Navy Fears Pentagon Neglects New Missile Sub; SSBN(X) Must Survive Almost 80 Years

[unhappycamper]

http://defense.aol.com/2012/10/18/navy-fears-pentagon-neglects-new-missile-sub-ssbn-x-must-survi/




Navy Fears Pentagon Neglects New Missile Sub; SSBN(X) Must Survive Almost 80 Years
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: October 18, 2012

WASHINGTON: Right now, the Navy is designing the ballistic missile submarine that will provide 70 percent of the nation's nuclear deterrent until 2080. Yet even as the service prepares to award research and development contracts this December, the submarine community is deeply worried that the rest of the military is neglecting the program -- which has already had to make some painful trade-offs on schedule, numbers, and capability. And the service has not even started work on whatever nuclear missile the new sub will end up carrying for the latter half of its life.

The SSBN(X) program to replace the 1980s-vintage Ohio missile subs is a massive effort that few non-submariners talk about. "People are assuming it away," said Rear Adm. Robert Thomas, a submarine officer who is now head of the strategic plans and policy section (J-5) on the Joint Staff.

~snip~

It's easy to procrastinate because the timelines are so long. The first SSBN(X) will not deploy until 2031 -- which is already two years later than the original plan and starts after four Ohios will have already retired. That means the missile submarine fleet will drop to just 10 subs for over a decade. Even when all the new subs are in service, the fleet will stand at only 12 missile submarines, compared to 14 today.

~snip~

The original vision for the SSBN(X) would have cost $7 billion a sub, a figure the Navy has brought down to $5.6 billion and hopes to reduce to $4.9 billion. To cut those costs, the Navy has cut capabilities across the board, but particularly for conventional combat against enemy subs and warships. According to official briefing slides, the revised design will have the "minimum [torpedo] capacity," "minimum acoustic sensors," and "reduced force protection features" in general, suited only for self-defense against enemy hunter-killer subs rather than for taking the offensive. (It will also have fewer and smaller launch tubes for nuclear missiles: 16 87-inch tubes instead of 20 97-inchers).



unhappycamper comment: I'm laughing my ass off that the original cost of the SSBN(X) is only seven billion dollars. (Virginia-class subs currently cost somewhere between $5 to $7 billion dollars a pop.) And the Navy wants to get the cost down to $4.9 billion dollars, which is more than a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier ($4.5 billion dollars) costs.