Compass Points - 2 CRS Reports

Issues for Congress

Compass Points - 2 CRS Reports

Issues for Congress

October 6, 2024

.

Sunday is a good day for reflection.

The well-respected Congressional Research Service aims to provide professional and unbiased research on a wide variety of Congressional issues. CRS provides facts and analysis.

The Congressional Research Service recently issued two reports on two very different military programs.

In August 2024 CRS issued an update on the Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyer program.

In October 2024 CRS issued an update on the Marine Corps' Force Design program.

One report has virtually no issues for Congress to worry about. The other has a serious list of ongoing concerns.

The Arleigh Burke class destroyer might be the finest class of ships in the Navy. The ships are some of the best ships the Navy has ever produced.  While CRS notes some relatively minor concerns about the latest version of the ship, the only serious question for Congress is can the shipyards keep up with production schedule. If not, there will be some delays in production.

.

===========

.

The Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer program is one of the longest-running shipbuilding programs in Navy history. The Navy began procuring DDG-51s, also known as Aegis destroyers, in FY1985, and a total of 94 have been procured through FY2024, including two in FY2024 . . . .

Program Office Comments

We provided a draft of this assessment to the program office for review and comment. The program office provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. The program office stated that it remains on track to support combat systems for all variants including radars for DDG Flight III, DDG Flight IIA backfit, and other ship types. According to the program, DDG 125 was delivered and conducted a successful live-fire Anti-Air Warfare intercept upon sail-away in September 2023 . . . .

-- CRS Report, DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs

.

===========

.

There is another program, however, with more serious concerns. In the update of October 2024 about the Marine Corps' controversial Force Design initiative, CRS provides a roster of Congressional concerns.

.

===========

.

Since the 2020 announcement, the Marines have eliminated and reorganized units in accordance with Force Design 2030 and have divested a number of capabilities that the Marines believed did not support the Marines’ expeditionary mission. These major changes have resulted in public opposition from some retired senior Marine Corps officers, as well as former executive branch officials. Proponents of Force Design 2030 argue that current Marine Corp force design is outdated and that new forces and operational concepts are required to prevail against China. Critics of Force Design 2030 contend the Marines would lose effectiveness as a combined arms force. Moreover, they argue Force Design 2030’s new warfighting concepts are unproven and the distributed operations proposed by the Marines are not logistically supportable.

Congress has been actively involved in the Force Design 2030 debate, as well as debates over the Navy’s amphibious ship requirements needed to support operations proposed under Force Design 2030.

Oversight considerations for Congress include

• Force Design’s applicability to NATO commitments in Europe, as well as potential commitments in the Middle East and Africa;

• Force Design and Contested Logistics;

• the Navy’s and Marines’ differing requirements and acquisition priorities for amphibious ships;

• the operational impact of eliminating tank battalions, large numbers of towed artillery, and manned aircraft;

• the Marines’ ability to participate in future sustained land operations;

• the impact of emerging lessons from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Marine Corps thinking on Force Design; and

• the Marines’ long-term Force Design-associated budgetary requirements.

-- CRS, U.S. Marine Corps Force Design Initiative

.

===========

.

Congress has an important oversight role for all large military programs. The Congressional Research service has issued two reports on two very different military programs. What should Congress do about the Arleigh Burke class destroyers?  The answer is: steady as she goes.

On the other hand, what should Congress do about the controversial Force Design program? The answer is: time to jump in, tear back the power point curtain, and peer at the reality of the Marine missile units.

.

-- Where are these missile units?

-- What is their T/O and T/E?

-- What foreign islands are they deployed to today?

-- How are they logistically supported?

-- How many missiles do they have?

-- What nations are they deterring today? and

-- What has Force Design done to the Marine Corps ability to provide crisis response in Africa, the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, and elsewhere?

.

Years have gone by now. The worldwide threat situation has changed. Force Design continues to sail an erratic course.

Those sailors today embarked on an Arleigh Burke class destroyer are sailing on one of the finest ships in the history of the Navy.

Sadly, Marines embarked on the USS Force Design are sailing on a unreliable vessel with a multitude of serious problems. The roster of problems began when the keel was laid and has never been fixed. The ship is not ready to be sailed into a storm. While Force Design can stay afloat in fair winds and following seas, the seas are not always peaceful. The next horizon will reveal the next storm.

Compass Points salutes the professionals at the Congressional Research Service and all they do to promote effective Congressional oversight.

.

- - - - -

.

CRS

Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs:

Background and Issues for Congress

Updated August 5, 2024

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32109

.

- - - - -

.

CRS

U.S. Marine Corps Force Design Initiative:

Background and Issues for Congress

Updated October 3, 2024

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25188650/us-marine-corps-force-design-initiative-background-and-issues-for-congress-oct-3-2024.pdf