Congress to Dotard: Stop dreaming to fight Xijinping, we are BANKRUPTED BEGGARS! No $$ No Warships!

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/world/2018-11-24/doc-ihpevhck4644103.shtml


美国民主党欲叫停美军355舰队造舰计划：真没钱了

2018年11月24日 14:31 观察者网



0




原标题：民主党欲叫停美国海军355舰队计划：先造弹道导弹核潜艇
[文/观察者网 王世纯]在民主党赢下众议院以后，民主党议员告诉美国海军，由于预算有限，海军只能在新弹道导弹核潜艇项目和“355舰大舰队”中间二选一。
民主党不喜欢大舰队
据美国海军协会网站（USNI）11月23日报道，本周，防卫预算方面的智库“布鲁金斯学会”就国防预算问题召开会议，该智库与国会关系密切的研究员表示，美国海军将被迫在“换装弹道导弹核潜艇”还是“建造355舰大舰队”中做出抉择。这意味着民主党可能要否定特朗普时代“355舰”的庞大造舰计划。
特朗普竞选时就承诺要扩充美国海军，将美国海军的舰队规模从“208艘”扩大到“355艘”。2018年初，美国国防策略转向“大国竞争”，美国海军随后发布《舰队结构评估报告》与《30年造舰计划》，评估了355舰的发展方向。
虽然国会和海军都认为美国海军目前确实缺乏水面舰艇，不过国会和海军内部都没有对《三十年造舰计划》达成一致，众议院此前为355舰争吵不断。

美国海军计划在未来30年建造12艘航母，11艘弹道导弹核潜艇，70条攻击核潜艇与100多条驱逐舰 图源：美国国会

除了与中俄竞争，美国海军此次扩军计划是为了维持美国国防造船业，要知道全世界目前只有美国海军才会买美国造船厂生产的船只 图源：美国国会
随着2018年民主党重新赢得众议院多数席位，民主党的众议院们也将控制军事委员会。“355舰”计划将面临民主党的质疑。
USNI的记者采访了负责军备控制的前助理国务卿弗兰克·罗斯，目前他担任布鲁金斯学会高级研究员。他表示，在民主党控制众议院的时代，民主党将会告诉美国海军两件事，第一，美国没有足够多的钱同时发展弹道导弹核潜艇与大舰队；第二，海军要发展“优先需要”的项目，也就是对国运至关重要的核反击潜艇。
罗斯和吉姆·米勒，前国防部的副部长，民主党的高级军事顾问，都坚定地认为海军必须把资金优先用于建造哥伦比亚级弹道导弹潜艇，这反应了民主党对于“哥伦比亚”级的态度。

俄亥俄级弹道导弹潜艇“路易斯安那”号 USS Louisiana （SSBN-743） 图源：USNI
民主党认为，在美军的核策略中，弹道导弹核潜艇是最为重要的一环，他确保了美国战略部队“核还击”的能力。在“俄亥俄”级弹道导弹潜艇逐渐老化的2018年，建造哥伦比亚级核潜艇至关重要。
预计明年1月新一届国会召开时，华盛顿州民主党众议员亚当·史密斯（Adam Smith，和那位著名的经济学家同名），将出任众议院军事委员会（House Armed Services Committee）主席。作为民主党军事方面的权威，亚当很不喜欢特朗普提出来的355舰计划，他称“355艘战舰”是“随口胡诌出来的数字”。

众议院军事委员会的高级成员亚当·斯密，值得一提的是，民主党军事委员会的成员目前依旧由高学历的建制派白人担当 图源：美国国会
共和党也干了
祸不单行，随着特朗普削减军费，共和党也开始考虑预算分配问题。20日，由共和党控制的参议院军事委员会（Senate Armed Services Committee）将审议国防战略委员会（commission on the National Defense Strategy）的有关美国核力量发展的建议。
同日下午，该委员会的海权小组委员会（sea power subcommittee）也开始审议当前和未来的造船计划。
布鲁斯金学会研究员表示，本次中期选举，共和党在部分郊区选区和农村选区输给了民主党，这警示了共和党。共和党现在要考虑宏观的预算分配问题，他们要照顾自己的支持者，而不是一味的把预算倾斜到军费上。
前国防部副部长米勒表示，海军不能放弃发展“战略威慑中俄”的能力。
日前，特朗普一反常态削减了军费，美国国防部原计划在2020财年拨款7330亿美元，但现在美国管理和预算办公室（Office of Management and Budget）要求国防部削减军费到7000亿美元。特朗普在军费问题的朝令夕改让美军四个军种都陷入了混乱，很多特朗普时代立项的武器研发与采购计划，包括新型巡航导弹，新的战略反导系统和陆军扩军计划被迫在军费削减的情况下暂停。

