Maintaining an overseas military presence that is prepared to deter threats and engage enemies remains an enduring tenet of U.S. national military strategy and priorities. For example, the National Military Strategy notes that an overseas presence supports the ability of the United States to project power against threats and support establishment of an environment that reduces the conditions that foster extremist ideologies. By being forward-deployed, maritime forces can enable familiarity with the environment and behavior patterns of regional actors. The Navy has traditionally maintained overseas presence by using standard deployments whereby individual ships and their permanently assigned crews are deployed for approximately 6 months out of a 27-month cycle. However, the amount of time a ship ultimately spends forward-deployed in a theater of operations is affected by several factors in its employment cycle. These factors include length of deployment, transit speeds to and from operating areas, port calls, crew training and certification, ship maintenance requirements, and maintaining sufficient readiness for surging forces during nondeployed periods. The result is that a ship homeported in the United States and deploying to the Persian Gulf area for 6 months will normally spend less than 20 percent of its 27 month cycle in-theater and that the Navy would need about six ships to maintain a continuous presence in the region over a 2-year period. Rotational crewing has been proven to provide greater forward presence for Navy ships by eliminating ship transits and maintaining more on- station time in distant operating areas. Specifically, the 2004 Pacific Fleet Destroyer Sea Swap initiative demonstrated that rotational crewing provides more forward presence with fewer ships. For example, one Pacific Fleet destroyer, rotationally crewed with three sequentially- deployed crews, produced an additional 16 days of forward presence compared with a standard four-ship/four-crew deployment. The Atlantic Fleet DDG Sea Swap initiative produced similar results. For example, one Atlantic Fleet destroyer, rotationally crewed with three crews, produced 25 days more of forward presence than a standard four-ship/four-crew deployment. Assessments completed by the Center for Naval Analyses and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations confirmed the results of the Pacific and Atlantic Sea Swap initiatives. Using the Blue-Gold alternative, the HSV-2 Swift has achieved an operations tempo of more than 80 percent and the four newly converted guided missile submarines expect to spend two-thirds of their operational cycles forward-deployed in the operations area. At costs ranging from $500 million to $5 billion each, the Navy’s surface combatants represent a significant capital investment. Facing cost growth in new ship classes and federal fiscal challenges, rotational crewing may be one alternative the Navy could utilize to meet mission requirements and mitigate the effects of cost growth on ship requirements as embodied in the Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan and maritime strategy. The Congressional Budget Office and Center for Naval Analysis have also noted the procurement savings achieved as a result of using rotational crewing on ships. In 2007, the Chief of Naval Operations recognized the challenge of accomplishing the Navy’s missions within its budget. The Chief of Naval Operations explained that there is extraordinary pressure to balance the Navy’s personnel, operations, and procurement accounts in today’s fiscal environment. Meanwhile, the Navy has faced increased criticism for rising shipbuilding costs. The increasing cost of surface ships has led the Navy to reduce procurements, and the resulting loss of economies of scale has driven costs of individual surface ships even higher. We have reported that significant cost growth and long schedule delays are persistent problems in both new and follow-on ships. We also reported that the Navy has developed and implemented several initiatives to increase the operational availability of Navy and Marine Corps fleet forces, including the Fleet Response Plan and rotational crewing. Navy officials have cited these initiatives as ways to increase readiness and reduce the numbers of ships needed in the Navy’s force structure, thereby freeing funding for other priorities. Decisions made in setting requirements very early in a ship’s development have enormous effect on the cost of the system over its life. Life-cycle costs include the costs to research, develop, acquire, own, operate, maintain, and dispose of weapon and support systems. These costs include the facilities and training equipment, such as simulators, unique to the system. Navy analyses show that by the second acquisition milestone (which assesses whether a system is ready to advance to the system development and demonstration phase), roughly 85 percent of a ship’s life- cycle cost has been “locked in” by design, production quantity, and schedule decisions while less than 10 percent of its total costs has actually been expended. (See fig. 1.) Figure 1 depicts the relative apportionment of research and development, procurement, and operating and support costs over the typical life cycle of a ship program (the complete life cycle of a ship, from concept development through disposal, typically ranges from 40 to 60 years). Research and development funds are spent at program initiation and generally constitute only a small fraction of a new ship’s