Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine
Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
July 27, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41129
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) carry submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs),
which are large, long-range missiles armed with multiple nuclear warheads. The SSBNs’ basic
mission is to remain hidden at sea with their SLBMs, so as to deter a nuclear attack on the United
States by another country. Navy SSBNs form one leg of the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent force,
or “triad,” which also includes land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and land-
based long-range bombers. The Navy currently operates 14 Ohio (SSBN-726) class SSBNs, the
first of which is projected to reach the end of its service life in 2027.
The Navy is currently conducting development and design work on a planned class of 12 next-
generation ballistic missile submarines, or SSBN(X)s, which the service wants to procure as
replacements for the 14 Ohio-class boats. The SSBN(X) program, also known as the Ohio-class
replacement program (ORP), received $497.4 million in research and development funding in the
Navy’s FY2010 budget, and the Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requests an additional $672.3
million in research and development funding for the program. Navy plans call for procuring the
first SSBN(X) in FY2019, with advance procurement funding for the boat beginning in FY2015.
The Navy preliminarily estimates the procurement cost of each SSBN(X) at $6 billion to $7
billion in FY2010 dollars—a figure equivalent to roughly one-half of the Navy’s budget each year
for procuring new ships. Some observers are concerned that procuring 12 SSBN(X)s during the
15-year period FY2019-FY2033, as called for in Navy plans, could lead to reductions in
procurement rates for other types of Navy ships during those years.
Potential FY2011 issues for Congress include the following:
• the accuracy of the Navy’s preliminary estimate of the procurement cost of each
SSBN(X);
• the prospective affordability of the SSBN(X) program and its potential impact on
other Navy shipbuilding programs;
• the impact of UK preferences for the design of its new SSBNs on U.S.
consideration of SSBN(X) design options;
• congressional access to the SSBN(X) analysis of alternatives (AOA); and
• the question of which shipyard or shipyards will build SSBN(X)s.
Options for reducing the cost of the SSBN(X) program or its potential impact on other Navy
shipbuilding programs include procuring fewer than 12 SSBN(X)s; reducing the number of
submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) to be carried by each SSBN(X); designing the
SSBN(X) to carry a smaller SLBM; stretching out the schedule for procuring SSBN(X)s and
making greater use of split funding (i.e., two-year incremental funding) in procuring them;
funding the procurement of SSBN(X)s in a part of the Department of Defense (DOD) budget
other than the Navy’s shipbuilding account; and increasing the Navy’s shipbuilding budget.
This report focuses on the SSBN(X) as a Navy shipbuilding program. CRS Report RL33640, U.S.
Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues
, by Amy F. Woolf, discusses
the SSBN(X) as an element of future U.S. strategic nuclear forces in the context of strategic
nuclear arms control agreements.
Congressional Research Service

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 2
SSBNs in General ................................................................................................................. 2
Mission of Navy SSBNs ................................................................................................. 2
Current Ohio-Class SSBNs ............................................................................................. 3
Summary of U.S. SSBN Designs..................................................................................... 4
U.S.-UK Cooperation on SLBMs .................................................................................... 6
SSBN(X) Program ................................................................................................................ 7
Program Origin and Early Actions................................................................................... 7
Procurement and Replacement Schedule ......................................................................... 8
SSBN(X) Design Features............................................................................................... 9
Program Acquisition Cost ............................................................................................. 11
Common Missile Compartment (CMC)......................................................................... 11
Program Funding .......................................................................................................... 12
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 13
Accuracy of Navy’s Preliminary Unit Procurement Cost Estimate ....................................... 13
Navy’s Preliminary Estimate ......................................................................................... 13
Factors Affecting the Estimated Cost............................................................................. 13
May 2010 CBO Report ................................................................................................. 14
Program Affordability and Impact on Other Navy Shipbuilding Programs ........................... 15
Number of SSBN(X)s ................................................................................................... 17
Design of SSBN(X)s ..................................................................................................... 19
Schedule for Procuring SSBN(X)s and Potential for Using Split Funding ...................... 24
How Procurement of SSBN(X)s Is Funded in DOD’s Budget ........................................ 26
Potential for Increasing Shipbuilding Budget................................................................. 28
Impact of UK Preferences for Its SSBN on U.S. Consideration of SSBN(X) Design
Options ............................................................................................................................ 28
Construction Shipyard(s)..................................................................................................... 29
Building SSBN(X)s ...................................................................................................... 29
Building CMCs for the UK’s SSBNs............................................................................. 31
Options for Congress ................................................................................................................ 31
Legislative Activity for FY2011 ................................................................................................ 32
FY2011 Funding Request .................................................................................................... 32
FY2011 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5136/S. 3454)..................................................... 32
House ........................................................................................................................... 32
Senate ........................................................................................................................... 34

Tables
Table 1. U.S. SSBN Classes ........................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. Navy Schedule for Procuring SSBN(X)s and Replacing Ohio-Class SSBNs ................... 9
Table 3. SSBN(X) Program Funding ......................................................................................... 12
Table 4. Navy SSBN(X) Procurement Schedule and a Notional Alternative Schedule ................ 25
Congressional Research Service

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 5. Construction Shipyards of U.S. SSBNs ........................................................................ 30

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 35

Congressional Research Service

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction
The Navy is currently conducting development and design work on a planned class of 12 next-
generation ballistic missile submarines, or SSBN(X)s,1 which the service wants to procure as
replacements for its current force of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The SSBN(X)
program, also known as the Ohio-class replacement program (ORP), received $497.4 million in
research and development funding in the Navy’s FY2010 budget, and the Navy’s proposed
FY2011 budget requests an additional $672.3 million in research and development funding for
the program. Navy plans call for procuring the first SSBN(X) in FY2019, with advance
procurement funding for the boat beginning in FY2015.
The Navy preliminarily estimates the procurement cost of each SSBN(X) at $6 billion to $7
billion in FY2010 dollars—a figure equivalent to roughly one-half of the Navy’s budget each year
for procuring new ships. Some observers are concerned that the SSBN(X) program will
significantly compound a challenge the Navy faces concerning the affordability of its long-term
shipbuilding program. These observers are concerned that procuring 12 SSBN(X)s during the 15-
year period FY2019-FY2033, as called for in Navy plans, could lead to reductions in procurement
rates for other types of Navy ships during those years. The Navy’s report on its 30-year (FY2011-
FY2040) shipbuilding plan states: “While the SSBN(X) is being procured, the Navy will be
limited in its ability to procure other ship classes.”2
Potential FY2011 issues for Congress include the following:
• the accuracy of the Navy’s preliminary estimate of the procurement cost of each
SSBN(X);
• the prospective affordability of the SSBN(X) program and its potential impact on
other Navy shipbuilding programs;
• the impact of UK preferences for the design of its new SSBNs on U.S.
consideration of SSBN(X) design options;
• congressional access to the SSBN(X) analysis of alternatives (AOA); and
• the question of which shipyard or shipyards will build SSBN(X)s.
FY2011 options for Congress include but are not limited to the following:
• approving, rejecting, or modifying the Navy’s FY2011 funding request for the
program;
• withholding approval of, or limiting the obligation or expenditure of, SSBN(X)
funds until the Navy makes the SSBN(X) AOA available to Congress and its
three technical support agencies (the Government Accountability Office [GAO],
the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], and CRS); and

1 In the designation SSBN(X), SS means submarine, B mean ballistic missile, and N means the ship is nuclear-powered
(i.e., it uses a nuclear reactor to generate energy to propel the ship through the water and to power shipboard systems),
and X means the design of the ship has not yet been determined.
2 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011, February
2010, pp. 24-25.
Congressional Research Service
1

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

• providing additional direction to the Navy or DOD concerning the SSBN(X)
program.
Congress’s decisions on the SSBN(X) program could significantly affect U.S. strategic nuclear
capabilities, Navy funding requirements, the shipbuilding industrial base, and the UK’s program
for replacing its own aging SSBNs.
This report focuses on the SSBN(X) as a Navy shipbuilding program. Another CRS report
discusses the SSBN(X) as an element of future U.S. strategic nuclear forces in the context of
strategic nuclear arms control agreements.3
Background
SSBNs in General
Mission of Navy SSBNs
The U.S. Navy operates three kinds of submarines—nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs),
nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs), and nuclear-powered ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs).4 The SSNs and SSGNs are multi-mission ships that perform a variety of
peacetime and wartime missions.5 They do not carry nuclear weapons.6
The SSBNs, in contrast, perform a specialized mission of strategic nuclear deterrence, and carry
submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which are large, long-range missiles armed with
multiple nuclear warheads. SSBNs, which are sometimes referred to informally as “boomers,”7

3 CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf.
4 In the designation SSGN, the G stands for guided missile (such as a cruise missile). As shown by the “Ns” in SSN,
SSGN, and SSBN, all U.S. Navy submarines are nuclear-powered. Other navies operate non-nuclear powered
submarines, which are powered by energy sources such as diesel engines. A submarine’s use of nuclear or non-nuclear
power as its energy source is not an indication of whether it is armed with nuclear weapons—a nuclear-powered
submarine can lack nuclear weapons, and a non-nuclear-powered submarine can be armed with nuclear weapons.
5 These missions include covert intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), much of it done for national-level
(as opposed to purely Navy) purposes; covert insertion and recovery of special operations forces (SOF); covert strikes
against land targets with the Tomahawk cruise missiles; covert offensive and defensive mine warfare; anti-submarine
warfare (ASW); and anti-surface ship warfare. The Navy’s four SSGNs, which are converted former SSBNs, can carry
larger numbers of Tomahawks and SOF personnel than can the SSNs. SSGN operations consequently may focus more
strongly on Tomahawk and SOF missions than do SSN operations. For more on the Navy’s SSNs and SSGNs, see CRS
Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for
Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke, and CRS Report RS21007, Navy Trident Submarine Conversion (SSGN) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
6 The Navy’s non-strategic nuclear weapons—meaning all of the service’s nuclear weapons other than submarine-
launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)—were removed from Navy surface ships and submarines under a unilateral U.S.
nuclear initiative announced by President George H. W. Bush in September 1991. The initiative reserved a right to
rearm SSNs at some point in the future with nuclear-armed Tomahawk land attack missiles (TLAM-Ns) should
conditions warrant. Navy TLAM-Ns were placed in storage to support this option. DOD’s report on the 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR), released on April 6, 2010, states that the Untied States will retire the TLAM-Ns. (Department
of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, pp. xiii and 28.)
7 This informal name is a reference to the large boom that would be made by the detonation of an SLBM nuclear
warhead.
Congressional Research Service
2

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

launch their SLBMs from large-diameter vertical launch tubes located in the middle section of the
boat.8 The SSBNs’ basic mission is to remain hidden at sea with their SLBMs, so as to deter a
nuclear attack on the United States by another country by demonstrating to other countries that
the United States has an assured second-strike capability, meaning a survivable system for
carrying out a retaliatory nuclear attack.
Navy SSBNs form one leg of the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent force, or “triad,” which also
includes land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and land-based long-range
bombers. At any given moment, some of the Navy’s SSBNs are conducting nuclear deterrent
patrols. The Navy’s report on its 30-year shipbuilding plan states: “These ships are the most
survivable leg of the Nation’s strategic arsenal and provide the Nation’s only day-to-day assured
nuclear response capability.”9 DOD’s report on the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released
on April 6, 2010, states that “strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs) and the SLBMs they carry
represent the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear Triad.”10
Current Ohio-Class SSBNs
The Navy currently operates 14 Ohio (SSBN-726) class SSBNs. The boats are commonly called
Trident SSBNs or simply Tridents because they carry Trident SLBMs.
A total of 18 Ohio-class SSBNs were procured in FY1974-FY1991. The ships entered service in
1981-1997. The boats were designed and built by General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division
(GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI. They were originally designed for 30-year
service lives but were later certified for 42-year service lives, consisting of two 20-year periods of
operation separated by a two-year mid-life nuclear refueling overhaul, called an engineered
refueling overhaul (ERO). The nuclear refueling overhaul includes both a nuclear refueling and
overhaul work on the ship that is not related to the nuclear refueling, and costs roughly $260
million per ship.
Ohio-class SSBNs each carry 24 SLBMs. The first eight boats in the class were originally armed
with Trident I C-4 SLBMs; the final 10 were armed with larger and more-capable Trident II D-5
SLBMs. The Clinton Administration’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) recommended a
strategic nuclear force for the START II strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty that included 14
Ohio-class SSBNs, all armed with D-5s. This recommendation prompted interest in the idea of
converting the first four Ohio-class boats (SSBNs 726-729) into SSGNs, so as to make good use
of the 20 years of potential operational life remaining in these four boats, and to bolster the U.S.
SSN fleet. The first four Ohio-class boats were converted into SSGNs in 2002-2008,11 and the

