Opening Remarks for Ranking Member Courtney on Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Hearing on Building the Navy of the Future: A Look at Navy Force Structure | Congressman Joe Courtney
Skip to main content

Opening Remarks for Ranking Member Courtney on Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Hearing on Building the Navy of the Future: A Look at Navy Force Structure

April 13, 2016

(As prepared for delivery)

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing to hear the views of our two distinguished witnesses on the Navy’s force structure.

As the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, shared with our committee last month, the Navy is undergoing a review of its force structure assessment. Given the changing dynamics around the world, the growing demand for our ships and the increasing strain on our naval fleet, I welcome this reassessment of our force structure requirements.

Our current fleet requirement stands at 308 ships, which, thanks to renewed shipbuilding activity over the last several years, we expect to reach within the next five years. That is good news, but it is just a start because even under the Navy’s plan, we will not sustain the levels needed to fully support the various components of the fleet.

While the 30-year shipbuilding plan for 2017 has still not been submitted to Congress, we expect it to reflect what we saw in the 2016 plan - that even when we meet the 308 ship goal, key shortfalls will remain. For example, we will face shortages in small and large surface combatants, as well as attack submarines, over the next three decades. Additional shortfalls remain in fighter aircraft and other capabilities that will be key to combating the challenges of the future.

Notably, one area that the CNO singled out for particular review in the force structure assessment was our attack submarine force. The current requirement of 48 was set nearly a decade ago, before the undersea resurgence we see by China and Russia. Retired Admiral Jim Stavridis told our panel that Russian submarine activity is “probably 70 to 80 percent of what we saw during Cold War times.” Admiral Harris told us of his concerns that the US submarine force will dip to 41 at a time when China is increasing their fleet size, and advance their undersea capabilities. European Commander General Breedlove told us that the submarine shortfall leaves us playing “zone defense” in the North Atlantic. And, above all, our combatant commanders have been clear to us that the current fleet of 54 attack submarines, let alone the future force of 41 or even 48, cannot adequately meet the demand for undersea capabilities.

That is the kind of area that begs for reassessment, and I look forward to the outcome of their review not just for submarines, but across all aspects of our naval fleet. However, if we are ever going to reach the required fleet size, Congress, and the nation, must grapple with the dual challenges of the Budget Control Act and the critical need to recapitalize our sea-based strategic deterrent submarine fleet without depleting resources for other vital shipbuilding programs. If not addressed, both of these issues will significantly impact our ability to build and sustain the fleet we need. I hope our witnesses will share their views on both subjects with us today.

The shortfalls we will face are largely the result of decisions made in previous decades which we cannot undo in a single year. What we can do, is continue to work in a bipartisan way to address our current and future shipbuilding needs going forward. I am proud that this panel has a record of doing so, and I look forward to sustaining that record. Your input is vital as we prepare to mark up the 2017 defense authorization bill and continue to build the fleet we need for the future.

###