Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic
Missile Submarine Program: Background and
Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
September 23, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41129
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Summary
The Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests $1,390.7 million for continued research and
development work on the Ohio replacement program (ORP), a program to design and build a new
class of 12 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to replace the Navy’s current force of 14 Ohio-
class SSBNs. The Ohio replacement program is also known as the SSBN(X) program. The Navy
wants to procure the first Ohio replacement boat in FY2021, with advance procurement (AP)
funding starting in FY2017. The Navy has identified the Ohio replacement program as its top
priority program.
A March 2015 GAO report assessing selected major DOD weapon acquisition programs states
that the estimated total acquisition cost of the SSBN(X) program is about $95.8 billion in constant
FY2015 dollars, including about $11.8 billion in research and development costs and about $84.0
billion in procurement costs.
The Navy as of February 2015 estimates the procurement cost of the lead boat in the program at
$14.5 billion in then-year dollars, including $5.7 billion in detailed design and nonrecurring
engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the entire class, and $8.8 billion in construction costs for the
ship itself. (It is a traditional budgeting practice for Navy shipbuilding programs to attach the
DD/NRE costs for a new class of ships to the procurement cost of the lead ship in the class.) In
constant FY2010 dollars, these figures become $10.4 billion, including $4.2 billion in DD/NRE
costs and $6.2 billion in construction costs for the ship itself. The Navy in January 2015 estimated
the average procurement cost of boats 2 through 12 in the Ohio replacement program at about
$5.2 billion each in FY2010 dollars, and is working to reduce that figure to a target of $4.9 billion
each in FY2010 dollars. Even with this cost-reduction effort, observers are concerned about the
impact the Ohio replacement program will have on the Navy’s ability to procure other types of
ships at desired rates in the 2020s and early 2030s.
Potential oversight issues for Congress for the Ohio replacement program include the following:
the likelihood that the Navy will be able to reduce the average procurement cost
of boats 2 through 12 in the program to the target figure of $4.9 billion each in
FY2010 dollars;
the accuracy of the Navy’s estimate of the procurement cost of each SSBN(X);
the prospective affordability of the Ohio replacement program and its potential
impact on funding available for other Navy shipbuilding programs; and
the question of which shipyard or shipyards will build SSBN(X)s.
This report focuses on the Ohio replacement program 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 Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Strategic and Budgetary Context............................................................................................... 1
U.S. Navy SSBNs in General .................................................................................................... 1
Mission of SSBNs ............................................................................................................... 1
Current Ohio-Class SSBNs ................................................................................................. 2
Summary of U.S. SSBN Designs ........................................................................................ 4
U.S.-UK Cooperation on SLBMs and the New UK SSBN ................................................ 6
Ohio Replacement Program ...................................................................................................... 8
Program Origin and Early Milestones ................................................................................ 8
Planned Procurement Quantity: 12 SSBN(X)s to Replace 14 Ohio-Class Boats ............. 10
Procurement and Replacement Schedule .......................................................................... 10
SSBN(X) Design Features ................................................................................................ 12
Acquisition Cost ............................................................................................................... 14
Operation and Support (O&S) Cost .................................................................................. 15
Common Missile Compartment (CMC) ........................................................................... 15
Program Funding .............................................................................................................. 16
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 17
Likelihood That Navy Will Reach $4.9 Billion Target Cost ................................................... 17
Accuracy of Navy’s Estimated Unit Procurement Cost .......................................................... 17
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 17
December 2014 CBO Report ............................................................................................ 18
Program Affordability and Impact on Other Navy Shipbuilding Programs ............................ 19
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 19
Ohio Replacement Program Is Navy’s Top Priority Program ........................................... 20
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund ............................................................................... 21
Some Options for Further Addressing the Issue ............................................................... 25
Construction Shipyard(s) ........................................................................................................ 29
Legislative Activity for FY2016 .................................................................................................... 31
FY2016 Funding Request ....................................................................................................... 31
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376) ........................................ 31
House (Committee Report) ............................................................................................... 31
House (Floor Action) ........................................................................................................ 35
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 36
FY2016 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2685/S. 1558) ......................................................... 37
House (Committee Report) ............................................................................................... 37
House (Floor Action) ........................................................................................................ 38
Senate ................................................................................................................................ 38
Figures
Figure 1. Ohio (SSBN-726) Class SSBN ........................................................................................ 4
Congressional Research Service
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Tables
Table 1. U.S. SSBN Classes ............................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. Navy Schedule for Procuring SSBN(X)s and Replacing Ohio-Class SSBNs ................. 12
Table 3. Ohio Replacement Program Funding .............................................................................. 16
Table 4. Navy SSBN(X) Procurement Schedule and a Notional Alternative Schedule ................ 27
Table 5. Construction Shipyards of U.S. SSBNs ........................................................................... 29
Appendixes
Appendix A. June 2013 Navy Blog Post Regarding Ohio Replacement Options ......................... 40
Appendix B. Earlier Oversight Issue: A Design with 16 vs. 20 SLBM Tubes .............................. 42
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 47
Congressional Research Service
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Introduction
This report provides background information and potential oversight issues for Congress on the
Ohio replacement program (ORP), a program to design and build a new class of 12 ballistic
missile submarines (SSBNs) to replace the Navy’s current force of 14 Ohio-class SSBNs. The
Ohio replacement program is also known as the SSBN(X) program. The Navy wants to procure
the first Ohio replacement boat in FY2021, with advance procurement (AP) funding starting in
FY2017. The Navy has identified the Ohio replacement program as its top priority program.
The Navy’s proposed FY2015 budget requests $1,390.7 million for continued research and
development work on the Ohio replacement program. Decisions that Congress makes on the Ohio
replacement program could substantially affect U.S. military capabilities and funding
requirements, and the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base.
This report focuses on the Ohio replacement program 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.1
Background
Strategic and Budgetary Context
For an overview of the strategic and budgetary context in which this and other Navy shipbuilding
programs may be considered, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding
Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
U.S. Navy SSBNs in General
Mission of 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).2 The SSNs and SSGNs are multi-mission ships that perform a variety of
peacetime and wartime missions.3 They do not carry nuclear weapons.4
1 CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues, by Amy F. Woolf.
2 In the designations SSN, SSGN, SSBN, and SSBN(X), the SS stands for submarine, N stands for nuclear-powered
(meaning the ship is powered by a nuclear reactor), G stands for guided missile (such as a cruise missile), B stands for
ballistic missile, and (X) means the design of the ship has not yet been determined.
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.
3 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
The SSBNs, in contrast, perform a specialized mission of strategic nuclear deterrence. To perform
this mission, SSBNs are armed with submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which are
large, long-range missiles armed with multiple nuclear warheads. SSBNs launch their SLBMs
from large-diameter vertical launch tubes located in the middle section of the boat.5 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, which are sometimes referred to informally as “boomers,”6 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 FY2011 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.”7 The
Department of Defense’s (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.”8
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 approximately 19-
year periods of operation separated by an approximately four-year mid-life nuclear refueling
(...continued)
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.
4 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 United States will retire the TLAM-Ns. (Department
of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, pp. xiii and 28.)
5 SSBNs, like other Navy submarines, are also equipped with horizontal torpedo tubes in the bow for firing torpedoes
or other torpedo-sized weapons.
6 This informal name is a reference to the large boom that would be made by the detonation of an SLBM nuclear
warhead.
7 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011, February
2010, p. 15.
8 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.”
Congressional Research Service
2
link to page 8 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
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.
Ohio-class SSBNs are designed to each carry 24 SLBMs, although by 2018, four SLBM launch
tubes on each boat are to be deactivated, and the number of SLBMs that can be carried by each
boat consequently is to be reduced to 20, so that the number of operational launchers and
warheads in the U.S. force will comply with strategic nuclear arms control limits.
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 2002-2008,9 and the 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 refurbish and extend the service lives of D-5 SLBMs to 2042
“to match the OHIO Class submarine service life.”10
Figure 1 shows an Ohio-class SSBN with the hatches to some of its SLBM launch tubes open.
