol in 2031. With any delays, the Navy will dip below the requirement.

Guertin said the Navy took significant steps prior to the pandemic to reduce risk on this program and accelerate the schedule where possible.

Supply issues
“COVID happened. Supply chain changed. Workforce greening happened,” he said, but previous risk-reduction steps kept the pandemic impacts “as minimal as possible.” The Columbia program, the Navy’s top acquisition priority, is the least delayed of the new programs assessed in the shipbuilding review, Guertin said.

The review shows the Navy’s Block IV Virginia submarines, which were bought from fiscal 2014 to 2018, are running 36 months behind schedule. The attack submarines rely on the same shipbuilders and suppliers as the Columbia program, but they’ve taken the brunt of delays to keep Columbia on track.

There are signs of improvement, though, with the Block V boats bought from FY19 to FY23 projected to be about 24 months behind schedule.

Downey said the Navy put additional work into the Block V design, and a performance improvement plan created for the Block IV boats would also lead to shorter construction timelines for Block V.

The Navy’s next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which relies on many of the same overburdened suppliers as the submarine programs and is also built at Newport News Shipbuilding, is also delayed. The future Enterprise, CVN-80, is expected to deliver 18 to 26 months late.

Defense News reported in October the ship was running about a year behind schedule. That has worsened, with Downey saying some key suppliers are behind in their deliveries to Newport News. As a result, the Navy is delaying buying subsequent ships CVNs 82 and 83, pushing their procurement from FY28 to FY30.

Downey noted that the next carrier in line, the Doris Miller, CVN-81, has been shielded from delays thanks to a two-carrier contract that’s allowed Newport News Shipbuilding to place material orders much earlier.

The first Constellation frigate, built in Wisconsin by Fincantieri’s Marinette Marine shipyard, will deliver 36 months later than its contractual delivery date.

Downey said this is due to a couple factors: Marinette Marine has gone from managing just one program at the small yard to now juggling three: finishing up the littoral combat ship program, building the multi-mission surface combatant for the Saudi navy, and now designing the Constellation-class frigate. The yard has a higher workload, has to manage programs at different stages, and has had to ramp up hiring even as it’s seen greater attrition than some other yards.

Downey said the Navy has taken some steps to better manage this program, including asking government, Fincantieri and subcontractor designers to all move to a single office at the Wisconsin shipyard so they can get through the remaining design work together as efficiently as possible.

As for the more mature surface ship production lines — the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock and America-class amphibious assault ships at Ingalls Shipbuilding, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers at Ingalls and General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works and the John Lewis-class oiler at General Dynamics’ NASSCO — the Navy notes these ships are predicted to deliver later than what’s outlined in their contracts, but in line with revised program manager estimates.These ship programs were “rebaselined” as the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent labor and supply disruptions wreaked havoc on schedules, but Downey said they’ve kept to these new post-COVID schedules.

Workforce challenges
Guertin said there were two buckets of challenges the team found during this review: lead ship issues, including design maturity, first-in-class construction challenges, and the size and skillset of the design workforce; and ship class issues, including acquisition and contracting strategies, supply chain weaknesses, shortage of skilled tradesmen, and gaps in the government workforce.

Guertin said some things are the new normal: “the supply chain is different now,” he said, and the Navy needs to ensure it and its shipbuilders buy materials farther ahead of the start of construction. The “greening of the workforce” — or replacing a highly experienced workforce that’s retiring in high numbers with less experienced employees — has also “changed dramatically” the realities of ship design and waterfront tradecraft work.

Guertin said this review revealed that the entire workforce — the government, the shipbuilders and the entire supply chain — ought to be viewed and invested in as a national strategic asset. He said the review also highlighted that risk-sharing between the government and shipbuilders had faltered and that the balance of that risk should be reconsidered for future contracts.

Downey added a few lessons of his own as it relates to the Navy’s government workforce. He said the review highlighted the need for more scrutiny in the design process and suggested the Navy might bring in some extra eyes beyond just the program offices involved. The Navy has been less involved in ship design over the years and has therefore seen a decrease in the size and skill of its own design workforce, which should be addressed. And he said the Navy has significant oversight responsibilities today, with more than 80 ships on contract, and that the oversight work is straining the current workforce.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

While the design was based on a long-serving warship, design agent Gibbs & Cox heavily modified the FREMM design to meet NAVSEA requirements, like tougher survivability standards than those of European navies, Navy officials have told USNI News.

At one point the Constellation design shared about 85 percent commonality with the original FREMM design, but the alterations have brought that commonality down to under 15 percent, a person familiar with the changes told USNI News.

Those changes have compounded the already challenged workforce issues at the Wisconsin shipyard, which has struggled to hire in both its blue and white collar workforce. To tackle the workforce shortfalls, the Navy plans to give Marinette $50 million for the surface combatant industrial base. The yard is using those funds to incentivize both its blue and white collar workforce with bonuses to stay at Marinette.

Fincantieri is currently on contract to build the first four frigates. The delivery dates for the second, third and fourth ships “are under review,” according to the Fiscal Year 2025 budget justification documents released last month.

This sounds like the F-18 E/F. Sell congress on a design that is already in use while actually building a whole new design. When its eventually pointed out that you basically lied you sit back with a smile and say "Whatcha going do about it? Cancel it?"