8 SSBNs, like other Navy submarines, are also equipped with horizontal torpedo tubes in the bow for firing torpedoes
or other torpedo-sized weapons.
9 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011, February
2010, p. 15.
10 Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, p. 22. The next sentence in the report states:
“Today, there appears to be no viable near or mid-term threats to the survivability of U.S. SSBNs, but such threats—or
other technical problems—cannot be ruled out over the long term.” The report similarly states on page 23: “Today,
there appears to be no credible near or mid-term threats to the survivability of U.S. SSBNs. However, given the stakes
involved, the Department of Defense will continue a robust SSBN Security Program that aims to anticipate potential
threats and develop appropriate countermeasures to protect current and future SSBNs.”
11 For more on the SSGN conversion program, see CRS Report RS21007, Navy Trident Submarine Conversion (SSGN)
Program: Background and Issues for Congress
, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
3

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

next four (SSBNs 730-733) were backfitted with D-5 SLBMs in 2000-2005, producing the
current force of 14 Ohio-class SSBNs, all of which are armed with D-5 SLBMs.
Eight of the 14 Ohio-class SSBNs are homeported at Bangor, WA, in Puget Sound; the other six
are homeported at Kings Bay, GA, close to the Florida border.
Unlike most Navy ships, which are operated by single crews, Navy SSBNs are operated by
alternating crews (called the Blue and Gold crews) so as to maximize the percentage of time that
they spend at sea in deployed status. The Navy consequently maintains 28 crews to operate its 14
Ohio-class SSBNs.
The first of the 14 Ohio-class SSBNs (SSBN-730) will reach the end of its 42-year service life in
2027. The remaining 13 will reach the ends of their service lives at a rate of roughly one ship per
year thereafter, with the 14th reaching the end of its service life in 2040.
The Navy has initiated a program to extend the service lives of D-5 SLBMs to 2042 “to match the
OHIO Class submarine service life.”12
Summary of U.S. SSBN Designs
The Navy has operated four classes of SSBNs since 1959. Table 1 compares the current Ohio-
class SSBN design to the three earlier U.S. SSBN designs. As shown in the table, the size of U.S.
SSBNs has grown over time, reflecting in part a growth in the size and number of SLBMs carried
on each boat. (A longer SLBM can require a boat with a bigger beam [i.e., diameter], and more or
larger-diameter SLBMs can require a boat with a greater length.) The Ohio-class design, at
18,750 tons submerged displacement, is more than twice the size of earlier U.S. SSBNs. The
Ohio class carries an SLBM (the D-5) that is much larger than the SLBMs carried by earlier U.S.
SSBNs, and it carries 24 SLBMs, compared to the 16 on earlier U.S. SSBNs.13

12 Statement of Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, USN, Director, Strategic Systems Programs, Before the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee [on] FY2011 Strategic Systems, March 17, 2010, p. 4.
13 The larger size of the Ohio-class design also reflects a growth in size over time in U.S. submarine designs due to
other reasons, such as providing increased interior volume for measures to quiet the submarine acoustically, so as to
make it harder to detect.
Congressional Research Service
4

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 1. U.S. SSBN Classes
George
Lafayette/Benjamin
Washington
Ethan Allen
Franklin (SSBN-
Ohio (SSBN-726)

(SSBN-598) class
(SSBN-608) class
616/640) class
class
Number in class
5
5
31
18/14
Fiscal years
FY1958-FY1959
FY1959 and FY1961
FY1961-FY1964
FY1974-FY1991
procured
Years in
1959-1985 1961-1992 1963-2002
1981/1984-present
commission
Length
381.7 feet
410.5 feet
425 feet
560 feet
Beam
33 feet
33 feet
33 feet
42 feet
Submerged
6,700 tons
7,900 tons
8,250 tons
18,750 tons
displacement
Number of SLBMs
16
16
16
24
Final type(s) of
Polaris A-3
Polaris A-3
Poseidon C-3/
Trident II D-5
SLBM carried
Trident I C-4
Diameter of those
54 inches
54 inches
74 inches
83 inches
SLBMs
Length of those
32.3 feet
32.3 feet
34 feet
44 feet
SLBMs
Weight of each
36,000 pounds
36,000 pounds
65,000/73,000 pounds
~130,000 pounds
SLBM (pounds)
Range of SLBMs
~2,500 nm
~2,500 nm
~2,500 nm/~4,000 nm
~4,000 nm
Sources: Prepared by CRS based on data in Norman Polmar, The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, Annapolis,
Naval Institute Press, various editions, and (for SSBN decommissioning dates) U.S. Naval Vessel Register.
Notes: Beam is the maximum width of a ship. For the submarines here, which have cylindrical hulls, beam is the
diameter of the hull.
The range of an SLBM can vary, depending on the number and weight of nuclear warheads it carries; actual
ranges can be lesser or greater than those shown.
The George Washington-class boats were procured as modifications of SSNs that were already under
construction. Three of the boats were converted into SSNs toward the ends of their lives and were
decommissioned in 1983-1985. The two boats that remained SSBNs throughout their lives were
decommissioned in 1981.
All five Ethan Allen-class boats were converted into SSNs toward the ends of their lives. The boats were
decommissioned in 1983 (two boats), 1985, 1991, and 1992.
Two of the Lafayette/Benjamin Franklin-class boats were converted into SSNs toward the ends of their lives and
were decommissioned in 1999 and 2002. The 29 that remained SSBNs throughout their lives were
decommissioned in 1986-1995. For 19 of the boats, the Poseidon C-3 was the final type of SLBM carried; for the
other 12, the Trident I C-4 SLBM was the final type of SLBM carried.
A total of 18 Ohio-class SSBNs were built. The first four, which entered service in 1981-1984, were converted
into SSGNs in 2002-2008. The remaining 14 boats entered service in 1984-1997.
Congressional Research Service
5

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

U.S.-UK Cooperation on SLBMs
SSBNs are also operated by the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.14 The UK’s four
Vanguard-class SSBNs, which entered service in 1993-1999, each carry 16 Trident II D-5
SLBMs. (The nuclear warheads on UK D-5s are of UK design and manufacture.) Previous classes
of UK SSBNs similarly carried earlier-generation U.S. SLBMs. The UK’s use of U.S.-made
SLBMs on its SSBNs is one element of a long-standing close cooperation between the two
countries on nuclear-related issues that is carried out under the 1958 Agreement for Cooperation
on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes (also known as the Mutual Defense
Agreement). Within the framework established by the 1958 agreement, cooperation on SLBMs in
particular is carried out under the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement and a 1982 Exchange of Letters
between the two governments.15 The Navy testified in March 2010 that “the United States and the

14 India in July 2009 launched a nuclear-powered submarine that is equipped to carry several short-range SLBMs; the
ship is not expected to enter service until 2011 at the earliest.
15 A March 18, 2010, report by the UK Parliament’s House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee stated:
During the Cold War, the UK’s nuclear co-operation with the United States was considered to be at
the heart of the [UK-U.S.] ‘special relationship’. This included the 1958 Mutual Defence
Agreement, the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement (PSA) (subsequently amended for Trident), and the
UK’s use of the US nuclear test site in Nevada from 1962 to 1992. The co-operation also
encompassed agreements for the United States to use bases in Britain, with the right to store
nuclear weapons, and agreements for two bases in Yorkshire (Fylingdales and Menwith Hill) to be
upgraded to support US missile defence plans.
In 1958, the UK and US signed the Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA). Although some of the
appendices, amendments and Memoranda of Understanding remain classified, it is known that the
agreement provides for extensive co-operation on nuclear warhead and reactor technologies, in
particular the exchange of classified information concerning nuclear weapons to improve design,
development and fabrication capability. The agreement also provides for the transfer of nuclear
warhead-related materials. The agreement was renewed in 2004 for another ten years.
The other major UK-US agreement in this field is the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement (PSA) which
allows the UK to acquire, support and operate the US Trident missile system. Originally signed to
allow the UK to acquire the Polaris Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) system in the
1960s, it was amended in 1980 to facilitate purchase of the Trident I (C4) missile and again in 1982
to authorise purchase of the more advanced Trident II (D5) in place of the C4. In return, the UK
agreed to formally assign its nuclear forces to the defence of NATO, except in an extreme national
emergency, under the terms of the 1962 Nassau Agreement reached between President John F.
Kennedy and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to facilitate negotiation of the PSA.
Current nuclear co-operation takes the form of leasing arrangements of around 60 Trident II D5
missiles from the US for the UK’s independent deterrent, and long-standing collaboration on the
design of the W76 nuclear warhead carried on UK missiles. In 2006 it was revealed that the US and
the UK had been working jointly on a new ‘Reliable Replacement Warhead’ (RRW) that would
modernise existing W76-style designs. In 2009 it emerged that simulation testing at Aldermaston
on dual axis hydrodynamics experiments had provided the US with scientific data it did not
otherwise possess on this RRW programme.
The level of co-operation between the two countries on highly sensitive military technology is,
according to the written submission from Ian Kearns, “well above the norm, even for a close
alliance relationship”. He quoted Admiral William Crowe, the former US Ambassador to London,
who likened the UK-US nuclear relationship to that of an iceberg, “with a small tip of it sticking
out, but beneath the water there is quite a bit of everyday business that goes on between our two
governments in a fashion that’s unprecedented in the world.” Dr Kearns also commented that the
personal bonds between the US/UK scientific and technical establishments were deeply rooted.
(House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Committee, Sixth Report – Global Security: UK-US
Relations
, March 18, 2010, paragraphs 131-135. The report is available online at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/114/11402.htm; paragraphs
131-135 are included in the section of the report available online at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

United Kingdom have maintained a shared commitment to nuclear deterrence through the Polaris
Sales Agreement since April 1963. The U.S. will continue to maintain its strong strategic
relationship with the UK for our respective follow-on platforms, based upon the Polaris Sales
Agreement.”16
The first Vanguard-class SSBN is projected to reach the end of its service life in 2024. The UK
wants to replace the Vanguard-class boats with three or four next-generation SSBNs. The UK
would like the replacement SSBNs, which it refers to as the Successor SSBNs, to carry D-5
SLBMs, and would like any successor to the D-5 SLBM to be compatible with, or be capable of
being made compatible with, the D-5 launch system.17 President George W. Bush, in a December
2006 letter to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, invited the UK to participate in any program to
replace the D-5 SLBMs, and stated that any successor to the D-5 system should be compatible
with, or be capable of being made compatible with, the launch system for the D-5 SLBM.
SSBN(X) Program
Program Origin and Early Actions
Although the eventual need to replace the Ohio-class SSBNs has been known for many years, the
SSBN(X) program can be traced more specifically to an exchange of letters in December 2006
between President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair concerning the UK’s
desire to participate in a program to extend the service life of the Trident II D-5 SLBM into the
2040s, and to have its next-generation SSBNs carry D-5s. Following this exchange of letters, and
with an awareness of the projected retirement dates of the Ohio-class SSBNs and the time that
would likely be needed to develop and field a replacement for them, DOD in 2007 began studies
on a next-generation sea-based strategic deterrent (SBSD).18 The studies used the term sea-based
strategic deterrent to signal the possibility that the new system would not necessarily be a
submarine.
An Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) for a new SBSD was developed in early 200819 and
approved by DOD’s Joint Requirements Oversight Committee (JROC) on June 20, 2008.20 In July

