The Navy can maintain a 12-carrier force for less cost than that projected in the Bottom-Up Review (BUR) and the Navy’s Recapitalization Plan by using one of several options that consider cost and employment levels. The least expensive investment option that also maintains employment levels at or above minimum levels authorizes building the CVN-76 in fiscal year 1995 and then transitions to a conventional carrier construction program. This option costs approximately 25 percent less than the BUR and the Navy’s Recapitalization Plan options. Building CVN-76 in fiscal year 1995, as proposed by the BUR, the Navy’s Recapitalization Plan, and other options in our report (see table 1.1), stops the downward trend in Newport News Shipbuilding employment at about the minimum sustaining level of 10,000 employees. Options to delay building the carrier result in a continuing decline to about 7,500 employees. However, in the long term the employment levels in the BUR and the Navy’s Recapitalization Plan also fall below 10,000 employees. In addition, options that include building CVN-76 in fiscal year 1995 require building carriers sooner than they are needed for force structure purposes and therefore incur expenses sooner than necessary. Moreover, the option to build nuclear carriers at the historical rate of one every 3 years maintains stable employment levels but costs about 40 percent more than options in the BUR and the Navy’s Recapitalization Plan. Options for using carriers for their full service lives (options 1A and 1B) are less expensive than those in the BUR and the Navy’s Recapitalization Plan, especially if the force transitions to a conventional carrier construction program. However, in the near term, the employment levels fall below the Navy’s estimated critical minimum sustaining level of 10,000 employees. Since affordability of the future force is an important concern, a transition to constructing conventionally powered carriers would save the largest amount of investment resources (see table 1.1). A conventional carrier force structure would require less budget authority funding and fewer outlays than any force structure that continues to require building nuclear aircraft carriers. Costs are lower because all major cost elements—procurement, midlife modernization, and inactivation costs—are lower for a conventional carrier than for a nuclear carrier. Throughout the 1960s and most of the 1970s, the Navy pursued a goal of creating a fleet of nuclear carrier task forces. The centerpiece of these task forces, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, would be escorted by nuclear-powered surface combatants and nuclear-powered submarines. In deciding to build nuclear-powered surface combatants, the Navy believed that the greatest benefit would be achieved when all the combatant ships in the task force were nuclear powered. Nonetheless, the Navy procured the last nuclear-powered surface combatant in 1975 because this vessel was so expensive. More recently, relatively new and highly capable nuclear-powered surface combatants have been decommissioned because of the affordability problems facing the Navy. Affordability is an important, but not the only, criterion when comparing nuclear and conventional carriers. Important factors also include operational effectiveness, potential utilization, and other intangibles. Flexibility of operations, such as the ability to steam at high speeds for unlimited distances without refueling; increased capacity for aviation fuel; increased capacity for other consumables, such as munitions; and the higher speeds of the advanced nuclear carrier over conventional carriers are some of the factors that need to be considered when evaluating nuclear- and conventionally powered carriers. Other considerations include the availability and location of homeports and nuclear-capable shipyards for maintenance and repairs and other supporting infrastructure, such as for training; the effect of out-of-homeport maintenance on the amount of time personnel are away from their homeport; and the disposal of nuclear materials and radioactively contaminated materials. These issues and others will be addressed in our upcoming review on the cost-effectiveness of conventional versus nuclear carriers and submarines as mandated by the congressional conferees on the Defense Appropriations Act for 1994. Department of Defense (DOD) officials partially concurred with the results of our report. DOD agreed that affordability is an important, but not the only, criterion when comparing nuclear and conventional carriers. DOD stated that other factors, including operational effectiveness and potential utilization, need to be considered when comparing nuclear and conventional carriers. We agree, and these issues will be examined as part of our upcoming review of the cost-effectiveness of conventional versus nuclear carriers and submarines. DOD noted that we did not examine the impact of alternative investment strategies on the Newport News Shipbuilding nuclear carrier industrial base, nuclear construction skills and vendors, or the need to preserve the base. We noted those limitations to the report’s scope in our draft. Our report does reflect the employment levels resulting