9 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.
10 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.
Congressional Research Service
3
link to page 9 
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Figure 1. Ohio (SSBN-726) Class SSBN
With the hatches to some of its SLBM launch tubes open
Source: U.S. Navy file photo accessed by CRS on February 24, 2011, at http://www.navy.mil/management/
photodb/photos/101029-N-1325N-005.jpg.
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. 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.11 In part for these reasons, the Ohio-class design, with a submerged displacement of
18,750 tons, is more than twice the size of earlier U.S. SSBNs.
11 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 Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
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/FY1977 -
procured
FY1991
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 SLBM
16
16
16
24 (to be reduced to
launch tubes
20 by 2018)
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 hul s, beam is the
diameter of the hul .
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. Although Ohio-class SSBNs are
designed to each carry 24 SLBMs, by 2018, four SLBM launch tubes on each boat are to be deactivated, and the
number of SLBMs that can be carried by each boat consequently is to be reduced to 20, so that the number of
operational launchers and warheads in the U.S. force wil comply with strategic nuclear arms control limits.
Congressional Research Service
5
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
U.S.-UK Cooperation on SLBMs and the New UK SSBN
SSBNs are also operated by the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and India. The UK’s
four Vanguard-class SSBNs, which entered service in 1993-1999, each carry 16 Trident II D-5
SLBMs. Previous classes of UK SSBNs similarly carried earlier-generation U.S. SLBMs.12 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.13 The Navy testified in March 2010 that
12 Although the SLBMs on UK SSBNs are U.S.-made, the nuclear warheads on the missiles are of UK design and
manufacture.
13 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; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/
cmselect/cmfaff/114/11402.htm; paragraphs 131-135 are included in the section of the report
available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/114/11406.htm.)
See also “U.K. Stays Silent on Nuclear-Arms Pact Extension with United States,” Global Security Newswire
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
link to page 19 link to page 19 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
“the United States and the 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.”14
The first Vanguard-class SSBN was originally projected to reach the end of its service life in
2024, but an October 2010 UK defense and security review report states that the lives of the
Vanguard class ships will now be extended by a few years, so that the four boats will remain in
service into the late 2020s and early 2030s.15
The UK plans to replace the four Vanguard-class boats with three or four next-generation SSBNs
called Successor class SSBNs. The October 2010 UK defense and security review report states
that each new Successor class SSBN is to be equipped with 8 D-5 SLBMs, rather than 12 as
previously planned. The report states that “‘Initial Gate’—a decision to move ahead with early
stages of the work involved—will be approved and the next phase of the project will start by the
end of [2010]. ‘Main Gate’—the decision to start building the submarines—is required around
2016.”16 The first new boat is to be delivered by 2028, or about four years later than previously
planned.17
The UK has wanted the Successor SSBNs to carry D-5 SLBMs, and for any successor to the D-5
SLBM to be compatible with, or be capable of being made compatible with, the D-5 launch
system. 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.
The United States is assisting the UK with certain aspects of the Successor SSBN program. In
addition to the modular Common Missile Compartment (CMC) discussed below (see “Common
Missile Compartment (CMC)” in the following section on the Ohio replacement program), the
United States is assisting the UK with the new PWR-3 reactor plant18 to be used by the Successor
SSBN. A December 2011 press report states that “there has been strong [UK] collaboration with
the US [on the Successor program], particularly with regard to the CMC, the PWR, and other
propulsion technology,” and that the design concept selected for the Successor class employs “a
(...continued)
(www.nti.org/gsn), July 30, 2014.
14 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.
15 Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, Presented to Parliament by
the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty, October 2010, p. 39.
16 Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, Presented to Parliament by
the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty, October 2010, pp. 5, 38-39. For more on the UK’s Successor SSBN
program as it existed prior to the October 2010 UK defense and security review report, see Richard Scott, “Deterrence
At A Discount?” Jane’s Defence Weekly, December 23, 2009: 26-31.
17 Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, Presented to Parliament by
the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty, October 2010, p. 39.
18 PWR3 means pressurized water reactor, design number 3. U.S. and UK nuclear-powered submarines employ
pressurized water reactors. Earlier UK nuclear-powered submarines are powered by reactor designs that the UK
designated PWR-2 and PWR-1. For an article discussing the PWR3 plant, see Richard Scott, “Critical Mass: Re-
Energising the UK’s Naval Nuclear Programme,” Jane’s International Defence Review, July 2014: 42-45, 47.
Congressional Research Service
7
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
new propulsion plant based on a US design, but using next-generation UK reactor technology
(PWR-3) and modern secondary propulsion systems.”19 The U.S. Navy states that
Naval Reactors, a joint Department of Energy/Department of Navy organization
responsible for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion, has an ongoing technical
exchange with the UK Ministry of Defence under the US/UK 1958 Mutual Defence
Agreement. The US/UK 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement is a Government to
Government Atomic Energy Act agreement that allows the exchange of naval nuclear
propulsion technology between the US and UK.
Under this agreement, Naval Reactors is providing the UK Ministry of Defence with US
naval nuclear propulsion technology to facilitate development of the naval nuclear
propulsion plant for the UK’s next generation SUCCESSOR ballistic missile submarine.
The technology exchange is managed and led by the US and UK Governments, with
participation from Naval Reactors prime contractors, private nuclear capable
shipbuilders, and several suppliers. A UK based office comprised of about 40 US
personnel provide full-time engineering support for the exchange, with additional support
from key US suppliers and other US based program personnel as needed.
The relationship between the US and UK under the 1958 mutual defence agreement is an
ongoing relationship and the level of support varies depending on the nature of the
support being provided. Naval Reactors work supporting the SUCCESSOR submarine is
reimbursed by the UK Ministry of Defence.20
U.S. assistance to the UK on naval nuclear propulsion technology first occurred many years ago:
To help jumpstart the UK’s nuclear-powered submarine program, the United States transferred to
the UK a complete nuclear propulsion plant (plus technical data, spares, and training) of the kind
installed on the U.S. Navy’s six Skipjack (SSN-585) class nuclear-powered attack submarines
(SSNs), which entered service between 1959 and 1961. The plant was installed on the UK Navy’s
first nuclear-powered ship, the attack submarine Dreadnought, which entered service in 1963.
The December 2011 press report states that “the UK is also looking at other areas of cooperation
between Successor and the Ohio Replacement Programme. For example, a collaboration
agreement has been signed off regarding the platform integration of sonar arrays with the
respective combat systems.”21
Ohio Replacement Program
Program Origin and Early Milestones
Although the eventual need to replace the Ohio-class SSBNs has been known for many years, the
Ohio replacement 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
19 Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Strategic Assets: Deterrent Plans Confront Cost Challenges,” Jane’s Navy
International, December 2011: 17 and 18.
20 Source: Email to CRS from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, June 25, 2012. See also Jon Rosamond, “Next
Generation U.K. Boomers Benefit from U.S. Relationship,” USNI News (http://news.usni.org), December 17, 2014.
21 Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Strategic Assets: Deterrent Plans Confront Cost Challenges,” Jane’s Navy
International, December 2011: 19. See also Jake Wallis Simons, “Brits Keep Mum on US Involvement in Trident
Nuclear Program,” Politico, April 30, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
8
link to page 44 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
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).22 The studies used the term sea-based
strategic deterrent (SBSD) 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 200823 and
approved by DOD’s Joint Requirements Oversight Committee (JROC) on June 20, 2008.24 In July
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.25 The Navy
established an Ohio replacement program office at about this same time.26
The AOA reportedly began in the summer or fall of 2008.27 The AOA was completed, with final
brief to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), on May 20, 2009. The final AOA report
was completed in September 2009. An AOA Sufficiency Review Letter was signed by OSD’s
Director, Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation (CAPE) on December 8, 2009.28 The AOA
concluded that a new-design SSBN was the best option for replacing the Ohio-class SSBNs. (For
a June 26, 2013, Navy blog post discussing options that were examined for replacing the Ohio-
class SSBNs, see Appendix A.)