(...continued)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/114/11406.htm.)
16 Statement of Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, USN, Director, Strategic Systems Programs, Before the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee [on] FY2011 Strategic Systems, March 17, 2010, p. 6.
17 For more on the UK’s Successor SSBN program, see Richard Scott, “Deterrence At A Discount?” Jane’s Defence
Weekly
, December 23, 2009: 26-31.
18 In February 2007, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) commissioned a task force to support
an anticipated Underwater Launched Missile Study (ULMS). On June 8, 2007, the Secretary of the Navy initiated the
ULMS. Six days later, the commander of STRATCOM directed that a Sea Based Strategic Deterrent (SBSD)
capability-based assessment (CBA) be performed. In July 2007, the task force established by the commander of
STRATCOM provided its recommendations regarding capabilities and characteristics for a new SBSD. (Source: Navy
list of key events relating to the ULMS and SBSD provided to CRS and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on
July 7, 2008.)
19 On February 14, 2008, the SBSD ICD was approved for joint staffing by the Navy’s Resources and Requirements
Review Board (R3B). On April 29, 2008, the SBSD was approved by DOD’s Functional Capabilities Board (FCB) to
proceed to DOD’s Joint Capabilities Board (JCB). (Source: Navy list of key events relating to the ULMS and SBSD
provided to CRS and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on July 7, 2008.)
20 Navy briefing to CRS and CBO on the SBSD program, July 6, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
7

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

2008, DOD issued a Concept Decision providing guidance for an analysis of alternatives (AOA)
for the program; an acquisition decision memorandum from John Young, DOD’s acquisition
executive, stated the new system would, barring some discovery, be a submarine.21 The Navy
established an SSBN(X) program office at about this same time.22 The AOA reportedly began in
the summer or fall of 2008.23 The basic analysis for the AOA was completed in May 2009, and
the final report on the AOA was completed in September 2009.24 As of March 2010, the AOA was
being reviewed within the Navy.25 The program’s Milestone A review had been scheduled for the
spring of 2010,26 but the date was postponed. As of late April 2010, the Milestone A review was
scheduled for June 22. A March 2010 GAO report states that “the Navy is planning for
departmental approval of its proposed [SSBN(X)] alternative by the third quarter of fiscal year
2010. According to program officials, the Navy began concept design in fiscal year 2010.”27
Procurement and Replacement Schedule
Table 2 shows the Navy’s proposed schedule for procuring 12 SSBN(X)s, and for having
SSBN(X)s replace Ohio-class SSBNs. As shown in the table, the Navy wants to procure the first
SSBN(X) in FY2019 and have it enter service in FY2028. The remaining 11 would be procured
between FY2022 and FY2033 and would enter service between FY2029 and FY2040.
The Navy states that the schedule for procuring the 12 SSBN(X)s “is inextricably linked to legacy
[i.e., Ohio-class] SSBN retirements. The latest start for the lead SSBN(X) is FY 2019 and the
replacements must start reaching the operational force by FY 2029. There is no leeway in this
plan to allow a later start or any delay in the procurement plan.”28 The implication from this
statement is that deferring the procurement of one or more SSBN(X)s beyond the dates shown in
Table 2 would result in an SSBN force that drops below 12 boats for some period of time.

21 Navy briefing to CRS and CBO on the SBSD program, July 6, 2009.
22 An August 2008 press report states that the program office, called PMS-397, “was established within the last two
months.” (Dan Taylor, “Navy Stands Up Program Office To Manage Next-Generation SSBN,” Inside the Navy, August
17, 2008.
23 “Going Ballistic,” Defense Daily, September 22, 2008, p. 1.
24 Department of the Navy Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, Justification of Estimates, Research, Development,
Test & Evaluation, Navy, Budget Activity 4
, entry for PE0603561N, Project 3220 (pdf page 433 of 1054).
25 Statement of Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, USN, Director, Strategic Systems Programs, Before the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee [on] FY2011 Strategic Systems, March 17, 2010, p. 6.
26 Statement of Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, USN, Director, Strategic Systems Programs, Before the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee [on] FY2011 Strategic Systems, March 17, 2010, p. 6.
27 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-10-
388SP, March 2010, p. 152.
28 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 24. The report similarly states on page 5 that “the first boat in the class must be procured no later
than FY 2019 to ensure that 12 operational ballistic missile submarines will always be available to perform the vital
strategic deterrent mission.”
Congressional Research Service
8

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 2. Navy Schedule for Procuring SSBN(X)s and Replacing Ohio-Class SSBNs
Combined
Cumulative
number of Ohio-
Number of
number of
class SSBNs and
SSBN(X)s
SSBN(X)s in
Ohio-class SSBNs
SSBN(X)s in
Fiscal Year
procured
service
in service
service
2019
1
2020

2021

2022
1
2023

2024
1
2025 1

14 14
2026 1

14 14
2027 1

13 13
2028 1
1 12 13
2029 1
2 11 13
2030 1
2 10 12
2031
1 3 9 12
2032
1 4 8 12
2033
1 5 7 12
2034
6 6 12
2035
7 5 12
2036
8 4 12
2037
9 3 12
2038 10 2 12
2039 11 1 12
2040
12 12
Source: Navy data provided by the Navy to CRS and the Congressional Budget Office on February 18, 2010, by
Navy Office of Legislative Affairs.
SSBN(X) Design Features
Although the design of the SSBN(X) has not yet been determined, intended or potential design
features include the following:
• The SSBN(X) is to be designed for a 40-year expected service life.29

29 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 24.
Congressional Research Service
9

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

• Unlike the Ohio-class design, which requires a mid-life nuclear refueling, the
SSBN(X) is to be equipped with a life-of-the-ship nuclear fuel core (a nuclear
fuel core that is sufficient to power the ship for its entire expected service life).30
• The Navy wants the SSBN(X) to be capable of launching D-5 SLBMs, and
consequently to have launch tubes at least as large as those on the Ohio class.
The Navy might actually want SLBM tubes on the SSBN(X) to be somewhat
larger than those on the Ohio class design.31 The Navy states that “a larger
diameter missile tube [than on the Ohio class design] provides flexibility to
accommodate any future changes to missiles and payloads over the service life of
a class that will extend to the 2080’s. This concept was employed in earlier SSBN
classes, for example in the OHIO Class, which initially fielded C-4 missiles (34
feet long and 74 inches in diameter) in missile tubes that later accommodated the
longer and larger diameter D-5 missiles (44 feet long and 83 inches in
diameter).”32 If the SLBM tubes on the SSBN(X) are at least as large as those on
the Ohio-class boats, then the SSBN(X) would likely have a beam (i.e.,
diameter)33 as least as great as the 42-foot beam of the Ohio-class design.
• The SSBN(X) might have fewer SLBM tubes than the Ohio-class design. Instead
of 24 tubes, as on the Ohio-class design, the SSBN(X) might have 20 or 16. The
number of SLBM tubes in the SSBN(X) design will reflect recommendations in
the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) regarding future numbers of U.S.
strategic nuclear warheads, as influenced by the terms of strategic nuclear arms
control agreements.
• A May 2010 CBO report states that “in a recent briefing to CBO and the
Congressional Research Service, the Navy stated that an SSBN(X) would
probably be about the same size and have roughly the same displacement as an
Ohio class submarine, even though it might have only 16 or 20 missile tubes.”34
• The Navy states that “owing to the unique demands of strategic relevance,
[SSBN(X)s] must be fitted with the most up-to-date capabilities and stealth to
ensure they are survivable throughout their full 40-year life span.”35


30 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 5. The two most recent classes of SSNs—the Seawolf (SSN-21) and Virginia (SSN-774) class
boats—are built with cores that are expected to be sufficient for their entire 33-year expected service lives.
31 Transcript of spoken testimony of Loren Thompson before the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee of
the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Navy force structure and capabilities, January 20, 2010. Thompson
stated that the Navy is “planning to make the tubes on the next generation satellite [sic: SSBN] slightly bigger than
what a D5 would require because their estimate is that circa 2040 they'll need a different missile. They start with the
D5, but then they actually are considering moving to a bigger missile as a follow-on.”
32 Navy information paper on SSBNs and SLBMs dated March 24, 2010, and provided to CRS and CBO on March 25,
2010.
33 Beam is the maximum width of a ship. For Navy submarines, which have cylindrical hulls, beam is the diameter of
the hull.
34 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan, May 2010, p. 16.
35 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 24.
Congressional Research Service
10

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Program Acquisition Cost
The Navy preliminarily estimates the procurement cost of each SSBN(X) at $6 billion to $7
billion in FY2010 dollars.36 The SSBN(X) program would also incur several billion dollars in
research and development costs37—one press report from 2008 mentions a figure of $7 billion.38
On this basis, the total acquisition (i.e., research and development plus procurement) cost of the
SSBN program might be roughly $79 billion to $91 billion in constant FY2010 dollars.39 A May
2010 CBO report believes that SBN(X)s will cost more to procure than the Navy estimates, and
that the program could have a total acquisition cost of more than $110 billion in constant FY2010
dollars:
Overall, 12 SSBN(X)s would cost a total of about $99 billion [to procure] in CBO’s
estimation, or an average of $8.2 billion each. Another $10 billion to $15 billion would be
needed for research and development, for a total program cost of more than $110 billion [in
constant FY2010 dollars].40
Common Missile Compartment (CMC)
Current U.S. and UK plans call for the SSBN(X) and the UK’s replacement SSBN to use a
missile compartment—the middle part of the boat with the SLBM launch tubes—of the same
general design.41 The UK’s version of this Common Missile Compartment (CMC) reportedly will
have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 or 20 on U.S. version,42 but the size of the missile tubes is
to be the same in both versions. Since the UK’s first Vanguard-class SSBN is projected to reach
the end of its service life in 2024—three years before the first Ohio-class SSBN is projected to
reach the end of its service life—design work on the CMC began about three years sooner than
would have been required to support the SSBN(X) program alone. This is the principal reason
why the FY2010 budget included a substantial amount of research and development funding for

36 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 20.
37 If a new design is developed for the SSBN(X), as the Navy intends, then the research and development cost of the
SSBN(X) is likely to be as great as that of the Virginia-class SSN program—and perhaps greater, since the Virginia-
class SSN did not require the development of an SLBM compartment. The research and development cost of the
Virginia-class program is about $6.5 billion in constant FY2011 dollars. (The December 31, 2007, Selected Acquisition
Report [SAR] for the Virginia-class program states that the research and development cost of the Virginia-class
program is $5,501.1 million in then-year dollars, or $4.879.8 million in constant FY1995 dollars. The figure in constant
FY1995 dollars equates to $6.541.3 million in constant FY2011 dollars, using the deflator for RDT&E budget authority
(BA) in Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2011, March 2010, Table 5-7 (page 48).
38 Dan Taylor, “Admiral: Virginia-Class Hulls May Benefit From Future Sub Research,” Inside the Navy, May 26,
2008.
39 The figure of $79 billion includes $7 billion in research and development costs and the procurement of 12 SSBN(X)s
at a cost of $6 billion each. The figure of $91 billion includes $7 billion in research and development costs and the
procurement of 12 SSBN(X)s at a cost of $7 billion each.
40 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan, May 2010, p. 16.
41 Statement of Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, USN, Director, Strategic Systems Programs, Before the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee [on] FY2011 Strategic Systems, March 17, 2010, p. 6,
which states: “The OHIO Replacement programs includes the development of a common missile compartment that will
support both the OHIO Class Replacement and the successor to the UK Vanguard Class.”
42 Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Deterrent Decisions: US and UK Wait on Next Steps for SSBN Replacements,”
Jane’s Navy International, May 2010, pp. 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
11

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

the CMC. The UK is providing some of the funding for the design of the CMC, including a large
portion of the initial funding. A March 2010 GAO report stated:
According to the Navy, in February 2008, the United States and United Kingdom began a
joint effort to design a common missile compartment. This effort includes the participation
of government officials from both countries, as well as industry officials from Electric Boat
Corporation and BAE Systems. To date, the United Kingdom has provided a larger share of
funding for this effort, totaling just over $200 million in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.43
A May 2010 press report states that “the UK has, to date, funded the vast majority of [the CMC’s]
upfront engineering design activity and has established a significant presence in Electric Boat’s
Shaw’s Cove CMC design office in New London, CT.” 44
Program Funding
Table 3 shows funding for the SSBN(X) program. The table shows U.S. funding only; it does not
include funding provided by the UK to help pay for the design of the CMC. As can be seen in the
table, the SSBN(X) program received $497.4 million in research and development funding in the
Navy’s FY2010 budget, and the Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requests an additional $672.3
million in research and development funding for the program.
Table 3. SSBN(X) Program Funding
(Millions of then-year dollars, rounded to nearest tenth; totals may not add due to rounding)

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Research and development (R&D ) funding






PE0101221N/Project
3198 0 9.7 0 0 0 0 0 0
PE0603561N/Project
3220
0
0 385.9 493.0 755.9 830.8 1,044.4 597.3
PE0603561N/Project
9999
4.9
3.2
4.0 0 0 0 0 0
PE0603570N/Project
3219
0
0 107.4 179.3 284.1 345.3 402.9 391.8
Total
R&D
funding
4.9
12.9 497.4 672.3 1,040.0 1,176.1 1,447.3 989.1
Procurement
funding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
954.6
TOTAL
all
funding
4.9
12.9 497.4 672.3 1,040.0 1,176.1 1,447.3 1,943.7
Source: Navy data provided to CRS on March 11, 2010, by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs. PE means Program
Element, that is, a research and development line item. A Program Element may include several projects.
Notes: PE0101221N/Project 3198 is Underwater Launch Missile System (ULMS) project within the PE for
Strategic Submarine and Weapons System Support. PE0603561N/Project 3220 is SBSD project within the PE
for Advanced Submarine System Development. PE0603561N/Project 9999 is Congressional funding additions
within the PE for Advanced Submarine System Development. The figure shown for FY2010 includes two
separate additions of $2.0 million each. PE0603570N/Project 3219 is SSBN(X) reactor plant project within
the PE for Advanced Nuclear Power Systems. Procurement funding shown in FY2015 is advance
procurement funding for first SSBN(X), which is scheduled to be procured in FY2019.

