Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
9/19/2014
With a large bill to modernize the bomber- and ground-based legs of the nuclear triad looming, Air Force officials are discussing the potential creation of a national strategic deterrent fund, similar to the Sea-Based Deterrence Fund the Navy has proposed as a way to pay for its Ohio-class nuclear submarine replacement program. Such a fund would be outside of the Air Force’s normal nuclear budget, potentially alleviating the strain of expensive nuclear modernization efforts on other programs. “We’re certainly pursuing all avenues to see what we can do,” Global Strike Command chief Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson said on the sidelines of a strategic nuclear enterprise conference held this week in Washington. “We’re all focused on the budget: How do we get the money, how do we sustain it and how does sequestration affect that. So is there a way we can have a fund like that to be able to do that?”
At the annual Air Force Association Air & Space Conference and a separate conference on the strategic nuclear enterprise hosted by Minot Air Force Base’s Task Force 21, Air Force, Navy, Pentagon and Congressional officials all highlighted the need to modernize the nation’s nuclear forces, from the long-range strike bomber and Ohio-class nuclear submarines to the new ground-based strategic deterrent that will replace Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles and the nuclear stockpile and weapons complex. “This is the very foundation of U.S. national security. No capability we maintain is more important than our nuclear deterrent,” Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall said at the Air Force Association conference. Then he repeated himself for emphasis: “No capability we maintain is more important than our nuclear deterrent.”
Agreement on Need for Modernization, but Where’s the Money?
While there is largely agreement that modernization is necessary, how to pay for the upgrades in a time of increasing budget austerity remains a larger question. A Congressional Budget Office study released in December estimated that the U.S. could need about $355 billion over the next 10 years to maintain and modernize the nation’s nuclear deterrent. “A lot of people are asking can we make this investment over the next 16 years, and we have to,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said at the strategic nuclear enterprise conference Sept. 18. “I’m arguing and I’m going to continue to argue that this is a very good investment. If you look at bang for the buck there is no comparison.”
Aside from creating an Air Force nuclear deterrent fund, 20th Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein confirmed that officials have discussed asking the Office of the Secretary of Defense for top-line relief beyond the baseline budget, “because it’s a [Department of Defense] issue, not just an Air Force issue.” At the Air Force Association conference, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told reporters that, “Some of it we hope will be a Department of Defense solution.”
The Air Force will increase its ICBM force budget by more than $100 million over FY 2014 and FY 2015, Kendall said Sept. 17 at the Air Force Association conference. “It is not a small thing to our national leadership, to our national political leadership,” he said. “It is not a small thing to the Air Force. And there is absolute commitment to this. It is our most important mission, period, just because of the sheer destructive power that’s involved and because of the criticality of it to our national security. And I want to just reinforce that message on [Defense] Secretary [Chuck] Hagel’s behalf this morning. He is very, very serious about this.”
But Kendall acknowledged that there is only so much money to go around. “When we get out to the ‘20s, a lot of things have to be paid for at the same time,” Kendall said at the Air Force Association conference, according to the website Breaking Defense. “There’s been some conversation about that,” he was quoted as saying, referencing the creation of separate funds to pay for modernization efforts, “but at the end of the day we have to find money to pay for these things one way or another, right? So changing the accounting system doesn’t really change that fundamental requirement. We still need the money and it has to come from somewhere.”
Air Force Officials: Modernization a Bargain
With budget pressures looming, nuclear force officials are aggressively pushing the case for what they say is one of the most valuable pieces of U.S. security. “The two legs of our triad cost less than 1 percent of DoD’s budget,” Wilson said at the strategic nuclear enterprise conference. “And if you add in the NNSA piece to that budget, we’re still in the small single digits of the DoD budget.” He added: “The great news, as we go to modernize it, is that our nuclear deterrence is a bargain. Budget lines don’t tell the true story about the cost of this modernization. The cost, quite frankly, is pretty small, because those weapons have been essential for keeping the peace for the last 69 years.”
Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, the Air Force’s assistant chief of staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration (A10), urged Task Force 21 conference attendees to consider the deterrent’s value. “You can tell me you might not want to spend money on that. Fine, we’ll debate that,” he said. “But do not tell me it’s unaffordable, because that’s nonsensical. … And I ask you: What is the value of defending America against its only existential threat—the one thing that could seriously affect the lives of our children, our grandchildren, and I ask you, what is that worth?”
To ensure a durable nuclear weapon system, the American public and military personnel must be convinced about the modern relevance of the strategic deterrent, said Harencak. “That is job one, general order number one, before we can begin all the debates about what particular weapons system goes first, how many need that, we must shore up the intellectual side of this, and I need all your help for that,” said Harencak. “There are people out there, brilliant people, but they are uneducated about the value of a nuclear deterrent, and that’s what we have to change.”
Air Force officials agree that costs are converging for Minuteman III recapitalization and their solid rocket motor replacements, as well as consolidation of four B61 warhead variants into one B61-12, digitizing the B52 bomber communications system, modernizing the B2 bomber defense advancement system, supplanting the air-launched cruise missile with the long-range standoff missile, and developing a Minuteman III replacement and long-range strike bomber. At 25 years old, the B2 is the newest triad member. “We realize that this is not a zero-sum game,” Harencak said. “We need to work together to convince the American people and our government leadership, of the value and relevance of the triad… As we work toward common adaptable systems and as we modernize our nuclear forces, one of the key things we do is we make sure we are attached at the hip when it comes to advocating for a strong nuclear deterrent. It’s as relevant today, and it will be as relevant tomorrow, as it was in 1954.”