The program’s Milestone A review meeting was held on December 9, 2010. On February 3, 2011,
the Navy provided the following statement to CRS concerning the outcome of the December 9
meeting:
The OHIO Replacement Program achieved Milestone A and has been approved to enter
the Technology Development Phase of the Dept. of Defense Life Cycle Management
System as of Jan. 10, 2011.
This milestone comes following the endorsement of the Defense Acquisition Board
(DAB), chaired by Dr. Carter (USD for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) who has
signed the program’s Milestone A Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM).
The DAB endorsed replacing the current 14 Ohio-class Ballistic Missile Submarines
(SSBNs) as they reach the end of their service life with 12 Ohio Replacement
Submarines, each comprising 16, 87-inch diameter missile tubes utilizing TRIDENT II
22 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.)
23 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 CBO on July 7, 2008.)
24 Navy briefing to CRS and CBO on the SBSD program, July 6, 2009.
25 Navy briefing to CRS and CBO on the SBSD program, July 6, 2009.
26 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.
27 “Going Ballistic,” Defense Daily, September 22, 2008, p. 1.
28 Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Budget Estimates, Navy, Justification Book Volume 2, Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy Budget Activity 4, entry for PE0603561N, Project 3220 (pdf page 345 of 888).
Congressional Research Service
9
link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
D5 Life Extended missiles (initial loadout). The decision came after the program was
presented to the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) on Dec. 9, 2010.
The ADM validates the program’s Technology Development Strategy and allows entry
into the Technology Development Phase during which warfighting requirements will be
refined to meet operational and affordability goals. Design, prototyping, and technology
development efforts will continue to ensure sufficient technological maturity for lead ship
procurement in 2019.29
Planned Procurement Quantity: 12 SSBN(X)s to Replace 14 Ohio-Class Boats
Navy plans call for procuring 12 SSBN(X)s to replace the current force of 14 Ohio-class SSBNs.
In explaining the planned procurement quantity of 12 boats, the Navy states that 10 operational
SSBNs—meaning boats not encumbered by lengthy maintenance actions—are needed to meet
strategic nuclear deterrence requirements for having a certain number of SSBNs at sea at any
given moment. The Navy states that a force of 14 Ohio-class boats was needed to meet this
requirement because, during the middle years of the Ohio class life cycle, three and sometimes
four of the boats are non-operational at any given moment on account of being in the midst of
lengthy mid-life nuclear refueling overhauls or other extended maintenance actions. The Navy
states that 12 rather than 14 SSBN(X)s will be needed to meet the requirement for 10 operational
boats because the mid-life overhauls of SSBN(X)s, which will not include a nuclear refueling,
will require less time (about two years) than the mid-life refueling overhauls of Ohio-class boats
(which require about four years from contract award to delivery),30 the result being that only two
SSBN(X)s (rather than three or sometimes four) will be in the midst of mid-life overhauls or
other extended maintenance actions at any given moment during the middle years of the
SSBN(X) class life cycle.31
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 Table 2, under the Navy’s FY2012 budget,
the first Ohio replacement boat was scheduled to be procured in FY2019, and Ohio replacement
boats were to enter service on a schedule that would maintain the Navy’s SSBN force at 12 boats.
As also shown in Table 2, the Navy’s FY2013 budget deferred the procurement of the first Ohio
replacement boat by two years, to FY2021. As a result of the deferment of the procurement of the
lead boat from FY2019 to FY2021, the Navy’s SSBN force will drop to 11 or 10 boats for the
period FY2029-FY2041. The Navy states that the reduction to 11 or 10 boats during this period is
acceptable in terms of meeting strategic nuclear deterrence requirements, because during these
years, all 11 or 10 of the SSBNs in service will be operational (i.e., none of them will be in the
midst of a lengthy mid-life overhaul). The Navy acknowledges that there is some risk in having
the SSBN force drop to 11 or 10 boats, because it provides little margin for absorbing an
unforeseen event that might force an SSBN into an unscheduled and lengthy maintenance
29 Source: Email from Navy Office of Legislative Affairs to CRS, February 3, 2011.
30 Navy budget submissions show that Ohio-class mid-life nuclear refueling overhauls have contract-award-to-delivery
periods generally ranging from 47 months to 50 months.
31 Source: Navy update briefing on Ohio replacement program to CRS and CBO, September 17, 2012. See also “Navy
Responds to Debate Over the Size of the SSBN Force,” Navy Live, May 16, 2013, accessed July 26, 2013, at
http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/05/16/navy-responds-to-debate-over-the-size-of-the-ssbn-force/, and Richard
Breckenridge, “SSBN Force Level Requirements: It’s Simply a Matter of Geography,” Navy Live, July 19, 2013,
accessed July 26, 2013, at http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/07/19/ssbn-force-level-requirements-its-simply-a-matter-of-
geography/.
Congressional Research Service
10
link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 16 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
action.32 (See also the discussion above in “Planned Procurement Quantity: 12 SSBN(X)s to
Replace 14 Ohio-Class Boats.”)
The minimum level of 10 boats shown in Table 2 for the period FY2032-FY2040 can be
increased to 11 boats (providing some margin for absorbing an unforeseen event that might force
an SSBN into an unscheduled and lengthy maintenance action) by accelerating by about one year
the planned procurement dates of boats 2 through 12 in the program. Under this option, the
second boat in the program would be procured in FY2023 rather than FY2024, the third boat in
the program would be procured in FY2025 rather than FY2026, and so on. Implementing this
option could affect the Navy’s plan for funding the procurement of Virginia-class attack
submarines during the period FY2022-FY2025.33
32 Source: Navy update briefing on Ohio replacement program to CRS and CBO, September 17, 2012. A September 28,
2012, press report similarly quotes Rear Admiral Barry Bruner, the Navy’s director of undersea warfare, as stating that
“During this time frame, no major SSBN overhauls are planned, and a force of 10 SSBNs will support current at-sea
presence requirements,” and that “This provides a low margin to compensate for unforeseen issues that may result in
reduced SSBN availability. The reduced SSBN availability during this time frame reinforces the importance of
remaining on schedule with the Ohio Replacement program to meet future strategic requirements. As the Ohio
Replacement ships begin their mid-life overhauls in 2049, 12 SSBNs will be required to offset ships conducting
planned maintenance.” (Michael Fabey, U.S. Navy Defends Boomer Submarine Replacement Plans,” Aerospace Daily
& Defense Report, September 28, 2012: 3.)
33 For more on the Virginia-class program, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack
Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
11
link to page 6 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Table 2. Navy Schedule for Procuring SSBN(X)s and Replacing Ohio-Class SSBNs
Schedule in FY2012 Budget
Schedule Under Subsequent Budgets
Combined
Combined
number of
number of
Number
Ohio-
Ohio-class
Number
Ohio-
Ohio-class
of
Cumulative
class
SSBNs
of
Cumulative
class
SSBNs
SSBN(X)s
number of
SSBNs
and
SSBN(X)s
number of
SSBNs
and
Fiscal
procured
SSBN(X)s
in
SSBN(X)s
procured
SSBN(X)s
in
SSBN(X)s
Year
each year
in service
service
in service
each year
in service
service
in service
2019
1
14
14
14
14
2020
14
14
14
14
2021
14
14
1
14
14
2022
1
14
14
14
14
2023
14
14
14
14
2024
1
14
14
1
14
14
2025
1
14
14
14
14
2026
1
14
14
1
14
14
2027
1
13
13
1
13
13
2028
1
12
13
1
12
12
2029
1
1
11
12
1
11
11
2030
1
2
10
12
1
1
10
11
2031
1
3
9
12
1
2
9
11
2032
1
4
8
12
1
2
8
10
2033
1
5
7
12
1
3
7
10
2034
6
6
12
1
4
6
10
2035
7
5
12
1
5
5
10
2036
8
4
12
6
4
10
2037
9
3
12
7
3
10
2038
10
2
12
8
2
10
2039
11
1
12
9
1
10
2040
12
12
10
0
10
2041
12
12
11
0
11
2042
12
12
12
0
12
Source: Navy FY2012-FY2015 budget submissions.
