The construction program for the LPD-17 has been a troubled one. The 1996 selected acquisition report estimated that a 12-ship program would cost an average of about $830 million per ship. Eight years later, that cost had grown by more than 50 percent--to an average of about $1.3 billion per ship, CBO estimates. (The Navy's 2004 selected acquisition report estimated that a 12-ship program would cost about $1.2 billion per ship, on average.)

Although CBO does not provide an explanation for the cost growth, the Navy attributes it in part to mistakes by the service and by the contractor, Avondale Industries (now owned by Northrop Grumman). Those mistakes included computer design tools that initially were not up to the complex task of designing a Navy warship, insufficient research and development spending to design a complicated weapon system, and a lack of understanding of the costs of many new features that the Navy wanted the ship to have. As a consequence, the program suffered substantial delays, which themselves led to higher costs, including additional years of inflation in material and labor costs. Costs for labor and materials also proved greater than originally estimated apart from the effects of inflation. Overall, the Navy attributes 14 percent of the cost growth to additional inflation, 28 percent to the restructuring of the procurement schedule, 29 percent to the complexity of the design and to higher labor and overhead rates, 25 percent to the challenges of integrating the ship's systems and the materials used, and 4 percent to additional outfitting costs.
 

The LHA(R) Amphibious Assault Ship

The LHA(R) class of amphibious assault ship is intended to replace the current aging LHA Tarawa class. It may eventually replace the LHD Wasp class as well. Officially, the Navy has selected a design for only the first LHA(R), called Flight 0; the design for subsequent ships is still to be determined. According to the 2005 Future Years Defense Program, the first LHA(R) will be authorized in 2007, with all others of the class coming after 2009. The ship will displace 45,000 tons at full load or 30,000 tons at light load--12 percent more than the latest amphibious assault ship, the LHD-8, which is now under construction.

The design of the LHA(R) remains the subject of considerable controversy within the Department of the Navy. The department conducted an analysis of alternatives for the ship, considering six different designs--ranging from one that would be essentially the same as the LHD-8 to one (called the Dual Tram) that, among other things, would weigh 70 percent more than existing amphibious assault ships and have two separate flight decks so that fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft could operate simultaneously (something that cannot be done on LHAs and LHDs).⁽³⁾ The President's budget for 2005, submitted in February 2004, indicated that the Navy had selected a design for the first LHA(R) called the "LHD plus plug," which would have a somewhat longer and wider hull than the LHD class and displace about 50,000 tons. That design was a slight modification of one of the midrange designs in the analysis of alternatives and was intended to balance cost and capability. The first LHA(R) was estimated to cost $3.7 billion to procure, including $800 million for design and engineering.⁽⁴⁾

Since the 2005 budget was submitted, however, concerns about the affordability of that LHA(R) have caused the Navy to change the design to one that is essentially a repeat of the LHD-8--except that it would have enhanced aviation capabilities. However, it would not have a docking well to transport and deploy the landing craft that move large equipment ashore. That design was not one considered in the analysis of alternatives.

If constructed as currently proposed, the "LHA(R) aviation variant" would be the first amphibious ship in decades built without a docking well. Eliminating the docking well allows more space and weight to be devoted to the hangar area and to facilities that support aviation. For example, the LHA(R) would carry 600 fewer troops and have 9,000 fewer square feet of vehicle space than the LHD-8, but it could carry two to three times as much aviation fuel as well as more and larger aircraft--including helicopters and Harrier aircraft today, or V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft and Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) when those are fielded in coming years.

The Navy has budgeted about $3 billion for the first LHA(R), or about $800 million more than for the LHD-8. That estimate, however, is based on the larger LHD-plus-plug design. Ten LHA(R)s of the aviation-variant design would cost an average of about $2.4 billion each, CBO estimates. That figure is consistent with the costs of both the LPD-17 and the LHD-8 when measured per thousand tons. (For more details about how CBO calculated its cost estimates for individual ships, see Box 2-1.) The Navy has not yet decided on the configuration of future LHA(R) ships. Various designs are still under consideration, with one candidate being a ship similar to the first LHA(R) but somewhat larger and capable of carrying more aircraft.
 

