Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
9/26/2014
Congressional appropriators should act quickly to fund the Ohio Class replacement submarine, as recapitalization for the SSBNs is in the midst of a 20-year delay, Rear Adm. Joe Tofalo, the Navy’s director of Undersea Warfare, said in remarks delivered in Washington at a Sept. 18 Minot Air Force Base Task Force 21 nuclear deterrence conference. “We have delayed recapitalization of the SSBN force for as long as possible,” he said. “There is absolutely no room for more.”
Reducing the SSBN force after the Cold War from 18 to 14, completing an engineering analysis on the current Ohio Class subs, changing the design of the submarines and accepting the risk of an additional two-year delay has allowed the nation to stretch out the service life of the submarines by 20 extra years, and to save “billions,” but the renewal projects have also delayed the estimated $90 billion expenditure on the Ohio replacement, Tofalo said. “Making the force lean like this saves money, but it applies pressure to the force that cannot be ignored,” Tofalo said. “This increases our level of risk.” Twelve Ohio replacements will build upon the efficiency of the 14 current subs, Tofalo said, as the SSBNs’ projected service life will rise from 30 to 42. “This will reduce the duration of the mid-life overhaul, making 12 ships sufficient,” he said.
First Ohio-Class Sub Was to Be Decommissioned Next Month
Although Oct. 6, 2014, was the originally scheduled date for the decommissioning of the first Ohio-class submarine, that decommissioning has been pushed back and at least 10 of the current Ohio-class subs will remain on patrol until 2031, Tofalo noted. Ohio-class successors will debut in a 10-ship force that will eventually grow to 12. “2021 is the latest we can start construction and execute the first deterrent patrol by 2031 with no gap in the required strategic presence,” Tofalo said.
Although the Navy has undertaken affordability measures to pay for submarines, budget concerns linger. In addition to U.S. and U.K. work on a common missile department, which Tofalo said allows both countries to share Ohio replacement and UK Successor-class development costs and create savings for both nations, the Navy has axed its prior program of designing custom electronics for each submarine. “We stopped doing that years ago to leverage the cost-savings that come with commercial off-the-shelf technologies,” Tofalo said. “As a result, the Ohio replacement will have common sonar, fire control and radio systems along with the other submarines in the fleet, again saving us maintenance, training and logistics costs.”
The Navy applies its operational experience of earlier ships new designs, which has helped the Navy develop the concept for the Ohio replacement. “By leveraging both our long operational experience and the tremendous cost-control techniques we have learned with the Virginia-class SSN, we have been able to ensure that the Ohio replacement is as affordable as possible while still having the capabilities it must have to be viable into the 2080s,” Tofalo said.
Lawmakers Attempt to Rally Support for Replacement Program
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, told attendees of the Task Force 21 conference that he believed the nation would come to regret delaying modernization programs including the Ohio-class replacement. “The delays to these programs have taken all schedule margin out of some extremely complex and long-term acquisition programs,” Rogers said. “My subcommittee unsuccessfully fought against the delay to Ohio replacement several years ago. As it stands today, I am deeply concerned that we have more than 15 years to go before the first submarine hits the water—and in this town, 15 years amounts to 15 separate times to screw up the budget and delay the program.”
Also at the Task Force 21 conference, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, cited the need for an improved nuclear sea capability. “In addition to the Virginia-class attack subs, we need new boomers,” Hoeven said. “The existing Ohio class will be retired at the end of the next decade, and we need to first replace the submarine in the water by 2030.” Hoeven added that the lawmakers should “inject certainty” into modernization programs. “We should not permit further delays in the Ohio-class replacement program,” he said. “Uncertainty increases costs. Certainty saves money.”
Echoing concerns of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who last week said Ohio replacement funding could “gut” the Navy’s other shipbuilding budget, Tofalo expressed concerns about how the sea-based leg of the triad could thin other areas of the Navy’s budget. “Even when done in the most cost effective manner, the recapitalization of the SSBN force at about one per year requires the commitment of significant national resources for about 15 years,” Tofalo said. “This creates a challenge for the Navy shipbuilding program.”
Arms Control Groups Call for Cut to Planned Submarine Buy
Not everyone agrees that 12 Ohio Class replacement submarines are needed. On May 5, seven senior members of arms control groups wrote a letter to Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, then-White House coordinator for Defense Policy, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction and arms control. The letter cited a sequester-dictated $115 billion cut to the Fiscal Years’ 2016-2019 overall defense budget and proposed, among other things, a reduction in the number of U.S. strategic submarines and sea-based missiles. Titled “Necessary Adjustments to the U.S. Nuclear Force Structure,” the letter states: “The Pentagon plans to deploy about 1,000 warheads at sea under New START. However, the United States does not require 12 new Ohio-class replacement submarines to field that number of warheads; eight submarines would be enough assuming at least 16 missiles per sub. By reducing the fleet of submarines to eight and the number of deployed sea-based missiles, the United States would save $16 billion over the next decade and an additional $30 billion during the 2030s, chiefly by avoiding the cost of four new subs, according to [the Congressional Budget Office].”