[jemhouston]

While the design was based on a long-serving warship, design agent Gibbs & Cox heavily modified the FREMM design to meet NAVSEA requirements, like tougher survivability standards than those of European navies, Navy officials have told USNI News.

At one point the Constellation design shared about 85 percent commonality with the original FREMM design, but the alterations have brought that commonality down to under 15 percent, a person familiar with the changes told USNI News.

Those changes have compounded the already challenged workforce issues at the Wisconsin shipyard, which has struggled to hire in both its blue and white collar workforce. To tackle the workforce shortfalls, the Navy plans to give Marinette $50 million for the surface combatant industrial base. The yard is using those funds to incentivize both its blue and white collar workforce with bonuses to stay at Marinette.

Fincantieri is currently on contract to build the first four frigates. The delivery dates for the second, third and fourth ships “are under review,” according to the Fiscal Year 2025 budget justification documents released last month.

This sounds like the F-18 E/F. Sell congress on a design that is already in use while actually building a whole new design. When its eventually pointed out that you basically lied you sit back with a smile and say "Whatcha going do about it? Cancel it?"

Congress, "Yes, we'll cancel it."

[Micael]

I saw this pointed out on X, not only is the hull lenghtened compared to the original FREMM, but it’s widened as well. So it’s essentially a new hull design rather than an off the shelf one. Can explain some of the delays.

[James1978]

Limited cell phone usage to be allowed for recruits in Navy boot camp
By Diana Stancy
2 April 2024

Navy recruits undergoing basic training at Naval Station Great Lakes, Illinois, may now call their family members on their own cell phones — a departure from previous Navy policy that barred the use of personal cell phones while there.

The policy change comes as the Navy eyes ways to lower attrition rates amid a challenging recruiting environment for all the military services and as the Navy missed its recruiting goals for the first time in fiscal year 2023.

Going forward, recruits are authorized to use their personal devices rather than landline phones for the five phone calls they are granted during the 10-week boot camp, a changed that Recruit Training Command said came about after several months of testing the new policy.

“In this post-COVID pandemic culture, digital identities have proven increasingly critical in helping to deal with day-to-day stress,” Capt. Ken Froberg, commanding officer of Recruit Training Command, said in a Navy news release Friday.

The new policy allows recruits to “connect with their loved ones in a more modern way,” said Froberg, who noted he used a payphone and phone card to call home from overseas in 1994.

Part of a broader initiative to improve quality of life for sailors, officials hope the new policy will help reduce the number of sailors who drop out in the initial weeks of basic military training.

“We are hopeful that allowing Recruits continued but limited access to their cell phones and digital identities may help reduce this attrition,” Lt. Eren Roubal, Recruit Training Command’s clinical psychologist, said in a Navy news release.

“As digital natives, new Recruits can potentially experience psychological stress from being abruptly disconnected from their digital identities,” Roubal said.

The Navy said the new policy aims to help new sailors gradually adjust to life aboard a ship where digital access is limited.

“It is still important that we train Sailors to be resilient,” Froberg said. “We have to do better in this space to prepare our Sailors for a digitally austere operating environment at sea.”

The Navy first announced in November it would permit recruits from two divisions access to cell phones during “designated periods” to connect with family, friends and to handle personal matters.

The service is aiming to bring in 40,600 new active duty enlisted personnel, as well as 7,619 Reserve enlisted personnel, for fiscal year 2024 — up from the 30,236 new sailors it recruited last year.

[James1978]

Inside the Navy’s quest to fix its recruiting crisis
By Diana Stancy
21 February 2024

Last year, the Navy hit a grim milestone for the first time in its history, one that leaders hoped they would never see.

It missed its recruiting targets by thousands of new sailors, as each military branch – with the exception of the Marine Corps – struggled to bring young Americans into the enlisted ranks.

Navy brass and other service leaders have attributed today’s unprecedented recruiting crisis to a variety of factors, but one thing remains clear for sea service leaders: This cannot continue, and the Navy must chart a different course.

“I think we can absorb one year of missing mission,” Vice Adm. Brendan McLane, commander of Naval Surface Forces, said at the Surface Navy Association’s annual conference in January. “Two years — that’s going to be a problem, that’s going to have an effect.”

Navy leaders insist a variety of measures are in place to fix the problem, but how they will play out this year remains to be seen.

At the end of fiscal 2023 in October, the Navy announced it had recruited 30,236 new active duty sailors, short of its 37,700 planned accessions for the year. The service also recruited 1,948 Reserve enlisted personnel, missing its 3,000 goal.

The Navy also did not bring in enough new officers, recruiting only 2,080 new active duty officers rather than the 2,532 target, and 1,167 Reserve officers rather than the 1,940 target.

Even so, the Navy originally braced itself for a more dire outcome at the end of fiscal 2023. The service had expected to fall short by approximately 13,000 recruits at the start of fiscal 2023, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti said in September 2023.

Regardless of reasons, the recruiting crisis is exacerbating a shortage of sailors at sea, according to officials.

