Information on Options for Naval Surface Fire Support (19-NOV-04, GAO-05-39R). Land-, air-, and sea-based components form the "fires triad" that is used to support Marine Corps amphibious assault operations. The sea-based part of the fires triad is referred to as Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS). The retirement of the last Iowa class battleship left a void in the NSFS part of the fires triad. To field a replacement NSFS capability, the Navy developed a two-phased plan in 1994. In the near-term to midterm, it would modify the capability of 5-inch guns on existing destroyers and cruisers, and develop extended-range guided munitions for the modified 5-inch gun. In the far term, it would field a sufficient number of new destroyers fitted with an even-longerrange advanced gun system and ultimately a very-long-range electromagnetic gun or "Rail Gun." However, in 1996, congressional authorizers became concerned that the Navy would not be able to produce a replacement NSFS capability comparable to the battleships until well into the twenty-first century. In that year's Defense Authorization Act, the Congress directed the Secretary of the Navy to restore at least two Iowa class battleships to the naval vessel registry until a capability was developed equal to or greater than that provided by the battleships. By 1999 the Navy had placed the Iowa and Wisconsin battleships back on the naval vessel registry and has been maintaining them in an inactive state since then. In recent years, the Navy's efforts to develop a NSFS replacement capability have not progressed as quickly as planned. Given concerns about the gap in NSFS capability, the Chairman, Subcommittee on Projection Forces House Committee on Armed Services requested that we review (1) the validated requirements for NSFS, (2) the estimated cost and schedule for reactivating and modernizing two Iowa class battleships to provide NSFS, and (3) the status of Navy efforts to develop a replacement NSFS capability. -------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- REPORTNUM: GAO-05-39R ACCNO: A13853 TITLE: Information on Options for Naval Surface Fire Support DATE: 11/19/2004 SUBJECT: Maintenance costs Military operations Military vessels Naval procurement Naval warfare Repair costs Weapons systems Schedule slippages DD(X) Destroyer Naval Surface Fire Support Modernization Program U.S.S. Iowa U.S.S. Wisconsin ****************************************************************** ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a ** ** GAO Product. ** ** ** ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although ** ** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but ** ** may not resemble those in the printed version. ** ** ** ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when ** ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed ** ** document's contents. ** ** ** ****************************************************************** GAO-05-39R * Results in Brief * Validated Requirements for NSFS Overall Have Not Been Established * Full Cost and Schedule for Reactivating and Modernizing Battleships Have\ Not Been Analyzed * Delays in Fielding Replacement NSFS Systems After Retiring Battleships E\xtend Gap in NSFS Capability * Agency Comments * Enclosure I United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 November 19, 2004 The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett Chairman, Subcommittee on Projection Forces Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Subject: Information on Options for Naval Surface Fire Support Dear Mr. Chairman: Land-, air-, and sea-based components form the "fires triad" that is used to support Marine Corps amphibious assault operations. The sea-based part of the fires triad is referred to as Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS). From World War II until the Persian Gulf War in 1991, NSFS resided mainly in the capability of the 16-inch guns on the Navy's Iowa class battleships. The thick armor of these battleships and the 24-nautical-mile range of their 16-inch guns gave the battleships increased survivability in high-threat scenarios. The last Iowa class battleship was decommissioned in 1992. Their retirement left a void in the NSFS part of the fires triad. To field a replacement NSFS capability, the Navy developed a two-phased plan in 1994. In the near-term to midterm, it would modify the capability of 5-inch guns on existing destroyers and cruisers, and develop extended-range guided munitions for the modified 5-inch gun. In the far term, it would field a sufficient number of new destroyers fitted with an even-longer-range advanced gun system and ultimately a very-long-range electromagnetic gun or "Rail Gun." However, in 1996, congressional authorizers became concerned that the Navy would not be able to produce a replacement NSFS capability comparable to the battleships until well into the twenty-first century. In that year's Defense Authorization Act, 1 the Congress directed the Secretary of the Navy to restore at least two Iowa class battleships to the naval vessel registry until a capability was developed equal to or greater than that provided by the battleships. By 1999 the Navy had placed the Iowa and Wisconsin battleships back on the naval vessel registry and has been maintaining them in an inactive state since