43 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-10-
388SP, March 2010, p. 152.
44 Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Deterrent Decisions: US and UK Wait on Next Steps for SSBN Replacements,”
Jane’s Navy International, May 2010, pp. 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
12

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Issues for Congress
Potential FY2011 issues for Congress include the following:
• the accuracy of the Navy’s preliminary estimate of the procurement cost of each
SSBN(X);
• the prospective affordability of the SSBN(X) program and its potential impact on
other Navy shipbuilding programs;
• the impact of UK preferences for the design of its new SSBNs on U.S.
consideration of SSBN(X) design options;
• congressional access to the SSBN(X) analysis of alternatives (AOA); and
• the question of which shipyard or shipyards will build SSBN(X)s.
Each of these issues is discussed below.
Accuracy of Navy’s Preliminary Unit Procurement Cost Estimate
Navy’s Preliminary Estimate
The Navy’s report on its 30-year shipbuilding plan states that “until a definitive cost estimate is
completed, the Navy is assuming a unit [procurement] cost of about $6-$7 billion per ship [in
constant FY2010 dollars, which is] consistent with the escalated cost of the OHIO class SSBN.
The estimated cost should be refined and reported in a subsequent Report to Congress.”45 This
statement might be taken to mean that the Navy inflated the historical unit procurement costs of
Ohio-class boats to constant FY2010 dollars. This procedure, however, results in a unit
procurement cost of a $3.1 billion in constant FY2010 dollars (see “May 2010 CBO Report”
below). The Navy has explained to CRS and CBO that the figure of $6 billion to $7 billion in
constant FY2010 dollars is actually the Navy’s rough estimate, in constant FY2010 dollars, of
what it might cost today, under current production conditions, to build Ohio-class submarines.46
Factors Affecting the Estimated Cost
The accuracy of the Navy’s preliminary estimate of the procurement cost of each SSBN(X) will
depend in part on how the design of the SSBN(X) will compare to that of the Ohio-class SSBN.
As noted earlier, the SSBN(X) may have fewer SLBM tubes than the Ohio-class design, but its
tubes might also be somewhat larger than those on the Ohio-class design. The SSBN(X) will
incorporate technologies (such as electronics or nuclear propulsion technologies) that in some
(perhaps many) cases are newer than those used in the Ohio-class design.47 Using newer

45 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 20.
46 Navy briefing on 30-year shipbuilding plan to CRS and CBO, March 17, 2010.
47 In certain cases where Ohio-class technologies might be adequate for the SSBN(X), incorporating those technologies
into the SSBN(X) might be difficult or expensive due to a reduction in sources for manufacturing or supporting those
technologies.
Congressional Research Service
13

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

technologies can either increase or reduce a ship’s procurement cost, depending on the exact
technologies in question.
Another factor is how production conditions for the SSBN(X) will compare to those for the Ohio-
class SSBNs. During the period when the Ohio-class boats were procured (FY1974-FY1991), the
Navy also procured as many as three or four SSNs per year. During the years when SSBN(X)s are
to be procured, the Navy plans to procure no more than one or (in a few cases) two SSNs per
year. Economies of scale for submarine production will in this sense be lower for the SSBN(X)
program than they were for the Ohio-class program. The above-cited difference between the
historical procurement costs of the Ohio-class boats inflated to constant FY2010 dollars, and the
Navy’s estimate, in constant FY2010 dollars, of what it would cost to build Ohio-class boats
today, under current production conditions, suggests that this could be a very significant
consideration. On the other hand, shipyard processes and methods for building submarines
(including modular construction, design for producibility, and automated shipyard tools) will be
more advanced for the SSBN(X) program than they were for the Ohio-class program.
May 2010 CBO Report
A May 2010 CBO report on the potential cost of the Navy’s FY2011 30-year shipbuilding
program estimates that a force of 12 SSBN(X)s would have an average unit procurement cost of
$8.2 billion in constant FY2010 dollars, or about 14% more than the Navy’s estimate of $7.2
billion in constant FY2010 dollars. The report states:
The design, cost, and capabilities of the SSBN(X), the submarine slated to replace the Ohio
class, are among the most significant uncertainties in the Navy’s and CBO’s analyses of
future shipbuilding. The Navy’s 2007 and 2008 plans assumed that the first SSBN(X) would
cost $4.5 billion (in 2010 dollars) and that subsequent ships in the class would cost about
$3.4 billion apiece. The 2009 plan explicitly excluded the costs of the SSBN(X) class,
although it included 12 of those submarines in its projected inventories. The 2011 plan, in
contrast, includes the costs of the SSBN(X) class—with an estimate that highlights the great
expense of replacing current ballistic missile submarines and the effect that effort could have
on other shipbuilding programs.
Specifically, the Navy now estimates that the lead SSBN(X) will cost about $9 billion and
that building 12 of the new submarines will cost $86 billion, or an average of about $7.2
billion apiece. The Navy’s 2011 report states that those estimates are “consistent with the
escalated cost of the OHIO class SSBN.” However, escalating (that is, inflating) the actual
costs of the Ohio class submarines would produce an average cost of only about $3.1 billion
per submarine in 2010 dollars. Navy officials subsequently clarified that the service’s
estimate is based on the cost to build Ohio class submarines in today’s industry conditions
and with today’s technology. Under the 2011 plan, however, the first SSBN(X) would be
authorized in 2019 (although advance procurement money would be needed starting in 2015
for items with long lead times). The second submarine would be purchased in 2022, followed
by one per year from 2024 to 2033.
In most of its recent naval analyses, CBO assumed that the SSBN(X) would be smaller and
would carry fewer weapons than existing ballistic missile submarines—specifically, that it
would have 16 missile tubes instead of the 24 on today’s SSBNs and would displace around
15,000 tons submerged, compared with 18,750 tons for an existing Ohio class submarine.
But in a recent briefing to CBO and the Congressional Research Service, the Navy stated that
an SSBN(X) would probably be about the same size and have roughly the same displacement
as an Ohio class submarine, even though it might have only 16 or 20 missile tubes. Over
Congressional Research Service
14

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

time, technological advancements tend to add weight to a submarine design (compared with
the same submarine produced 30 years earlier). If the Ohio class was being built today with
the same capability to launch ballistic missiles, it would actually be much larger than 18,750
tons. Thus, a new SSBN with fewer than 24 missile tubes would probably still be equivalent
in displacement to an Ohio class submarine. For those reasons, in its analysis, CBO adopted
the Navy’s assumption about the size of the SSBN(X).
CBO estimates that the lead SSBN(X) will cost about $13 billion if it is purchased in 2019.
Estimating the cost of that submarine is particularly difficult because it is not clear how
much the Navy will need to spend on nonrecurring engineering and detail design. The Navy
spent about $2 billion on those items—out of a total of more than $5 billion—for the lead
Virginia class attack submarine, which is about 60 percent smaller than the first Ohio class
submarine. CBO assumed that the cost of nonrecurring items would be proportional to the
weight of the new submarine, so it estimated more than $4 billion for those items. (The Navy
appears to have assumed that nonrecurring items for the lead SSBN(X) would cost about $2
billion.)
The historical track record for the lead ship of new classes of submarines in the 1970s and
1980s implies little difference on a per-ton basis between a lead attack submarine (SSN) and
a lead SSBN…. If that pattern continued, the per-ton cost of the SSBN(X) would be about
the same as that of the first Virginia class SSN.
Overall, 12 SSBN(X)s would cost a total of about $99 billion in CBO’s estimation, or an
average of $8.2 billion each. Another $10 billion to $15 billion would be needed for research
and development, for a total program cost of more than $110 billion. Those estimates appear
to differ from the Navy’s mainly because the Navy priced the SSBN(X) as though it were
being built today, whereas CBO incorporated the effects that higher shipbuilding inflation
would have on submarines built 10 to 20 years from now.48
Program Affordability and Impact on Other Navy
Shipbuilding Programs

Some observers are concerned that the SSBN(X) program will significantly compound a
challenge the Navy faces concerning the affordability of its long-term shipbuilding program.
These observers are concerned that procuring 12 SSBN(X)s during the 15-year period FY2019-
FY2033, as called for in Navy plans, could lead to reductions in procurement rates for other types
of Navy ships during those years.49 The Navy’s report on its 30-year (FY2011-FY2030)
shipbuilding plan states:
Recapitalizing the SSBN force will impact the Navy in the mid-term as significant resources
are allocated to the SSBN(X) recapitalization program ... these ships require significant
resource commitment and they will impact the Navy’s ability to procure other shipbuilding
requirements during the period when they are being procured....
The SSBN(X) procurements will be concurrent with wholesale end-of-service-life
retirements of SSN 688 submarines, CG 47 class guided missile cruisers, DDG 51 class
guided missile destroyers, and LSD 41/49 class dock landing ships. While the SSBN(X) is
being procured, the Navy will be limited in its ability to procure other ship classes. This

48 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2011 Shipbuilding Plan, May 2010, pp. 15-16.
49 See, for example, John M. Donnelly, “Cost Of Nuclear Subs Could Sink Navy Budget,” CQ Today, March 2, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
15

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

slowdown in procurement will occur when the Navy needs to be procuring at least 10 ships
per year to maintain its force level against the anticipated ship retirements from the 1980s
and 1990s.50
The report also states:
Because of the high expected costs for these important national assets, yearly shipbuilding
expenditures during the mid-term planning period [FY2021-FY2030] will average about
$17.9B (FY2010$) [$17.9 billion in constant FY2010 dollars] per year, or about $2B more
than the steady-state 30-year average. Even at this elevated funding level, however, the total
number of ships built per year will inevitably fall because of the percentage of the
shipbuilding account which must be allocated for the procurement of the SSBN. In the far-
term planning period, average shipbuilding expenditures fall back to a more sustainable level
of about $15.3B (FY2010$) average per year. Moreover, after the production run of
SSBN(X)s comes to an end in FY 2033, the average number of ships built per year begins to
rebound.51
The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan includes a total of 276 ships and states that the 12
SSBN(X)s are to be funded within the Navy’s shipbuilding budget.52 An earlier draft of the 30-
year plan that was reported in December 2009 suggested that funding the 12 SSBN(X)s within
the Navy’s shipbuilding budget without an offsetting increase to the shipbuilding budget would
reduce the number of ships in the 30-year plan from 278 to 222—a reduction of 56 ships. The 56
eliminated ships included 19 destroyers, 15 Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), four SSNs, three
amphibious ships, and 15 auxiliary ships.53
In assessing the prospective affordability of the SSBN(X) program and its potential impact on
other Navy shipbuilding programs, Congress may consider the following factors, among others:
• the total number of SSBN(X)s that are to be procured;
• the design (and thus unit procurement cost) of the SSBN(X);
• the schedule for procuring the SSBN(X)s and the potential for using incremental
funding for procuring the ships;
• how procurement of SSBN(X)s is funded in DOD’s budget; and
• the potential for increasing the Navy’s shipbuilding budget enough to procure
SSBN(X)s without having to reduce procurement rates for other Navy ships.
Each of these factors is discussed below.