There are currently 22,000 gaps in at-sea billets for ranks E1 to E4 – a problem dating back to 2016, but one aggravated by the current recruiting environment, according to the Chief of Naval Personnel, Vice Adm. Richard Cheeseman.

Navy Personnel Command said most manning gaps are at the apprentice level, and units may request temporary personnel to join deployments to ensure full manning needs as a short-term fix.

Fewer recruits entering the fleet means there are fewer apprentices that can serve in sea-duty billets — which could pose problems down the line.

“We can absorb recruiting misses in the short term, but long term if the same trend continues, it would place additional stress on the force, which in turn would impact readiness and capabilities,” Capt. Jodie Cornell, a spokesperson for Cheeseman, said in an email to Navy Times. “The Navy continues to monitor this issue, but to date has been able to take the right steps to ensure the Fleet is fully and properly manned.”

Today’s recruiting crisis also carries with it effects reaching farther into the future.

Looking ahead 20 to 40 years, who the Navy does or doesn’t recruit today will impact the future fleet, according to Katherine Kuzminski, director of the Military, Veterans, and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security think tank.

“For every new recruit that’s not coming in today, you affect the entire shape of the pyramid and the quality, and the number of people who are still left to lead 30 years from now,” Kuzminski said.

More immediately, a shortage of fresh sailors poses threats to the Navy getting its myriad of missions done, according to Beth Asch, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation who focuses on military manpower.

“If things continue, we’re going to see problems with force structure,” Asch said. “The Navy’s not going to be able to deploy ships or support them onshore. Force structure gets hurt.”

While high priority units will always remain filled, Asch warned that manning aboard certain ships or ashore in maintenance could become compromised.

Military leaders across the services point to more thorough medical screenings for applicants, fewer Americans eligible to serve and low civilian unemployment as contributing factors the Navy and other services are facing as they struggle to bring in new recruits. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic meant that recruiters were limited in their ability to visit high school and college campuses for several years.

Furthermore, desire to serve in the U.S. military is declining – particularly among male youths.

Just 11 percent of males between the ages of 16 and 21 were interested in serving in the military in 2021, down from 22 percent in 2014, according to the Department of Defense’s Joint Advertising, Marketing Research & Studies program’s youth poll.

Kuzminski also noted that the pool of those eligible to join is extremely limited, given requirements including fitness standards or prior drug use that disqualify a broad swath of the American population from joining the military.

“To serve in the military, you have to have that overlap of the Venn diagram between being interested in serving and meeting the standards,” Kuzminski told Navy Times.

Still, some see cause for optimism as the military faces the historic problem.

Asch, who has followed military recruiting issues for 40 years, said recruiting challenges historically attract attention from senior leaders and lawmakers, who then devote money, resources, and enact eligibility changes to bring in more recruits.

“The problems do tend to get solved…There have been recruiting crises in the past and the services, Congress, DOD have been able to address them, but it doesn’t change on a dime,” Asch said. “It takes time.”

Looking forward
Despite the variety of challenges the Navy faces, some leaders are bullish about where Navy recruiting will end up in fiscal 2024, which ends on Sept. 30.

The Navy had secured approximately 11,300 enlistment contracts as of last month, and is looking to bring in 40,600 new active-duty enlisted personnel by the end of fiscal 2024.

And while forecasting models anticipate the Navy ending fiscal 2024 short roughly 16,000 sailors, Cheeseman said he believes the sea service will perform better than those models predict.

“We did better in ‘23 than we thought...and we’re going to get better in ‘24,” Cheeseman said at the Surface Navy Association’s annual conference in January.

“I am certain through our monthly performance and planning on the recruiting side of things, that we are attacking this problem with data in different ways,” he said.

Despite challenges in fiscal 2023, the Navy secured 6,000 more contracts that year than it did in fiscal 2022 – a year when the Navy depleted its Delayed Entry Program pool to the lowest level in 40 years to meet its fiscal 2022 recruiting goals, Cheeseman said. The program, which allows someone to join the Navy prior to their shipping date, has historically served as a tool for the Navy to buttress mission and recruiting goals.

According to Cheeseman, there were approximately 1,230 scheduled appointments between applicants and Navy recruiters each day in fiscal 2023, but only 879 applicants showed up for an interview, and only 366 were qualified and interested.

Ultimately, the Navy onboarded approximately 140 future sailors each day last year, meaning that just 10 percent of scheduled appointments lead to fresh sailors for the fleet, Cheeseman said.

Cheeseman also noted that young Americans are more likely to enlist if someone “associated with the Navy” offered them an example of sailor life.

“We have a mission, we have a purpose – we’re seeing it today in the Red Sea,” he said. “Young people respond to that. They want to be part of something greater than themselves …it’s very helpful.”

To make recruiting run more smoothly, the Navy launched a Recruiting Operations Center in October that seeks to troubleshoot recruiter issues and make the entire process more efficient, according to Lt. Cmdr. Richard Parker, a spokesman for Navy Recruiting Command.

The center is staffed by personnel from Navy Recruiting Command headquarters, and handles administrative work so that recruiters in the field can focus on making the mission.

The Navy is also working to bulk up its recruiter ranks, a job field that has taken hits in recent years as more sailors have been tapped to fill empty at-sea billets, Cheeseman said.