from the investment options, and the Navy’s comments on the likely effects of those employment curves are in our report. DOD also noted that our report compares only the investment-related cost of a nuclear-powered carrier with that of a conventionally powered carrier and not the operating and support component of total life-cycle costs, including the fuel cost. DOD stated that the potential requirement to build additional logistics support ships must be considered in the decision to build and operate a conventionally powered carrier force. As we noted in the draft report, our analysis focused on the investment-related costs of alternative procurement profile strategies. Although outside the scope of this review, we have estimated the operating and support costs of a nuclear carrier and a conventional carrier of the general type used in our investment analysis (see table 1.2). The annualized life-cycle cost of a modern fleet oiler is about $19.6 million. A recent Center for Naval Analyses study suggests that the conventional carrier’s incremental support requirements would be less than one fleet oiler per carrier. We have not verified this data. Our upcoming review will examine in greater detail the life-cycle costs of nuclear and conventional carriers, considering the incremental fuel-driven demand of conventional carriers for additional logistics support ships. The objective of the BUR strategy is to maintain a 12-carrier force, maintain the industrial base at NNS, avoid cost increases associated with a delay in construction, and preserve carrier force size flexibility. Under the BUR, the Navy would purchase CVN-76 in fiscal year 1995 consistent with a sustaining rate strategy but would shift to a replacement rate strategy beginning with CVN-77. The Navy’s Recapitalization Plan transfers resources from the Navy’s infrastructure and savings from a smaller fleet to fund the Navy’s protected major procurement accounts, including the carrier program, in order to maintain the BUR force structure and/or critical industrial capabilities. Under the Navy’s recapitalization strategy, the Navy would buy CVN-76 in fiscal year 1995 but would defer CVN-77 until fiscal year 2002 and then shift to a sustaining rate strategy of one carrier every 4 years. The BUR and the Navy’s Recapitalization Plan were analyzed to determine the effects of their strategies on the carrier force structure, financial investment requirements, and the Newport News Shipbuilding total employment level. In addition, we analyzed eight alternatives for structuring a 12-carrier force to achieve one of the following objectives: 1. Maximize budgetary savings through a carrier replacement rate strategy. This approach maximizes the carriers’ useful service lives and builds new carriers when actually needed to sustain force levels. (See the analysis and discussion of alternatives 1A and 1B.) 2. Maximize the stability of Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) employment through a sustained rate construction and refueling/complex overhaul program. This approach requires forgoing useful service life by accelerating inactivations to maintain a sustained rate production program. (See the analysis and discussion of alternatives 2A and 2B.) 3. Optimize budgetary savings and employment level stability. This approach optimizes the service lives of nuclear carriers and provides a stable employment base. (See the analysis and discussion of alternative 3.) 4. Delay building the new carrier to defer near-term outlays and reduce overall carrier program costs. The new starts for a nuclear carrier force were planned for fiscal years 1998 and 2000 and fiscal year 2002 for a conventional carrier force. (See the analysis and discussion of alternatives 4A, 4B, and 4C.) The following discusses our analyses of DOD’s and the Navy’s baseline force structure plans and the options we developed based on the four planning objectives and force structure investment strategies. We analyzed each option’s impact on force structure and the trade-offs between budgetary requirements and overall employment levels at NNS. Under the BUR’s baseline force structure option to support a 12-carrier force (i.e., 11 active carriers and 1 operational reserve/training carrier), CVN-76 is funded in fiscal year 1995, necessitating the early retirement of the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk (CV-63). After CVN-76 the Navy plans to procure new carriers when needed to maintain force levels. This approach results in fluctuating intervals of 2 to 7 years for the construction of new carriers, but maximizes the notional 50-year service life of current and planned nuclear-powered carriers. To sustain their full 50-year service life, nuclear carriers will be refueled after approximately 23 years of service. (See fig 2.1.) Figure 2.2 shows that this option halts the rapid decline in employment at NNS at just above the 10,000-employee level— the minimum level needed to sustain the shipyard’s viability, according to the Navy. If scheduled CVN construction is delayed, the Navy stated it would, at a minimum, have to expand the number of regular overhauls at NNS and take action to preserve the nuclear component and shipbuilding industrial base.