Navy Carrier Battle Groups

Mounting budget pressures, reduced global threats, competing priorities, and affordability issues dominate the congressional debate on national security. At the same time, the Navy is embarking on several costly carrier programs--procuring another carrier, refueling the reactors on existing nuclear carriers, and replacing and upgrading aircraft. These programs will have long-term impacts on the size and cost, and potentially the capability, of a 12-carrier force. For example, replacing the current tactical combat aircraft with the planned F/A-18E/F and AX aircraft could cost more than $120 billion. Alternatives exist that could save tens of billions of dollars. In addition, less costly options exist that could satisfy many of the carrier battle groups' traditional roles without endangering U.S. national security. For example, a smaller, less expensive carrier force could be achieved by relying more on increasingly capable surface combatants and amphibious assault ships and/or by employing a more flexible carrier deployment strategy. GAO believes that the Pentagon and Congress must agree on the size and affordability of the carrier force required to meet national defense goals, including the consideration of other options, before committing to build another nuclear carrier.

GAO found that: (1) changes in the international security environment shifted the U.S. strategy from containment of the former Soviet Union to ensuring regional stability by strategic deterrence, maintaining an overseas presence, crisis response, and maintaining a rebuilding capability; (2) the Navy plans to downsize its battle carrier force to 12 ships even though carrier battle groups are still needed because of their superior sustainability and flexibility capabilities; (3) the costs of procuring new carrier-based aircraft could exceed $120 billion and reduce the affordability of future carrier procurements and the number of aircraft deployed; (4) the Navy plans to extend the life of existing tactical and support aircraft; (5) carrier battle group alternatives, which are intended to fill gaps resulting from downsizing, include utilizing amphibious assault ships and surface combatants equipped with advanced missiles and weapons systems; (6) existing surface combatants could sufficiently fulfill regional contingencies and have strike, antiair, antisurface, and antisubmarine warfare capabilities; (7) advanced assault ships include flight decks, a variety of munitions, and landing craft launch capabilities, but lack multimission capabilities; (8) decreasing the frequency and duration of carrier operations and training will not significantly reduce operation and support costs, since up to 80 percent of the costs are fixed, including maintenance and personnel; and (9) cost savings can be realized by reducing the size of the carrier force and the complement of aircraft.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: