Industry Seeks More Clarity on Weapon System’s Capabilities and Procurement Timeline
Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
6/19/2015
Military leaders of the nuclear enterprise are developing a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) to chart an innovative, 21st century concept for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to replace the Cold War-era Minuteman 3, U.S. Strategic Command’s (STRATCOM’s) No. 2 official said this week. Last month, industry officials told NS&D Monitor that, while the service briefed industry on GBSD’s Capabilities Development Document in February, industry was still seeking information about capabilities the system would incorporate. While industry officials said they were “excited” to start work and compete on the GBSD, slated to be a new start program for Fiscal Year 2016, they also told NS&D Monitor they had several questions regarding the program’s timeline and capabilities. The House version of the defense spending bill for FY 2016 would match the Obama Administration’s $75.2 million request for GBSD for FY 2016.
Kowalski Supports More Innovative Concept
STRATCOM Deputy Commander Air Force Lt. Gen. James Kowalski on June 16 during a speech in Washington expressed support for an innovative GBSD concept that would involve more than mere replacement of existing Minuteman components, but referred specific GBSD questions to the Air Force. While service spokesperson Ed Gulick earlier this month told NS&D Monitor that the Air Force currently expects the program to cost $62.3 billion total to procure from FY 2015 to FY 2044 for development, procurement and military construction, the service has released scant details about GBSD’s planned capabilities.
While declining to go into specifics, Kowalski mention existing ICBM components he thinks need improvement. “There are better ways to do the security. There are better ways to do the command and control. There are better ways to work the resourcing of the people and the logistics, and frankly, we can’t get there if all we’re doing is replacing the same parts,” Kowalski said during a Peter Huessy Breakfast Series event. “So I think the Air Force is pursuing a much more integrated approach to rethink the entire system, to rethink the CONOPS of the system, and the larger pieces, the pieces that are kind of driving most of the budget are the pieces that we already know about—those are the pieces—the propulsion replacement program, the guidance program, the fuze program that’s already well under way.”
Officials Seeking Information on GBSD
One official questioned why the Air Force had not yet released a CONOPS five months before the fiscal year in which the program is scheduled to start. Another industry official posed the question of why the service had released a draft capability development document (CDD) before completion of GBSD’s Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). “I have no idea how you have a draft [CDD] when you haven’t got a finalized AoA, and now you want people to build you design solutions to requirements that aren’t finalized,” one official said. A third industry official expressed ease associated with the situation, implying that the fact the service had not yet released a CONOPS could merely be attributed to the age of the existing ICBM system, which entered procurement in the 1970s. “They’re new to it,” the official, a retired Air Force two-star, said about the service’s approach to GBSD.
Industry officials earlier this year told NS&D Monitor that, as the program has started getting off the ground, senior leaders in the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile System Program Office were “horse trading” about the stringency of requirements vis a vis cost effectiveness considerations for the planned ICBM, and whether modernization should align with existing concepts for Minuteman 3 components including the guidance system, or whether GBSD should entail more advanced concepts for characteristics including basing mode and accuracy. Currently, the Minuteman 3 is a fixed-site, ground-based system. The Air Force plans to field up to 400 GBSDs from FY 2027 to FY 2034 in silos based at Minot, FE Warren and Malmstrom AFBs.
‘Much More Efficiently’
While Kowalski said the Defense Department has not completed studies and analyses for GBSD, he cited opportunities to use newer technologies that will allow the Air Force to complete the nuclear mission “much more efficiently” and with “much more flexibility.” Kowalski cited the joint fuze program, a project aimed at meshing Navy and Air Force ballistic missiles fuze development, as a basis for innovation. “The joint fuze program is not the same fuze for both the Trident and the Minuteman,” he said. “It is, in fact, a lot of the same common components that have saved those services a fair amount of money. So I think that’s a place that we could find some really good, innovative ideas by moving forward.”