SSBN(X) Design Features
The design of the SSBN(X), now being developed, will reflect the following:
The SSBN(X) is to be designed for a 42-year expected service life.34
Unlike the Ohio-class design, which requires a mid-life nuclear refueling,35 the
SSBN(X) is to be equipped with a life-of-the-ship nuclear fuel core (a nuclear
34 Rear Admiral David Johnson, briefing to Naval Submarine League Annual Symposium [on] Expanding Undersea
Dominance, October 23, 2014, briefing slide 19.
35 As mentioned earlier (see “Current Ohio-Class SSBNs”), the Ohio-class boats receive a mid-life nuclear refueling
overhaul, called an Engineered Refueling Overhaul (ERO), which includes both a nuclear refueling and overhaul work
on the ship that is not related to the nuclear refueling.
Congressional Research Service
12
link to page 46 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
fuel core that is sufficient to power the ship for its entire expected service life).36
Although the SSBN(X) will not need a mid-life nuclear refueling, it will still
need a mid-life non-refueling overhaul (i.e., an overhaul that does not include a
nuclear refueling) to operate over its full 40-year life.
The SSBN(X) is to be equipped with an electric-drive propulsion train, as
opposed to the mechanical-drive propulsion train used on other Navy
submarines. The electric-drive system is expected to be quieter (i.e., stealthier)
than a mechanical-drive system.37
The SSBN(X) is to have SLBM launch tubes that are the same size as those on
the Ohio class (i.e., tubes with a diameter of 87 inches and a length sufficient to
accommodate a D-5 SLBM).
The SSBN(X) will have a beam (i.e., diameter)38 of 43 feet, compared to 42 feet
on the Ohio-class design,39 and a length of 560 feet, the same as that of the Ohio-
class design.40
Instead of 24 SLBM launch tubes, as on the Ohio-class design, the SSBN(X) is to
have 16 SLBM launch tubes. (For further discussion of the decision to equip the
boat with 16 tubes rather than 20, see Appendix B.)
Although the SSBN(X) is to have fewer launch tubes than the Ohio-class SSBN,
it is to be larger than the Ohio-class SSBN design, with a reported submerged
displacement of 20,815 tons (as of August 2014), compared to 18,750 tons for the
Ohio-class design.41
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.”42
In an article published in June 2012, the program manager for the Ohio replacement program
stated that “the current configuration of the Ohio replacement is an SSBN with 16 87-inch-
36 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.
37 Source: Rear Admiral David Johnson, briefing to Naval Submarine League Annual Symposium [on] Expanding
Undersea Dominance, October 23, 2014, briefing slide 19. See also the spoken testimony of Admiral Kirkland Donald,
Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors, and Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion, National Nuclear Security
Administration, at a March 30, 2011, hearing before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, as shown in the transcript of the hearing, and Dave Bishop, “What Will Follow the Ohio Class?” U.S.
Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2012: 31; and Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Strategic Assets: Deterrent Plans
Confront Cost Challenges,” Jane’s Navy International, December 2011: 16.
38 Beam is the maximum width of a ship. For Navy submarines, which have cylindrical hulls, beam is the diameter of
the hull.
39 Dave Bishop, “What Will Follow the Ohio Class?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2012: 31. (Bishop was
program manager for the Ohio replacement program.) See also Sam LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Strategic Assets:
Deterrent Plans Confront Cost Challenges,” Jane’s Navy International, December 2011: 15 and 16.
40 Sydney J. Freedberg, “Navy Seeks Sub Replacement Savings: From NASA Rocket Boosters To Reused Access
Doors,” Breaking Defense (http://breakingdefense.com), April 7, 2014.
41 Navy information paper on Ohio replacement program dated August 11, 2014, provided to CBO and CRS on August
11, 2014.
42 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 24. See also Mike McCarthy, “Navy Striving To Reduce Detectability Of Next Boomers,” Defense
Daily, February 6, 2015: 1.
Congressional Research Service
13
link to page 12 link to page 12 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
diameter missile tubes, a 43-foot-diamater hull, electric-drive propulsion, [an] X-stern,43
accommodations for 155 personnel, and a common submarine radio room44 tailored to the SSBN
mission.”45
Acquisition Cost
A March 2015 GAO report assessing selected major DOD weapon acquisition programs states
that the estimated total acquisition cost of the SSBN(X) program is $95,775.7 million (about
$95.8 billion) in constant FY2015 dollars, including $11,801 million (about $11.8 billion) in
research and development costs and $83,974.7 million (about $84.0 billion) in procurement
costs.46
The Navy as of February 2015 estimates the procurement cost of the lead boat in the program at
$14.5 billion in then-year dollars, including $5.7 billion in detailed design and nonrecurring
engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the entire class, and $8.8 billion in construction costs for the
ship itself. (It is a traditional budgeting practice for Navy shipbuilding programs to attach the
DD/NRE costs for a new class of ships to the procurement cost of the lead ship in the class.) In
constant FY2010 dollars, these figures become $10.4 billion, including $4.2 billion in DD/NRE
costs and $6.2 billion in construction costs for the ship itself.47
The Navy in February 2010 preliminarily estimated the procurement cost of each Ohio
replacement boat at $6 billion to $7 billion in FY2010 dollars.48 Following the Ohio replacement
program’s December 9, 2010, Milestone A acquisition review meeting (see “Program Origin and
Early Milestones”), DOD issued an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) that, among
other things, established a target average unit procurement cost for boats 2 through 12 in the
program of $4.9 billion in constant FY2010 dollars.49 The Navy is working to achieve this target
cost. In January 2015, the Navy stated that its cost-reduction efforts had reduced the estimated
43 The term X-stern means that the steering and diving fins at the stern of the ship are, when viewed from the rear, in
the diagonal pattern of the letter X, rather than the vertical-and horizontal pattern of a plus sign (which is referred to as
a cruciform stern).
44 The common submarine radio room is a standardized (i.e., common) suite of submarine radio room equipment that is
being installed on other U.S. Navy submarines.
45 Dave Bishop, “What Will Follow the Ohio Class?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2012: 31. See also Sam
LaGrone and Richard Scott, “Strategic Assets: Deterrent Plans Confront Cost Challenges,” Jane’s Navy International,
December 2011: 15 and 16. The X-stern is also shown in Rear Admiral David Johnson, briefing to Naval Submarine
League Annual Symposium [on] Expanding Undersea Dominance, October 23, 2014, briefing slide 19.
46 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, GAO-15-
342SP, March 2015, p. 148.
47 Source: Navy information paper dated February 3, 2015, provided to CRS and CBO on February 24, 2015. See also
Statement of the Honorable Sean J. Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and
Acquisition) and Vice Admiral Joseph P. Mulloy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Integration of Capabilities and
Resources and Lieutenant General Kenneth J. Glueck, Jr., Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration
& Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Before the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces of the House Armed Services Committee on Department of the Navy Seapower and Projection
Forces Capabilities, February 25, 2015, p. 7.
48 U.S. Navy, Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY 2011,
February 2010, p. 20.
49 Christopher J. Castelli, “DOD: New Nuclear Subs Will Cost $347 Billion To Acquire, Operate,” Inside the Navy,
February 21, 2011; Elaine M. Grossman, “Future U.S. Nuclear-Armed Vessel to Use Attack-Submarine Technology,”
Global Security Newswire, February 24, 2011; Jason Sherman, “Navy Working To Cut $7.7 Billion From Ohio
Replacement Program,” Inside the Navy, February 28, 2011. See also Christopher J. Castelli, “DOD Puts ‘Should-Cost’
Pressure On Major Weapons Programs,” Inside the Navy, May 2, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
14
link to page 10 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
average unit procurement cost of boats 2 through 12 to about $5.2 billion each in constant
FY2010 dollars.50 The Navy continues examining potential further measures to bring the cost of
boats 2 through 12 closer to the $4.9 billion target cost.