特朗普要求内阁削减军费 图源：CNN
现在看来，在军费上被称为“一等人”的美国海军，也不得不停止355舰发展计划。
随着美国在东北亚，也就是中国附近集结了两个航母打击大队和一半以上的水面舰艇。这使得美国仅剩一个航母战斗群去控制从西欧到中东宽达四分之一个地球的海域。从6月份到11月份，美国海军10年来首次在中东缺乏航母。

图为菲律宾海域的“里根”号与“斯坦尼斯”号航母 美国海军3分之2的兵力驻扎在亚太区域 图源：施佬
USNI记者就美国海军近年来缺乏水面舰艇问题，询问了布鲁斯金协会的高级研究员奥汉隆（Michael O ‘Hanlon）。
奥汉隆表示，美国海军不应该再像以前那样把兵力散往全世界，在几个月没有航母存在的情况下，伊朗没有采取更激进的行动，这证明波斯湾和中东地区并不需要航母战斗群。美国海军应该保持一支小规模的机动兵力，而不是大规模的常驻兵力。



The US Democratic Party wants to stop the US Army 355 fleet shipbuilding plan: really no money
November 24, 2018 14:31 Observer Network
0

Original title: Democrats want to stop the US Navy 355 Fleet plan: first to build ballistic missile nuclear submarines

After the Democratic Party won the House of Representatives, the Democratic Party members told the US Navy that due to the limited budget, the Navy could only choose between the new ballistic missile submarine project and the "355 ship fleet."

The Democratic Party does not like the big fleet

According to the US Navy Association website (USNI) reported on November 23, this week, the defense budget budget think tank "Brookings Society" held a meeting on defense budget issues, the think tank and the close relationship with the Congress said that the US Navy will be Forced to make a choice between "replacement of ballistic missile submarines" or "building a 355 ship fleet." This means that the Democratic Party may have to negate the huge shipbuilding plan of the Trump era "355 ship."

During Trump's campaign, he promised to expand the US Navy and expand the fleet size of the US Navy from "208 ships" to "355 ships." At the beginning of 2018, the US defense strategy turned to "great power competition." The US Navy subsequently issued the "Fleet Structure Assessment Report" and the "30-year Shipbuilding Plan" to assess the development direction of the 355 ship.

Although both the Congress and the Navy believe that the US Navy does not currently have a surface ship, there is no agreement within the Congress and the Navy on the Thirty Years Shipbuilding Plan. The House of Representatives has been arguing for the 355 ship.

The US Navy plans to build 12 aircraft carriers, 11 ballistic missile nuclear submarines, 70 attack nuclear submarines and more than 100 destroyers in the next 30 years.

In addition to competing with China and Russia, the US Navy's expansion plan is to maintain the US defense shipbuilding industry. It is necessary to know that only the US Navy will buy ships produced by American shipyards. Source: US Congress

With the Democratic Party regaining a majority in the House of Representatives in 2018, the House of Representatives of the Democratic Party will also control the military committee. The "355 Ship" plan will face the challenge of the Democratic Party.

USNI reporters interviewed former Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Frank Rose, who is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He said that in the era when the Democratic Party controls the House of Representatives, the Democratic Party will tell the US Navy two things. First, the United States does not have enough money to develop ballistic missile submarines and large fleets at the same time. Second, the Navy needs to develop "priority needs" projects. It is also a nuclear counter-submarine that is vital to the national movement.

Ross and Jim Miller, former deputy minister of defense, and senior military adviser to the Democratic Party, firmly believe that the Navy must prioritize the use of funds to build Colombian ballistic missile submarines, reflecting the Democratic Party’s attitude toward the "Colombia" class.

Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine "Louisiana" USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) Source: USNI

The Democratic Party believes that in the US military's nuclear strategy, ballistic missile nuclear submarines are the most important part, and he has ensured the ability of the US strategic forces to "nuclear counterattacks." In the 2018, when the "Ohio" class ballistic missile submarine became aging, the construction of a Columbian nuclear submarine was essential.

When the new Congress is expected in January next year, Washington State Democrat Adam Smith (the same name as the famous economist) will serve as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. As the authority of the Democratic Party's military, Adam did not like Trump's proposed 355 ship plan. He called the "355 battleships" the "numbers that came out of the mouth."

Adam Smith, a senior member of the House Military Committee, it is worth mentioning that members of the Democratic Military Committee are still served by highly educated whites.

The Republican Party has also done it.

The disaster is not alone. As Trump cuts military spending, the Republican Party also began to consider the issue of budget allocation. On the 20th, the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee will review the recommendations of the National Defense Strategy on the development of US nuclear power.

On the afternoon of the same day, the committee's sea power subcommittee also began to consider current and future shipbuilding plans.

Researchers at the Bruce King Institute said that in this midterm election, the Republican Party lost to the Democratic Party in some suburban and rural constituencies, warning the Republican Party. The Republican Party now has to consider the macro budget allocation problem. They have to take care of their supporters instead of blindly tilting the budget to military spending.

Former Deputy Defense Minister Miller said that the Navy cannot give up the ability to develop "strategic deterrence of China and Russia."

A few days ago, Trump unscrupulously cut military spending. The US Department of Defense originally planned to allocate $733 billion in fiscal year 2020, but now the Office of Management and Budget requires the Defense Department to cut military spending to $700 billion. Trump’s military policy has changed the four US military services into chaos. Many Trump-era weapons development and procurement programs, including new cruise missiles, new strategic anti-missile systems, and Army expansion plans are forced into military spending. Suspended in case of cuts.
Trump asks the cabinet to cut military spending. Source: CNN Trump asks the cabinet to cut military spending. Source: CNN

It now appears that the US Navy, known as the "first class" in military spending, has to stop the 355 ship development plan.

As the United States assembled two aircraft carrier strike teams and more than half of surface ships in Northeast Asia, China. This left the United States with only one carrier battle group to control the waters of a quarter of the Earth from Western Europe to the Middle East. From June to November, the US Navy lacked an aircraft carrier for the first time in the Middle East in 10 years.

The picture shows the “Reagan” and “Stannis” aircraft carriers in the Philippine waters. Two-thirds of the US Navy’s troops are stationed in the Asia-Pacific region.

The USNI reporter asked Michael O ‘Hanlon, a senior researcher at the Bruce Gold Association, about the lack of surface ships in the US Navy in recent years.

O'Hanlon said that the US Navy should not disperse its troops to the world as before. In the absence of an aircraft carrier for several months, Iran has not taken more radical actions, which proves that the Persian Gulf and the Middle East do not need aircraft carriers. Battle group. The US Navy should maintain a small-scale mobile force rather than a large-scale permanent force.

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://news.usni.org/2018/03/06/predicted-355-ship-navy-a-long-way-off-in-time-or-reality

Lawmakers Not Satisfied with Navy 355-Ship Plan

By: Ben Werner


March 6, 2018 12:34 PM

John F. Kennedy CVN-79 superlift. HII Photo
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two senior lawmakers called into question the Navy’s proposed plan to increase fleet size to 355 ships. One said the pace was too slow and another said the buildup was based on unrealistic schedules and funding.

