TRIDENT: From Triad to Monad, Still a Bad Idea

There is a move afoot to establish the Trident nuclear weapons system as the sole nuclear weapons system for the United States (see article that follows).  We currently have a nuclear triad - submarines, land-based missiles and bombers - that has been in place for decades.  Backers of the proposed nuclear "monad" say that the move would not only cost less, but that it would provide an adequate nuclear deterrent into the future.  

And once again, as in every discussion of the future of US nuclear weapons, the key word is "deterrence." No one (in these conversations) is questioning the validity of deterrence in the new world order that seems so obvious to most nations except our own.

No one is stating the obvious (and probable reasoning behind such a push) - that the nation's ballistic missile submarine fleet is the greatest symbol of the projection of force around the globe by the United States.  We should, however, be asking, "Just how far will that force project before it is finally checked."  Not a comforting thought when you're dealing with nuclear weapons.

Rather than spending $100 billion just to build twelve new Tridents, might we put that money into human needs?  And might we begin a sincere effort, in conjunction with the Russians, to lead the world toward disarmament?  This is no naivete... this is about the survival of humankind.

With all the talk of full speed ahead with a new nuclear weapons system based on an outdated doctrine ( of deterrence) and originally designed specifically as a massive counter threat to the Soviet Union based on the unthinkable (large-scale nuclear war), perhaps this is the time to step back and rephrase the conversation to ask some questions, such as - "Just what security will this nuclear weapons system create?"

**********************

Navy: New sub program still 'top priority'

By GORDON JACKSON, The Brunswick News

Updated 3:26 am, Friday, October 25, 2013

ST. MARYS, Ga. (AP) — Navy officials call the replacement of Ohio-class submarines home-ported at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay and at the Pacific base in Bangor, Wash., the service's "top priority program."

And if it means scrapping air and land nuclear weapon delivery systems to replace the fleet, then so be it, according to a study by the Cato Institute, a public policy think tank that conducts independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.

The study underscores what it considers the importance of the replacement fleet as a deterrent to nuclear war.

The Navy's plan to build 12 of the replacement submarines, estimated to cost as much as $100 billion, will put a large dent in its shipbuilding budget.

The study suggests the Pentagon may have to bend the rules to fund the program and suggests it should consider different alternatives.

It suggests a simple, but potentially controversial solution.

"Eliminating the other two legs of the nuclear triad -- intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, and nuclear bombers -- would save American taxpayers around $20 billion a year," the study said. "Part of the savings could be put toward replacing the Ohio-class subs."

Analysts agree the Trident submarine fleet is the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. In fact, the submarines by themselves are a more powerful nuclear war deterrent than any possessed by nearly every other nation.

"Russia retains a relatively large arsenal, but no other country is capable of deploying more than a few hundred nuclear warheads," according to the study. "A single Ohio-class submarine can carry up to 192."

The Navy's 14 Ohio-class submarines are capable of carrying 24 nuclear ballistic missiles and each missile can carry up to six warheads. The D-5 missile has a range of about 7,000 miles, allowing it to strike anywhere on the planet within 30 minutes.

The missiles are believed to be as accurate as land-based ICBMs and are "far superior as a delivery vehicle than bomber aircraft," the study said.

"Given their stealth and survivability, SSBNs represent a secure second-strike force on their own," the study said. "No other state now threatens America's SSBN fleet."

The institute has an answer for those who believe all three delivery systems are necessary.

"The reliance on three nuclear delivery systems is a relic of Cold War bureaucratic politics, not the product of strategic calculation," the study said. "A submarine-based monad is more than sufficient for America's deterrence needs, and would be considerably less expensive to modernize and maintain than the current force. The Navy would not have to skirt the law in a desperate bid to shake additional money from American taxpayers if the Obama administration shed its attachment to the nuclear triad."

Sheila McNeill, president of the Camden Partnership and former national president of the Navy League, said she is aware of the study but cannot comment. She said other military officials will also decline comment.

But she said the issue will be discussed sometime in the near future.

"We are working on a conference that will educate our leadership on each leg of the triad," she said.

###

(Source URL: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Navy-New-sub-program-still-top-priority-4925206.php)

Can the Navy Afford 12 Ballistic Missile Subs???

Nuclear Sub Costs Complicate Navy Plans

By Tom Z. Collina, Originally published in Arms Control Today, June 2013

In the face of growing federal budget pressures, the U.S. Navy in May began to more openly question Obama administration plans to purchase a dozen new nuclear-armed submarines.

In its shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2014, submitted to Congress on May 10, the Navy warns that current plans to build 12 submarines and maintain a surface fleet of 300 ships are not compatible. The Navy states that if it funds the submarines “from within its own resources,” the program will “take away from construction of other ships in the battle force such as attack submarines, destroyers, aircraft carriers and amphibious warfare ships.”