Currently, the Navy’s recruiting force is manned at approximately 80 percent, according to Parker. In order to reach the service’s full staffing goal of roughly 3,600 recruiters, the service is offering extended recruiting tours, and is also allowing reserve component sailors the opportunity to apply for active duty recruiting orders.

These efforts are attracting interest, Parker said, and Cheeseman vowed the service would reach full manning for recruiting in the spring.

The Navy pushed more than 400 recruiters from the offices into the field in fiscal 2023.

“We’re never going to get away from that,” Cheeseman said. “Because this is an existential threat.”

A raft of reforms
Cheeseman said a series of recruiting policy changes and incentives will help move the Navy closer to its recruiting goals as well.

Most recently, the Navy is now permitting those without a high school diploma or General Educational Development credential to enlist, provided they score a 50 or higher on the Armed Forces Qualification Test.

The Navy, which last allowed such applicants to enlist more than 20 years ago, is the only service to permit those without a high school diploma to enlist, and anticipates such a change could bring in 2,000 more sailors a year.

The Navy emphasized that the policy change does not mean the service is lowering its standards, and that these prospective sailors must still qualify for specific ratings based on their Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, or ASVAB, line scores.

Additionally, the Navy adjusted the maximum enlistment age to 41 back in November 2022 – up from 39 – and raised the maximum enlistment bonus to $50,000 in February 2022. For those entering the nuclear field, the Navy announced a $75,000 maximum enlistment bonus last summer.

The Navy also now allows sailors to pair the enlistment bonus with the maximum student loan repayment under the Enlisted Loan Repayment Program.

That means the Navy would cover a potential future sailor’s college tuition loans, like the Stafford Student Loans, if they were taken out prior to the sailor enlisting for active duty. Together, a prospective sailor entering the nuclear field could capitalize on both incentives for a total of $140,000.

Asch said these enlistment bonuses serve as a quick solution in comparison to other initiatives like employing a new marketing campaign or strategy.

“A lot of resources are devoted to military recruiting,” Asch told Navy Times. “We call it the all-volunteer force, but it’s really a recruited force, which means there’s a lot of effort that goes into it.”

Another recent initiative is the Future Sailor Preparatory Course, which kicked off in April. The course focuses on providing physical fitness, nutrition, and life skills training for individuals who are currently too overweight to start basic training.

The program is based on the Army’s Future Soldier Preparatory Course and includes an academic pilot program that the Navy expects to grow in the spring, Parker said. Like the Army’s program, the academic component aims to boost prospective sailors’ Armed Forces Qualification Test scores.

Upon successful completion of the program, potential future sailors then head off to boot camp.

The Future Sailor Preparatory Course claims more than 400 fitness graduates as of January 16, and nearly 200 academic graduates who then advanced to basic training at Naval Station Great Lakes in Illinois.

Of those graduates, nearly 300 from the fitness program completed boot camp, as well as 90 from the academic program, Parker told Navy Times.

The service anticipates up to 8,000 potential future sailors will complete the Future Sailor Preparatory Course in fiscal 2024,.

The service also launched a pilot program in December 2022 allowing sailors who scored lower on the Armed Forces Qualification Test to still enlist in the Navy. The change allows prospective sailors who score between the 10th and 30th percentile on the AFQT to join if their ASVAB individual line scores are high enough to qualify for a Navy rating.

Lower your standards?
While Navy leaders say adjusting standards offers more young people the chance to serve, outside analysts questioned what it will mean for the quality of the force in the future.

Asch said it’s “worrisome” that the Navy is bringing in more low-aptitude individuals, given the Navy’s highly technical job demands.

Past studies have shown a correlation between aptitude scores and job performance, Asch said, although she noted those studies were conducted decades ago.

“So the question is, what are these people doing and how are they performing?” Asch said. “Are they being channeled into occupations that are less technical?”

In the case of those who’ve completed the Future Sailor Preparatory Course, Asch said it remains unclear whether the program is creating more competent sailors, or if it’s simply training prospective sailors for a test – akin to a student who undergoes an SAT prep course to boost his or her final score but fails to meaningfully improve proficiency.

“When they are in those technical skills in the units, did we really improve their capability and performance?” Asch said. “Or did we just give them better testing scope? I don’t know the answer to that.”

Asch encouraged Congress to require the services to conduct a “rigorous analysis” of what happens to those who scored lower on the ASVAB and completed the Future Sailor Preparatory Course once they enter the Navy.

Kuzminski is also interested in how these sailors perform, but noted that those who have undergone the Future Sailor Preparatory Course clearly show strong interest serving in the Navy by going through the prep program in the first place, and therefore could perform well.

“They took an extra step on the way there, so I think even if the numbers are small, the promise is large,” Kuzminski said.

As the Navy directs its attention to manning, one area the Navy could tap into is revamping how a recruiting tour impacts a sailor’s career progression, according to Kuzminski.

For example, the Marine Corps requires all officers to spend time in either a recruiting or basic training unit, and serving in a recruitment billet is a requirement for promotion in the Marine Corps.

But that’s not the case for the Navy, where the career timeline is such that serving in a recruiting billet ashore is not a career-advancing requirement and can even be seen as a negative when certain career fields prioritize sea time, Kuzminski said.

