Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
9/18/2015
The managers of the Navy’s Trident 2 D5 program and the Air Force’s soon-to-start acquisition of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent will by Oct. 17 brief key Defense Department brass on a 2 1/2-month-old study examining commonalities that can be implemented across the two weapon systems. Navy Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) Director Vice Adm. Terry Benedict yesterday hinted that the study could favor the most moderate of three proposed solutions.
The seemingly preferred concept falls somewhere between the extremes of no commonality and a fully shared weapon system, and the product(s) would be a driver in both GBSD acquisition and the ongoing D5 life extension, according to officials. During the Minot Task Force 21 conference in Washington, Benedict said charting the programs independently would not be fiscally realistic, and noted that substantial work has already been done on the joint fuse program for the Trident 2 Mark 5 and Minuteman 3 Mark 21 re-entry vehicles. Additionally, building the same ballistic missile with minor tailored differences for both services would take too much time and money, he said.
The third option entails exploring subsystem- and component-level commonality, which could equate to installation of some of the same guidance, propulsion, ground infrastructure, and re-entry instruments for the GBSD and D5. Some of the ideas behind this effort include limiting non-recurring engineering costs and developing more robust production and sustainment programs, Benedict said. “The outgrowth of that would be to sustain core competency, whether for the United States government, or whether it’s the industrial base,” he said. “In this scenario, each weapons system would feature technologies, materials, and specifications that are as common as possible.” If this effort moves forward, the Air Force could parlay elements of the Navy’s ballistic missile into its GBSD effort, and the Navy could leverage GBSD technologies into any D5 follow-on.
“This is something that we are not driving, [Maj. Gen.] Scott [Jansson, Air Force program executive officer for strategic systems] and I; this is something that the Department of Defense is driving because it has to be driven,” Benedict said. He added that Jansson is fervently pushing the study, citing the urgency of outlining a plan before GBSD, ostensibly a new start program, is expected to enter acquisition in fiscal 2016.
Congressional Perspective
House Armed Services Strategic Forces Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) during the conference sounded a tone of cautious optimism on the issue, touting the potential benefits of appropriate commonality but citing the risk of crippling technical failure across two triad legs should a completely common weapon be adopted. “I wholeheartedly support Admiral [Cecil] Haney’s initiative to have the Air Force and the Navy identify these areas where we have commonality,” Rogers said. “It makes sense. Everyone recognizes that we have to get future cost savings from commonality, but we must be mindful that going too far down this road could be a problem.”
Letter from Pentagon Brass
On June 30, Bill LaPlante, Air Force assistant secretary for acquisition; Sean Stackley, Navy assistant secretary for research, development, and acquisition; and Haney, head of U.S. Strategic Command, wrote a letter to Benedict and Jansson, calling for them to use the overlapping GBSD and D5 recapitalization time frames to collaborate toward development of a “common or mostly common missile system” for the two services, in the hopes of more significant savings than could be gained through wholly independent programs. The commonality review should be finished within the next month, during which time Benedict and Jansson are expected to brief LaPlante, Stackley, Haney, and, shortly thereafter, Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, on the results of the study.
Military and industry officials have consistently pointed out resemblance and compatibility in smaller program elements, like gyro-navigators and accelerometers, between Air Force and Navy ballistic missiles. While Benedict did not say whether he and/or Jansson were leaning toward installing one or both of these components across both missile types, he did say he expects clear direction on a timeline and product solutions from his superiors. “The Air Force has requirements for GBSD. We have requirements for the SLBM program and what we’re trying to do with Admiral Haney’s consent and support is look at, ‘Are there warfighting requirements that are driving the differences in technology? If there are, what are they?’” Benedict said. “And then … see[ing] if those could be normalized to some extent.”
D5 Contract
The Navy continues to recapitalize the D5 while it explores commonality alongside the Air Force, as DoD on Wednesday announced a contract “action” in support of the refresh of the D5’s navigation system. The Navy is replacing the D5’s existing electrostatic gyro-navigator (ESGN) with an upgraded inertial navigator, the interferometric fiber-optic gyro (IFOG). Awarded to Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, the undefined action has a maximum value of $31.6 million, and will contribute to gyro shipboard integration efforts. Work for that “action” is expected to complete by May 15. It remains unclear whether the IFOG will be installed in the GBSD.