The 12 planned submarines are expected to be the backbone of the U.S. nuclear triad of delivery systems, which also includes land-based missiles and long-range bombers, for the future. The Defense Department wants to replace all three legs of the triad over the next two decades, potentially costing hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when budgets are tight.

Plans for modernization of the triad may be revised under Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s Strategic Choices and Modernization Review, due to be released in June, according to Pentagon officials. Senate leaders have asked Hagel to come up with plans for cutting the Defense Department budget by $52 billion for fiscal year 2014. That is the amount by which the Pentagon budget would drop from the fiscal year 2014 request if sequestration—the automatic cuts required by the 2011 Budget Control Act—is not averted.

The Navy is planning to replace its current submarine fleet with a model known as the SSBN(X). As budgets tighten, speculation is growing that the Navy will not be able to afford to do that. In May 9 testimony before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Gen. Robert Kehler, the head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), said, “I think the ultimate number of submarines that we procure is still an open question.”

The 12 planned submarines, each to be loaded with 16 Trident ballistic missiles and around 80 nuclear warheads, would cost a total of about $90 billion to develop and build. According to the Navy’s shipbuilding plan, construction of the 12 subs would take place from 2021 to 2035, during which time the Navy would need $19.2 billion per year on average for all shipbuilding. That is almost twice the Navy’s fiscal year 2014 request for shipbuilding of $10.9 billion, which does not take sequestration into account. The average construction cost for each SSBN(X) would be about $6.5 billion, accounting for about one-third of the shipbuilding budget starting in 2021, with an additional $11 billion in development costs. The fiscal 2014 request for SSNB(X) development is $1.1 billion.

Hagel has acknowledged the budget pressure. In a May 10 letter to congressional leaders explaining the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, he wrote that “there will be resourcing challenges…largely due to investment requirements associated with the SSBN(X) program.”

Others have been more blunt about the dim prospects that the Navy will be able to find additional resources on the scale it would need. “The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan is a ‘plan’ in name only,” Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said in a May 10 statement. “At current funding levels, it remains an exercise in wishful thinking.”

Speaking at a May 8 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called the Navy’s plan “a fantasy.”

The Navy has been trying to convince the administration and Congress that the subs are “national” assets and should be supported by funds outside of the Navy’s budget. Asked at the May 8 hearing if the Navy had made any progress in finding additional resources outside its budget, Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development, and acquisition, said, “[T]hose talks have not progressed. I should probably leave it at that.”

If the Navy has to factor sequestration cuts into its budget, as seems likely, funding will get even tighter. At an April 30 event in Washington, Vice Adm. William Burke, deputy chief of naval operations warfare systems, said that buying 12 SSBN(X) subs under sequestration would cause the Navy to “reduce procurement as well as retire existing ships, leaving us with a Navy in the vicinity of 200 ships, at which point we may not be considered a global navy.” The Navy currently plans to maintain a fleet of around 300 ships, including submarines, through 2043, up from about 280 ships today.

The Navy’s ability to change the number of SSBN(X) subs it needs to buy and the time at which it buys them is limited by current U.S. nuclear policy guidance. That guidance determines how many targets must be held at risk by strategic nuclear weapons and thus how many submarines must be “on station” at all times. Submarines that are on station are deployed far off the U.S. coasts and ready to launch their missiles within an hour or so. (See ACT, December 2011.)

Current requirements call for 10 subs to be operational, with another two out of service for repairs at any given time after a decade or more of operation. Such requirements, set by the president, are under review as part of the Nuclear Posture Review implementation study. (See ACT, June 2011.)

Trident: Still Living in a Cold War State of Mind

The US Navy's program to build 12 new ballistic missile submarines at a cost of $100 billion will likely scuttle the Navy's total shipbuilding plans well into the future.

The SSBN(X), if built, will replace the current fleet of OHIO Class nuclear submarines that deploy the Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles.  The astronomical construction cost of even fewer than the planned 12 submarines together with Federal budget cuts would put a significant dent in the Navy's ability to maintain what Vice. Adm. William Burke, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems calls "a global navy." (See article that follows)

Notwithstanding the alleged need for the US to have a naval presence akin to the once great British Empire ("the empire on which the sun never sets"), one could easily challenge Burke's statement that "there is no alternative to building the Ohio replacement."  Burke simply parroted the standard language about "the importance of maintaining the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad to ensure the deterrent threat of U.S. retaliatory nuclear attacks."

The Cold War is long over, and it is time for a major paradigm shift.  Such a shift will require far more than just rethinking political military or even diplomatic thinking and strategy.  It will require a change of heart.  To quote Albert Einstein:

The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.