50 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, pp. 24-25.
51 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 5.
52 The report states that “funding for the SSBN(X) will be included in the SCN core budget.” (U.S. Navy, Report to
Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011
, February 2010, p. 4.) SCN
stands for the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation account—the Navy’s shipbuilding budget.
53 See the tables of the 222- and 278-ship scenarios published in Inside the Navy on December 7, 2009, as well as
Christopher J. Castelli, “Navy Confronts $80 Billion Cost Of New Ballistic Missile Submarines,” Inside the Pentagon,
December 3, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
16

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Number of SSBN(X)s
U.S. strategic nuclear deterrence plans require a certain number of strategic nuclear warheads to
be available for use on a day-to-day basis. After taking into account warheads on the other two
legs of the strategic nuclear triad, as well as the number of warheads on an SSBN’s SLBMs, this
translates into a requirement for a certain number of SSBNs to be on station (i.e., within range of
expected targets) in Pacific and Atlantic waters at any given moment. The SSBN force is sized to
support this requirement. Given the time needed for at-sea training operations, restocking SSBNs
with food and other consumables, performing maintenance and repair work on the SSBNs, and
transiting to and from deterrent patrol areas, only a fraction of the SSBN force can be on patrol at
any given moment. The Navy states that the current requirement for having a certain number of
SSBNs on patrol at any given moment translates into a need for 14 Ohio-class boats. The Navy’s
report on its 30-year shipbuilding plan notes that the current planned total of 12 SSBN(X)s could
change:
Current plans call for 12 new SSBN(X)s with life-of-the-hull, nuclear reactor cores to
replace the existing 14 OHIO-class SSBNs....
There are many factors influencing this new SSBN that will impact the ship’s maintenance
cycle. Resolution of these factors will determine the number of ships required to maintain
twelve operational submarines. As a result, until those decisions are made as part of the
acquisition process, the procurement plan in this report supports a minimum inventory of 12
SSBNs, for this force. Should the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review change the SSBN
requirements, the number of replacement ships may need to be adjusted to accommodate that
outcome....
The number of these submarines was delineated by the Nuclear Posture Review 2001 which
established the requirement of a force comprised of 12 operational SSBNs (with two
additional in overhaul at any time). As highlighted previously, the replacement SSBN
program inventory is assumed to be 12 total ships. The Nuclear Posture Review, which is
expected to be completed in 2010 will validate the SSBN requirement and will be reflected
in future reports....
The Navy has assumed, for the purposes of this report, that there will be no changes in the
strategic deterrent posture for sea-based forces beyond those associated with the number of
missile tubes in each SSBN(X) hull resulting from the Nuclear Posture Review that will
complete in FY 2010.54
It is sometimes said that the current force of 14 Ohio-class boats supports 12 operational boats
plus two other boats that are unavailable for operation because they are undergoing mid-life
refueling overhauls. Some parts of the above-quoted passage can be read as consistent with that
view. Current Navy plans, however, call for all 14 Ohio-class boats to remain in service even after
the last Ohio-class mid-life refueling overhaul is completed around 2020, suggesting that
maintenance work other than the mid-life refueling overhaul is a consideration. It can also be
noted that while the SSBN(X) is to have a life-of-the-ship nuclear fuel core, thus avoiding the
need for a mid-life refueling, the SSBN(X) might nevertheless require a lengthy mid-life non-
refueling overhaul. DOD’s report on the 2010 NPR states:

54 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, pp. 5, 10, 15, 20.
Congressional Research Service
17

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

The NPR concluded that ensuring a survivable U.S. response force requires continuous at-
sea deployments of SSBNs in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, as well as the ability to
surge additional submarines in crisis. To support this requirement, the United States
currently has fourteen nuclear-capable Ohio-class SSBNs.
By 2020, Ohio-class submarines will have been in service longer than any previous
submarines. Therefore as a prudent hedge, the Navy will retain all 14 SSBNs for the near-
term. Depending on future force structure assessments, and on how remaining SSBNs age in
the coming years, the United States will consider reducing from 14 to 12 Ohio-class
submarines in the second half of this decade. This decision will not affect the number of
deployed nuclear warheads on SSBNs.55
This passage suggests that DOD might consider converting the 13th and 14th Ohio-class SSBNs
into submarines that do not carry SSBNs in the second half of this decade, or cancelling their
mid-life refueling overhauls and removing them from service. Under current plans, the mid-life
refueling overhauls for these two boats might be scheduled for authorization around FY2017 and
FY2018. The removal of the 13th and 14th boats from service as SSBNs following the completion
of the mid-life refueling overhauls on the other 12 SSBNs would be consistent with the idea that
the current force of 14 Ohio-class boats supports 12 operational boats plus two other boats that
are unavailable for operation because they are undergoing mid-life refueling overhauls.
Some observers over the years have advocated or presented options for an SSBN force of fewer
than 12 SSBNs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, has at times in the past
presented options for reducing the SSBN force to 10 boats as a cost-reduction measure.56 A
potential question for Congress is whether a force of fewer than 12 SSBN(X)s would provide for
an adequate number of SSBNs on deterrent patrol at any given moment. Views on that question
could depend on, among other things, assessments of strategic nuclear threats to the United States
and the role of SSBNs in deterring such threats as a part of overall U.S. strategic nuclear forces,
as influenced by the terms of strategic nuclear arms control agreements.57 Reducing the number
of SSBNs below 12 could also raise a question as to whether the force should continue to be
homeported at both Bangor, WA, and Kings Bay, GA, or consolidated at a single location. DOD’s
report on the 2010 NPR states:
The NPR conducted extensive analysis of alternative force structures under a New START
Treaty, and the Department of Defense will define its planned force structure under the
Treaty after taking account of this work. The United States will retain the ability to adjust
this posture under New START as needed to account for unexpected technological
developments or operational vulnerabilities, or geo-political surprise. 58

55 Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, p. 22.
56 See, for example, Congressional Budget Office, Rethinking the Trident Force, July 1993, 78 pp.; and Congressional
Budget Office, Budget Options, March 2000, p. 62.
57 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and
Issues
, by Amy F. Woolf.
58 Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, p. 25.
Congressional Research Service
18

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Design of SSBN(X)s
A Design with Fewer Tubes
There are many elements of the design of the SSBN(X) that could affect its procurement cost.
Other things held equal, a design with fewer SLBM tubes would cost less to procure than a design
with more SLBM tubes. The difference in procurement cost resulting from a reduction in the
number of SLBM tubes, however, might be relatively modest, since much of the ship’s
procurement cost is determined by other parts of the ship, such as the propulsion plant and the
ship’s collection of sensors, computers, software, and display systems. Reducing the number of
SLBM tubes in the design would likely result in relatively little reduction to the ship’s
development and design cost.59
A Design Based on an SLBM Smaller than the D-5
An option that would more substantially reduce the procurement cost of the SSBN(X) would be
to design the ship to carry an SLBM that is substantially smaller than the Trident II D-5 SLBM.
Such a submarine could be substantially smaller than a submarine designed to carry an equal
number of D-5-sized (or larger) SLBMs.
A submarine designed to carry a smaller SLBM might be either a modified version of the
Virginia-class SSN design60 or an all-new design. The ship could be armed with either new-
production Trident I C-4 SLBMs,61 new-design SLBMs that are about the same size as the Trident
I C-4, or (for an all-new submarine design) new-design SLBMs that are larger than the C-4 but
still substantially smaller than the D-5.
The resulting options (along with the option of a new-design SSBN armed with life-extended D-
5s) would be as follows:
• a Virginia-based SSBN armed with 16 or 20 new-construction C-4s;
• a Virginia-based SSBN armed with 16 or 20 new-design SLBMs about the same
size as the C-4;
• a new-design SSBN armed with 16 or 20 new-construction C-4s;
• a new-design SSBN armed with 16 or 20 new-design SLBMs about the same size
as the C-4;
• a new-design SSBN armed with 16 or 20 new-design SLBMs that are larger than
the C-4 but still substantially smaller than the D-5; and

59 It might also result in only a modest reduction in the design’s annual operating and support cost.
60 The Virginia-class design has a beam of 34 feet, which is 1 foot greater than the 33-foot beam of the
Lafayette/Benjamin Franklin (SSBN-616/640) class SSBNs that carried the Trident I C-4 SLBM.
61 The Navy states that “there are no TRIDENT I (C4) SLBMs available for refurbishment because only a limited
number of TRIDENT I (C4) rocket motors remain. TRIDENT I (C4) missile hardware, including equipment sections,
nozzles, and avionics, has been disposed of or destroyed. The remaining TRIDENT I (C4) rocket motors are at or near
end of life, due to aging solid propellant, and are planned for accelerated disposal due to safety concerns. The
TRIDENT I (C4) rocket motors are no longer certified for deployment on manned platforms.” (Navy information paper
on SSBNs and SLBMs dated March 24, 2010, and provided to CRS and CBO on March 25, 2010.)
Congressional Research Service
19

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

• a new-design SSBN armed with 16 or 20 life-extended D-5s.
The Navy reportedly has studied in detail the option of a Virginia-based SSBN armed with D-5s,
but may not have studied in detail the option of a Virginia-based SSBN armed with new-
construction C-4s or new-design SLBMs about the same size as the C-4. The Navy may also not
have studied in detail the option of a new-design SSBN armed with either new-construction C-4s,
new-design SLBMs about the same size as the C-4, or new-design SLBMs that are larger than the
C-4 but still substantially smaller than the D-5.
Potential questions for Congress include the following:
• What are the combined submarine and missile acquisition (i.e., development and
procurement) costs of each of the six options listed above?
• What are the combined submarine and missile development risks of each of the
above six options?
• What are the resulting capabilities of each of the above six options, and how do
these capabilities compare to requirements for performing the strategic nuclear
deterrence mission in coming years?
• How well does the Navy understand the comparative acquisition costs,
development risks, and resulting capabilities of the above six options if the Navy
has not studied in detail the option of an SSBN designed for SLBMs about the
same size as the C-4 (or larger than the C-4 but still substantially smaller than the
D-5), and if it has not studied in detail the potential costs, risks, and capabilities
of a new-design SLBM that is about the same size as the C-4, or larger than the
C-4 but still substantially smaller than the D-5?
A May 2010 press report states:
So far, the USN is revealing little about the [SSBN(X)] AoA findings, although the service
has ruled out suggestions that its Virginia-class attack submarine could for the template for a
next-generation SSBN(X), according to sources familiar with the study.
Proposals for a Virginia Block IV variant – with a missile compartment for the D5 ballistic
nuclear missile or a successor weapon – were examined by officials but declared not feasible
due to infrastructure and missile design costs, one source said.
In particular, it was determined that inserting a new 30 m [30-meter] hull section into the
existing Virginia design to accommodate Trident [SLBMs] would cost as much as
developing an entirely new SSBN, another source added.62
Regarding the option of a Virginia-based SSBN design (apparently one armed with D-5s, given
the reference below to a stepped pressure hull), the Navy states that
the VIRGINIA Class design could be modified into an SSBN that carries SLBMs. This
would require designing a missile compartment insert with missile tubes and other
supporting systems. The missile compartment would likely have a larger pressure hull

62 Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Deterrent Decisions: US and UK Wait on Next Steps for SSBN Replacements,”
Jane’s Navy International, May 2010: 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
20