Box 2-1. Developing Cost Estimates for Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ships In estimating the costs of various amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships for this analysis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) relied mainly on a cost-per-thousand-tons methodology. Using data on the Navy's costs to build the LPD-17 class of amphibious transport docks and the LHD-8 amphibious assault ship, CBO estimated that the Navy pays about $80 million per thousand tons to construct an amphibious warship. That number is based on the ships' light loads (the displacement of the vessels themselves without their crew, materiel, weapons, and fuel). For new amphibious warfare ships, CBO's cost estimates were consistent with that approach. New ship designs tend to be more expensive on a per-ton basis than older designs because of higher labor and materials costs and the costs of incorporating new technology. However, the similarity between existing ships and the proposed designs for new amphibious ships suggests that extrapolating from the cost per thousand tons of amphibious ships now under construction provides the most likely predictor of the cost of those future ships. For prepositioning and sea-basing ships, CBO used the initial cost estimates that the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) developed in its analysis of alternatives for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F), program. CNA estimated that replacement cargo ships for that force would cost about $20 million per thousand tons, which is consistent with the cost of the T-AKE combat logistics ships that the Navy is building today. Consequently, CBO used that $20 million per thousand tons estimate for all of the MPF(F) replacement cargo ships in this analysis. CNA estimated that the first MPF(F) sea-basing ship would cost $1.6 billion, or about $40 million per thousand tons, but that successive ships would cost less. Those estimates suggest that the average price tag for a squadron of eight sea-basing ships would be about $1.3 billion per ship. In this analysis, CBO used the $40 million per thousand tons estimate for the first sea-basing ship because it did not have enough information about that vessel or an appropriate historical analogy to produce a completely independent estimate. For succeeding ships of the class, however, recent experience suggests that optimism about reducing costs may not be warranted. For example, the Navy's experience with cost growth in its Virginia class submarine and LPD-17 programs suggests that sea-basing ships could actually cost substantially more than CNA estimates. Thus, CBO estimated that eight sea-basing ships would have an average cost of $1.6 billion apiece, which is consistent with a cost of $40 million per thousand tons. Conversely, some Navy officials hope that competition among potential shipbuilders can reduce the cost of the MPF(F) ships below what CNA estimated.

The Navy's decision to build a smaller amphibious assault ship than it had originally planned (or than other designs that it had considered) has been criticized as not adequately supporting future Marine Corps warfighting requirements, including the new sea-basing strategy. A larger design is needed to support that strategy, some critics argue.⁽⁵⁾ Other Marine Corps officials have maintained that the Navy needs an expeditionary strike ship, though it is not clear what such a ship would entail in terms of size, capabilities, or cost.⁽⁶⁾

Conversely, other officials, including many in the Marine Corps, have argued that very large designs for the new amphibious assault ship are unnecessary. In their view, the LHA(R) aviation variant is the right ship because, when operating in conjunction with new maritime pre-positioning ships, its helicopters would fly off and operate from the prepositioning ships. At the same time, additional fixed-wing aircraft (Joint Strike Fighters) would be flown in and operated from the LHA(R), making that ship in effect a small aircraft carrier. Reportedly, as many as 23 JSFs could operate from the first LHA(R). The Navy hopes that subsequent versions of that ship will accommodate up to 30 JSFs, but for this analysis, CBO assumed that all members of the LHA(R) class bought by the Navy would have the same capabilities as the first one. CBO has few details about what a future LHA(R) might look like or cost.
 

The LSD(X) Dock Landing Ship

Little is known about the LSD(X) other than that it is intended to replace the LSD-41 Whidbey Island and LSD-49 Harpers Ferry classes of dock landing ships. The first LSD(X) will not be authorized until 2020, with an expected commissioning date of 2024, when the first LSD-41 will reach the end of its notional 40-year service life. Development and procurement of the LSD(X) are too far in the future for the Navy to have considered in any detail what characteristics and capabilities it wants the ship to have. The Navy's long-term shipbuilding report envisioned procuring 12 of the ships between 2020 and 2031 at an average cost of about $750 million. CBO does not know what characteristics, such as dimensions or displacement, were used in making that estimate.

