The immense cost of the Ohio-class replacement program to build the
United States’ next generation ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)
threatens to jeopardize the rest of the fleet, Navy leaders and
lawmakers are warning.
The program envisions replacing the current 14 Ohio-class submarines with 12 new SSBNs that will have reactor cores that will last the entire service life of the vessels, meaning each submarine will spend less time in maintenance.
Still at a cost of anywhere between US$4-6 billion a ship, the
expense of this program will be an immense burden on the Navy’s
shipbuilding budget. Indeed, although the procurement phase of the
program isn’t scheduled to begin until FY 2021, the Pentagon’s proposal
for its FY 2014 budget already calls for appropriating US$1 billion for
R&D purposes.
At an industry breakfast last week, Vice Adm. William Burke, the
outgoing deputy chief of Naval Operations Warfare Systems, said the cost
of the program would undermine the Navy’s ability to field a 300-ship
fleet during the procurement phase that stretches from FY2021 through
FY2035.
“If we buy the SSBN [the planned 12 replacement strategic submarines
for the current 14 Ohio class now in service] within existing funds, we
will not reach 300 ships. In fact, we’ll find ourselves closer to 250.
At these numbers, our global presence will be reduced such that we’ll
only be able to visit some areas of the world episodically,” Vice Adm.
Burke said, the Washington Post reported.
Vice Adm. Allen Myers, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources echoed Burke during a Congressional hearing on April 24:
"It's an understatement to say that that's going to challenge us…. It
challenges our shipbuilding account, and it challenges us when you look
at that time frame."
At the same hearing Sean Stackley, assistant secretary of the Navy
for research, development and acquisition, went into greater detail
when, in reference to the Ohio-replacement program, Stackley said,
“Clearly, that program, which in then-year dollars, when you consider
the R&D [research and development] investment and procurement
dollars, we’re talking about $100 billion, roughly, over about a 12- to
15-year period.”
While Stackley assured lawmakers the service was seeking to further
reduce the costs of the submarines, he warned them that “all of our
efforts to improve affordability of that boat program will not be
sufficient to bring our shipbuilding requirement during that period down
to within our historical budget.”
The U.S. is not the only country struggling with the enormous costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, of course. Still, this strikes at the very core of the USN’s twin missions of being both the holder of the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, and a global navy capable of projecting force across the world.
In light of this, some lawmakers are proposing that the
nuclear submarines be funded at least in part outside the Navy’s normal
shipbuilding fund, while the Navy is considering purchasing some ships
earlier than currently scheduled to leave the shipbuilding fund open
during the Ohio-replacement program’s procurement period.
But some, like Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American
Scientists, questions whether there is even a need to build so many
SSBNs at all. As he recently pointed out on his Strategic Security Blog:
“The number of deterrent patrols the U.S. SSBN fleet conducts each
year has declined by more than 56 percent from 64 patrols in 1999 to 28
in 2012. The decline has reduced the number of annual patrols to the
lowest level since 1962.”
Kirstensen also notes: “Each SSBN now spends less than half of the
year on deterrent patrol – the purpose for which it was built – compared
with 60-70 percent a decade ago. The decline means that each submarine
today conducts an average of 2.3 deterrence patrols per year, down from
4.1 a decade ago. In fact, today’s patrol rate is the lowest ever for
the Ohio-class SSBNs.”
Whether the Navy can reduce the number of SSBNs all depends on the outcome of the nuclear policy review the Obama administration is reportedly conducting.
No comments:
Post a Comment