Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
4/18/2014
The National Nuclear Security Administration unveiled its Fiscal Year 2015 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan late last week, revealing updated costs figures for the agency’s rebalanced “3+2” warhead modernization strategy. The NNSA delayed work on the first interoperable warhead, cruise missile warhead and the First Production Units for the B61 refurbishment and W88 Alteration 370 this year because of budgetary concerns, and it said in the new report that the current plan is “generally affordable and more executable than the program proposed in the FY 2014 SSMP.” Funding for the NNSA’s weapons program under the plan is estimated to peak at between $13-15 billion by FY 2039. The NNSA did not respond to questions on the plan.
The 128-page document also outlines revised cost estimates for future life extension work, including some eye-popping estimates for the three interoperable warheads that are planned. The NNSA’s portion of the first interoperable warhead, which would consolidate the W78 and W88 warheads, is estimated to cost $10.2-12.5 billion (in escalated dollars), and the budget target of $11.4 billion cited in the report is about $3 billion less than the previous SSMP. The second interoperable warhead is estimated to cost $13.4-15.8 billion, and the third interoperable warhead is projected to cost between $17.6-21.8 billion. Work on both warheads is projected to take place from FY 2023-2051. The cruise missile warhead refurbishment is expected to cost between $5.8-7.6 billion, down about $5 billion from the previous SSMP.
Uncertainty in Program Still Remains
The NNSA said the new estimates were derived by adjusting the timing of the interoperable warheads and the cruise missile warhead—delaying the first interoperable warhead by five years and the cruise missile warhead by one to three years—and lowering the cost escalation factor from 3.4 percent to 2.11 percent. The agency also said it improved the cost models for future life extension work, but it noted that significant uncertainty remained in the plan, especially in the out-years from FY 2020 to FY 2039. “The uncertainty over this period does vary by +/- 5 to 8 percent per year and therefore constitutes a potentially significant risk to accomplishing the planned program for Weapons Activities,” the NNSA said.
Later, however, it noted that the plan could change in the future. “While this plan will almost certainly have to be adjusted in the future, it currently represents the best combined judgment of the experts who manage the nation’s stockpile,” the report said. “Equally important, it provides exciting and incredibly challenging work for the people who have devoted a significant part of their lives to providing a safe, secure, and effective deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist.”
Arms Control Experts Still Question Plan
The plan drew criticism from many in the arms control community, which despite calling the plan an improvement over the FY 2014 SSMP questioned whether it was executable. The plan dubbed “generally more affordable” by the NNSA may be “may be relative to the complete fantasy that was the FY14 plan, but that is a far cry from saying the plan is realistically achievable,” said Kingston Reif, the Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “The revision still calls for major increases in weapons funding that are unlikely to be sustainable given the likely budget environment, at least through the end of this decade.”
Stephen Young, a senior analyst in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, questioned the technical feasibility of some of the work proposed, including the new cruise missile warhead, which will be based on either the W80 or W84 warheads. “The mix-and-match approach would use the primary from one nuclear warhead with the secondary from another in a configuration that has never been tested, an idea that creates unnecessary risks,” Young said. “The NNSA continues to challenge itself technically when a more conservative approach would be both more achievable and fiscally responsible.”