The above cost figures do not include costs for refurbishing D-5 SLBMs so as to extend their
service lives to 2042.
Operation and Support (O&S) Cost
The Navy is working to reduce the estimated operation and support (O&S) cost of each SSBN(X)
from $124 million per year to $110 million per year in constant FY2010 dollars.51
Common Missile Compartment (CMC)
Current U.S. and UK plans call for the SSBN(X) and the UK’s Successor SSBN to use a missile
compartment—the middle section of the boat with the SLBM launch tubes—of the same general
design.52 As mentioned earlier (see “U.S.-UK Cooperation on SLBMs”), the UK’s SSBN is to be
armed with eight SLBMs, or half the number to be carried by the SSBN(X). The modular design
of the CMC will accommodate this difference. Since the UK’s first Vanguard-class SSBN was
originally 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 Ohio replacement program
alone. This is the principal reason why the FY2010 budget included a substantial amount of
research and development funding for 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 Government Accountability office (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 2009.53
A March 2011 GAO report stated:
The main focus of OR [Ohio Replacement program] research and development to date
has been the CMC. The United Kingdom has provided $329 million for this effort since
fiscal year 2008. During fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the Navy had allocated about $183
million for the design and prototyping of the missile compartment.54
50 Lee Hudson, “Navy Continues Working Toward SSBN(X) Cost Target, Slashes $360M,” Inside the Navy, January
26, 2015.
51 Dave Bishop, “Two Years In And Ground Strong, The Ohio Replacement Program,” Undersea Warfare, Spring
2012: 5; Megan Eckstein, “Ohio-Replacement Sub Technology To Drop O&S Costs To $110M A Year,” Inside the
Navy, March 1, 2013.
52 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.”
53 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-10-
388SP, March 2010, p. 152.
54 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-11-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 20 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
A May 2010 press report stated 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.”55
Under the October 2010 UK defense and security review report (see “U.S.-UK Cooperation on
SLBMs”), the UK now plans to deliver its first Successor class SSBN in 2028, or about four
years later than previously planned.
Program Funding
Table 3 shows funding for the Ohio replacement 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 Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests $1,390.7 million for continued
research and development work on the program.
Table 3. Ohio Replacement Program Funding
(Millions of then-year dollars, rounded to nearest tenth; totals may not add due to rounding)
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY15
(req.)
(proj.)
(proj.
(proj.)
(proj.)
Research and development (R&D) funding
PE0603570N/Project 3219
370.0
419.3
408.1
398.7
289.0
276.7
PE0603595N/Project 3220
816.8
971.4
712.4
766.5
484.9
206.0
PE0603595N/Project 3237
36.5
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal R&D funding
1,223.3 1,390.7 1,120.5 1,165.2
773.9
482.7
Military Construction (MilCon) funding
24.3
0
0
0
0
0
Procurement funding
0
0
777.8
791.8 2,771.3 1,316.3
TOTAL
1,247.6 1,390.7 1,898.3 1,957.0 1,547.8
965.4
Source: Navy FY2016 budget submission.
Notes: PE means Program Element, that is, a research and development line item. A Program Element may
include several projects. PE0603570N/Project 3219 is SSBN(X) reactor plant project within the PE for
Advanced Nuclear Power Systems. PE0603561N/Project 3220 is Sea-Based Strategic Deterrent (SBSD)
Advanced Submarine System Development project within the PE for Ohio Replacement. PE0603595N/Project
3237 is Launch Test Facility project within the PE for Ohio Replacement. Military Construction (MilCon)
funding for FY2015 is for an Ohio replacement program launch test facility (MilCon/0805376N) ($23.985
mil ion) and Ohio Replacement Power and Propulsion Facility (MilCon/0901211N, design funds) ($0.364 mil ion).
Procurement funding shown in FY2017 through FY2020 is advance procurement funding for first SSBN(X),
which is scheduled to be procured in FY2021.
(...continued)
233SP, March 2011, p. 147.
55 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
16
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Issues for Congress
Likelihood That Navy Will Reach $4.9 Billion Target Cost
One potential oversight issue for Congress regarding the Ohio replacement program is the
likelihood that the Navy will be able to achieve DOD’s goal of reducing the average unit
procurement cost of boats 2 through 12 in the program to $4.9 billion each in FY2010 dollars. As
mentioned earlier, as of January 2015, the Navy estimated that its cost-reduction efforts had
reduced the average unit procurement cost of boats 2 through 12 to about $5.2 billion each in
FY2010 dollars, leaving another $300 million or so in cost reduction to reach the $4.9 billion
target cost.
A January 26, 2015, press report quoted Rear Admiral David Johnson, the program executive
officer for submarines, as stating that in achieving the targeted reduction in per-boat procurement
cost, “I’m confident we’ll get to the $4.9 billion number that we have [as a target], we just have to
keep working at it and we’ll need the help of Congress with multiyear authorities in how we’ll
actually fund the ships.”56
Potential oversight questions include the following:
How did DOD settle on the figure of $4.9 billion in FY2010 dollars as the target
average unit procurement cost for boats 2 through 12 in the program? On what
analysis was the selection of this figure based?
How difficult will it be for the Navy to reach this target cost? What options is the
Navy examining to achieve the additional $300 million or so in unit procurement
cost savings needed to reach it?
Would a boat costing $4.9 billion have sufficient capability to perform its
intended missions?
What, if anything, does DOD plan to do if the Navy is unable to achieve the $4.9
billion target cost figure? If $4.9 billion is the target figure, is there a
corresponding “ceiling” figure higher than $4.9 billion, above which DOD would
not permit the Ohio replacement program to proceed? If no such figure exists,
should DOD establish one?
Accuracy of Navy’s Estimated Unit Procurement Cost
Overview
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the accuracy of the Navy’s estimate of
the procurement cost of each SSBN(X). The accuracy of the Navy’s estimate is a key
consideration in assessing the potential affordability of the Ohio replacement program, including
its potential impact on the Navy’s ability to procure other kinds of ships during the years of
SSBN(X) procurement. Some of the Navy’s ship designs in recent years, such as the Gerald R.
Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carrier,57 the San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship58 and the
56 Lee Hudson, “Navy Continues Working Toward SSBN(X) Cost Target, Slashes $360M,” Inside the Navy, January
26, 2015.
57 For more on the CVN-78 program, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
17
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS),59 have proven to be substantially more expensive to build than the
Navy originally estimated.
The accuracy of the Navy’s estimate can be assessed in part by examining known procurement
costs for other recent Navy submarines—including Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines
(which are currently being procured), Seawolf (SSN-21) class attack submarines (which were
procured prior to the Virginia class), and Ohio (SSBN-726) class ballistic missile submarines—
and then adjusting these costs for the Ohio replacement program so as to account for factors such
as differences in ship displacement and design features, changes over time in submarine
technologies (which can either increase or reduce a ship’s procurement cost, depending on the
exact technologies in question), advances in design for producibility (i.e., design features that are
intended to make ships easier to build), advances in shipyard production processes (such as
modular construction), and changes in submarine production economies of scale (i.e., changes in
the total number of attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines under construction at any
one time).
The Navy’s estimated unit procurement cost for the program at any given point will reflect
assumptions on, among other things, which shipyard or shipyards will build the boats, and how
much Virginia-class construction will be taking place in the years when SSBN(X)s are being
built. Changing the Navy’s assumption about which shipyard or shipyards will build SSBN(X)s
could reduce or increase the Navy’s estimated unit procurement cost for the boats. If shipbuilding
affordability pressures result in Virginia-class boats being removed from the 30-year shipbuilding
plan during the years of SSBN(X) procurement, the resulting reduction in submarine production
economies of scale could make SSBN(X)s more expensive to build than the Navy estimates.
