Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
8/7/2015
The Air Force aims for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent to reach initial operational capacity with nine missiles by fiscal 2029, and to achieve full operating capacity with a force of 400 missiles in fiscal 2036, according to the acquisition schedule obtained by NS&D Monitor. Last week, NS&D Monitor reported that the GBSD weapon system is expected to enter the first phase of acquisition in January with the award of two parallel nonexclusive teaming contracts to carry the program through the first two phases of its development. The proposed schedule charts Milestone B, the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of Defense Department acquisition, as starting in fiscal 2020, and Milestone C, the procurement phase, as commencing in fiscal 2024. In fiscal 2029, the Air Force is looking to either break out production for the GBSD’s command and control (C2), re-entry vehicle, and guidance systems into three separate contracts, or to procure all three systems through one contract, according to the schedule.
In addition to the GBSD contract vehicle, the schedule also appears to outline one whole separate contract to carry the system’s rocket boosters through the EMD and procurement phases; the Air Force expects to begin Milestone B for that specific rocket component in fiscal 2020. The boosters are expected to enter low-rate initial production in fiscal 2026.
Procurement of launch silo C2 capabilities is expected to follow almost the exact same acquisition timeline as the missile, yet the schedule indicates the Air Force is looking to retain all 450 existing intercontinental ballistic missile silos, even as the service is reducing the missile force to 400 in line with the New START treaty. Command and control should be installed in all 450 silos by fiscal 2037, according to the schedule. As empty silos are upgraded, they will be kept warm as the 400 ICBMs rotate through them, Air Force Global Strike Command told NS&D Monitor in April.
In addition to the apparent separate procurements for GBSD and its boosters, the schedule outlines a distinct acquisition vehicle for infrastructure refurbishment and modernization (IR&M) of silos and launch control centers (LCCs). For this acquisition, an RFP is expected to be released by fiscal 2022 and EMD is due to run from then until fiscal 2024. Milestone C for the LCCs is expected to conclude by fiscal 2029, and for the silos by fiscal 2036. The schedule also notes that the Air Force’s primary objective is “weapon system integration & affordability.”
GBSD acquisition could run in parallel to several elements of the Navy’s Trident 2 life extension program. The final update of the Trident 2 D5 architecture before the debut of the Ohio-class Replacement submarine is on track to be completed by 2024, Navy Strategic Systems Programs Director Vice Adm. Terry Benedict said in February at the annual ExchangeMonitor Nuclear Deterrence Summit.
Bill LaPlante, Air Force assistant secretary for acquisition; Sean Stackley, Navy assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition; and Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, wrote a June 30 letter to Benedict and Maj. Gen. Scott Jansson, Air Force program executive officer for strategic systems, calling for them to use the overlapping GBSD and Trident 2 recapitalization time frames to collaborate toward development of a “common or mostly common missile system” for the two services, in the hopes of more significant savings than could be gained through wholly independent programs. The letter calls for Benedict and Jansson to start this assessment “immediately,” and to provide “actionable recommendations” for joint Air Force/Navy service acquisition executives in time to incorporate into the GBSD acquisition strategy.
“You are directed to co-lead a detailed assessment to determine whether a substantially increased degree of commonality between these systems can improve affordability while ensuring the
nation retains a safe, secure, effective, and credible nuclear deterrent,” states the letter, which NS&D Monitor obtained late last week. Commonality can include flight and nonflight elements, the letter states. “It is vital that the Air Force and the Navy do this in a manner that is affordable to the nation,” the letter states. “[T]his coordinated approach can result in more robust technical expertise within the government and industrial teams managing and producing those systems.”
Specifically, the letter directs Benedict and Jansson to consider three scenarios: a “baseline case,” which involves completely independent acquisitions for the GBSD and Trident 2; a scenario involving “component and subsystem level commonality,” which would focus on the development and production of “substantially common” technologies that both services can use; and full system level commonality, which would entail a common weapon system with only “minor tailored differences.” The services are already working on subsystem level commonality through developing a common fuze for the missiles.
The letter calls for Benedict and Jansson to identify requirements that are major cost drivers for sustainment, design and development, testing and surveillance, and production and deployment. For system flexibility and adaptability, the letter tasks the two leaders with determining the ability of systems to adapt to changes such as the threat environment or unforeseen foreign technology developments, and to determine “the ease or difficulty of incorporating upgraded technology, such as improved electronics, into each of the systems and scenarios analyzed.”
The letter says the assessment should be led by “senior, experienced leaders” from SSP and the Air Force ICBM program, and should include supporting members from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, STRATCOM, Global Strike, the Air Force Office of Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, and the Navy Undersea Warfare Division.
The letter directs STRATCOM to establish a Strategic Advisory Group Task Force to oversee and advise the effort. The group would include retired and active flag officers, general officers, or senior executive service level members with experience in “relevant organizations such as USSTRATCOM or ICBM/SLBM acquisition and operational communities.”
On Aug. 4, Haney appeared to point out subsystem-level commonality as the currently preferred way forward. "It doesn’t mean they all look the same, but there are common parts and pieces and common methodologies so we can avoid paying bills twice," Haney said in a statement. "Where we can have common designs, that makes sense given the technological advantages we have today."