For the purposes of this analysis, CBO assumed that the LSD(X) would reflect the growth in size that new amphibious ships have exhibited over the past several years relative to previous classes. A weighted average of the growth in ship displacement from the LHD-8 to the LHA(R) and from the LPD-4 class to the LPD-17 suggests that the LSD(X) would be about 30 percent larger than the LSD-41 and LSD-49 classes. Thus, CBO assumed that the LSD(X) would displace about 15,000 tons at light load and 22,000 tons at full load (versus 12,000 tons at light load and 16,000 to 17,000 tons at full load for the LSD-41 and LSD-49 classes).

CBO assumed that the Navy would use the additional space in the LSD(X) to carry 30 percent more troops and vehicles than on the LSD-41 class, to compensate for the Navy's shortages of lift in those categories relative to the amphibious-lift goal. The LSD(X) would carry the same amount of cargo and the same number of landing craft as the LSD-41 class. (In comparison, the LPD-17's displacement is more than 45 percent greater than that of the LPD-4 class and results in twice the vehicle square and LCAC spots as well as in six air spots instead of four.) The average cost for 12 LSD(X)s would be about $1.2 billion each, CBO estimates, based on the cost per thousand tons of the LHD-8 and the LPD-17 class.

One of the difficulties, however, in determining the Navy's and Marine Corps's plans for dock landing ships is that the services are still developing concepts for the future composition and employment of amphibious forces. For example, current plans would have each expeditionary strike group include a large amphibious assault ship (such as an LHD or LHA(R)), an LPD-17, and an LSD class ship. But the Navy is also considering a formation in which each expeditionary strike group would include an LHD, an LHA(R), and an LPD-17. In that case, the LSD(X) program would never be started, and existing LSDs would be retired without replacement. The Navy and Marine Corps are still debating the merits of that formation. One problem is that unless the Navy cut the number of expeditionary strike groups, using such a formation would cost more than the Navy's existing plan.
 

The Future Maritime Prepositioning Ship

The MPF(F) represents the greatest departure from past practice in the Navy's plan for amphibious and maritime prepositioning vessels. It is an important ship in the service's vision of the future of expeditionary warfare, but it is also the ship about which the Navy has released the fewest details. The prospective fleet of MPF(F) ships would, at a minimum, carry all of the equipment and material necessary for three Marine expeditionary brigades to operate for 20 days. Beyond that, the ships would have various sea-basing capabilities that current prepositioning cargo ships lack, such as the ability to:

• Operate and support rotary-wing aircraft;
  
  
• Have equipment and supplies off-loaded selectively, depending on what a military operation required, without the entire ship needing to be unpacked; and
  
  
• Transfer troops, military equipment, fuel, and supplies to aircraft and smaller surface craft at sea--rather than at a pier in a port--in conditions at least equal to "sea state three" (waves four feet high and wind speeds of 15 knots). Those aircraft and surface craft would then transport the troops and equipment to shore.

Because the Navy has not yet spelled out its requirements for MPF(F) ships in much detail, the capabilities--and costs--of the ships could vary widely.

Possible Designs for MPF(F) Ships

The Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded research and development center that serves as the Navy's research arm, has conducted an analysis of alternatives for the design of the future maritime prepositioning ship. The three main MPF(F) options in the analysis are:

• A modified large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) cargo ship, which would essentially replicate the capabilities of today's maritime prepositioning ships, with no sea-basing features. Five ships--at an average cost of $700 million each, CBO estimates--would constitute a squadron capable of supporting a Marine expeditionary brigade.
  
  
• A "constrained design" sea-basing ship, capable of operating rotary-wing and tilt-rotary-wing aircraft. The design is constrained in the sense that the ship's size is limited so it could be built in several of the private shipyards that construct Navy vessels.⁽⁷⁾ The Center for Naval Analyses estimated that eight of these ships would make up a squadron and that the lead ship of the class would cost about $1.6 billion.
  
  
• An "unconstrained design" sea-basing ship, capable of operating Joint Strike Fighters. This ship would be very large (displacing 83,000 tons at full load) and could only be built by Ingalls or Newport News Shipbuilding, both of which are owned by Northrop Grumman. Six ships would be needed to form a squadron and the first one would cost about $2.2 billion, according to the Center for Naval Analyses.

The last two alternatives would be logistical and aviation support ships, capable of conducting a variety of sea-basing operations in support of different military objectives. In addition, the analysis of alternatives looked at families of specialized ships that would perform different functions in support of the sea-basing concept.

