Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
11/21/2014
After Dec. 11, a subsequent short-term or year-long Continuing Resolution to continue to fund the federal government could prompt Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to request a funding anomaly to enable the building of an Ohio-class replacement test facility later this year. The program’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request sought about $200 million more than Fiscal Year 2014 funding levels, John Evans, NAVSEA deputy director of naval warfare, told NS&D Monitor during a Nov. 14 interview. To keep the program on schedule, the Naval Reactors division of NAVSEA must break ground on the facility in Philadelphia by Jan. 1, which would constitute a new start, something generally not allowed under a CR.
The current CR began on Oct. 1 and provides funding at Fiscal 2014 levels through Dec. 11. “Like any other program, if my ’15 funding need was the same as ’14, and it was a year-long CR, then I would believe that [I would get] all the money I needed to do the program,” said Evans, the Ohio Replacement Program executive officer. “However, our ’15 budget is about $200 million more total than it was in ’14. So, I would have a problem then, because by the end of the year, I would be, by my plan, $200 million short. Consequently, that’s one reason you might ask for an anomaly. Then [the Defense Department] would have to prioritize whether I kept the schedule to my plan or some other area would have to be reduced in order to fulfill my requirement.”
While Evans said DoD has had discussions about requesting an anomaly in any following CR, he said the Department has not decided yet as lawmakers mull post-Dec. 11 funding. So far, the Navy has funded the Ohio-class replacement since 2008 through research, development, testing and evaluation funds.
Navy’s No. 1 Priority
FY 2015 appropriated money has buttressed development of the Ohio-class replacement thus far, but future funding is less certain. The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act initiated annual RDT&E funding for the Ohio-class replacement. Congress appropriated $1.08 billion for development in FY 2014, and President Obama requested $1.22 billion for FY 2015. NAVSEA spokesperson Colleen O’Rourke said the program has received the required funding during the current CR. “If there was no action on Dec. 11, I would be in the same situation as every other program,” Evans said. “I’d certainly run out of money. So, no doubt, being what’s considered the Navy’s No. 1 priority means that when I put a request in, it gets attention. But so do all the other programs. … So, we’re able to keep going based on the amount of CR money that was granted to our program.”
Implications of a Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
The National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, which proposes to set aside $100 million for the Ohio-class replacement, has received support in the House and Senate Armed Services committees. A binding sea-based deterrence fund would isolate the sub program from the Navy’s regular shipbuilding account, the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), appropriation, and could allow NAVSEA to drive toward lower-priced contracts, Evans said. If the fund is authorized, it could grant NAVSEA more contracting flexibility, as the sub program might not fall under the more rigorous SCN financial requirements.
Evans called the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund an “alternative resourcing strategy,” that could benefit the Ohio-class replacement most in the detail/design phase scheduled to start in FY 2017, the advanced procurement of systems phase slated to begin in FY 2019, and the ship construction booked for commencement in FY 2021. “But what the sea-based fund doesn’t really solve, though, is where is the funding going to come for this strategic asset,” Evans said. “If Congress sees the rationale and that this program needs to be fully funded, we can execute under the existing structure. I will raise to attention any specific aspects that might help me move the affordability dial lower.”
Ohio-Class Replacement Gets Prototype of Four Missile Tubes
The Defense Department on Oct. 29 announced that NAVSEA awarded General Dynamics Electric Boat an $83.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to manufacture 17 missile tubes, four of which will serve as prototypes for the Ohio-class replacement. NAVSEA paid about $25.1 million in RDT&E funding toward the contract, which also incorporated U.K. funds for 12 missile tubes for development of the Successor-class submarine, the replacement to its Vanguard-class SSBNs, and one tube for the Strategic Weapons System ASHORE test facility in Cape Canaveral, Fla. Work on the modification is expected to finish by July 2017.
