From Aviation Week:
Need To Maximize SSBN(X) Requirements
Mar 31, 2011
By Michael Fabey
As the U.S. Navy begins to design the SSBN(X) — the next class of ballistic-missile submarines — the service needs to define requirements with a keen eye toward life-cycle costs and tube-launching options, according to former Navy officers. Slated to enter the service in 2028, the program could cost as much as $13 billion to research, develop and manufacture the lead boat, with subsequent boats costing about $7 billion apiece to procure, notes Rear Adm. (ret.) Frank Lacroix in an article included in the Navy League’s latest Submarine Review. “The Navy may need to revisit a critical lesson that policymakers learned in earlier submarine programs,” writes Lacroix, who was director for force structure resources and assessments (J-8) on the joint staff and the deputy director for operations in the office of the Navy comptroller. “When establishing the operational requirements for a new submarine, cost, and specifically total ownership cost (TOC), are the most important considerations.”
With TOC as an overriding concern, he says, “a new submarine design’s through-life cost becomes the ultimate design criterion. The SSBN(X) program is now faced with the reality of affordability as the priority program requirement.” He adds: “With the SSBN(X) we seem to be committing ourselves to a unique strategic ship class in a day when its requirement is being questioned and appears to be waning. Indeed, we might even be buying in excess of eventual launcher need under arms control agreements.” This makes it all the more important, he says, that the SSBN(X) design avoid a solely “high-end” strategic submarine framework and not be coupled with missile-tube design margins tied to future strategic-missile payloads. “During the early phases of the program,” he says, “policy makers need to think about designs that offer low-cost ways to convert the submarines to conventional use.” With each succeeding nuclear arms treaty, a decision might be required to either drop below a force level of 12-14 SSBNs, or send the subs to sea with empty or permanently disabled tubes, says Navy Capt. (ret.) Jim Patton, a former submarine officer. There is a “real probability” someday that the Navy will not be able to carry enough missiles to fill its tubes, Patton writes in an article also appearing in the review. With that in mind, he says, the U.S. should focus more on non-nuclear uses for its sub missile tubes.
“To be capable of exerting great influence on events ashore,” he says, “it would be helpful if a platform could do other than quickly export many kilograms of plutonium vast distances.” When a submarine-launched ballistic missile hits the ground at a “multi-Mach number,” he notes, it would “create a very wide, very deep crater — very close to the aim point.”
He says, “It would be an interesting addition to the military portfolio of the President of the Untied States if he were able to put his finger on any spot on the globe and inside of an hour, there would be a large hole at that very location.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding Mine. I like the way he thinks, so is a "Trident" conventional prompt global strike back on the table. Although on the other issue of "tube" numbers I definitely would not build to some "future arms control pact" I would err to the side if being able to either add missiles or at least have a missile you could upload to 10 warheads if the "strategic environment" changed.