When the 355-ship fleet standard was codified in law last year, the intent was for the Navy to meet this requirement as soon as practical, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chair of the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee, said at McAleese/Credit Suisse Defense Programs conference on Tuesday.
“The Navy shipbuilding plan that doesn’t get to 355 ships until the mid-2050s is unacceptable,” Wicker said.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Wicker wants the administration to develop a more robust shipbuilding schedule, one increasing funding to speed up the production pace.
“The budget request was good, but it wasn’t good enough,” Wicker said.
“The Navy’s 2019 budget request is $22 billion for 10 new ships but we wanted them to come up with 26 billion for 14 new ships.”
The first few years of service’s long-range shipbuilding plan proposes expanding the fleet to 326 within the next five years. The plan’s start is impressive but then the pace peters out.
“Suddenly there’s a dip,” Wicker said. “We don’t like the dip.”
Meanwhile, given the current budget and long-term planning process, the Navy reaching 355 ships is “fantasy,” said Rep. Adam Smith, (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, who spoke after Wicker.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.)
“It’s simply a number thrown out there. I think they said they hope to achieve a 355-ship navy by what is it, the 2050s, somewhere way off in the distance,” Smith said.
“We can barely predict what will happen in two months now, really, 2050 you’re going to tell me how many ships we’re going to have, based on everything going on.”
By focusing so closely on near-term spending, Smith worries Congress and military planners are not really planning ahead. Instead, promises are made to the public that in reality have little chance of being kept.
“Talking about 355 ships or 500,000 troops in the army or whatever doesn’t match up to the reality of dealing with taxes and mandatory spending,” Smith said. “I mean we just cut taxes again, reducing our revenue.”
Congress needs to have an honest conversation about what can be achieved with the current revenue stream, what the nation can afford, and how the nations should pay for needed equipment or personnel.
“If there’s one thing no politician in this country wants to have it’s an honest conversation about this because there’s no easy answer,” Smith said.




https://www.military.com/daily-news...g-vessels-past-planned-lifespans-admiral.html

355-Ship Navy Will Mean Extending Vessels Past Planned Lifespans: Admiral

Ship's from the George Washington and Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Groups are underway in formation at the conclusion of Valiant Shield 2014 (U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Paolo Bayas)

5 Sep 2018

Military.com | By Gina Harkins

Some of the Navy's ships could stay in service well beyond their scheduled lifespan as leaders look for ways to modernize existing vessels as part of a decades-long fleet buildup.
Navy leaders want to have 355 ships by 2030, but that doesn't mean that all of them will come new. Officials are studying ways to salvage some of the service's aging vessels as part of that plus-up -- and that doesn't come without challenges.

"[Operating] as an away-game Navy is very expensive, and this requires us to look at the lifespan of everything we own," Vice Adm. William Merz, deputy chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems, said Wednesday at conference hosted by Defense News.
Navy leaders plan to detail the kinds of capabilities they'll need in a 355-ship fleet in an extensive report expected to be released next year. Part of that process, Merz said, will include taking a look at what ships will still be relevant in a future fight.
That's an important factor in determining how much money to invest in refurbishing ships that have already been in service for decades. The Navy recently decided to extend the lives of some cruisers and destroyers, he said, because they're so effective.
"Not only did we determine they're going to be relevant, they're also extremely well-built ships [with] longevity," Merz said.
Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Virginia, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's seapower and projection forces subcommittee, last year pushed the Navy to extend the life of its Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers. Some of those ships are more than 35 years old.
As the Navy looks at threats from China and Russia, Wittman said at the Wednesday conference, it needs to make use of all capable assets in the fleet. China is expected to far outpace the U.S. in the number of attack submarines.
That development, he said, is "by any measure not acceptable."
Staying on plan with new submarines, aircraft carriers and small-surface combatants is important, he said. But so are software, weapons and radar upgrades that can keep older ships competitive, he added, along with keeping vessels on their maintenance schedules.
"We have to make sure that we are doing everything we can in the maintenance realm," Wittman said. "... I argue that ship maintenance will be as important to getting to 355 as is ship building.
"Our ability to project power [around the world] is going to come from the sea, so our Navy and Marine Corps are going to be at the tip of the spear."
--Gina Harkins can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter at @ginaaharkins.