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

diameter than the VIRGINIA pressure hull (34 feet), resulting in a stepped pressure hull
configuration.
However, a VIRGINIA Insert SSBN would require redesign of the VIRGINIA and would
have technical and operational shortcomings and risks. The increase in ship size for the
modified ship would result in a loss in speed. Ship systems such as electric power, air
conditioning, and chill water would have limitations, and the propulsor would require
redesign. The increase in ship length would limit maneuvering performance without redesign
of stern control surfaces and the ship control system. The VIRGINIA Insert SSBN would
also have shortcomings in meeting speed and stealth performance parameters and
maintainability requirements for the strategic mission.63
At a July 22, 2010, hearing before the House Armed Services Committee on managing DOD in a
time of tight budgets, the following exchange occurred between the Representative Ike Skelton,
the chairman of the committee, and Robert Work, the Under Secretary of the Navy:
SKELTON:
…. Mr. Work, recently I asked the proposed price tag on a replacement vessel for the Ohio-
class submarine. Has the Navy done any studies on whether a replacement, such as the
Virginia-class submarine, can perform the same duties with obviously an alteration in the
missiles and the ship somewhat?
WORK:
Yes, sir, we have. Secretary Mabus, when he came aboard last year, and I were first given
the briefing on how much this boat could potentially cost, this became one of his focus items
from day one.
For the last year, the AOA, the Analysis of Alternatives for the submarines has occurred. The
judgment is that, because we have elected to go with the D-5 missile, that using the Virginia
is not the right way to go, that it is a much better and more efficient thing to exploit our
existing infrastructure on a 42- or 43-foot diameter hull.
Once that decision was made, Secretary Mabus has asked every single requirement, what is
the basis for that requirement, and what is the thing that is driving the cost in the boat. I don't

63 Navy information paper on SSBNs and SLBMs dated March 24, 2010, and provided to CRS and CBO on March 25,
2010. The Navy states elsewhere in the paper that “the Sea Based Strategic Deterrent (SBSD) Analysis of Alternatives
(AoA) investigated a series of options including modified VIRGINIA hulls and an updated OHIO Class design,” and
that:
Based on historical SSBN to SLBM and SLBM Length-to-Diameter (L/D) ratios, a 74-inch
diameter SLBM is likely the largest diameter feasible for a new VIRGINIA-Class-based SLBM
design in the 35 to 36 foot length range. This missile would be similar to a TRIDENT I (C4);
however, the range would be substantially reduced relative to D5 performance.
A VIRGINIA Insert SSBN would require redesign of the VIRGINIA and has shortcomings in
meeting speed and stealth performance parameters and maintainability requirements for the
strategic mission….
The VIRGINIA Class SSN was not designed to serve as a strategic deterrent platform. The Navy
has considered a range of VIRGINIA Class Insert designs; however, early design studies concluded
that they were not viable options as they would require redesign of the VIRGINIA and had
shortcomings in meeting speed and stealth performance, and maintainability requirements for the
strategic mission.
Congressional Research Service
21

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

have a final answer for you, Mr. Chairman, but this is at Secretary Mabus’s level, and I can
assure you that we will have an affordable boat that we can afford in the 20s.
SKELTON:
Well, what’s interesting, based upon your testimony today, the missile’s driving the boat.
Have you asked engineers to redesign a missile that might fit on a Virginia-class submarine?
This isn't brain surgery. Have you done that?
WORK:
Sir, I'll have to come back and see if we have done an actual costing, but at the office of the
secretary of defense level, it really was [a question of: whether we] can we afford to design a
whole new missile mount [sic], and the decision was to stick with the D-5 through about
2040. And that will sustain our solid rocket motor base industry. It will take advantage of all
of the investments that we've had up to this point. And we believe that is the cheaper –
excuse me, the most inexpensive and the right way to go.64
Regarding the potential cost to develop a new SLBM, the Navy states:
Development of a new SLBM has not been priced because there is no Navy plan to develop
a new nuclear capable SLBM and has no recent experience with an end-to-end missile
development and production program.…
The TRIDENT II (D5) missile, which achieved IOC [initial operational capability] in 1990,
was the 6th generation of continuous strategic missile development programs since 1956. The
development cost of the TRIDENT II (D5) missile in the 1980’s was $8.4B (in FY83
dollars)65 and included 19 missile land flat pad flights and 9 submarine launched flights
using a fully experienced design and production industrial base. Detailed budgetary estimates
for a new missile development program would require significant work to define
performance needs before budget profiles and timelines could be developed. The
development cost of TRIDENT II (D5) cannot be escalated as an estimate, as the industrial
base and technology have changed substantially. No detailed SLBM design and development
work has been conducted in over 20 years.
In general, much of the SLBM production industrial base is available in a diminished form.
The TRIDENT II (D5) was the fifth SLBM developed within the span of 25 years; the
development of a new SLBM today would mark the first new U.S. SLBM developed since
completion of D5 development in the early 1990‘s. Solid Rocket Motor production has
decreased substantially due to decreased demand from NASA, the U.S. Air Force and the
U.S. Navy.66
At a May 6, 2010, hearing on Navy shipbuilding programs before the Seapower subcommittee of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, Vice Admiral John Terence Blake, Deputy Chief of Naval

64 Source: Transcript of hearing.
65 Although the Navy states later in this passage that “the development cost of TRIDENT II (D5) cannot be escalated as
an estimate, as the industrial base and technology have changed substantially,” it can be noted, for reference purposes,
that a figure of $8.4 billion in constant FY1983 dollars equates to about $16.1 billion in constant FY2011 dollars, using
the deflator for RDT&E budget authority in Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates, March 2010,
Table 5-6 (page 47) .
66 Navy information paper on SSBNs and SLBMs dated March 24, 2010, and provided to CRS and CBO on March 25,
2010.
Congressional Research Service
22

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Operations for Integration of Capabilities and Resources, discussed, in response to a question
from Senator Jack Reed, the Navy’s desire to extend the service lives of the D-5 missiles and
design the SSBN(X) to launch D-5s, rather than develop a new SLBM for the SSBN(X). The text
of the exchange is as follows:
SENATOR REED:
I think there’s a temptation when you're looking at a new platform to make it capable of
doing everything. That’s expensive, typically. So there’s always a trade-off between
capability and expense. How are you dealing with those two issues?
BLAKE:
Well, one of the ways we're looking at it is we're looking to see, first of all, what capability
we want to have in the vessel.
Let me use the D-5 program as an example. We determined that based on the success of the
D-5 program that we should take the D-5 program and put an extension program in place so
that we would be able to utilize that system and the reliability and the security that it gave us
out into the 2040 timeframe.
And so what we—we also felt that if you go back in history and you look, you'll remember
that the previous program, the C-4 program, was a less capable system, and the D-5 was then
designed, if you will, in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s.
So what we decided was in order to minimize risk, we would go to the D-5 [life-extension]
program, as opposed to starting up [a new SLBM development effort], since we have not
since the late ‘70s, early ‘80s done any missile design work with respect to a SSBN weapons
system, and therefore we would continue down the path of using the D-5.
So the idea was to keep it within an affordability [constraint], because if you go back in
history, if we hadn't gone down that path [of extending the lives of the D-5s], then we were
going to have to rebuild the [SLBM] infrastructure, the design and everything else
[infrastructure], because we hadn't done that [i.e., designed a new SLBM] in several decades.
So the idea was to make it affordable and to make it less risky, if you will. And that was—
that’s just one example, if you will.67
The Trident I C-4 SLBM was less accurate and had substantially less range/payload than the
Trident II D-5 SLBM. The Navy states that “the range of a TRIDENT II (D5) missile is
approximately 45% greater than that of TRIDENT I (C4) for an equivalent payload. The D5
missile was also considerably more accurate than the C4 missile and can host a larger payload.”68
New-production C-4s or a new-design SLBM that is smaller than a D-5, however, might be
equipped with a guidance system that is more modern and more accurate than the guidance
system on the original C-4. Since a C-4 missile (or a new-design SLBM smaller than the D-5)
would have less range/payload than a D-5, an SSBN armed with Trident I C-4 SLBMs or
equivalent-sized missiles consequently could have less ability to hold at risk targets in other
countries than would an SSBN armed with an equivalent number of Trident II D-5 SLBMs.

67 Source: Transcript of hearing.
68 Navy information paper on SSBNs and SLBMs dated March 24, 2010, and provided to CRS and CBO on March 25,
2010.
Congressional Research Service
23

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Assessments of how the capabilities of the above six options listed earlier would compare to
requirements for performing the strategic nuclear deterrence mission in coming years could
depend on, among other things, assessments of strategic nuclear threats to the United States and
the role of SSBNs in deterring such threats as a part of overall U.S. strategic nuclear forces, as
influenced by the terms of strategic nuclear arms control agreements.69 Views on this issue could
also depend on the accuracy of a new guidance system for the C-4 or a new-design SLBM, and
on whether the range/payload capacity of the D-5 missile would need to be fully used to meet
future requirements for nuclear deterrence. The Navy states that the range and accuracy of the D-
5 “make the D5 missile uniquely critical to supporting the requirements of USSTRATCOM as the
supported Combatant Commander.”70 An additional consideration is how a decision to design the
SSBN(X) around an SLBM smaller than the D-5 would affect the UK’s plan to have its
replacement SSBNs carry D-5s, and U.S. costs for supporting that plan.
Schedule for Procuring SSBN(X)s and Potential for Using Split Funding
Another option for managing the potential impact of the SSBN(X) program on other Navy
shipbuilding programs would be to stretch out the schedule for procuring SSBN(X)s and make
greater use of split funding (i.e., two-year incremental funding) in procuring them.71 This option
would not reduce the total procurement cost of the SSBN(X) program—to the contrary, it might
increase the program’s total procurement cost somewhat by reducing production learning curve
benefits in the SSBN(X) program.72 This option could, however, reduce the impact of the
SSBN(X) program on the amount of funding available for the procurement of other Navy ships in
certain individual years. This might reduce the amount of disruption that the SSBN(X) program
causes to other shipbuilding programs in those years, which in turn might avoid certain
disruption-induced cost increases for those other programs. The annual funding requirements for
the SSBN(X) program might be further spread out by funding some of the SSBN(X)s with three-
or four-year incremental funding.73
Table 4 shows the Navy’s currently planned schedule for procuring 12 SSBN(X)s and a notional
alternative schedule that would start two years earlier and end two years later than the Navy’s
currently planned schedule. Although the initial ship in the alternative schedule would be
procured in FY2017, it would be executed as it if were funded in FY2019. Subsequent ships in
the alternative schedule that are funded earlier than they would be under the Navy’s currently
planned schedule could also be executed as if they were funded in the year called for under the
Navy’s schedule. Congress in the past has funded the procurement of ships whose construction
was executed as if they had been procured in later fiscal years.74 The ability to stretch the end of

69 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and
Issues
, by Amy F. Woolf.
70 Navy information paper on SSBNs and SLBMs dated March 24, 2010, and provided to CRS and CBO on March 25,
2010.
71 Under split funding, a boat’s procurement cost is divided into two parts, or increments. The first increment would be
provided in the fiscal year that the boat is procured, and the second would be provided the following fiscal year.
72 Procuring one SSBN(X) every two years rather than at the Navy’s planned rate of one per year could result in a loss
of learning at the shipyard in moving from production of one SSBN to the next.
73 The Navy, with congressional support, currently uses split funding to procure large-deck amphibious assault ships
(i.e., LHAs). The Navy currently is permitted by Congress to use four-year incremental funding only for procuring the
first three Ford (CVN-78) class carriers (i.e., CVN-78, CVN-79, and CVN-80); the authority was granted in Section
121 of the FY2007 defense authorization act [H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006]).
74 Congress funded the procurement of two aircraft carriers (CVNs 72 and 73) in FY1983, and another two (CVNs 74
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

the procurement schedule by two years, to FY2035, could depend on the Navy’s ability to
carefully husband the use of the nuclear fuel cores on the last two Ohio-class SSBNs, so as to
extend the service lives of these two ships by one or two years. Alternatively, Congress could
grant the Navy the authority to begin construction on the 11th boat a year before its nominal year
of procurement, and the 12th boat two years prior to its nominal year of procurement.
Table 4. Navy SSBN(X) Procurement Schedule and a Notional Alternative Schedule
Boat might be
Boat might be
particularly suitable
particularly suitable
Navy’s
for 2-, 3-, or 4-year
Notional alternative
for 2-, 3-, or 4-year
Fiscal year
Schedule
incremental funding
schedule
incremental funding
2017

1
X
2018


2019 1
X
1
X
2020


2021

1
X
2022 1
X


2023

1
X
2024
1

2025 1

1

2026 1

1

2027 1

1

2028 1

1

2029 1

1
X
2030
1

2031 1
X
1
X
2032 1
X


2033 1
X
1
X
2034


2035

1
X
Total
12
12
Source: Navy’s current plan is taken from U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for
Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011, February 2010. Potential alternative plan prepared by CRS.
Notes: Notional alternative schedule could depend on Navy’s ability to carefully husband the use of the nuclear
fuel cores on the last two Ohio-class SSBNs, so as to extend the service lives of these two ships by one or two
years. Alternatively, Congress could grant the Navy the authority to begin construction on the 11th boat a year
before its nominal year of procurement, and the 12th boat two years prior to its nominal year of procurement.
Under Navy’s schedule, boat to be procured un FY2031 might be particularly suitable for 4-year incremental
funding, and boat to be procured in FY2032 might be particularly suitable for 3- or 4-year incremental funding.