The Navy would benefit from a cultural shift rewarding those who served in recruiting billets, she added.

Additionally, the Navy should explore new ways to attract older recruits, Kuzminski said.

“Rethinking the model of a recruiter and a high school being the real driver of recruitment I think needs to be relooked, as we think about people who may have graduated high school and gone to college and decided they wanted to change their path or who … took a little longer to mature, but now they’re 25 or 26,” Kuzminski said.

Asch acknowledged that the Navy’s recruitment goals for fiscal 2024 were ambitious, but said they are still feasible with the right resources, management and proper policies in place. But the Navy may need to compromise on the quality of people they recruit, she warned.

“Ultimately, the goals are attainable,” Asch said. “It’s just to what extent you are bringing in people who have less desirable characteristics.”

[James1978]

Commentary
The Submarine Workforce Crisis: Admitting Realities and Restructuring Long-Term Strategy
Alexander Grey
April 4, 2024

“We have to build and sustain submarines in the next 15 to 17-plus years the same way we did in the ’80s with an industrial base that’s one-third the size.” On a recent trip to Lake Charles, Louisiana, the executive director of program executive office strategic submarines laid out the stark challenge facing the U.S. industrial base.

These concerns are not new. When testifying before the House Armed Services Committee in 2012, then-Chief of Naval Research Adm. Matthew Klunder noted over 50 percent of the submarine industrial workforce would be retirement-eligible by 2020. A decade on from the U.S. Navy raising concerns, the outlook is no better. The Government Accountability Office found that by September 2022, the submarine industrial base was 25 percent below adequate staffing levels to meet their delivery schedules for Virginia-class fast-attack submarines. This workforce crisis has impacted procurement timelines to the point that the U.S. Navy’s ability to maintain an adequately sized underwater fleet for force projection priorities is at risk. As the United States continues to lag behind near-peer competitors in the development of hypersonic missiles, the role of submarines — both conventionally and nuclear-armed — is a priority for maintaining American national security. As such, the most recent 30-year ship building plan from the chief of naval operations intends to dramatically increase the scale of submarine procurement over the next several decades. This scale-up will only complicate and deepen the workforce crisis as the industrial base struggles to deliver even more submarines.

To tackle the workforce crisis and expand industrial capacity, Washington should adopt a two-pronged institutional shift. First, force projection policy should evolve to efficiently utilize resources. This means shifting from the “silent service” model to a more conspicuous submarine presence to strengthen deterrence in key regions, especially the Indo-Pacific. Second, the submarine industrial base must innovate its recruitment strategies, moving from a broad, generalized approach to a more focused targeting of regional talent around the industrial bases, capturing as much local science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent as possible to secure the necessary manpower for timely platform construction.

Scaling Demand, Stagnant Output
The challenge begins with the submarine industrial base and its workforce woes. There are two prime contractors: General Dynamics–Electric Boat in Groton, Conn., and Quonset Point, R.I., and Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Va. Both shipyards were devastated in the 1990s by the slashing of defense budgets, which led to the cancellation of most of the Seawolf-class. Emma Salisbury’s excellent piece for War on the Rocks gives a more detailed history of the submarine industrial base during this period. Importantly for our discussion, in the 1990s, Huntington Ingalls transitioned away from submarines, becoming the sole producer of aircraft carriers and only a minor producer of Virginia submarines. Electric Boat slowly reduced its workforce over two decades and is today half the size it was at its height in 1989. It is the sole producer of ballistic-missile submarines, splitting production of Virginia submarines with Huntington Ingalls. The prime contractors are supported by thousands of subcontractors spread across 47 states.

The U.S. Navy expects to dramatically increase submarine production over the next several decades, buying 72 boats over 30 years. The 30-year shipbuilding plan (which was approved in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act) will scale procurement from the current two submarines per year to five per year by 2028. This means the industrial base will be producing five different platforms simultaneously: the Columbia, an unnamed large-payload cruise missile platform, the Virginia, the Virginia Block V, and the SSN(X). Under any circumstances, this level of production would be ambitious. The last time the industrial base produced five or more boats per year was in the 1980s. Yet under current production capabilities, these goals seem almost impossible. Over the last several years, the industrial base on average has delivered 1.2 submarines annually, with 20 percent of critical jobs unfilled. The industry is struggling to scale to meet its current two per year procurement calendar, let alone five.

Even as workforce issues have persisted for half a decade, this is not for lack of attention. The U.S. Navy is keenly aware of the workforce crunch and the looming demand. Team Submarine, the section of Naval Sea Systems Command that procures and maintains the underwater fleet, estimates the submarine industrial base needs to hire 100,000 new employees between 2022 and 2032 to meet the five-per-year procurement goal. Electric Boat is expecting to hire between 4,000 and 5,000 workers per year for the foreseeable future, accounting for about half of Team Submarine’s yearly industrial base growth. The prime contract got off to a rocky start in this recruitment surge but seems to have improved. In 2022, they hired 3,896, about 20 percent below their yearly goal. In 2023, they hired some 5,300 employees, a substantial increase, but one that must be maintained for the rest of the decade to meet the Navy’s procurement needs. Beyond the prime contractor, a recent Ernst & Young report suggests about a 4 percent yearly growth rate for the rest of the submarine industry. Again, this is promising but remains well below the rapid growth needed to meet the five-per-year demand.