Related Topics



https://news.usni.org/2018/11/23/panel-navy-may-choose-new-ballistic-missile-subs-355-ship-fleet

Panel: Navy May Have to Choose Between New Ballistic Missile Subs or 355 Ship Fleet

By: John Grady


November 23, 2018 9:16 AM

Gold crew of the Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) arrives home to Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, Wash. US Navy Photo
The Navy could be forced to make hard choices sooner rather than later when it comes to finding the money to replace its aging ballistic missile submarines or reach its goal of having a fleet of 355 warships, a panel of security and budgetary experts said this week.
When asked by USNI News what the future holds for fleet size and ballistic missile submarines now that the Democrats control the House, Frank Rose, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former assistant secretary of state for arms control, he said: “There is not enough money” for both, and “priorities need to be taken.”
Rose and Jim Miller, a former undersecretary of Defense for policy, came down firmly on the side of building the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, the replacements for the current Ohio-class, in setting priorities for Navy spending.
For the U.S., the ballistic missile submarines “secures the second strike” in event of a nuclear attack. “It really is the backbone of our nuclear force now and for the next 70 to 80 years,” Rose said.
The Navy shouldn’t be allowed to say, “sorry, we ran out of money” when it comes to paying for the ballistic missile submarine because the shipbuilding account was used for other kinds of warships. “The Navy needs to step up to that bill,” Miller said.
That line of thought is not confined to think-tanks.
Rep. Adam Smith, (D-Wash.), who is expected to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, has long expressed skepticism over the Navy’s shipbuilding plan leading to a fleet of 355 warships. He has several times at recent public events referred to it as “simply a number thrown out there.”
A sense of how the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee will line up on fleet size and modernizing the nuclear triad could come Tuesday when the full panel looks at the recommendations of the commission on the National Defense Strategy and that afternoon its sea power subcommittee looks at current and future shipbuilding plans.
In his presentation, Miller said a fleet of 355 ships, meaning a growth of about 70 from the current size “are numbers that should be challenged” as should those increasing Army end strength from about 450,000 soldiers to 510,000. If all the services force structure numbers were challenged there would be funds for readiness and modernization, including the nuclear triad.
“Will this administration put its money where its strategy [of deterring new-peer competitors — Russia and China] is?” he asked rhetorically.
There is some concern that the Trump administration will pull back from long-term, continually rising Pentagon budgets. The Defense Department was planning for a request for Fiscal Year 2020 of $733 billion, but it has now been told by the Office of Management and Budget to work with a $700 billion top line.
The question for all the services is: “can they get by with current force structure” if missions are also re-examined to free money for readiness, modernization and investment in the future like cyber resilience and space, especially sensors for missile defense.
Michael O’Hanlon, who moderated the session at Brookings in Washington, D.C., added in answer to the USNI News question that for the Navy it means looking at the missions its accepts critically. For example, does the lack of an aircraft carrier strike group presence in the Persian Gulf upset security in the region. Or is it a way to free money for other things. He pointed out that when there was no carrier present there for months Iran did not act more aggressively.
“The Middle East was a mess before; the Middle East was a mess after. [The Navy] can be more flexible [and that] could be with a smaller fleet,” he said.
Miller said during the presentation and later with USNI there was a tradeoff that needed to be understood between “quantity and quality.”
Following the presentation, Miller said the Navy “is in a bind” when it has to choose between large capital surface ships, like carriers, “and places where it has an advantage, like submarines — boomers and attack and unmanned undersea vessels. He added modernizing the amphibious fleet remained a priority to meet the need for rapid response of Marines and special forces.
Overhanging all this discussion of where the Pentagon should spend its money is the old bugaboo — sequestration, the automatic across-the-board cuts in defense and domestic spending if deficits are not offset, as required by existing law.
Maya MacGuiness, president of the Committee for a Responsible Budget, said unless Congress reaches a spending agreement Pentagon spending would automatically fall back to $576 billion because the Budget Control Act of 2011 remains in place. As it has in the past, Congress has reached an agreement to lift the caps, but is no longer trying to offset those hikes in spending with comparable cuts in other programs.
With a trillion dollar deficit and national debt “the highest it has been since World War II,” she said the United States “faces incredible fiscal challenges,” but administrations and Congress aren’t making the choices in where to cut, where to spend, how to find revenue to pay for programs, cover entitlements — in and out of the military, and meet the interest payments on the debt.
Instead, there has been “a doubling down” on spending and cutting taxes. The reality has become “I won’t pay for mine; you won’t pay for yours.”
MacGuiness said, “We have to stop the notion we can have it all” in federal spending on guns and butter. She did not predict whether the new Congress would make those decisions.
While expecting House Democrats to exercise more executive branch oversight, Elaine Kamerck, of Brookings, said didn’t see their approach come the New Year as an all-out assault on Pentagon spending. The party’s leadership is concerned about keeping its majority having taken seats in more conservative suburban areas after 2020. A more interesting question come January will be “how does the Republican leadership in Congress take the lessons from the elections” that saw “them decimated in the suburbs” and their winning margins cut in rural areas, she said, and apply them to the budget.