Evans pointed to the possible construction advantages brought by a Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. “I have a production line that we hadn’t had operating since the early ‘90s, so [the contract modification is] a big accomplishment for us,” he said. “Well, for the next order and the order after that, [if] I find a business case where I’m seeing if I can group those orders in a more efficient order that doesn’t necessarily rigorously align to what my ship requirement is, then I’m going to propose that. It’ll be up to DoD and Congress whether or not they accept that proposal. So the sea-based fund could be a method by which we have that discussion and/or decision going forward.” During the Ohio-class replacement’s Technology Development Phase, or Milestone A, that started in January 2011, U.S. Strategic Command outlined 16 missile tubes as the required number for the Ohio-class replacement.
Contracting Timeline
Electric Boat is the main designer under an R&D contract that expires in FY 2017, Evans said. After last month’s modification for missile tubes, EB issued three subcontracts to three different vendors to make the prototypes, Evans said. Electric Boat did not respond to NS&D Monitor requests for a comment. “Now, I have an industrial base that’s competitive and producing the product that I’m going to use. Those [contracts] are going. So the other development areas, like in a submarine, we have to have air-conditioned plants. So probably this year, Electric Boat will issue a development contract for my Ohio replacement air conditioning plant,” Evans said. “When the day is done, I’ll have about 40 of those component contracts. And I’ve got a few in place right now. But for the next couple years, I’ll be doing quite a bit of the rest of them, all leading to can they finish the design, produce their first article, test their first article and be ready when the shipbuilding needs, in 2021 or later, to be right in line with the construction of that ship.”
NAVSEA’s next full contract for the Ohio-class replacement, a detail/design contract, is planned for FY 2016, and will likely have future-year options for building the first ship, Evans said. The primary contract will chart Milestone B, the Engineering and Manufacturing Development acquisition phase.
Arms Control Advocates Have Called for Reduced SSBN Posture, Development Delays
Last month, a report authored by the Arms Control Association and Ploughshares Fund Director of Policy Tom Collina, “The Unaffordable Arsenal: Reducing the Costs of the Bloated U.S. Nuclear Stockpile,” called for the Navy to trim its planned Ohio-class replacement posture from 12 to eight subs and to push back the first procurement from 2021 to 2023. Collina insisted that today’s nuclear threat landscape does not necessitate the forward deployment of SSBNs, a policy that calls for a posture of 12 subs to ensure prompt strike capability. “The boats have to be deployed pretty far out, and then that requires a large supply network of subs in port, steaming out to being on station and then coming back,” Collina said. “That’s what justifies the 12 subs. … If, instead, you were to say, ‘Look, folks, nuclear world war ended 25 years ago. We don’t need subs ready for prompt launch on station. We can pull them back to the coasts and have them just be invulnerable deep in the ocean, but not forward-deployed,’ then you’d have a much smaller radius for these deployment circles and you would not need 12 subs. In fact, you could deploy 1,000 warheads as the current plan, within subs.”
When asked generally if U.S. strategic deterrence needs could be achieved with a force of eight SSBNs, Evans said no, adding that force posture is not a “what-if” analysis. “It’s a quantity of submarines that are being out there on a 24/7, continuous basis,” he said. “We know the exact measures of what it takes to do this.”
Evans said he agreed with statements made in September by Rear Adm. Joe Tofalo, Director of the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, who said there was no more room to delay development of the Ohio-class replacement. “The decisions on programs like this go through a very extensive analysis process, starting with, if you will, the operational commands, Strategic Command and individuals like Adm. Tofalo that are the operational commanders,” Evans said. “So today’s strategic deterrence posture is based on having sufficient submarines at sea in the right places that, if called upon, they could execute the strategic strike mission. Those requirements haven’t changed. Review after review after review in the last 10 years, 20 years, the minimum [force posture requirement] hasn’t changed.”
Evans added that an adequate number of replacements must be ready when the current Ohio classes start to age out of service, so that there’s “no slack” and a seamless transition into the next generation of SSBNs. “That’s why we have to have the submarine built, tested, crew-certified, and ready to go by 2031, in order to fill Strategic Command’s requirement for strategic deterrence,” he said.