These lagging recruitment numbers come in spite of investments of over $1 billion into submarine workforce development from 2018 to 2022. The Biden administration recently requested an additional $3.4 billion for submarine workforce development to bring the industry above the two-per-year delivery schedule for Virginia-class submarines and prepare for further growth under AUKUS, the trilateral submarine-sharing agreement with Great Britain and Australia. Yet as recruitment seems steady but below the assessed need, the U.S. Navy should prepare for the real possibility that the submarine industrial base might not have capacity to meet the five-per-year submarine goal.

Extended Period of Diminished Capacity
Assuming this possibility of falling short, there are two challenges that should be factored into the strategic posture of the underwater fleet going forward. First, the U.S. Navy needs to prepare for an extended period of diminished capacity and adapt its submarine fleet to meet short- to medium-term challenges. The Los Angeles platforms have had their lives extended several times, but they are rapidly approaching the end of their service capacity. More than half have been retired, and more are prepared for recycling each year. These extensions bought some time, but the lag of Virginia replacements means that the U.S. Navy is already factoring in a period of diminished capacity. The chief of naval operations is estimating that a minimum of 50 fast-attack submarines will be needed to maintain surveillance and force projection missions globally. Department of Defense risk assessments assume this period will be transitory, projecting “that the SSN force will reach a minimum of 46 boats in FY2030, return to 50 boats in FY2032,” and grow to a total size of 69 by the 2040s. The same report notes that China has already referenced in public-facing military documents its plans to increase underwater activity in the Pacific during this period of diminished capacity.

However, considering the ongoing struggles of manufacturers to adequately staff their shipyards and deliver on time, it seems unreasonable to assume this period of diminished capacity will only last two to four years as anticipated. If the industrial base is incapable of producing two boats per year, it seems even less likely they will be able to produce five per year by the end of the decade. A herculean effort by both government and industry may get close to that goal, but meeting it remains unrealistic. Moreover, the Columbia class, as the future stewards of 70 percent of the American nuclear arsenal, is the top procurement priority for the U.S. government. Any production delays will force planners to prioritize the Columbia over the fast-attacks, further hampering the industry’s ability to return the fleet to 50-plus boats with any haste.

As such, rather than hoping workforce goals will be met, it would be better for the U.S. Navy to proactively reorient its underwater posture for the short to medium term and become more creative with submarine usage. Longer deployments are a natural first step to keep a more active global presence. Moreover, on April 26, 2023, the White House announced an agreement with the Republic of Korea to station ballistic-missile submarines more regularly as a regional deterrence, in a move similar to the AUKUS basing agreement. Similar basing agreements with global, but especially Asian, allies to maintain a visible submarine presence close to near-peer adversaries would allow for a visible defensive posture, which could mitigate questions of an active U.S. underwater presence in regions of concern. In a period of diminished capacity with a still mostly covert underwater fleet, China may gamble there are fewer U.S. submarines in the Pacific and increase activities. If the Chinese can see American submarines permanently stationed in military ports across the Pacific, they know there is an active presence and will have to plan accordingly.

Rethinking Recruiting and Developing a Sustainable Pipeline
This period of diminished capacity will stem from the workforce shortage and likely difficulties of the industrial base in meeting procurement timelines. To mitigate this risk, immense resources have gone into recruitment strategies to bring in talent. The U.S. Navy has shown no shortage of creativity, trying to hit every demographic to get as many positions filled as possible. Some campaigns of particular note: sponsoring a NASCAR team, partnering with a Virginia craft brewery to produce a submarine-themed summer lager, and the launching of buildsubmarines.com, a specialized job board with radio, television, and social media ad buys. These have had mixed results. The website is undoubtedly a good recruitment tool, able to bring in a diverse audience and show them opportunities across the industrial base. The others, however, are dubious. Most submarine jobs are in the Northeast; most NASCAR viewers are in the South and Midwest. What is the likelihood of someone from Alabama uprooting and moving to Connecticut to build boats based on an ad on the side of a racecar or a can of beer? A better method would be to take a regional approach to marketing, finding areas with significant concentrations of submarine industrial contractors and attempting to capture every spare STEM and vocational student possible.

Recruiting must become more targeted and pivot to students of interest as early as possible. Electric Boat president Kevin Graney is aware of this, noting, “The people that we hire in 2033, think about this, are currently in the second grade.” Moreover, education research suggests opinions on STEM as a career are decided by, at the latest, eighth grade. Simultaneously, STEM education is becoming vital to all aspects of submarine production; design engineers are not the only group who need a significant STEM background in building modern submarines. Additive manufacturing and 3D printing are the future, and computer numerical control machining is a core trade in the submarine industrial base. If the entire workforce needs a quality STEM education, and opinions on STEM are formed well before one enters the workforce, the U.S. Navy should invest in ensuring long-term production viability. That will require a strong elementary and secondary school pipeline. If short- and medium-term viability remains in doubt, the long term can still be salvaged through this pivot.