The analysis of alternatives suggested that total procurement costs for the MPF(F) program could range from $9 billion to $30 billion. If history is a guide, the Navy's cost estimates for those ships could prove too low. A RAND study found that, on average, costs for Navy ship programs grew by 11 percent from the original estimates.⁽⁸⁾ Moreover, during the past five years, the Navy's Virginia class attack submarine program and LPD-17 class amphibious ship program have experienced cost growth of 20 percent and 40 percent, respectively.

The Navy has not yet decided which design or designs for the MPF(F) it wants to buy. Over a year ago, Navy officials seemed to indicate that they would like to have three maritime prepositioning squadrons equipped with sea-basing capabilities. More recently, the Chief of Naval Operations appeared to imply that he wanted only two sea-basing squadrons, neither of which would use the large unconstrained design. (The fate of the third squadron was not clear.)

On the basis of that information, CBO assumed for this study that the Navy would buy two squadrons--or a total of 16--of the smaller constrained-design sea-basing-capable ships. A third squadron would be composed of five LMSRs to replace existing cargo ships.⁽⁹⁾ Thus, CBO assumed that the Navy would buy a total of 21 MPF(F) ships, out of a possible 15 to 24 depending on the design that could be selected.

Press reports indicate that the ongoing debate within the Department of Defense about the capabilities of the MPF(F) has superseded the results of the analysis of alternatives.⁽¹⁰⁾ Partly in response to the continuing uncertainty about the proposed ship, the conference report accompanying the 2005 defense appropriation act states that "none of the funds provided for the MPF(F) may be obligated or expended until the Secretary of the Navy submits to the congressional defense committees a detailed report on the MPF(F) mission, operational requirements, analysis of alternatives, expenditure plans, and overall program congruence with ongoing forcible entry studies."⁽¹¹⁾ Nevertheless, CBO used the information in the MPF(F) analysis of alternatives to establish a baseline for this study. Even if the final design is not identical to one of those considered here, CBO's analysis illustrates the force-structure and budgetary issues associated with decisions about the future of the maritime prepositioning force.

Survivability of MPF(F) Ships

Besides the ship's capabilities, quantity, and cost, another critical characteristic of the MPF(F) that has not been finalized is its survivability in the event of attack. Navy ships are built to one of three levels of survivability: Level I is for ships, such as ammunition resupply vessels, that operate in the least demanding wartime environment, whereas Level III is for ships, such as major surface combatants, that operate in the most demanding environment. Amphibious warfare ships are built to Level II, which falls between the other two standards. (For more information about the concepts underlying the Navy's survivability levels, see Box 2-2.) Thus far, the design specifications for the MPF(F) ships appear to require only an "enhanced commercial standard," which is something less than a Level I survivability standard. That means the ships would have little, if any, capability to defend themselves from attack and no ability to "fight hurt" if they were attacked.
 

Box 2-2. The Survivability of Surface Ships in the Navy The concept of survivability as it relates to Navy ships rests on three features: susceptibility, vulnerability, and recoverability.(1) Susceptibility is a ship's ability to avoid an enemy strike, or its probability of being hit. Vulnerability is the ship's ability to withstand the strike, or its probability of being destroyed if hit. Recoverability is the ability of the crew to restore a ship's systems so the ship can carry out its missions while damaged. Key determinants of survivability include, among other things, a ship's defensive systems, the way it is constructed, and the resources on board the ship to redress damage. In designing and building ships, all three of those concepts must be balanced. For example, a vessel that had zero susceptibility when its defensive systems were engaged but that had had little attention paid to reducing its vulnerability would be subject to crippling attack when its defenses were down, such as when it was on a nonalert status in a foreign port. Conversely, a ship that was built to withstand almost any kind of attack would most likely be too heavy, costly, and slow to be effective in combat situations. The Navy divides its surface ships into three broad survivability categories that reflect the environments in which they are expected to function: Level I, Level II, and Level III. Ships built to Level I are expected to operate in the least severe environment, away from the area where a battle group is operating or the general war-at-sea region. Those vessels should be able to maintain good handling in bad weather and should have systems for fighting fires on board the ships, hardening against electromagnetic pulses, and protection against chemical, biological, or radiological contamination. However, they are not expected to "fight hurt," as the Navy puts it. Such ships include material support ships, mine-warfare vessels, and patrol combatants. Ships built to Level II are expected to operate in a more severe environment, such as in support of a battle group in the war-at-sea region. Level II survivability should include the capacity to continue fighting even if the ship is hit by enemy weapons. Such ships would have all of the features of Level I but more redundancy in their primary and support systems, better structural integrity and compartmentalization (such as being built with numerous water-tight sections), protection against conventional and nuclear blasts, and a smaller signature (meaning they have a smaller radar cross-section, make less noise when passing through the water, and are less susceptible to mines). Ships built to Level II include the logistics support ships that supply materials, fuel, and ammunition to carrier battle groups and amphibious warfare ships during combat. Level III is the most severe environment envisioned for surface warships. Vessels designed to withstand that environment should have all of the features of ships designed to Level II as well as better defensive systems and more ability to deal with the degrading effects of hits from antiship cruise missiles, torpedoes, and mines (through better damage-control systems and greater structural integrity). Ships built to Level III specifications include aircraft carriers and major surface combatants, such as Aegis-capable cruisers and destroyers. 1.  This discussion comes almost entirely from Department of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Ship Safety and Survivability Office, Survivability Design Handbook for Surface Ships (September 2000).