(...continued)
and 75) in FY1988. Although CVN-73 was funded in FY1983, it was built on a schedule consistent with a carrier
funded in FY1985; although CVN-75 was funded in FY1988, it was built on a schedule consistent with a carrier funded
in FY1990 or FY1991.
Congressional Research Service
25

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

How Procurement of SSBN(X)s Is Funded in DOD’s Budget
Procure SSBN(X)s Outside Navy’s Shipbuilding Budget
Another option that some observers have suggested for reducing the potential impact of the
SSBN(X) program on other Navy shipbuilding programs would be to fund the procurement of
SSBN(X)s through a part of the DOD budget other than the Navy’s shipbuilding account. There
would be some precedent for such an arrangement:
• DOD sealift ships and Navy auxiliary ships are funded in the National Defense
Sealift Fund (NDSF), a part of DOD’s budget that is outside the Navy’s
shipbuilding budget (and also outside the procurement title of the DOD
appropriations act).
• Most spending for ballistic missile defense (BMD) programs (including
procurement-like activities) is funded through the Defense-Wide research and
development account rather than through the research and development and
procurement accounts of the individual military services.
A rationale for funding DOD sealift ships in the NDSF is that DOD sealift ships perform a
transportation mission that primarily benefits services other than the Navy, and therefore should
not be forced to compete for funding in a Navy budget account that funds the procurement of
ships central to the Navy’s own missions. A rationale for funding BMD programs together in the
Defense-Wide research and development account is that this makes potential tradeoffs in
spending among various BMD programs more visible and thereby helps to optimize the use of
BMD funding.
As a reference tool for better understanding DOD spending, DOD includes in its annual budget
submission a presentation of the DOD budget reorganized into 11 program areas, of which one is
strategic forces. The FY2011 budget submission, for example, shows that the strategic forces
program area received about $12.6 billion in funding in FY2010, and that about $11.1 billion is
requested for the program area for FY2011.75
Supporters of funding the procurement of SSBN(X)s through a part of the DOD budget other than
the Navy’s shipbuilding budget might argue that this could help protect funding for other Navy
shipbuilding programs by avoiding the need for those other shipbuilding programs to compete for
scarce Navy shipbuilding funds against a strategic nuclear forces program of high national
priority. They could also argue that creating a new budget account for strategic nuclear forces of
all kinds could help DOD better view potential tradeoffs in spending for various strategic nuclear
forces programs and thereby help DOD better optimize the use of strategic forces funding.
Skeptics of funding the procurement of SSBN(X)s through a part of the DOD budget other than
the Navy’s shipbuilding budget could argue that it might do little to protect funding for other

75 Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates For FY 2011, March 2010, Table 6-4, “Department of
Defense TOA by Program,” page 79. See also Table 6-5 on page 80, which presents the same data in constant FY2011
dollars. The other 10 program areas in addition to strategic forces are general purpose forces; C3, intelligence and
space; mobility forces; guard and reserve forces; research and development; central supply and management; training,
medical and other; administration and associated; support of other nations; and special operations forces. (A 12th
category—undistributed—shows relatively small amounts of funding.)
Congressional Research Service
26

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Navy shipbuilding programs, because if DOD were to move the SSBN(X)s out of the Navy’s
shipbuilding budget, DOD might also remove from the shipbuilding budget the funding that was
there for the SSBN(X)s. They might also argue that shifting SSBN(X)s out of the Navy’s
shipbuilding budget would make it harder to track and maintain oversight over Navy shipbuilding
activities, and that creating a new budget account for strategic nuclear forces of all kinds could
endanger the SSBN(X) program by making it more visible to those who might support reduced
spending on nuclear-weapon-related programs.
A March 11, 2010, press report stated: “The massive cost of replacing the Navy’s nuclear ballistic
missile submarines will be shouldered in the coming years by diverting funds from other naval
and Pentagon programs and perhaps by boosting the defense budget, but the program should not
get its own special funding stream, according to Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn.”76
Shift SSBN(X) DD/NRE Costs Outside Navy’s Shipbuilding Budget
A second option relating to where in the budget the procurement of SSBN(X)s are funded would
be to fund the detailed design and nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs of the SSBN(X)
program through the Navy’s research and development budget rather than the Navy’s
shipbuilding budget. It is a long-standing budgeting practice in Navy shipbuilding to attach the
DD/NRE costs of a Navy shipbuilding program to the procurement cost of the first ship in a class
(or sometimes the first two ships in the class). DD/NRE work, however, might be viewed as
research and development work that would be more suitably funded in the Navy’s research and
development account. Since the DD/NRE costs of the SSBN(X) program will likely exceed $1
billion, shifting the funding of these costs to the Navy’s research and development account could
reduce the procurement cost of the first SSBN(X) as it appears in the Navy’s shipbuilding budget.
Shifting the SSBN(X) program’s DD/NRE costs to the Navy’s research and development account,
however, could increase funding pressure on other Navy research and development programs.
Opponents of this approach could also argue that this option would do nothing to reduce the
procurement cost of the second and succeeding ships in the class.
Shift SSBN(X) Nuclear Fuel Core Costs Outside Navy’s Shipbuilding Budget
A third option relating to where in the budget the procurement of SSBN(X)s are funded would be
to shift the cost of SSBN(X) nuclear fuel cores from the Navy’s shipbuilding account to the
Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) account or the Other Procurement, Navy (OPN)
account. It is a long-standing budgeting practice in Navy shipbuilding to include the cost of the
initial nuclear fuel core for a nuclear-powered ship in the procurement cost of that ship. A ship’s
nuclear fuel core, however, is the functional equivalent of the fossil fuel used by a conventionally
powered Navy ship. Fossil fuel is not included in the procurement cost of conventionally powered
Navy ships; it is instead funded on an annual basis through the OMN account. Since an SSBN(X)
nuclear fuel core will likely cost a few hundred million dollars,77 shifting the cost of SSBN(X)

76 Christopher J. Castelli, “Lynn: Navy, DOD To Shoulder SSBN(X) Cost Without Separate Fund,” Inside the
Pentagon
, March 11, 2010.
77 As of 2007, a nuclear fuel core for a Virginia-class SSN cost about $170 million in FY2007 dollars, and a nuclear
fuel core for a reactor on a Nimitz (CVN-78) or Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier cost about $330 million in
FY2007 dollars. (Nimitz- and Ford-class carriers are each powered by two reactors, so the total cost for a set of nuclear
fuel cores for each carrier would be about $660 million in FY2007 dollars.) (Source: Naval Reactors telephone
conversation with CRS on March 8, 2007.)
Congressional Research Service
27

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

nuclear fuel cores from the Navy’s shipbuilding account to the OMN or OPN account could
marginally reduce the procurement cost of each SSBN(X) as it appears in the Navy’s shipbuilding
account. It could also, however, marginally increase funding pressure on other programs funded
through the OMN or OPN account.
Potential for Increasing Shipbuilding Budget
Another factor for Congress to consider is the potential for increasing the Navy’s shipbuilding
budget enough to procure SSBN(X)s without having to reduce procurement rates for other Navy
ships. Supporters of this option could argue that SSBNs have a procurement cost comparable to
that of aircraft carriers, and that the Navy’s shipbuilding budget in the past has sometimes been
allowed to “spike” upward in the year that a carrier was procured, so as to permit the Navy to
procure the carrier without having to reduce other Navy shipbuilding programs in that year. They
could also argue that if the Navy’s shipbuilding budget is not increased to accommodate the cost
of the SSBN(X)s, the resulting reductions to other Navy shipbuilding programs could be
substantial enough to significantly reduce the Navy’s ability to carry out its other missions.
Skeptics could argue that aircraft carries in recent years have been funded through incremental
funding rather than allowing the Navy’s shipbuilding budget to “spike” upward in a single year,
and that increasing the shipbuilding budget significantly for a period of about 15 years to
accommodate the SSBN(X) program would not be the same as allowing the shipbuilding budget
to spike upward for a single year. Skeptics could also argue that unless the Navy’s overall budget
were increased, increasing the Navy’s shipbuilding account would require reducing funding for
other Navy programs, such as aircraft procurement programs, and that such reductions could
reduce the Navy’s ability to carry out its other missions.
Impact of UK Preferences for Its SSBN on U.S. Consideration of
SSBN(X) Design Options

As mentioned earlier:
• The SSBN(X) program can be traced to an exchange of letters in December 2006
between President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
concerning the UK’s desire to participate in a program to extend the service life
of the Trident II D-5 SLBM into the 2040s, and to have its next-generation
SSBNs carry D-5s.
• GAO reported in March 2010 that the joint U.S.-UK effort to design the
Common Missile Compartment (CMC) for the SSBN(X) and the UK’s new
SSBNs began in February 2008.
• The SSBN(X) analysis of alternatives (AOA) reportedly began in the summer or
fall of 2008.
In addition, a May 2010 press report states that the SSBN(X)’s hull diameter, and the diameter of
its SLBM launch tubes, “were agreed between the US and UK in 2008….”78

78 Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Deterrent Decisions: US and UK Wait on Next Steps for SSBN Replacements,”
Jane’s Navy International, May 2010: 10-11.
Congressional Research Service
28

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

Potential oversight questions for Congress arising from the above points include the following:
• Is the UK’s desire for its replacement SSBNs to carry D-5s, combined with the
timing of the start of the CMC design effort relative to the start of the SSBN(X)
AOA, exerting too much, too little, or about the right amount of influence on the
range of SSBN(X) design alternatives that the United States is interested in fully
exploring?
• More specifically, is the UK’s desire for its replacement SSBNs to carry D-5s,
combined with the timing of the start of the CMC design effort relative to the
start of the SSBN(X) AOA, prematurely inclining the United States toward not
exploring, or toward negative evaluations of, SSBN(X) design concepts featuring
SLBM launch tubes smaller than those on the Ohio-class design?
• Did the SSBN(X) AOA fully explore and analyze the option of an all-new SSBN
design (as opposed to a modification of the Virginia-class design) featuring
SLBM launch tubes smaller than those on the Ohio-class design? If not, was this
in part because of the UK’s desire for its replacement SSBNs to carry D-5s
and/or the timing of the start of the CMC design effort relative to the start of the
SSBN(X) AOA?
• Is the Navy relying too much, too little, or about the right amount on the UK’s
preference for its replacement SSBNs to carry D-5s, and on the fact that the
CMC design effort is now underway, as an argument for responding to questions
about the Navy’s desire to design the SSBN(X) with SLBM launch tubes at least
as large as those on the Ohio-class design?
• Since the December 2006 exchange of letters between President George W. Bush
and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair predates the late-2008 U.S. financial-sector
crisis and the subsequent change in projected U.S. federal budget deficits (which
in turn might influence future U.S. defense spending levels), should the views
expressed in those letters be reexamined?
Construction Shipyard(s)
Building SSBN(X)s
Another potential issue for Congress regarding the SSBN(X) program is which shipyard or
shipyards will build SSBN(X)s. Two U.S. shipyards are capable of building nuclear-powered
submarines—General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division of Groton, CT, and Quonset Point, RI
(GD/EB), and the shipyard at Newport News, VA, that forms part of Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding (NGSB/NN). GD/EB’s primary business is building nuclear-powered submarines; it
can also perform submarine overhaul work. NGSB/NN’s primary lines of business are building
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, building nuclear-powered submarines, and performing overhaul
work on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.
Table 5 shows the numbers of SSBNs built over time by GD/EB, NGSB/NN, and two
government-operated naval shipyards (NSYs)—Mare Island NSY, located in the San Francisco
Bay area, and Portsmouth NSY of Portsmouth, NH, and Kittery, ME. Mare Island NSY is no
longer in operation. NSYs have not built new Navy ships since the early 1970s; since that time,
they have focused solely on overhauling and repairing Navy ships.
Congressional Research Service
29