December 2014 CBO Report
A December 2014 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the cost of the Navy’s
shipbuilding programs stated:
The design, cost, and capabilities of the Ohio Replacement submarine class are among
the most significant uncertainties in the Navy’s and CBO’s analyses of the cost of future
shipbuilding....
The Navy currently estimates the cost of the first Ohio Replacement submarine at $12.4
billion in 2014 dollars. The estimated average cost of follow-on ships is now $6.0 billion,
which implies a total cost for 12 submarines of $79 billion, or an average of $6.6 billion
each. However, the Navy has stated an objective of reducing that $6.0 billion figure to
$5.5 billion.
The Navy’s estimate represents considerable improvement in the cost per thousand tons
of the first Ohio Replacement submarine compared with the first Virginia submarine—an
improvement that would affect costs for the entire new class of ballistic missile
submarines. The main reason for those improved costs by weight for the Ohio
Replacement is that the Navy will recycle, to the extent possible, the design, technology,
and parts used for the Virginia class. Furthermore, because ballistic missile submarines
(like the Ohio Replacements) tend to be larger and less dense ships than attack
(...continued)
58 For more on the LPD-17 program, see CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement:
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
59 For more on the LCS program, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service
18
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
submarines (like the Virginia class), they will be easier to build and therefore less
expensive on a weight basis, the Navy argues.
Yet the historical record for the lead ships of new classes of submarines in the 1970s and
1980s provides little reason to believe that ballistic missile submarines are cheaper by
weight to build than attack submarines.... The first Ohio class submarine was more
expensive to build than the lead ships of the two classes of attack submarines built during
the same period—the Los Angeles and the Improved Los Angeles (which made design
changes to the Los Angeles that included the addition of 12 vertical launch system cells).
In addition, the average costs by weight of the first 12 or 13 ships of the Ohio, Los
Angeles, and Improved Los Angeles classes were virtually identical. By the 1990s, the
costs of lead ships for submarines had grown substantially, with both the first Seawolf
submarine and first Virginia submarine costing about the same by weight—even though
the Seawolf is 20 percent larger and was built nine years earlier than the first Virginia.
Using data from the Virginia class submarine program, CBO estimates that the first Ohio
Replacement submarine will cost $13.8 billion in 2014 dollars. Estimating the cost of the
first submarine of a class with an entirely new design is particularly difficult because of
uncertainty about how much the Navy will spend on nonrecurring engineering and detail
design. All told, 12 Ohio Replacement submarines would cost $92 billion in CBO’s
estimation, or an average of $7.7 billion each—$1.1 billion more per boat than the
Navy’s estimate. That average includes the $13.8 billion estimated cost of the lead
submarine and a $7.1 billion average estimated cost for the 2nd through 12th submarines.
Research and development would cost an additional $10 billion to $15 billion, for a total
program cost of $102 billion to $107 billion, CBO estimates.
Overall, the Navy expects a 19 percent improvement in the cost-to-weight relationship of
the Ohio Replacement class compared with the first 12 of the Virginia class. CBO
estimates a 4 percent improvement, which is based in part on savings that will probably
be achieved because of projected concurrent production of the Ohio Replacement and
Virginia class submarines.60
Program Affordability and Impact on Other Navy
Shipbuilding Programs
Overview
Another oversight issue for Congress concerns the prospective affordability of the Ohio
replacement program and its potential impact on funding available for other Navy shipbuilding
programs. It has been known for some time that the Ohio replacement program, if funded through
the Navy’s shipbuilding account, could make it considerably more difficult for the Navy to
procure other kinds of ships in desired numbers, unless the shipbuilding account were increased
to accommodate the additional funding needs of the Ohio replacement program. On February 26,
2015, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, testified that
In the long term beyond 2020, I am increasingly concerned about our ability to fund the
Ohio Replacement ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) program—our highest priority
program—within our current and projected resources. The Navy cannot procure the Ohio
60 Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2015 Shipbuilding Plan, December 2014, pp.
23-25.
Congressional Research Service
19
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Replacement in the 2020s within historical shipbuilding funding levels without severely
impacting other Navy programs.61
On February 25, 2015, Department of the Navy officials testified that
The Navy continues to need significant increases in our topline beyond the FYDP [Future
Years Defense Plan], not unlike that during the period of [the original] Ohio [class]
construction [effort], in order to afford the OR [Ohio replacement] SSBN procurement
costs. Absent a significant increase to the SCN [Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy]
appropriation [i.e., the Navy’s shipbuilding account], OR SSBN construction will
seriously impair construction of virtually all other ships in the battle force: attack
submarines, destroyers, and amphibious warfare ships. The shipbuilding industrial base
will be commensurately impacted and shipbuilding costs would spiral unfavorably. The
resulting battle force would fall markedly short of the FSA [Force Structure
Assessment—the Navy’s force structure goal for the fleet as a whole], [and be] unable to
meet fleet inventory requirements. The National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund [see
discussion below] is a good first step in that it acknowledges the significant challenge of
resourcing the OR SSBN, but the fund is unresourced [i.e., no funding has been placed
into the account].62
Ohio Replacement Program Is Navy’s Top Priority Program
On September 18, 2013, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, testified that
the Ohio replacement program “is the top priority program for the Navy.”63 Navy officials since
then have reiterated this statement.
The Navy’s decision to make the Ohio replacement program its top program priority means that
the Ohio replacement program will be fully funded, and that any resulting pressures on the
Navy’s shipbuilding account would be borne by other Navy programs, including shipbuilding
programs. At a September 12, 2013, hearing before the Seapower and Projection Forces
subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on undersea warfare, a Navy official
stated:
The CNO has stated, his number one priority as the chief of Naval operations, is our—
our strategic deterrent—our nuclear strategic deterrent. That will trump all other vitally
important requirements within our Navy, but if there’s only one thing that we do with our
ship building account, we—we are committed to sustaining a two ocean national strategic
deterrent that protects our homeland from nuclear attack, from other major war
aggression and also access and extended deterrent for our allies.64
61 Statement of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the House Subcommittee on
Defense, Committee on Appropriations, on FY 2016 Department of the Navy Posture, February 26, 2015, p. 5.
62 Statement of the Honorable Sean J. Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and
Acquisition) and Vice Admiral Joseph P. Mulloy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Integration of Capabilities and
Resources and Lieutenant General Kenneth J. Glueck, Jr., Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration
& Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Before the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces of the House Armed Services Committee on Department of the Navy Seapower and Projection
Forces Capabilities, February 25, 2015, p. 8.
63 Statement of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the House Armed Services
Committee on Planning for Sequestration in FY 2014 and Perspectives of the Military Services on the Strategic
Choices and Management Review, September 18, 2013, p. 10.
64 Transcript of hearing. (Spoken remarks of Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge. The other witness at the hearing was
Rear Admiral David Johnson).