then. 1 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, Sec. 1011. Page 1 GAO-05-39R Options for NSFS Results in Brief In recent years, the Navy's efforts to develop a NSFS replacement capability have not progressed as quickly as planned. Given concerns about the gap in NSFS capability, you requested that we review (1) the validated requirements for NSFS, (2) the estimated cost and schedule for reactivating and modernizing two Iowa class battleships to provide NSFS, and (3) the status of Navy efforts to develop a replacement NSFS capability. This letter summarizes our findings and transmits the detailed briefing that we prepared for your staff. (See encl. I.) To address our engagement objectives, we interviewed responsible officials and reviewed official documents, including internal memos, operational requirements documents, and related studies, from the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, the Navy's Inactive Ships Program Office, the Navy's Surface Warfare Directorate, the Navy's Guided Projectile Office, the Joint Staff (J-8) Force Application Assessment Division, and the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association. We also toured the Battleship Wisconsin (BB-64) and the USS Winston Churchill (DDG-81). We conducted our work from April through September 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The Navy and Marine Corps have only recently begun the process to establish validated NSFS requirements that address the overall capabilities needed and the balance between different systems that will be required to provide effective, continuous, and sustaining support fire for forces operating ashore. Validated requirements for some specific systems have been established, however. The cost and schedule for reactivating and modernizing two Iowa class battleships have not been fully developed. However, the Navy believes that reactivation of the battleships should not be pursued for a number of reasons. These include, among other things, manpower requirements and modernization needed to integrate the battleships into today's modern Navy. Therefore, the Navy has no plans to conduct the detailed studies needed to identify the full extent of needs and costs. The Navy's fielding of a replacement NSFS capability has been delayed. The near-term and midterm efforts to extend the range of munitions fired from the 5-inch guns on its cruisers and destroyers have been delayed from 2001 to possibly as late as 2011, but other program options have been discussed including the option of canceling or reducing the extended-range munitions program to fund development of another gun system. Far-term plans to help fill the NSFS gap by 2015 using a new destroyer with advanced gun systems were revised in 2001 to employ a Validated Requirements for NSFS Overall Have Not Been Established different destroyer concept-the DD (X). The Navy currently expects sufficient numbers of DD (X) destroyers to be ready to help fill the NSFS gap by 2018 at the earliest. The role of naval surface fire support has been evolving in tandem with the Navy's amphibious assault doctrine, and for well over a decade, since the decommissioning of the last of the Iowa class battleships, both the Navy and Marine Corps have strived to address the specifics of how to fulfill NSFS requirements. Until recently, these services have had difficulty with reconciling their respective positions. Operational requirements documents for several systems, such as the new destroyer, that will contribute to the NSFS mission have been developed. On several occasions, the Marine Corps has specified to the Navy what they believe the replacement NSFS capability should be and the timing of the capability. However, no single document has ever addressed the overall capabilities and the balance between different systems that will be required to provide effective, continuous, and sustainable supporting fire for increasingly capable expeditionary forces operating ashore. Although no formal NSFS requirement currently exists, in August 2004, the Navy and Marine Corps agreed on an approach to correct the problem by formally agreeing to develop an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) that would address the overall capabilities needed for naval fire support. The goal of this ICD is to document and address the overall capabilities required of naval fire support. This will assist in determining the most effective and efficient balance of capabilities and in determining the cumulative offensive power that naval forces must be capable of generating. An integrated product team chaired by the Marine Corps' Deputy Commandant for Combat Development office, in coordination with the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, will conduct the required analyses, develop the ICD, and endeavor to gain the Department of Defense's approval for the ICD. Full Cost and Schedule for Reactivating and Modernizing Battleships Have Not Been Analyzed To reactivate two Iowa class battleships to their decommissioned capability, the Navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million. This does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish gunpowder for the 16-inch guns because a recent survey found that it is unsafe. In terms of schedule, the Navy's program management office estimates that