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

As can be seen in the table, the Ohio-class boats were all built by GD/EB, and the three previous
SSBN classes were built partly by GD/EB, and partly by NGSB/NN. GD/EB was the builder of
the first boat in all four SSBN classes. The most recent SSBNs built by NGSB/NN were the
George C. Marshall (SSBN-654) and George Washington Carver (SSBN-656), which were
Lafayette/Benjamin Franklin-class boats that were procured in FY1964 and entered service in
1966.
Table 5. Construction Shipyards of U.S. SSBNs
George
Lafayette/
Washington
Ethan Allen
Benjamin
Ohio
(SSBN-598)
(SSBN-608)
Franklin (SSBN-
(SSBN-726)

class
class
616/640) class
class
Fiscal years procured
FY58-FY59
FY59 and FY61
FY61-FY64
FY77-FY91
Number built by GD/EB
2
2
13
18
Number built by NGSB/NN
1
3
10

Number built by Mare Island NSY
1

6

Number built by Portsmouth NSY
1

2

Total number in class
5
5
31
18
Source: Prepared by CRS based on data in Norman Polmar, The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, Annapolis,
Naval Institute Press, various editions. NSY means naval shipyard.
Notes: GD/EB was the builder of the first boat in all four SSBN classes. The George Washington-class boats
were procured as modifications of SSNs that were already under construction. A total of 18 Ohio-class SSBNs
were built; the first four were converted into SSGNs in 2002-2008, leaving 14 in service as SSBNs.
There are five basic possibilities for building SSBN(X)s:
build all SSBN(X)s at GD/EB—the approach that was used for building the
Ohio-class SSBNs;
build all SSBN(X)s at NGSB/NN;
build some SSBN(X)s GD/EB and some at NGSB/NN—the approach that was
used for building the George Washington-, Ethan Allen-, and Lafayette/Benjamin
Franklin-class SSBNs;
build each SSBN(X) jointly at GD/EB and NGSB/NN, with final assembly of
the boats alternating between the yards—the approach currently being used
for building Virginia-class SSNs;79 and

79 Under the joint-production arrangement for Virginia-class boats, GD/EB builds certain parts of each boat, NGSB/NN
builds certain other parts of each boat, and the two yards take turns building the reactor compartment and performing
final assembly work. GD/EB is the final assembly yard for the first Virginia-class boat, the third one, and so on, while
NGSB/NN is the final assembly yard for the second boat, the fourth one, and so on. The arrangement provides a
roughly 50-50 split in profits between the two firms for the production of Virginia-class SSNs. The agreement
governing the joint-production arrangement cannot be changed without the consent of both firms. Virginia-class SSNs
are the first U.S. nuclear-powered submarines to be built jointly by two shipyards; all previous U.S. nuclear-powered
submarines were built under the more traditional approach of building an entire boat within a single yard.
The Virginia-class joint-production arrangement was proposed by the two shipyards, approved by the Navy, and then
approved by Congress as part of its action on the FY1998 defense budget. A principal goal of the arrangement is to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

build each SSBN(X) jointly at GD/EB and NGSB/NN, with one yard—either
GD/EB or NGSB/NN—performing final assembly on every boat.
In assessing these five approaches, policymakers may consider a number of factors, including
their potential costs, their potential impacts on employment levels at GD/EB and NGSB/NN, and
the relative value of preserving SSBN-unique construction skills (such as those relating to the
construction and installation of SLBM compartments) at one shipyard or two. The relative costs
of these five approaches could depend on a number of factors, including the following:
• each yard’s share of SSBN(X) production work (if both yards are involved);
• the number of SSNs procured during the years of SSBN(X);
• whether the current joint-production arrangement for the Virginia class remains
in effect during those years (if the SSNs procured are Virginia-class boats);80 and
• the volume of non-submarine-construction work performed at the two shipyards
during these years, which would include in particular aircraft carrier construction
and overhaul work at NGSB/NN.
Building CMCs for the UK’s SSBNs
A related question is whether the CMCs for the UK’s replacement SSBNs should be built in the
United States or the UK. Building them in the United States could reduce the procurement cost of
CMCs produced for both countries’ SSBNs. It could also help maintain employment levels in
U.S. shipyards. The UK, however, might prefer to build its CMCs in the UK in order to help
maintain employment levels in UK shipyards or to preserve certain submarine-construction skills.
An agreement to build the UK’s CMCs in the United States might include what is known as an
“offset”—a corresponding agreement to have the UK build some portion of a defense item that is
being procured for use by the U.S. military.
Options for Congress
FY2011 options for Congress include but are not limited to the following:

(...continued)
preserve submarine-construction skills at two U.S. shipyards while minimizing the cost of using two yards to build a
class of submarines that is procured at a relatively low rate of one or two boats per year. Preserving submarine-
construction skills at two yards is viewed as a hedge against the possibility of operations at one of the yards being
disrupted by a natural or man-made disaster.
The joint-production arrangement is more expensive than single-yard strategy of building all Virginia-class boats at one
shipyard (in part because the joint-production strategy splits the learning curve for reactor compartment construction
and final assembly work on Virginia-class SSNs), but it is less expensive than a separate-yard strategy of building
complete Virginia-class separately at both yards (in part because a separate-construction strategy splits the learning
curve for all aspects of Virginia-class construction work, and because, in the absence of other submarine-construction
work, a procurement rate of one or two Virginia-class boats per year is viewed as insufficient to sustain a meaningful
competition between the two yards for contracts to build the boats).
80 The agreement governing the joint-production arrangement for the Virginia class cannot be changed without the
consent of both yards.
Congressional Research Service
31

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

• approving, rejecting, or modifying the Navy’s FY2011 funding request for the
program;
• withholding approval of, or limiting the obligation or expenditure of, SSBN(X)
funds until the Navy makes the SSBN(X) AOA available to Congress and its
three technical support agencies (GAO, CBO, and CRS); and
• providing additional direction to the Navy or DOD concerning the SSBN(X)
program.
Legislative Activity for FY2011
FY2011 Funding Request
The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget was submitted to Congress on February 1, 2010. The
budget requests $672.3 million in research and development funding for the SSBN(X) program
(see Table 3).
FY2011 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5136/S. 3454)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-491 of May 21, 2010) on the
FY2011 defense authorization bill (H.R. 5136), recommends approval of the Navy’s FY2011
research and development funding request for the SSBN(X) program (page 147, line 41, and page
148, line 45). Section 211(c) of H.R. 5136 as reported by committee would limit the obligation
and expenditure of FY2011 Navy research and development funding for the SSBN(X) until 30
days after the Navy submits a report on the SSBN(X) program. Section 211 states:
SEC. 211. REPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT PROGRAM OF THE
OHIO-CLASS BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The sea-based strategic deterrence provided by the ballistic missile submarine force of
the Navy has been essential to the national security of the United States since the deployment
of the first ballistic missile submarine, the USS George Washington SSBN 598, in 1960.
(2) Since 1960, a total of 59 submarines have served the United States to provide the sea-
based strategic deterrence.
(3) As of the date of the enactment of this Act, the sea-based strategic deterrence is provided
by the tremendous capability of the 14 ships of the Ohio-class submarine force, which have
been the primary sea-based deterrent force for more than two decades.
(4) Ballistic missile submarines are the most survivable asset in the arsenal of the United
States in the event of a surprise nuclear attack on the country because, being submerged for
months at a time, these submarines are virtually undetectable to any adversary and therefore
invulnerable to attack, thus providing the submarines with the ability to respond with
significant force against any adversary who attacks the United States or its allies.
Congressional Research Service
32

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) as Ohio-class submarines reach the end of their service life and are retired, the United
States must maintain the robust sea-based strategic deterrent force that has the ability to
remain undetected by potential adversaries and must have the capability to deliver a
retaliatory strike of such magnitude that no rational actor would dare attack the United
States;
(2) the Secretary of Defense should conduct a comprehensive analysis of the alternative
capabilities to provide the sea-based strategic deterrence that includes consideration of
different types and sizes of submarines, different types and sizes of missile systems, the
number of submarines necessary to provide such deterrence, and the cost of each alternative;
and
(3) prior to requesting more than $1,000,000,000 in research and development funding to
develop a replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine force in advance of a
Milestone A decision, the Secretary of Defense should have made available to Congress the
guidance issued by the Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation with
respect to the analysis of alternative capabilities and the results of such analysis.
(c) Limitation-
(1) REPORT- Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2011 for research and development for the Navy, not more than 50
percent may be obligated or expended to research or develop a submarine as a replacement
for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine force unless—
(A) the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a report
including—
(i) guidance issued by the Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation with
respect to the analysis of alternative capabilities to provide the sea-based strategic deterrence
currently provided by the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine force and any other
guidance relating to requirements for such alternatives intended to affect the analysis;
(ii) an analysis of the alternative capabilities considered by the Secretary to continue the sea-
based strategic deterrence currently provided by the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
force, including—
(I) the cost estimates for each alternative capability;
(II) the operational challenges and benefits associated with each alternative capability; and
(III) the time needed to develop and deploy each alternative capability; and
(iii) detailed reasoning associated with the decision to replace the capability of sea-based
deterrence provided by the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine force with an alternative
capability designed to carry the Trident II D5 missile; and
(B) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which the report under subparagraph (A)
is submitted.
(2) FORM- The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but
may include a classified annex.
Congressional Research Service
33

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress

The report states:
Ohio-class replacement program
The committee strongly supports a robust sea-based strategic deterrent force. The current 14
ships of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are a national treasure and have helped
keep the nation safe for over two decades. Like the ballistic missile submarine classes that
preceded them, a percentage of these vessels remain in an alert posture, at sea, invulnerable
to attack by potential enemies, ready to retaliate should the nation be attacked. The
committee supports efforts to retain this capability into the future.
However, the committee has questions concerning the current program to replace the Ohio-
class ships. First, the basic requirement of how much and what type of deterrent capability is
sufficient for the national military strategy has not been communicated to the committee.
Second, the committee has not been afforded the opportunity to review the analysis of
alternatives conducted by the Navy, which determined that a submarine large enough to
support the Trident II D5 missile weapons system is the preferred vessel to continue
deterrent capability. Third, the committee has concerns that the decision to proceed with a
submarine program of similar size as the Ohio-class ships was made prior to the analysis of
alternatives, and that a potential use of a modified Virginia-class submarine, in production
today, was discounted in favor of maintaining the Trident II D5 weapons system. Because of
these concerns, elsewhere in this Act the committee will authorize, but withhold authority to
obligate more than 50 percent of the funds requested for development of this program until
the Secretary of Defense certifies to the committee of the necessity to continue sea-based
deterrence with the Trident II D5 weapons system. (Pages 77-78)
Senate
The FY2011 defense authorization bill (S. 3454), as reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee (S.Rept. 111-201 of June 4, 2010), recommends approval of the Navy’s FY2011
research and development funding request for the SSBN(X) program (page 732, lines 41 and 45
of the printed bill). (The bill as reported recommends three funding additions to PE 0603561N
[line 41], but these additions do not appear specific to the SSBN(X) program. See pages 62-64 of
the committee’s report for discussions of these three recommended additions.)
The committee’s report states:
The committee notes that the current shipbuilding plan includes the cost of the SSBN (X)
program and the committee encourages the Navy to closely scrutinize requirements for this
program in order to minimize its impact on the recapitalization of the Navy’s battle force.
(Page 40)
The committee’s report also states:
Strike study
The budget request included $81.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Navy, PE 11221N line 162 for strategic submarine and weapons systems support. The
committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million. Of the amount requested $10.0 million
was for a study for ambiguity and other issues that associated with conventional and nuclear
payloads on strategic ballistic missile submarines. The committee recommends no funds for
the study. The committee notes that the National Academy of Sciences conducted an
extensive study on this issue and the additional study would be redundant. (Page 71)
Congressional Research Service
34

Navy SSBN(X) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress


Author Contact Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610


Congressional Research Service
35