Air Force, Navy Request Billions In FY-16 To Replace Nuclear Triad
Posted: February 03, 2015
The Air Force and Navy have requested billions of dollars in additional spending for new nuclear weapons programs in the fiscal year 2016 budget request, including more than $2.7 billion over five years to replace the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and Air-Launched Cruise Missile.
Both new Air Force acquisition programs are ripe to move to the technology development phase after a series of studies and reviews through 2014, according to budget documents submitted to Congress Feb. 2.
The service asked for $75 million in its FY-16 research and development account to move the Minuteman replacement effort to milestone A, and $37 million was requested to kick-start the new cruse missile project, dubbed the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO).
The decision to fund the LRSO program reverses a decision in last year's budget request to delay the next-generation cruise missile program by three years. Instead, the program will only be delayed one year and the schedule has been compressed to move the new cruise missile to production faster.
The service is asking for $1.78 billion to fund LRSO through FY-20, with spending peaking in FY-19 with a $650 million placeholder set for that year. The Pentagon is due to decide whether to move the program to the first phase of development in the first quarter of FY-16 ahead of issuing a contract award approximately nine months later in the fourth quarter.
The decision to move ahead with LRSO aligns with the National Nuclear Security Administration's program to extend the life of the W80 nuclear warhead that was chosen for the new cruise missile. That project had also been delayed by three years, but that decision was reversed in the Energy Department's separate budget request. The first refurbished warhead will be delivered in FY-25, the document states.
To begin replacing the Minuteman, the Air Force requested $946 million across the future years defense program for the Ground-Based-Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). Funding escalates to $324 million in FY-20.
The budget request for GBSD has its own program element line in the Air Force's research and development account, although there is crossover with the new Minuteman III modernization program that aims to keep the 1970s ICBM viable through 2030.
The Minuteman and GBSD programs have been divided into separate lines for the guidance, propulsion, reentry vehicle and command-and-control subsystems, reflecting the recent move to a new organizational structure. ICBM programs are now centrally managed by the Air Force Nuclear Weapon Center's ICBM office at Hill Air Force Base, UT, instead of contracted solely to Northrop Grumman.
In other nuclear-related spending, the Air Force continues funding for B-2 and B-52 bomber upgrades and other lines related to the Nuclear Force Improvement Program, implemented in the wake of the missileer cheating scandal at Minot Air Force Base, ND, early last year.
The service is asking for $1.2 billion to continue development of the Long-Range Strike Bomber and $77 million for related construction at a classified location.
The FY-16 budget further invests in new nuclear weapons storage facilities at classified locations; purchases the remaining life-extension modification kits for the legacy Air-Launched Cruise Missile that was produced in the 1980s; and continues development of a standoff tail kit assembly for the B61 nuclear gravity bomb.
The B61 tail kit spending levels remain almost the same across the FYDP compared to prior placeholder figures. The Air Force has asked for $212 million in FY-16 to continue the development effort while NNSA works on the all-up B61 round.
The Air Force has already received $345 million for the Boeing-built tail kit and, including the FY-16 request, will spend a further $718 million through FY-20.
The Navy has requested $1.39 billion in FY-16 research and development funds to continue the design and development of the Ohio-class replacement program, up from $1.22 billion this fiscal year.
Almost $1.1 billion has been requested in the same account to continue development of the Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile that will be carried on the next nuclear-capable submarine delivered through the Ohio-replacement. An additional $4.7 billion has been programmed through FY-20 to continue the Trident program.
In a report published Jan. 22, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the government's planned nuclear weapons sustainment and modernizing efforts will cost $348 billion through 2024.
Spending standoff
The massive increase in nuclear spending has riled arms control advocates, although most have taken particular exception to the Air Force's new cruise missile project, saying the program is escalatory and would squeeze out funding for other important defense projects.
At a Jan. 27 Defense Writers Group forum in Washington, Air Force Global Strike Command Chief Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson confirmed that an analysis of alternatives for the LRSO cruise missile replacement program has been completed and submitted to the Pentagon for review ahead of a milestone A decision. The general provided few details about the missile, except that it will be a stealthy, penetrating weapon system and there will be a conventional variant.
"I'm going to need a missile that will be able to penetrate any of the most sophisticated air defense systems going forward," Wilson said. "We looked at a variety of options. We've decided on the path we're going forward with."
Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists has been a vocal critic of the LRSO program. He contends that the Air Force has not justified the need for a new cruise missile since the standoff nuclear deterrence mission is covered by intercontinental ballistic missile forces.
He said the Long-Range Strike Bomber armed with the B61 tactical nuclear gravity bomb would also provide the necessary level of deterrence against sophisticated nuclear states.
"The Air Force simply cannot afford to pay for all it wants," Kristensen wrote in a Jan 30 email to Inside the Air Force. "Choices and tradeoffs will have to be made to ensure that excessive nuclear capabilities are not allowed to steal funding from more important defense needs."
Last week, a group of 13 arms control advocates wrote a letter to White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice calling for the "unneeded and expensive" LRSO program to be canceled or at least postponed.
Kristensen was one of the signatories and so was the former deputy commander and chief of staff of U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Lt. General Robert Gard, who served in that role from 1994 to 1996 before retiring.
"As long as nuclear weapons exist, the U.S. needs to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent," the letter states. "However, a new nuclear-armed cruise missile with enhanced capabilities is not required for that mission."
The letter expresses concern about the conventional variant of the LRSO, saying that weapon would escalate nuclear tensions with Russia and China because those states have no way of knowing whether a cruise missile fired by the U.S. is carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead.
"There are some who see the LRSO as an 'in-between' weapon that gives the president strike options that escalate from the use of nuclear gravity bombs but avoid escalating to use of nuclear ballistic missiles," Kristensen explained in the email. "This is a good old Cold War-era tit-for-tat escalation scenario that is not essential against Russia and China and not needed against smaller regional adversaries."
Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, Air Force assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, made the case for modernizing the nuclear stockpile at a Jan. 20 Air Force Association forum in Washington.
The general rejects the notion that the service's modernization efforts would escalate tensions or are part of some type of arms race. He said America must not be left behind as other nuclear states such as Russia, China and even allies like France update their arsenals.
"We're a little behind, but our LRSO will be able to give our air deterrent the capability of standoff and the options that any future president may need to respond across the entire spectrum of nuclear deterrence," Harencak said.
"When it comes to modernizing and recapitalizing, I see that as a natural process and when you don't do it you have weapons timing out and components that need to be replaced," he continued. "I expect other nations out there are trying to maintain a safe, secure and effective stockpile for themselves. In order for them to do it, they had to modernize." -- James Drew