Nevertheless, the Navy and the Marine Corps envision having the MPF(F) operate along with, and in proximity to, L-class amphibious warfare ships. That could include operating in environments where it was subject to attack from cruise missiles, submarines, mines, small boats, or aircraft--the full array of littoral threats that concern Navy officials. Further, to perform its mission of providing continuous logistics support to troops on shore, the MPF(F) would probably have to operate far closer to the shore (within 25 nautical miles) than would an aircraft carrier, for example. In that environment, surface combatants protecting an MPF(F) would have only about a minute to detect, track, target, and destroy an antiship cruise missile traveling at twice the speed of sound. Moreover, since the MPF(F)s would probably be the largest ships in the littoral environment and the most visible to sensors, they would be the most likely target within a group of ships for ballistic or antiship cruise missiles.⁽¹²⁾

Building the MPF(F) ships to Level II survivability specifications could mitigate those concerns, but it would also substantially increase the cost of the ships. It might also lessen the ability of the MPF(F) to perform the sea-basing mission as the Navy and Marine Corps would like. To allow for selective off-loading of cargo, a substantial portion of the MPF(F)'s internal capacity would need to operate like a modern, floating warehouse with large, open spaces. But making the MPF(F) more survivable would involve, among other things, increasing the compartmentalization of its design. (Notably, in discussions during the late 1980s about the specifications of what was to become the LPD-17, alternative designs similar to the ones being considered for the MPF(F) were proposed. Those designs were rejected, however, because of concerns about the ship's survivability and therefore about the risk to the marines it would carry.)

How MPF(F) Ships Might Be Used

Another source of uncertainty about the design and capabilities of sea-basing maritime prepositioning ships is the fact that the Navy envisions using them in four different ways--individually, in an MPF(F) squadron, in conjunction with one expeditionary strike group, or in conjunction with two. MPF(F) ships would be capable of some independent operations, although the environment would have to be fairly benign, given the low level of survivability those ships are likely to have.

Designing MPF(F) ships so they bring the optimal mix of capabilities to an operation when used in any of those ways is the central issue that the Navy and Marine Corps are examining today. For example, this study assumes--on the basis of the analysis of alternatives--that an MPF(F) squadron will be composed of eight similarly designed ships. But the Navy is now looking at whether a squadron should be composed of nine ships plus an additional conventional cargo ship. If such a squadron became the choice of the Navy and Marine Corps, it could be more expensive than the estimates that CBO reports in this study--depending on the final design of the MPF(F) ship itself. Moreover, the Navy is considering other compositions for MPF(F) squadrons, such as using nine to 10 vessels per squadron, with two or three different types of ship. A squadron in which all of the ships were more or less the same would allow more flexibility in the ships' use. Conversely, a squadron in which the ships were more specialized could be less expensive because not every vessel would need to have aviation capabilities.
 

Budgetary Implications of the Navy's Plan

Assessing the resources necessary to implement the Navy's plan for modernizing amphibious and maritime prepositioning forces requires dealing with uncertainty about the design of the MPF(F), the LSD(X), and even to some degree the LHA(R). But even allowing for that uncertainty, CBO's analysis indicates that the Navy's plan will cost substantially more than what the service has spent on amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships over the past 20 years.

