Defense officials are facing an uphill battle to convince Capitol Hill they've made the right choice in seeking to retire a nuclear-powered, Nimitz-class aircraft carrier more than two decades before the end of its life expectancy.
These officials have sought to persuade lawmakers the move will help the service invest in modernization rather than legacy systems, but members of key committees are skeptical of the proposal to not refuel the Harry S. Truman (CVN-75).
The plan to retire the carrier is raising questions about the Navy's adherence to a legal code mandating the service keep 11 aircraft carriers, as well as generating concerns about whether the Navy is discarding a valuable asset for untested new technologies. Moreover, it juxtaposes the Navy's long-term goal of growing the fleet to 355 vessels with a decision that eliminates a capable battle-force ship.
The Navy's proposal to opt out of the Truman's 2024 refueling and complex overhaul follows a December decision to pursue a block-buy of two new Ford-class aircraft carriers, choices some lawmakers see as contradictory.
But defense officials say the decision puts the Navy on a course into the future while maintaining the service's commitment to the aircraft carrier.
Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan made this argument to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, telling lawmakers the decision not to refuel the Truman "was made in concert" with the Navy's block purchase of the two Ford carriers, which the service projects will yield about $4 billion in savings.
"I think the Truman decision represents some of the strategic choices we made in this year's budget," Shanahan said. "It was a very difficult decision for us."
"With this decision of the two-carrier buy and to not refuel the Truman, our lethality of our carriers and capability increases with the new carriers," he continued.
Opposition brewing in Congress
Despite Shanahan connecting the Truman to the two-carrier buy, lawmakers who sit on congressional defense committees in both chambers say they were not informed of this trade-off and only learned about the Pentagon's decision to retire the Truman through news reports or the Trump administration's fiscal year 2020 budget request, presented in March.
"I think those two decisions are [at] cross-purposes . . . because the two-carrier block buy is obviously a huge commitment to the value of carriers. And then to remove a carrier in the same budget year defies logic," House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee Chairman Joe Courtney (D-CT) told Inside Defense in an April 2 interview.
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), ranking member of the seapower subcommittee, told Inside Defense he found out about the plan for the Truman just before the budget rollout and that prior conversations about the two-carrier Ford purchase centered around its "economies of scale" rather than the possibility of retiring the Nimitz-class carrier.
"I would have preferred for [the Pentagon] to be forthright with us and let us know because I do think that we would have liked to have had the opportunity to at least have a discussion with them," Wittman said.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), who until recently chaired the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee, said he found out about the carrier's retirement during the budget rollout. Meanwhile, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), whose state is home to the only shipyard that builds aircraft carriers, said he also learned of the Truman decision after, not during, conversations about the two-carrier buy.
"It just seems counter to the two-carrier buy and certainly counter to what they've been telling us about the strategic value of the carriers," Kaine told Inside Defense in an April 9 interview.
Sen. David Perdue (R-GA), who assumed the seapower subcommittee gavel in January, said he learned of the proposal to retire the Truman after the two-carrier buy discussions, but told Inside Defense that doesn't mean the Navy did not inform the committee.
'Not a warfighting decision'
Navy officials maintain the service is open to conversations with Congress about the choice to retire the carrier, while Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford and Shanahan have told lawmakers the decision is reversible.
"The Truman decision was not a warfighting decision, it was more of an investment decision," Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems Vice Adm. William Merz told the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee last month.
Navy Secretary Richard Spencer argued last week for investing in the Ford-class carriers over the older Nimitz-class vessels, telling lawmakers the new carriers are likely to require less maintenance and need fewer personnel to man the ship.
"When in fact a new platform is presented to anyone who's modernizing, in the 20 percent improvement range, people abandon assets to make the case to move toward more effective, more efficient, in our case, more lethal platforms," Spencer told the House Armed Services committee April 10.
"So, this is not a one-to-one trade," he continued. "This is modernizing the fleet with three platforms right off the bat that are more lethal. That was the thought process behind the Truman."
Following initial reports of the Truman's retirement earlier this year, one defense analyst noted the refueling cancellation could be a budget ploy.
"The typical scenario is the Navy (or another service) doesn't include a high-profile system in its budget plan, political outrage ensues, the service takes its lumps, the money is found and things go back to normal for a few cycles. Wash-Rinse-Repeat," Cowen Washington Research Group's Roman Schweizer wrote in a Feb. 28 memo to clients. "We see this as a negotiating position with Congress (and perhaps the Office of the Secretary of Defense)."
Members of Congress suspect the choice to opt out of the mid-life refueling stems from OSD, rather than the Navy.
"My gut tells me more OSD," Kaine told Inside Defense when asked where he thinks the decision originated.
"Because we ask about the vulnerability of carriers not even in connection with this . . . and [the Navy feels] very, very good about the ability to protect these platforms and not just the Ford class, but the Nimitz class as well," he continued.
Both Courtney and Wittman said while they could not be sure, they believe the impetus is coming from OSD.
