The U.S. Navy is heading into an era of reform that could impact everything from how it responds to threats, the number of sailors and commissioned ships it has deployed, and even vessel designs -- but the effort faces an uphill on Capitol Hill.

An ongoing effort by naval leaders to examine the way the Navy conducts operations had led Congress to mandate several studies -- the results of which are due early next year -- of potential changes to the way in handles its forces as the armed forces moves away from Cold War-era force structures to deal with new and emerging threats.

Robert Work, a retired Marine colonel and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said in a briefing on Capitol Hill Monday that lawmakers and other defenders of the old guard of naval thinking believe falsely that the Navy must keep up extremely high levels of ship deployments in order to be effective.

One of the main things being said is that the fleet is in decline, said Work. Even though we are getting smaller, the capabilities of this navy are expanding.

Work, a Pentagon adviser and retired Marine who is heading work on one of the three ongoing studies of ways to transform the naval fleet, argued that instead of outdated thinking that was well-suited for a Cold War-era strategy of deterring the least likely scenario, i.e. nuclear attacks, the modern Navy must respond to a variety of more likely and immediate threats today.

This means recognizing the limits of a massive, more traditional deployment and stressing the various capabilities of a swifter fleet.

For some lawmakers, particularly those on military oversight committees or that represent companies that stand to lose from any further cutbacks in shipbuilding, the prospect of a loss in money and jobs because of anything that sounds like it could even lead to cutbacks in the number of ships currently being built is akin to political suicide.

Members like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., are on the record saying that current deployment of 296 ships is too low and arguing that more ships are needed.

They are likely to fight vehemently any move to change existing fleet structure significantly.

But Work -- along with others examining the issue at the Pentagon and within the Navy -- remain inclined toward significant change, arguing that believing the number of ships equals capabilities represents an outdated view of the Navy forces and the threats they face.

Work pointed out that the 296 number cited is not actually even the number of ships the Navy has on hand, but the result of an accounting method that excludes ships not on active duty, with an additional 78 not in that list.

Even without those additional vessels included, the U.S. Navy maintains 95 percent of the world's militarily useful sea vehicles, with navies on the decline worldwide.

He argues that most important is what the U.S. contingent is capable of militarily, noting that the ships sailing today have the same magazine capacity as the 600 ships the Navy sailed in 1969 with a vast margin of superiority over other contemporary and even past Navies.

This improvement has been guided by several factors, including the development of guided-weapons systems among other technological developments in shipbuilding and design.

But expanding upon those improvements is being driven by the realities of the times that are another important factor, including budgetary issues like the increasing costs of the all-volunteer Navy and advanced weapons systems.

Skeptics contend that the need for a strong presence remains and the current level of shipbuilding of four large vessels -- carriers, etc. -- a year is worrisome.

They argue that if more ships were need, as they were during both world wars, the time that was available to build up capacity then may not be there.

Another issue at the heart of efforts to change naval fleet structure and capabilities is the result of the way in which war is waged today.

Sea battles are just not the focus they once were in military actions, with naval vessels no longer concerned about sinking ships, but working more in a support role of other armed forces or launching pads for air strikes.

Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told United Press International that the Navy plays a critical role in supporting the delivery of goods and services for on-land military action as well as non-military diplomatic missions.

The Navy can play an even more important role in peace-time diplomacy, said Ullman. That includes preventive diplomacy and going to places where there are legitimate problems before they become really big ones.

For example, he cited needs in war-ravaged countries on the African coast or storm-damaged islands in the Caribbean to which naval vessels could be dispatched to help provide medical care or infrastructure rebuilding and support.

In terms of combat, Works, Ullman and others say that the focus must turn from the big-strike capacity inherent to the carrier and submarine-centric systems of the past to smaller ships capable of quick actions when needed and systems able to give both temporal and informational advantages over the enemy.

Again, the issue of costs comes into play in deployment, a fact reportedly driving the efforts of Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations since 2000, to push for reductions in the number of personnel on the Navy payroll to free up money for procurement of increasingly sophisticated -- and costly -- systems and ships.

Because of such constraints, critics of the current system say system and ship design must take into account cost capabilities as well as the real-world needs of the Navy.

The dangers of going in the wrong direction with the type of overhaul being discussed are significant, not only financially, but also from a needs perspective.

For instance, in the past changes in naval focus and fleet structure have not traditionally ended up resulting in the type of vessels needed when it came time for major battles. For instance, in World War II many of the ships used had been designed for other purposes.

However, proponents of a major change in thinking stress that reality dictates that a focus on big ships and a large fleet doesn't meet either on-the-sea needs or the budget constraints faced today.

Another factor in all of this is the impact attempts to change the fleet will have on the military-industrial complex in terms of jobs, the dwindling number of areas of the United States in which such companies impact economically, and the companies themselves.

These are very difficult conflicting interests to balance, and obviously congressional interests and military-industrial interests are fighting to stave off anything that could change their bottom line.

But as Ullman pointed out, the needs of military contractors and those who rely on them will become increasingly difficult to deal with economically given that it takes a 10-percent annual growth in military budgets just to keep systems and ships at current levels.

The biggest danger is that we are forced to spend money on super capacity -- like the Air Force F-22s, aircraft carriers and submarines -- to an excess so that we buy more than we need, said Ullman. Nobody is saying do away with aircraft carriers and submarines, but the fact is we can probably do with less. This is not a question of right or wrong or good and bad. It is a question of reality.

But the reality on Capitol Hill is unlikely to remain hostile to attempts to change the current naval focus dramatically.

Such changes just never will get through Congress, said one doubting Senate Republican aide who works on military issues. Too much remains at stake for members.

(Please send comments to [email protected].)