Congressional Research Service
20
link to page 16 link to page 9 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
At this same hearing, Navy officials testified that the service is seeking about $4 billion per year
over 15 years in supplemental funding—a total of about $60 billion—for the Ohio replacement
program.65 The 15 years in question, Navy officials suggested in their testimony, are the years in
which the Ohio replacement boats are to be procured (FY2021-FY2035, as shown in Table 2).66
The $60 billion in additional funding equates to an average of $5 billion for each of the 12 boats,
which is close to the Navy’s target of an average unit procurement cost of $4.9 billion in constant
FY2010 dollars for boats 2 through 12 in the program. The Navy stated at the hearing that the $60
billion in supplemental funding that the Navy is seeking would equate to less than 1% of DOD’s
budget over the 15-year period. The Navy also suggested that the 41 pre-Ohio class SSBNs that
were procured in the 1950s and 1960s (see Table 1) were partially financed with funding that was
provided as a supplement to the Navy’s budget.67
The Navy officials stated at the September 12 hearing that if the Navy were to receive about $30
billion in supplemental funding for the Ohio replacement program—about half the amount that
the Navy is requesting—then the Navy would need to eliminate from its 30-year shipbuilding
plan a notional total of 16 other ships, including, notionally, 4 Virginia-class attack submarines, 4
destroyers, and 8 other combatant ships (which might mean ships such as Littoral Combat Ships
or amphibious ships). Navy officials stated, in response to a question, that if the Navy were to
receive none of the supplemental funding that it is requesting, then these figures could be
doubled—that is, that the Navy would need to eliminate from its 30-year shipbuilding plan a
notional total of 32 other ships, including, notionally, 8 Virginia-class attack submarines, 8
destroyers, and 16 other combatant ships.68
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
Fund Created by Section 1022 of P.L. 113-291
Congress, as part of its markup of the Navy’s proposed FY2015 budget, created the National Sea-
Based Deterrence Fund (NDBDF), a fund in the DOD budget that will be separate from the
Navy’s regular shipbuilding account (which is formally known as the Shipbuilding and
65 Transcript of hearing. (Spoken remarks of Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge.)
66 Transcript of hearing. (Spoken remarks of Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge.)
67 Transcript of hearing (Spoken remarks of Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge.) Regarding supplemental funding for
the 41 earlier SSBNs, Breckenridge stated:
The—just a little backstep and history to talk about the two other times that we've had to, as a
nation, build the strategic deterrent. So in—in the ‘60s we built 41 SSBNs; they were called the 41
For Freedom. We did that in a seven-year period, which again is just an incredible—only in
America could you go ahead and put out 41 ballistic missile submarines in a seven-year period.
There was an impact to other shipbuilding accounts at that time, but the priority was such for
national survival that we had to go ahead and—and make that a—an imperative and a priority.
There was a supplement to the Navy’s top line at that time when we—when we fielded the class,
but it did leave—cast quite a shadow over the rest of the shipbuilding in the ‘60s.
We recapitalized those 41 For Freedom with 18 Ohio-class SSBNs in the ‘80s. It was the Reagan
years. There was a major naval buildup. And underneath the umbrella of that buildup we were able
to afford as a nation the recapitalization of building 18 SSBNs.
See also Joseph Tofalo, “The Value of Sea Based Strategic Deterrence,” Navy Live (http://navylive.dodlive.mil), July
31, 2014; Eric J. Labs, “Finding Funding for the New Boomer,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, February 2015: 63-
67.
68 Transcript of hearing. (Spoken remarks of Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge.) See also Christopher J. Castelli,
“Admiral: DOD Likely To Support SSBN(X) Supplemental Funding,” Inside the Navy, November 11, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
21
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Conversion, Navy, or SCN, appropriation account). The NSBDF was created by Section 1022 of
the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (H.R. 3979/P.L. 113-291 of December 19, 2014), which states:
SEC. 1022. NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND.
(a) Establishment of Fund.—
(1) In general.—Chapter 131 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 2218 the following new section:
“Sec. 2218a. National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
“(a) Establishment.—There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund to
be known as the ‘National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund’.
“(b) Administration of Fund.—The Secretary of Defense shall administer the Fund
consistent with the provisions of this section.
“(c) Fund Purposes.—(1) Funds in the Fund shall be available for obligation and
expenditure only for construction (including design of vessels), purchase, alteration, and
conversion of national sea-based deterrence vessels.
“(2) Funds in the Fund may not be used for a purpose or program unless the purpose or
program is authorized by law.
“(d) Deposits.—There shall be deposited in the Fund all funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense for construction (including design of vessels), purchase,
alteration, and conversion of national sea-based deterrence vessels.
“(e) Expiration of Funds After 5 Years.—No part of an appropriation that is deposited in
the Fund pursuant to subsection (d) shall remain available for obligation more than five
years after the end of fiscal year for which appropriated except to the extent specifically
provided by law.
“(f) Budget Requests.—Budget requests submitted to Congress for the Fund shall
separately identify the amount requested for programs, projects, and activities for
construction (including design of vessels), purchase, alteration, and conversion of
national sea-based deterrence vessels.
“(g) Definitions.—In this section:
“(1) The term ‘Fund’ means the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund established by
subsection (a).
“(2) The term ‘national sea-based deterrence vessel’ means any vessel owned, operated,
or controlled by the Department of Defense that carries operational intercontinental
ballistic missiles.”.
(2) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 131 of such
title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2218 the following new
item:
“2218a. National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund.”.
(b) Transfer Authority.—
(1) In general.—Subject to paragraph (2), and to the extent provided in appropriations
Acts, the Secretary of Defense may transfer to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
established by section 2218a of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection
(a)(1), amounts not to exceed $3,500,000,000 from unobligated funds authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2014, 2015, or 2016 for the Navy for the Ohio Replacement
Congressional Research Service
22
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Program. The transfer authority provided under this paragraph is in addition to any other
transfer authority provided to the Secretary of Defense by law.
(2) Availability.—Funds transferred to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall remain available for the same period for which the transferred
funds were originally appropriated.
Precedents for Funding Navy Acquisition Programs Outside Navy
Appropriation Accounts
Prior to the above legislation, some observers had suggested funding the procurement of
SSBN(X)s outside the Navy’s shipbuilding budget, so as to preserve Navy shipbuilding funds for
other Navy shipbuilding programs. There was some precedent for such an arrangement:
Construction of DOD sealift ships and Navy auxiliary ships has been funded in
past years in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF), a part of DOD’s budget
that is outside the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) appropriation
account, 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 and procurement accounts 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 has been 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.
In addition, it can be noted that 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 FY2016 budget submission, for example,
shows that about $11.9 billion is requested for strategic forces for FY2016.69
Potential Implications of NSBDF on Funding Available for Other Programs
The NSBDF has at least two potential implications for the impact that the Ohio replacement
program may have on funding available in coming years for other DOD acquisition programs.
The first potential implication concerns the impact the Ohio replacement program may have on
funding available in coming years for other Navy programs, and particularly other Navy
shipbuilding programs. A principal apparent intent in creating the NSBDF was to help preserve
funding in coming years for other Navy programs, and particularly Navy shipbuilding programs
other than the Ohio replacement program, by placing funding for the Ohio replacement program
69 Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates For FY 2016, March 2015, Table 6-4, “Department of
Defense TOA by Program,” page 102. See also Table 6-5 on page 102, which presents the same data in constant
FY2015 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—other—shows relatively small amounts of funding.)
Congressional Research Service
23
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
in a location within the DOD budget that is separate from the Navy’s shipbuilding account and
the Navy’s budget in general. This separation, it might be argued, might encourage observers, in
discussing defense budget issues, to consider funding for the Ohio replacement program separate
from funding for other Navy shipbuilding programs, rather than add the two figures together to
create a single sum representing funding for the procurement of all ships. In addition, referring to
the fund as a national fund and locating it outside the Navy’s budget might encourage a view
(consistent with an argument made by supporters of the Ohio replacement program that the
program is intended to meet a national military need rather than a Navy-specific need) that
funding for the Ohio replacement program should be resourced from DOD’s budget as a whole,
rather than from the Navy’s budget in particular.
A second potential implication of the NSBDF for funding available in coming years for other
DOD programs concerns how DOD might be able to use funds appropriated for the procurement
of Ohio replacement boats and the effect this use of funds might have in marginally reducing the
procurement cost of those boats.