Between 1980 and 2004, the amphibious warfare force received an average of about $1.1 billion a year (in 2005 dollars) for ship construction, or about 9 percent of the Navy's total shipbuilding budget.⁽¹³⁾ With that funding, the Navy built an average of slightly less than 0.9 ships a year--almost enough annual production to keep the amphibious warfare force at 36 ships indefinitely.⁽¹⁴⁾

In all, modernizing the amphibious warfare force as the Navy plans to do and acquiring 21 new maritime pre-positioning ships would cost an average of $2.4 billion a year between 2005 and 2035, CBO estimates--more than twice the average historical funding level (see Table 2-3). Even if the MPF(F) was excluded, costs would still average $1.5 billion per year. Moreover, the highest spending would occur in the next 10 years, when costs for amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships would average $3.1 billion a year. Although annual costs would be substantially smaller in succeeding decades, at no point in CBO's projection would they be at or below the historical average level.

Table 2-3.

Senior Navy leaders appear to recognize the funding challenge posed by that modernization program. Because of the high value those leaders place on acquiring a sea-basing capability, they want to free resources to pay for the MPF(F) program.⁽¹⁵⁾ Consequently, they are considering reducing the number of expeditionary strike groups to eight, in conjunction with employing crew rotation for ships in those groups. If such a reduction occurred--and led the Navy to cut the number of LPD-17s to eight, delay the first LHA(R) by 15 years, and buy only eight LSD(X)s in the 2020s--the result would be substantial savings relative to the current plan. Construction costs for both L-class and maritime prepositioning ships would average $1.8 billion a year between 2005 and 2035 instead of $2.4 billion (see the section labeled "Reduced Navy Plan" in Table 2-3). Over the next 10 years, construction costs would average $2.0 billion annually instead of $3.1 billion.

Although the increases in spending discussed above may seem modest relative to the Navy's entire budget of $120 billion, they should be considered in the context of other shipbuilding needs. To maintain today's 293-ship fleet in a steady state, the Navy would have to spend an average of about $12.8 billion annually on ship construction, CBO estimates. However, between 1990 and 2004, the Navy spent an average of about $8.9 billion a year on shipbuilding (see Table 2-4), including conversions and nuclear-refueling overhauls of existing ships as well as construction of new ones. As a consequence, it built up a cumulative shortfall of about $58 billion and 16 ships relative to the amounts needed to keep the fleet at the current size. Thus, if the Navy wants to have at least 293 ships at the end of the 35-year period that began in 1990--because the average service life of the entire fleet is about 35 years--it must make up that shortfall in ship construction over the next two decades.

Table 2-4.

Average spending on ship construction has risen in recent years, to about $9.3 billion a year from 2001 to 2005 (excluding overhaul and conversion programs), although it remains far below the steady-state requirement. If that level of spending continued for the next two decades, the Navy would face an additional shortfall of $58 billion, for a total of $116 billion over the 1990-2025 period. That shortfall would result in 44 fewer ships' being bought during that period than the number needed to maintain the fleet at 293--implying that the Navy's battle force would total around 250 ships by 2025, far short of the 375-ship goal espoused in recent years.

Thus, in the context of past funding levels, the Navy's plans for amphibious and maritime prepositioning ships and for a larger overall force appear daunting. The Navy's proposal to build a 375-ship fleet would cost an average of about $19 billion a year through 2035, CBO estimates (see Figure 2-4).⁽¹⁶⁾ Spending on amphibious and maritime propositioning ships would make up about 12 percent of the total--up from the average share of 9 percent that they have consumed since 1980.

Figure 2-4.

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Note: The data in this figure are roughly analogous to the cost-risk case for ships presented in Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans: Summary Update for Fiscal Year 2005 (September 2004).

The Navy could address those funding issues in myriad ways. The next chapter examines four alternatives to the Navy's current plan for the amphibious and maritime prepositioning forces. Two of the options would keep spending on those forces at its historical level, and the other two would require spending increases, though not to as great an extent as the Navy's plan would. Chapter 4 compares the capabilities of the forces that would result from those alternatives.