Trident was originally designed and built for a dangerous game played between the US and the (then) Soviet Union - Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  This is a game we can no longer afford to play in a post Cold War world with so many serious emerging issues confronting us.  It is time to change both our state of mind and state of heart.

*************************

Building New Ballistic Missile Subs Could Demand Smaller Fleet, Navy Says

April 30, 2013, By Rachel Oswald, Global Security Newswire, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/vice-admiral-warns-renewing-ohio-fleet-will-impact-other-navy-procurement-projects/

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. admiral on Tuesday warned that moving ahead with plans for a replacement fleet of ballistic missile submarines in today's budget environment would mean significant reductions to the rest of the Navy fleet.

"The recapitalization of our SSBN force will impact our ability to fund investment in other future force structure," Vice. Adm. William Burke, deputy chief of naval operations for Warfare Systems, said at a Capitol Hill breakfast.

"Navy has the resources to procure these national assets but doing so will pressurize our procurement accounts," he said of plans to design and build 12 new ballistic missile submarines that are to replace aging Ohio-class vessels due to begin exiting naval service in 2027.

The Defense Department announced in 2012 it would delay by two years development of the successor generation of strategic submarines, which means the first vessel from the line will not be ready until 2031.

The Navy projects it will cost roughly $5.6 billion each to purchase the second through 12th Ohio replacement vessels. The service is focusing on lowering that figure to about $4.9 billion for each submarine, according to a March Congressional Research Service report.

The Obama administration in its fiscal 2014 budget request to Congress is seeking $1.2 billion in research, development, test, and evaluation funding for the new SSBN fleet, Aviation Week reported.

The Navy is looking to expand its total fleet size to 300 vessels up from about 280 ships sailing today.

"If we buy the SSBN with existing funds, we will not reach the 300 ships, in fact we will find ourselves closer to 250," Burke said. "At these numbers, our global presence will be reduced such that we will only be able to visit some areas of the world episodically." He did not provide details on what Navy ship deployments and global positioning would look like under such a scenario.

Potential budget cuts under federal sequestration that could extend over a decade "will only make this worse, causing us to both reduce procurement as well as retire existing ships, leaving us with a Navy in the vicinity of 200 ships at which point we may not be considered a global navy," the admiral further warned.

Some arms control advocates have called for the Navy to scale back its SSBN fleet renewal plans in order to save money. Building only eight new ballistic missile submarines instead of the current planned 12 and further postponing initial acquisition until 2023, would save $15 billion, according to the Washington-based Arms Control Association.

However, there is no alternative to building the Ohio replacement, Burke said, highlighting the importance of maintaining the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad to ensure the deterrent threat of U.S. retaliatory nuclear attacks.

Trident Missile System Upgrades to Parallel OHIO Class Replacement

Editor's Note: The following article confirms that the Navy will continue upgrading the Trident missile system as it prepares to build the next generation ballistic missile submarine to carry the Trident missiles.  This editor highlighted portions of the article in bold typeface for emphasis.

******************

Navy: Upgrades Required for Trident Launch System

by BRYANT JORDAN on APRIL 10, 2013,  published in DEFENSETECH

Navy leaders said Wednesday the service must ensure the Pentagon remains committed to upgrades to the Trident missile launch system in line with the development of the replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear submarine fleet.

Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, said it is necessary to revitalize and qualify the launch systems of the Trident II D-5, which is deployed aboard the U.S. Navy’s 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile subs and Britain’s four Vanguard-class submarines.

“The Trident is the most survivable leg of the Triad, and it also gives the U.S. a second-strike ability,” Benedict said at the annual Sea Air Space Exposition at National Harbor, Md. The missile – currently the Trident II D-5 version – was developed and deployed jointly by both the U.S. and the United Kingdom since the 1990s.

The missile has been going through life-extensions and the two countries plan to continue deploying them as they transition to the next-generation nuclear submarine.

While budget pressures mount with the sequestration cuts to defense funding, service leaders will be forced to balance modernization priorities. Benedict emphasized the importance of maintaining investment in updating the systems associated within the Nuclear triad.

The U.S. Navy plans to replace its 14 Ohio-class subs with a dozen new ballistic missile submarines. The Navy awarded General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division a $1.85 billion contract for the development of the Ohio-Class Replacement Program. The Ohio-class subs start hitting their end-of-life in 2027, and will be retired in the years following.

The Navy anticipates its replacements to come on line by the mid-2020s.

Navy leaders have said they can accept the risk of two fewer nuclear capable submarines because of the speed and stealth capability the service expects to develop into the new Ohio-class. Those same leaders will also depend on improved accuracy of upgraded Tridents.

###

Source URL for this article is http://defensetech.org/2013/04/10/navy-says-upgrades-required-for-trident-launch-system/