Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
2/27/2015
The Defense Department is reviewing the top three modernization plans of each leg of the nuclear triad as officials grapple with a tight budget environment while nuclear weapon systems are aging out of their service lives and modernization bills are coming due, according to the Navy’s top enlisted official. During a House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing Feb. 26 on the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request, subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) asked about Pentagon triad discussions and whether officials are considering adding to or subtracting from any of its three legs. “Everything is on the table,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told the subcommittee. “We are into a new phase where we have to look and see what do we want to do with the Minuteman, the ICBMs? What about the new bomber? And you’re familiar with the Ohio Replacement. So those discussions are ongoing.”
Unclear Path Ahead for Ohio-class Replacement Posture
Greenert told reporters after the hearing that ongoing reviews have not determined whether to cut the planned Ohio-class Replacement posture of 12 submarines deployed from 2042 onward. “We’re reviewing, and so that sort of stuff hasn’t come out of it,” he said. The Navy currently deploys 14 ballistic missile submarines, and will field 10 SSBNs from 2032 through 2040 as the Ohio-class submarines age out and their replacements steam into service.
The service plans to field 11 SSBNs in 2041. For FY 2016, the Navy requested about $13 billion over the Budget Control Act cap of $148 billion, including $2.2 billion for the nuclear enterprise. Greenert said any funding below his service’s $161 billion request would prompt a review of U.S. defense strategy. “If sequestration-level funding is where we end up, [that] means that something’s going to break,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the subcommittee, referring to possible funding reductions.
CNO Reiterates Ohio-class Replacement as No. 1 Priority
In stated remarks and in response to questions by Visclosky and Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), Greenert also reiterated that the Ohio-class Replacement was the Navy’s No. 1 priority. He said he would propose maintaining the President’s FY 2016 budget request of $1.4 billion for the program. “I would fully fund that to its requirements,” he said. “That’s defense of the homeland. That’s top priority. That’s what I would submit to Secretary Mabus in my recommendations. Put another way, I would propose no reductions to the nuclear enterprise that you see in the President’s Budget ‘16 submission.”
Greenert Alludes to Additional Funding for Previous Major National Programs
Greenert mentioned that previous national programs similar in magnitude to the Ohio-class Replacement have received top-line federal funding relief, and pointed to the $9 billion that the project is projected to cost in 2021—when the Navy expects to start construction on the next-gen SSBNs—in citing potential impacts the program could have on the Navy’s overall shipbuilding plan. Subcommittee Chair Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) requested that Greenert, Mabus and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford provide a list of implications that sequestration would have on their departments, including the issues of end strength, decommissioning of ships and reduced procurement.
Construction of Ohio-class Replacement and Virginia-class Will Occur During Same Period
The $100 billion Ohio-class Replacement will be built alongside modifications to the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) in the Virginia-class attack submarine in the 2020s. Sean Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, said Feb. 25 during a hearing of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower & Projection Forces that the Navy is undertaking a study to develop a plan to keep shipyards for both projects on schedule, and to determine whether VPM procurement can be accelerated.
Stackley said the Navy is expected to complete the review in the “March-April timeframe,” when he added he could provide more specifics to the subcommittee. Subcommittee Chair Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) requested that Stackley brief Congress more quickly. “We don’t have a couple months, so if you can narrow that scope down, it would be very, very helpful to us as we’re looking to try to just accelerate a little bit of that,” Forbes said. “If it’s not doable, it’s not doable.” Congress is working to gather input from senior DoD officials on the FY 2016 budget proposal as the threat of sequestration looms and as officials expect another round of intense and tight Congressional budget negotiations.
No Changes in Near-Term SSBN Development Schedule
Responding to Forbes, Stackley added that he didn’t expect any changes in near-term work on the submarines, and he said the Navy is looking at possible work adjustments in the back end of the Future Years’ Defense Program (FYDP). For the Ohio-class Replacement, the Navy has programmed $5 billion in research and development funding and another $5 billion in advanced procurement over the FYDP. The VPM will increase the number of Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) from two to six, each capable of carrying up to seven Tomahawk missiles. The VPM will be installed in the middle of the Virginia-class attack submarines’ bodies, extending the subs’ length. The Navy plans to start VPM construction in 2019 and Ohio-class Replacement procurement in 2021.
The Navy is also ramping up toward delivering two Virginias a year. “Ohio’s about twice of Virginia in terms of workload,” Stackley told reporters after the hearing. “So it’s a significant amount of workload that’s moving towards that industrial base, both design and production. And so what we need to do is ensure that 1, what works well today continues to work well throughout it all; 2, that the Ohio Replacement Program, which is our top priority, holds place in terms of schedule—whether it’s the design schedule, to the production schedule, and ultimately to the delivery and patrol schedule.”