costs. Then, in the next acquisition phase, procurement funds are spent to acquire the new ship. The vast majority of the life-cycle costs is comprised of operating and support costs and is incurred over the life of the ship. Recognizing that fiscal constraints pose a long-term challenge, DOD policy states that life-cycle costs of new military systems should be identified and that all participants shall plan programs based on realistic projections of the dollars and manpower likely to be available in future years. This approach, referred to as treating cost as an independent variable, requires program managers to consider cost-performance trade-offs in setting program goals. During the acquisition process, program managers are held accountable for making progress toward meeting established goals and requirements at checkpoints, or milestones, over a program’s life cycle. These goals and requirements are contained in several key documents, including the initial capabilities document and the analysis of alternatives. An initial capabilities document describes an operational gap or deficiency, or opportunity to provide new capabilities, in operational terms and identifies possible material and nonmaterial solutions, including approaches involving, among other things, personnel and training, that may be used to satisfy the need. These capabilities and constraints are examined during a study called the analysis of alternatives. The DOD instruction outlining the process on how to acquire major weapons systems establishes the requirement for developing an analysis of alternatives to support major acquisition milestones and decision reviews. An analysis of alternatives is a documented analytical evaluation of the performance, operational effectiveness, operational suitability, and estimated costs (including full life-cycle costs) of alternative systems to meet a mission capability that has been identified through the department’s capabilities and requirements process. Preparation of an analysis of alternatives is generally required during the Concept Refinement Phase, which is early in the defense acquisition process—even prior to formal initiation of a program—as shown in figure 2. An analysis of alternatives is required at an early stage to ensure that all potential alternative means of satisfying the stated capability are considered. The analysis of alternatives assesses the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives being considered to satisfy the needed capability, including the sensitivity of each alternative to possible changes to key assumptions (e.g., threat) or variables (e.g., performance capabilities). The analysis is intended to aid decision makers in judging whether or not any of the proposed alternatives to an existing system offer sufficient military or economic benefit, or both, to be worth the cost. In preparation for subsequent milestones, the analysis is updated, or a new one conducted, depending on then-existing circumstances. Additionally, the Department of the Navy has issued guidance containing mandatory procedures for implementation of DOD’s acquisition instruction and process. The Navy’s guidance requires an analysis of alternatives to include an analysis of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, management, leadership, personnel, and facilities as well as joint implications. initiation) In addition to the standard ship and crew employment cycle, the range of Navy crewing alternatives falls into three major categories: (1) Sea Swap, (2) Horizon, and (3) Blue-Gold. Each of these alternatives can be implemented in varying ways and may have different advantages and disadvantages and effects on life-cycle costs, but the Navy’s actual experience with nonstandard crewing alternatives on surface ships is limited. Sea Swap is the only crewing alternative that has been used on ships as large as surface combatants. Standard crews use one crew per ship. Most of the crewmembers are assigned to the ship for 4 years, and it is common for crewmembers to deploy overseas on the same ship more than once. Ships deploy to forward operating areas for periods of 6 or more months on average. On a 6 month deployment to the Arabian Gulf ships spend 3 to 4 months of that deployment actually on station depending on whether the ship deploys from the east or west coast of the United States. When not deployed, the ships fulfill surge deployment requirements, undergo maintenance availabilities and conduct training and certifications to maintain mission capability. Most Navy ships and their crews employ the standard crew deployment option. The Sea Swap option uses one deploying ship but multiple sequentially deploying crews. Newly deploying crews swap ships with the crew on the forward-deployed ship. Nondeployed crews train and perform maintenance on a ship in the home port. Sea Swap normally operates in a multiple of two, three, or four ships and crews. The crews rotate through the ships in the assigned group. Notionally under this option, one of the ships deploys two, three, or four times longer than the standard time by rotating crews every 6 months at an overseas location. Ideally, all of the Sea Swap ships share an identical configuration, so crew performance and capability are not degraded because of ship differences. Because crews do not return to the ships on which they trained, under a four-ship Sea Swap option, some crews could serve on three different ships in just over 6 months and be expected to demonstrate combat proficiency on each one.