There are already programs prioritizing early intervention and pipeline development. Of particular note are the Accelerated Training in Defense Manufacturing program in Danville, Va., which trains about 1,000 machinists annually, and Electric Boat’s Westerly Education Center, which partners with local high schools to train students in the core trades for submarine production. Yet if the need is 10,000 workers per year, these programs are insufficient. It should be noted that the procurement risk is centered on the workforce. At the height of submarine production in the 1980s, the industrial base could reliably produce as many as eight boats per year, and the physical infrastructure — docks, cranes, and warehouses — still exists on site. They have been used for repair instead of for building contracts in the interim. Shipbuilders have the space to put five boats in the water each year, but they are struggling to find enough talent. Thus, the U.S. Navy should identify regions with a significant concentration of submarine industrial firms, with infrastructure already in place, and begin strategic partnerships with local schools and universities to build sustainable STEM pipelines. These programs should aim to get students excited about STEM early, teach them about submarines, and then make them aware of local opportunities for careers in building these enormous platforms. This is the only way to ensure the long-term survival of the submarine industrial base.

Conclusion
The submarine industrial base’s workforce crisis is not new. War on the Rocks put out multiple pieces in 2023 alone covering the procurement issues facing the industry. Breaking Defense similarly writes frequently about the sector. However, despite the regular stream of warnings over the past decade, the U.S. Navy appears to have not appreciated the scale of the workforce woes facing submarine procurement until recently. The rapid investment in rebuilding the fleet with the launch of Columbia appears to have coincided with a realization of the scale of the workforce development challenge.

Now, the U.S. Navy is trying to make up for lost time. But it is still not moving quickly enough. Significant investment and endless creativity have brought improvements. But recent numbers suggest that the sector will not meet its recruitment goals to deliver on the short-term needs of the U.S. Navy. As such, it is time to accept that there will be a period of diminished capacity for a significant part of the 2030s as delivery schedules continue to lag. This means it is also time to start thinking creatively about how to use the remaining underwater fleet more aggressively to maintain deterrence and surveillance.

More importantly, the United States is at a critical juncture and should abandon the spaghetti-on-the-wall approach to finding bodies to fill vacancies. Instead, for the long-term sustainability of the underwater fleet, workforce development dollars should be spent on encouraging the children who will one day be building the next generation of submarines. Getting them invested early, and in large numbers, is the only way to do this. The U.S. Navy, and its industry partners, should get into classrooms and get children excited to build submarines.

[James1978]

Navy says future drone wingmen need to come in under $15 million price point
By Valerie Insinna
April 08, 2024

SEA AIR SPACE 2024 — The Navy is in the nascent stages of evaluating how to bring autonomous combat drones to the decks of aircraft carriers, but the service’s top official for unmanned programs says one thing is certain: The drones will have to be cheap, topping out at about $15 million per unit.

To keep prices low, the Navy will likely sacrifice the longevity of each so-called Collaborative Combat Aircraft, said Rear Adm. Stephen Tedford, the Navy’s program executive for unmanned systems and weapons. Instead of being sustained over a 40-year lifecycle, a single drone could be catapulted and recovered off the deck of an aircraft carrier a handful of times for surveillance and strike missions before ending its service life as a kamikaze drone.

“I want something that’s going to fly for a couple hundred hours. The last hour it’s either a target or a weapon. I’m either going to hit something with it or I’m going to train [a sensor on it] and shoot it down,” he said today during a briefing at the Sea Air Space conference. “But I’m not going to sustain them for 30 years.”

In contrast to the Air Force, which has made its CCA a major technology development priority, the Navy has said relatively little about its vision for how combat drones could be incorporated with its fighter fleet since the cancelation of the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program in 2016.

That could change shortly, with Tedford stating that the service is “in the process” of kicking off analysis for a CCA program. The initial focus will be studying the payloads, sensors and mission systems that will be needed on drones to augment the capabilities of existing fighters like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with the fielding of uncrewed aircraft targeted for “the second half of this decade,” he said.

Tedford gave few details about the scope or shape of a future CCA buy for the Navy, including when the service would formally launch a program. He did, however, say that the Navy is closely following the Royal Australian Air Force’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat program as well as US Air Force developments in artificial intelligence.

One critical point is that future platforms will need to be open and easily modified, Tedford said.

“I am not interested in pursuing a proprietary solution that will only talk to one specific proprietary property,” he said.

Five companies — Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Anduril — are currently in the running in the Air Force’s effort to field collaborative combat aircraft, Breaking Defense previously reported. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said in February it plans to eliminate several vendors “within just the next few months.”

For the Navy, the MQ-25 tanker drone under development by Boeing remains the service’s major unmanned aviation priority. The MQ-25 is on schedule for its first flight next year, with initial operational capability set for 2026, Tedford said.

[James1978]

Positive signs of progress re. Constellation class FFGs.

SECNAV Del Toro Celebrates the Keel Laying of the Future USS Constellation (FFG 62)
12 April 2024

The Constellation is the first ship of the Constellation-class frigates awarded to Fincantieri Marinette Marine in 2020.

“USS Constellation and the Constellation-class frigates are a critical next step in the modernization of our surface ship inventory, increasing the number of players on the field available globally for our fleet and combatant commanders,” said Secretary Del Toro.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti joined Secretary Del Toro during the historic occasion.