https://news.usni.org/2018/03/15/cb...355-ship-fleet-will-cost-103-billion-per-year

CBO: 355-Ship Fleet Will Cost $6.7 Billion More Per Year Than Current Navy Budget Request



March 15, 2018 12:42 PM

Ingalls Shipbuilding lands the 700-ton deckhouse on the amphibious assault ship Tripoli (LHA 7) on July 9, 2016. Ingalls Shipbuilding photo.
Two of four shipbuilding scenarios detailed by a Congressional Budget Office report released Wednesday would create a 355-ship Navy by 2037, but current Navy spending requests only maintain the status quo of the current-sized 282-ship fleet.

Starting in the current Fiscal Year 2018, and continuing for the next five years, the Navy proposes in its 2019 Budget to spend an average of $20.8 billion a year on shipbuilding – an amount, according to CBO calculations, that wouldn’t pay for maintaining the status quo of current fleet size of 282 ships, let alone pay for a fleet size increase.
In four scenarios, the CBO report offers lawmakers variations of proposed shipbuilding plans to consider funding for the next three decades. Building a 355-ship fleet, according to the CBO, would require buying 330 new ships for the next 20 years and spending between $103 billion and $104 billion to maintain this fleet through 2047.

CBO Graphic
“The president’s budget only allocates $20 billion to shipbuilding and proposes to build 10 ships. We must get to 13 ships and increase the budget accordingly,” said Rep. Rob Wittman, (R-Va.), chair of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces Subcommittee, in a statement released last week before a hearing on the Navy’s shipbuilding plan.
The CBO’s report suggests funding level of $26 billion per year would strike the “sweet spot” to build a 355-ship Navy, added Wittman, who also co-chairs the House of Representatives shipbuilding caucus.
Concentrating on buying new ships, the CBO reports, would require the Navy to add between 12 and 13 new ships each year, spending an average of $26.7 billion annually on shipbuilding.
If the Navy extended the lifespan of some ships near retirement age, the CBO reports a 355-fleet could be achieved quicker but would not provide the Navy with an ideal mix of ships for several years. The Navy’s shipbuilding pace would start off slower, between 11 and 12 new ships annually, at first, and require spending an average of $27.5 billion per year. The slightly higher annual price includes the cost of extending the life of existing ships.
“Those figures are more than 60 percent higher than the amounts the Navy has spent on shipbuilding over the past 30 years and more than 25 percent higher than the amount appropriated for 2017,” the CBO report states.
Just maintaining the status quo, keeping a future fleet at a size comparable to the Navy’s current 282-ship fleet, will still require buying new ships to replace those being retired from service. This plan would require average annual spending of $22.4 billion on shipbuilding, still more than what the Navy proposes spending on shipbuilding in FY 2019.

CBO Graphic
Maintaining the fleet of 282 ships for 30 years would cost an estimated $91 billion-per-year, because the costs associated with building new ships and keeping ships at sea are still expected to increase, according to the CBO analysis.
“Pay for military and civilians is projected to increase faster than inflation as are costs to supply and repair the Navy’s ships,” the CBO report states.
Lawmakers could also decide to essentially do nothing by capping funding for the Navy’s annual shipbuilding plan to what the CBO report described as an average of historic funding levels. However, even this option comes with steep costs, requiring $82 billion-per-year to maintain the fleet for the next 30 years, and would likely result in a fleet of 230 ships by 2047 — down from the current total of 282.
Opting for a smaller fleet would likely reduce the nation’s shipbuilding capacity, the CBO reports. Limiting funding to historic levels would only require slightly more than five ships being built per year, which is less than one ship per existing shipyard.
“It is not clear whether that would be enough business to keep all seven yards open, although if it were, the workforces in those yards would shrink to reflect the reduced activity,” the CBO report states.