In organizations as large as Pentagon bureaucracy, sometimes waste is unfortunate . . . but real. Every effort must be made to avoid any fraud, waste, and abuse in government and with taxpayer funds.

Sometimes, however, waste is a choice.

There are many historical examples of the legislative and executive branch choosing to dump weapons programs that were 90 percent developed and nearly ready to field to warfighters. These are decisions that often highlight the political nature of appropriations and the rapidly shifting form of threats to the United States.

Still other examples include repeating the mistakes of history and halting competition on an aircraft program grounded so often that it is almost criminal there is not a second engine to keep fighter aircraft flying and readiness rates up.

But today’s modern-day version of waste is the Pentagon’s proposal
to retire Navy ships that are a mere 3 years old. Not to mention, retiring them
before any “new” and improved replacements are available for sailors and to
meet combatant commander requirements across the globe.

In the latest budget request for 2023, the US Navy is not just proposing a strategy of “divest to invest” according to a longtime Washington observer of defense issues. The sea service, in the case of at least one of the modernized Aegis cruisers and some of the more recently procured Littoral Combat Ships, is in effect proposing a strategy of “invest-to-divest.”

While there is plenty to criticize about the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS), the law of physics still matters in a world not getting any smaller: One
ship can only be in one place at one time. The US military cannot afford to
lose the space covered and deterred by these ships.

Being present and forward-showing the flag is key to shaping behavior as part of America’s competition with China. Presence is power. And if deterrence were to fail, “the situation in the Pacific is such that America cannot afford to simply throw away ships which could still have utility,” according to Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA).

In an Indo-Pacific conflict, the LCS would fulfill enduring low-end requirements, “such as conducting merchant marine escort or mine hunting missions,” and would be valuable were the war to drag on with high attrition rates, as America has recently witnessed in Ukraine.

While debating the defense policy bill on the House floor this week, the Littoral Combat Ship is likely to become a lightning rod of various amendments and important debates. Congress must ask itself, would the US Navy and our national security suffer more with a smaller, overextended Navy in the heat of competition, or with a series of functioning (even minimally) ships that can adapt and aid the force as needed? Spending money to prematurely retire ships at a time of record deployments is needlessly wasteful for an asset still needed.

The post Congress Must Do Their Job: Provide & Maintain a Navy appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.