ADMIN. OFFICIALS DEFEND B61 REFURBISHMENT PLANS

By ExchangeMonitor

Senior leaders from the Pentagon, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Strategic Command and Sandia National Laboratories spoke out in support of the B61 life extension program during a House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing yesterday, suggesting that the expensive refurbishment was the cheapest approach that would still meet military requirements. The refurbishment, which will consolidate four variants of the bomb into one known as the B61-12, is estimated to cost as much as $8.1 billion, according to the NNSA, and more than $10 billion according to a Pentagon estimate, drawing criticism from arms control groups that have argued the life extension program is too costly and not needed. Administration officials, however, defended the program, suggesting that it would pave the way for future stockpile reductions and increase the safety and security of the weapon, which they say is overdue for refurbishment. “Modernization work of this kind is expensive, but there is no doubt that the investment, which directly enables our commitment to effective nuclear deterrence and nonproliferation, is necessary,” said Madelyn Creedon, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs.

NNSA weapons program chief Don Cook said the Administration studied a variety of refurbishment options before settling on the current approach last year, and Creedon noted that the Administration took another “quick” look at the options this summer as it was facing budget pressure that reaffirmed the B61 path. Pressed by Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) about using the other gravity bomb in the nation’s stockpile, the more massive B83, Cook said the B83 is facing its own alteration in the next decade and would eventually need its own refurbishment, which would be more costly than the B61. “Early on it appeared there might be a lower cost option,” Strategic Command chief Gen. Robert Kehler said. “The farther we’ve gone down the road investigating the scope of work that needs to be done, as I look at this today, there is not a minimum option that is going to fulfill all military requirements.”

The biggest worry about the program, according to the officials, is not technical. Rather, it is budgetary, the officials said. Because of sequestration, more than $200 million was already added to the program’s baseline and the completion of a First Production Unit was delayed by six months, to March of 2020. Sandia National Laboratories Director Paul Hommert said the current budget climate is threatening to further impact the baseline, noting that the lab’s Fiscal Year 2014 resource allocation is at least 23 percent below FY 2014 requirements. “Obviously, unless addressed, budgetary changes of this magnitude will have significant schedule impact,” Hommert said. He said the lab was doing as much as it could to contain the program’s cost, but emphasized that the refurbishment was necessary. “I fully recognize the fiscal environment in which we are operating,” he said. “However, my experience deeply reminds me that nuclear weapons are the last place for half measures or corner cutting.”

Comments are closed.