“This ship will be critical in putting more players on the field,” said Franchetti. “The Constellation-class frigate, named after the USS Constellation - the first of six frigates authorized by the Naval Act of 1794 and the first in-class designed and built by American workers - will ensure the free flow of American commerce by sea.”

The ship’s sponsor is Melissa Braithwaite, the spouse of former Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite, who named the ship in 2020.

“I am truly honored to be here as the USS Constellation sponsor. It is one of the greatest honors of my life,” said Melissa Braithwaite. “Being a Navy wife and Ken’s long service in the Navy, today, I had the honor of truly belonging to the Navy myself.”

During his remarks, Secretary Del Toro thanked Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers for his leadership, pointing out that the state’s shipbuilding industry was integral to the national maritime statecraft efforts to rebuild commercial and naval power.

“This yard is teeming with activity—Americans from all walks of life coming together to build warships in a demonstration of our industrial might, and showcasing the talents of the skilled workforce that our nation must expand during this critical period in our world’s history, said Secretary Del Toro.

“After having helped support some of the efforts to update and expand Fincantieri’s facilities to meet the needs of an effort of this size, it is great to be here now to celebrate these projects and see how this hard work is paying off," said Gov. Evers. "This contract to build these frigates is a great opportunity for Wisconsin to showcase our rich shipbuilding and maritime history and cement our role as leaders in this industry."

The Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate (FFG 62) represents the Navy’s next-generation small surface combatant. This ship class will be an agile, multi-mission warship capable of operations in both blue-water and littoral environments, providing increased combat-credible forward presence that provides a military advantage at sea. 

More information on our Constellation-class guided missile frigate program can be found here.

Read Secretary Del Toro’s full remarks here.

[MikeKozlowski]

Positive signs of progress re. Constellation class FFGs.

SECNAV Del Toro Celebrates the Keel Laying of the Future USS Constellation (FFG 62)
12 April 2024

The Constellation is the first ship of the Constellation-class frigates awarded to Fincantieri Marinette Marine in 2020.

“USS Constellation and the Constellation-class frigates are a critical next step in the modernization of our surface ship inventory, increasing the number of players on the field available globally for our fleet and combatant commanders,” said Secretary Del Toro.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti joined Secretary Del Toro during the historic occasion.

“This ship will be critical in putting more players on the field,” said Franchetti. “The Constellation-class frigate, named after the USS Constellation - the first of six frigates authorized by the Naval Act of 1794 and the first in-class designed and built by American workers - will ensure the free flow of American commerce by sea.”

The ship’s sponsor is Melissa Braithwaite, the spouse of former Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite, who named the ship in 2020.

“I am truly honored to be here as the USS Constellation sponsor. It is one of the greatest honors of my life,” said Melissa Braithwaite. “Being a Navy wife and Ken’s long service in the Navy, today, I had the honor of truly belonging to the Navy myself.”

During his remarks, Secretary Del Toro thanked Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers for his leadership, pointing out that the state’s shipbuilding industry was integral to the national maritime statecraft efforts to rebuild commercial and naval power.

“This yard is teeming with activity—Americans from all walks of life coming together to build warships in a demonstration of our industrial might, and showcasing the talents of the skilled workforce that our nation must expand during this critical period in our world’s history, said Secretary Del Toro.

“After having helped support some of the efforts to update and expand Fincantieri’s facilities to meet the needs of an effort of this size, it is great to be here now to celebrate these projects and see how this hard work is paying off," said Gov. Evers. "This contract to build these frigates is a great opportunity for Wisconsin to showcase our rich shipbuilding and maritime history and cement our role as leaders in this industry."

The Constellation-Class Guided-Missile Frigate (FFG 62) represents the Navy’s next-generation small surface combatant. This ship class will be an agile, multi-mission warship capable of operations in both blue-water and littoral environments, providing increased combat-credible forward presence that provides a military advantage at sea. 

More information on our Constellation-class guided missile frigate program can be found here.

Read Secretary Del Toro’s full remarks here.

...Positive? Well, true enough; we got steel being welded.

On the other hand:

*Constellation was named in 2020.
*Laid down 2024.
*Supposed to be in the water and delivered Dec. 2027.

Seven years from point A to point C, and I am very dubious about that 2027 delivery date. A good chunk of that, I'm aware, is the fact that USN redesigned the ship to the point where it went from 85% commonality with the original FREMM design to 15%; and I suspect that particular evolution ain't done yet.

I know it was to bring the design up to USN standards for damage and structural, but I have to wonder if at this point we wouldn't have been better off just going clean sheet of paper. Actually, the answer to that is probably no; we'd still be working on the blueprints. I know there are labor issues at the yard - I know from personal knowledge that this is an unspoken issue when it comes to shipbuilding, and it's only gotten worse as the industry has necked downwards.

But please check out CDR Salamander's blog from the last few months. The military shipbuilding/ship repair industry may be in a case of terminal decline, and the USN leadership and our political class will be solely responsible for what happens.

Mike

[Drunknsubmrnr]

To be fair, the US versions of European gear is normally way better.

[Rocket J Squrriel]

As I've said, it reminds me about the F-18 E/F and how it was just a 'modifications' to the C/D.