Ohio Replacement Could Draw from other Areas of Navy Shipbuilding Budget
In remarks hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations this week, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus warned that replacing today’s 14 nuclear-capable Ohio-class submarines with 12 new subs could drain other areas of the service’s budget—especially the remaining shipbuilding programs. Officials have publicly announced the Ohio replacement as a priority, and the recently released Center for Strategic Budget Analysis Weapon Systems Factbook estimated the Ohio replacement as the second most expensive current Defense Department acquisition program—behind the F-35—at a total cost of $90 billion.
The Navy plans to start building the replacement subs in 2021, with the first production unit being activated in 2028, and Mabus said production of the machines could halve the service’s shipbuilding budget for the next 12 years. “It has the potential to gut the rest of our shipbuilding programs or something else, because I sort of reject the notion that the only way you pay for a ship is to take it out of another ship, but you’ve got to take it from somewhere,” he said. The House and Senate Armed Services committees each included language in their versions of the Fiscal Year 2015 Defense Authorization Act earlier this year to create a National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, setting aside funding for the nuclear submarines that is separate from the rest of the Navy’s budget.
Navy: Can’t Wait Anymore on Ohio-class Replacement Program
Submarine Group 10 Commander Rear Adm. Joe Tofalo said the Navy must start building the SSBNs by 2021 to roll out a first production unit 10 years later. Previous delays in the program have removed the margin from the program, leaving no room for further delay. An “unfortunate” fact, he said is that because Ohio submarines were originally procured at a rate of one per year, they must be replaced at the same rate. “Over the course of the 12 years associated with those 12 Ohio replacements, that’s like losing four years of ship procurement money,” he said at the conference hosted by Task Force 21. “That means that all of the other shipbuilding programs would be disrupted by one-third to make up the difference. This would make these other disruptive production lines less efficient and increase the cost of each of these platforms, overall resulting in fewer Navy ships. Given that the Navy is already stressed with the force levels of today, there is no room to absorb this kind of ship construction impact. Add the realities of Russian and Chinese aggressiveness, and the problem becomes even more acute.”
But Tofalo also noted that officials are taking a cost-effective approach to the Ohio replacements, which will have a 42-year non-refueling life, and will patrol the oceans until 2080. “We’re going from 24 missile tubes in Ohio to only 16 tubes in Ohio replacement. We are incorporating components already used in the Virginia-class attack submarines, letting us save even more money on design, on training and on logistic support. We no longer design custom electronics in each submarine. We stopped doing that years ago. We leveraged the cost savings from commercial, off-the-shelf technologies, and as a result, Ohio replacement will be using the same common sonar, fire control, periscope, radio systems, along with all of the submarines in the fleet,” he said. “The case for top-line relief is very strong. Top-line relief can come in one of at least two ways—either via a shipbuilding account … or via a properly funded separate account.”
Sen. Hoeven: ‘Together, We Get This Done’
Congressional support for modernization was strong among the handful of Republican lawmakers who appeared at the strategic enterprise conference Sept. 18. Hoeven, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, reiterated his support for nuclear silo maintenance and weapons force modernization for all three legs of the triad—including an improved standoff missile capability to replace the aging ALCM, a new land-based deterrent and new SSBNs—by 2030. “This is a very good investment, and look at bang for the buck, clearly, there’s just no comparison,” he said. “If Russia’s building more capable weapons, if North Korea is working to build a sea-based nuclear weapon and if Iran’s on the brink of nuclear capabilities, then how can we afford to let our weapons system atrophy?”
While Hoeven acknowledged it’s a “tough time” for the military budget, he noted that the triad occupies a small portion of the overall defense budget. “How we do this matters. If we do this in the right way, we can save money,” he said. “We need the research that goes with our nuclear enterprise. Right? That’s how this works. Together, we get this done. Together, we stay on track. Together, we have a credible, survivable nuclear triad in 2030.”
Air Force on Schedule for B61 Work
The Air Force portion of the B61 bomb life extension program—which involves tail kit assembly—is on schedule for a first production unit in 2020, top Air Force officials said at the Air Force Association’s annual Air & Space Conference. The modernization involves consolidating the current four B61 variants—B61-3, B61-4, B61-7 and B61-10—into a single B61-12 variant. Modifying the warhead will allow the U.S. to halve its current deployed stockpile, Wilson said. As of July 1, the U.S. has 1,585 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, 35 more than the requirement outlined for 2018 by the New START Treaty, according to a State Department fact sheet.
Impacts on B61 modernization posed by potential budgetary developments such as sequestration are “always a concern,” Harencak said. “I feel very comfortable that we’ve made the case for life-extending the B61. I think it’s a current and very, very well-run program, and certainly during my time in the A10—the last 18 months or so—I’ve seen a significant change as we went from some areas being opposed to it to very, very few now. Most people accept the fact that this is a well-run program, that it is needed, that the B61 is required in Europe; it’s required for our own requirements, and I’m very confident that it will withstand scrutiny or any budgetary problems.”
He added: “From the Air Force side: Tail kit, our portion of it, we’re on schedule, ahead of schedule and we’re on or a little below costs.” While recent budget numbers were not immediately available, DoD’s 2014 Selected Acquisition Report lists the B61-12’s total projected cost at $1.5 billion.
Air Force: Work Will Begin in FY 2016 on Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent
Air Force officials also said this week at the Air Force Association conference that the service is looking to start working on the successor of the Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile during the first half of FY 2016. The service completed in July an analysis of alternatives (AoA) for the ground-based strategic deterrent, which will replace the roughly 40-year-old Minuteman 3. As the OSD approval process moves forward, officials declined to confirm or deny summer media reports indicating that the Air Force had settled on a hybrid concept, incorporating the Minuteman 3’s current launch silos, communication systems and fundamental design while replacing older rocket motors and targeting-guidance systems.