reactivation would take 20 to 40 months, given the loss of corporate memory and the shipyard industrial base. Reactivating the battleships would require a wide range of battleship modernization improvements, according to the Navy's program management office. At a minimum, these modernization improvements include command and control, communications, computers, and intelligence equipment; environmental protection (including ozonedepleting substances); a plastic-waste processor; pulper/shredder and wastewater alterations; firefighting/fire safety and women-at-sea alterations; a modernized sensor suite (air and surface search radar); and new combat and self-defense systems. Although detailed studies would be needed to identify the full extent of modernization needs and costs, the Navy has no plans to conduct these studies. The Navy's program management office also identified other issues that would strongly discourage the Navy from reactivating and modernizing the battleships. For example, personnel needed to operate the battleships would be extensive, and the skills needed may not be available or easily reconstituted. Other issues include the age and unreliability of the battleships' propulsion systems and the fact that the Navy no longer maintains the capability to manufacture their 16-inch gun system components and ordnance. Following the retirement of the last Iowa class battleship in 1992, the Navy laid out a two-phase plan to provide a replacement NSFS capability: Replacement NSFS Systems After o The near-term and midterm phases called for modifying the 5-inch guns on the current class of destroyers and cruisers planned for production and Retiring Battleships developing extended-range guided munitions (ERGM) to be used in the upgraded guns for improved range. Extend Gap in NSFS o The far-term phase called for developing a longer-range advanced gun Capability system to be fitted on a new destroyer and eventually a Rail Gun with even greater range. In the near-term and midterm, expected fielding of the ERGM system for use in upgraded 5-inch guns on current destroyers and cruisers has been delayed from 2001 to possibly as late as 2011. Technical and design problems on the ERGM, which has been under development since 1996, have led to test failures and delays. 2 The Navy has awarded a contract to a different company for developing an alternative technology. The Navy now intends to issue a solicitation in 2005 to hold full and open competition for development and low-rate production for the extended-range munitions for the 5-inch gun. Other program options have also been discussed to include canceling or reducing the extended-range munitions program to fund the development of another gun under consideration for the future destroyer called the "hypersonic naval rail gun." Also, the Navy is considering the benefits of installing modified 5-inch guns on the current cruisers to fire the extended-range guided munitions. However, if undertaken, the Navy does not intend to use these platforms in an NSFS role. This decision will reduce the number of ships able to provide NSFS by 41 percent in those scenarios where a 25-nautical-mile standoff range of the ships from the shore is needed to protect them from shore-based threats. Without the 5-inch gun modification to handle the extended-range guided munitions, the range of the cruisers' guns is only 13 nautical miles. In the far term, the fielding of an advanced gun system has been delayed. Initial plans called for fielding 32 new destroyers, designated the DD 21, with advanced gun systems between 2008 and 2020 to fill the NSFS gap. In 2001, the Navy announced that it would replace the DD 21 with another destroyer concept called the DD(X). The Navy now expects to field 24 DD(X) destroyers between 2011 and 2023. A sufficient number of DD(X) destroyers to help close the NSFS gap will not be available until 2018. We reported that the ship's construction plan was risky because some technologies are unproven and the design is not yet stable. DOD provided us with technical comments, which we incorporated in our letter where appropriate. As agreed with your staff, we plan no further distribution of this letter until 14 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this letter to other congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. Copies are available to others upon request. The letter will also be available on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 2 For more details on these problems, see our report, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Major Weapon Programs ( GAO-04-248, Mar. 31, 2004), pp. 57 and 58. Page 5 GAO-05-39R Options for NSFS Should you or your staff have questions on the matters discussed in this report, please contact me on (202) 512-4841 or Jim Morrison, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7078. Contributors to this report include Jerry Clark, Robert Swierczek, and Martha Dey. Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Enclosure Enclosure I GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 512-6061 Contact: To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected] Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548 Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548 This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. *** End of document. ***