"I don't know for certain, but I don't think that it comes from the Navy," Wittman said.
"I think if you look at the Navy and the [operational plans] that they are being requested to implement -- the needs that they have across the world -- I think the Navy is saying 'Hey, we need this carrier, but this is a decision made internal -- OSD,'" he added.
Path to new technology
The Navy hopes to invest in new technologies, including unmanned vehicles, with the money it would save by canceling the refueling. But both Courtney and Wittman expressed concerns about these capabilities lacking the maturity to justify the early retirement of the Nimitz-class carrier.
"You are too far away from how you fully integrate unmanned systems to where you get rid of the Truman," Wittman said.
"I would argue they're pacing themselves well, but you're still going to have a gap," he added. "You're not going to go from getting rid of the carrier to now having this robust unmanned systems capability."
Courtney, who also learned of the Navy's choice to retire the Truman through news reports just before the budget submission, similarly urged caution in moving too quickly with unmanned technologies over the carrier's refueling.
"I think unmanned is definitely going to be a fact of life in the future for the Navy and for good reason, but . . . there's a lot of questions about whether or not we're kind of getting ahead of our skis here," he said.
When asked about this potential capability gap, Navy acquisition chief Hondo Geurts said the service "is aggressively experimenting" to evaluate these technologies.
"You're seeing those activities going on to inform those decisions," he told reporters April 10.
"And we'll continually assess that, particularly as the operational Navy staff does their future [force-structure assessment] analysis, they'll incorporate all those into their architecture and analytical design," Geurts continued.
The ongoing FSA, slated for release later this year, adds to the complexity of the Truman retirement debate. While the Navy is moving toward unmanned vessel requirements, the 2016 assessment currently governing Navy shipbuilding objectives does not include mandates for unmanned vehicles. Moreover, the 2016 FSA calls for the service to have 12 aircraft carriers, an increase from the 11 carriers in the 2014 FSA.
But according to a Congressional Research Service report, retiring the Truman early means that starting in FY-25, the Navy would not be adhering to the legal code stipulating the service have 11 aircraft carriers.
"[T]he Navy's FY2020 30-year . . . shipbuilding plan, reflecting the proposal to not fund the CVN-75 RCOH, projects that the carrier force will remain at 11 ships through FY2024, decline to 10 ships in FY2025, and remain at 10 ships for the remainder of the 30-year period, except for a few years (FY2027, FY2040, FY2042-FY2044, and FY2046- FY2048) when it temporarily declines to 9 ships," Ron O'Rourke, the naval affairs specialist at CRS, wrote in his report.
O’Rourke calculated the net savings of retiring the carrier early as roughly $4.1 billion, when factoring in the cost to dismantle the nuclear-powered vessel, in addition to $1 billion each year the Navy says it could save in operational expenditures. But his report also notes the Navy spent $538 million in FY-08 and FY-11 buying the two nuclear reactor cores needed for the Truman's refueling and has already purchased the cores required for other Nimitz-class vessels.
Moreover, the retirement removes a carrier currently counted toward the Navy's stated goal of a 355-ship fleet, an objective the service does not project achieving until FY-34 and a number Merz said is "highly unlikely" to dip below 355 in the new FSA.
FY-20 NDAA
Despite the Navy's argument that it's looking to modernize by making this trade-off, several lawmakers told Inside Defense they expect to see specific language about the carrier refueling in the FY-20 National Defense Authorization Act.
"I don't think the question is being answered in a way that is convincing members of the committee, Democrat or Republican, and we'll get into that when we're writing up the NDAA," Kaine said.
"But I don't think they've done a good job of making the case," he added, referring to the Navy.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson last week told the House Armed Services Committee the service would alter its investment priorities should Congress require the Navy to refuel the carrier.
"With respect to the balance between the Nimitz-class and new technology, I think that's why we have to study this," Richardson said.
"I think if it was consistent with the logic, we would draw off of some of that new technology investment. There'd be a considerable amount remaining and we'll look for other less lethal places to find that money," he added.
On the House side, Wittman and Courtney both said Congress should address the Truman's retirement this year and they believe the policy bill will include language about the vessel's refueling.
As lawmakers in both parties and chambers openly discuss their trepidations about not refueling the Truman, the Navy may see a similar outcome to its FY-15 effort to retire the George Washington (CVN-73) Nimitz-class carrier, a move Congress ultimately overruled.
Wicker noted to Inside Defense that Congress could also wait to take action until FY-21.
"I think that would be a good approach that would not really disadvantage us with regard to our aircraft carriers," Wicker said.
Still, he said he wants the Navy to refuel the carrier "and use it for its full life expectancy and perhaps more."
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has expressed his discontent with the Pentagon's proposal, telling defense officials last month he is "not happy" about the carrier's retirement.
Perdue, who chairs the upper chamber's seapower subcommittee, deferred to Inhofe on definitive action in this year's legislation.
"We're going to have a serious conversation about highest and best use of that money," Perdue said. "We have a year to look at that. I mean, this is not something that we have to pull the trigger on right now."