As discussed in the CRS report on the Navy’s TAO(X) oiler program,70 the National Defense
Sealift Fund is located in a part of the DOD budget that is outside the procurement title of the
annual DOD appropriations act. Consequently, ships whose construction is funded through the
NDSF are not subject to the DOD full funding policy in the same way as are ships and other
DOD procurement programs that are funded through the procurement title of the annual DOD
appropriations act.71
For NDSF-funded ships, what this has meant is that although Congress in a given year would
nominally fund the construction of an individual ship of a certain class, the Navy in practice
could allocate that amount across multiple ships in that class. This is what happened with both the
NDSF-funded Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class dry cargo ships and, before that, an NDSF-funded
class of DOD sealift ships called Large, Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) ships. In both
cases, the result was that although ships in these two programs were each nominally fully funded
in a single year, they in fact had their construction financed with funds from amounts that were
nominally appropriated in other fiscal years for other ships in the class.72
The Navy’s ability to use NDSF funds in this manner has permitted the Navy to, among other
things, marginally reduce the procurement cost of ships funded through the NDSF by batch-
ordering certain components of multiple ships in a shipbuilding program before some of the ships
in question were fully funded—something that the Navy cannot do with a shipbuilding program
funded through the Navy’s shipbuilding account unless the Navy receives approval from
Congress to execute the program through a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract.73
If the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund is located outside the procurement title of the annual
DOD appropriations act, the Navy might be able to do something somewhat similar in using
70 CRS Report R43546, Navy TAO(X) Oiler Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald
O'Rourke.
71 For more on the full funding policy, see CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett.
72 This situation can be summarized in a funding matrix of hulls vs. funding sources of the kind shown for the LMSR
program in Table 1 on page CRS-6 of CRS Report 96-257 F, Sealift (LMSR) Shipbuilding and Conversion Program:
Background and Status, by Valerie Bailey Grasso. This report is out of print and is available from Ronald O’Rourke.
73 For more on MYP contracting, including batch-ordering of components, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear
Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by
Ronald O'Rourke and Moshe Schwartz. For programs being executed under MYP contracts, the batch orders of
components are referred to as Economic Order Quantity (EOQ) procurements.
Congressional Research Service
24
link to page 16 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
funds appropriated for the procurement of Ohio replacement boats. If so, this might facilitate the
partial batch-build construction strategy that the Navy may wish to employ as a cost-reducing
measure for building the Ohio replacement boats (see discussion in next section), which in turn
could marginally reduce the cost of the Ohio replacement boats, and thereby marginally increase
the amount of funding that would remain available within a DOD budget of a certain size for
other DOD programs.
Some Options for Further Addressing the Issue
In addition to creating the National Sea-Based Deterrent Fund and making further changes and
refinements in the design of the SSBN(X), options for further reducing the cost of the Ohio
replacement program and the program’s potential impact on funding available for other Navy
programs (particularly shipbuilding programs) include the following:
using a partial batch-building approach for building the Ohio replacement boats;
using a joint block buy contract that would cover both the Ohio replacement
program and the Virginia-class attack submarine program;
altering the schedule for procuring the SSBN(X)s so as to create additional
opportunities for using incremental funding for procuring the ships; and
reducing the planned number of SSBN(X)s.
Each of these options is discussed below.
Partial Batch-Build Approach for Building Ohio Replacement Boats
As one means of reducing the procurement cost of the Ohio replacement boats, the Navy is
considering a partial batch-build approach for building the boats. Under this approach, instead of
building the boats in serial fashion, portions of several boats would be built together, in batch
form, so as to maximize economies of scale in the production of those portions. Under this
approach, the boats would still be finished and enter service one at a time, under the schedule
shown in Table 2, but aspects of their construction would be undertaken in batch fashion rather
than serial fashion. Implementing a partial batch-building approach for building the boats might
be facilitated by
using a multiyear procurement (MYP) contract whose built-in Economic Order
Quantity (EOQ) authority might be expanded to cover not just batch-ordering of
selected long leadtime components, but also batch-building of sections of the
ships; or
using a block buy contract that included an added EOQ authority of similar
scope; or
locating the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund outside the procurement title of
the DOD appropriations act and using funds in that account for the construction
of Ohio replacement boats in a manner somewhat similar to how the Navy has
used funds in the National Defense Sealift Fund to batch-order components for
ships acquired through the NDSF (see discussion in previous section).
Congressional Research Service
25
link to page 31 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Joint Block Buy Contract Covering Both Ohio Replacement and Virginia-Class
Programs
To help reduce ship procurement costs, the Navy in recent years has made extensive use of
multiyear procurement (MYP) contracts and block buy contracts in its shipbuilding programs,74
including the Virginia class attack submarine program.75 In light of this, the Navy will likely seek
to use block buy and/or MYP contracting in the Ohio replacement program. Beyond that, the
Navy is investigating the possibility of using a single, joint-class block buy contract that would
cover both Ohio replacement boats and Virginia class boats. Such a contract, which could be
viewed as precedent-setting in its scope, could offer savings beyond what would be possible
using separate MYP or block buy contracts for the two submarine programs. A March 2014 GAO
report stated that if the Navy decides to propose such a contract, it would develop a legislative
proposal in 2017.76 The Navy reportedly plans to finalize its acquisition strategy for the Ohio
replacement program, including the issue of the contracting approach to be used, in the fall of
2016 as part of DOD’s Milestone B decision for the program.77
Altering Procurement Schedule to Make More Use of Incremental Funding
Another option for managing the potential impact of the Ohio replacement 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.78 This
option would not reduce the total procurement cost of the Ohio replacement program—to the
contrary, it might increase the program’s total procurement cost somewhat by reducing
production learning curve benefits in the Ohio replacement program.79 This option could,
however, reduce the impact of the Ohio replacement 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 Ohio replacement 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 Ohio replacement program might be further
spread out by funding some of the SSBN(X)s with three- or four-year incremental funding.80
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
74 For more on MYP and block buy contracting, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block
Buy Contracting in Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Moshe
Schwartz
75 See CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues
for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
76 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, GAO-14-
340SP, March 2014, p. 141.
77 Lee Hudson, “Navy SSBN(X) Acquisition Strategy Will Not Be Finalized Until Fall 2016,” Inside the Navy,
September 8, 2014.
78 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.
79 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.
80 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 for procuring the first
three Ford (CVN-78) class carriers (i.e., CVN-78, CVN-79, and CVN-80); the authority was granted in §121 of the
FY2007 defense authorization act [H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2006]).
Congressional Research Service
26
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
currently planned schedule. Although the initial ship in the alternative schedule would be
procured in FY2019, it could be executed as it if were funded in FY2021. 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.81 The ability to stretch the end of 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
Notional
particularly suitable
Fiscal
Navy’s
for 2-, 3-, or 4-year
alternative
for 2-, 3-, or 4-year
year
Schedule
incremental funding
schedule
incremental funding
2019
1
X
2020
2021
1
X
1
X
2022
2023
1
X
2024
1
X
2025
1
X
2026
1
2027
1
1
2028
1
1
2029
1
1
2030
1
1
2031
1
1
X
2032
1
2033
1
X
1
X
2034
1
X
2035
1
X
1
X
2036
2037
1
X
Total
12
12
Source: Navy’s current plan is taken from the Navy’s FY2015 budget submission. Potential alternative plan
prepared by CRS.
Notes: Notional alternative schedule could depend on Navy’s ability to careful y 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.
81 Congress funded the procurement of two aircraft carriers (CVNs 72 and 73) in FY1983, and another two (CVNs 74
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
27
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Under Navy’s schedule, the boat to be procured in FY2033 might be particularly suitable for 4-year incremental
funding, and boat to be procured in FY2034 might be particularly suitable for 3- or 4-year incremental funding.
A December 19, 2011, press report states:
The Office of Management and Budget’s Nov. 29[, 2011,] passback memorandum to the
Defense Department [regarding the FY2013 DOD budget] warns that the effort to build
replacements for aging Ohio-class submarines is not exempt from rules requiring each
new vessel to be fully funded in a single year....
Spreading the cost of a big-ticket ship over more than one year—an approach referred to
as “incremental funding”—is only allowed when a program meets three criteria, OMB
writes....
“OMB does not anticipate that the OHIO Replacement program will meet these criteria,”
the passback memo states.82
Reducing the Planned Number of SSBN(X)s
Some observers over the years have advocated or presented options for an SSBN force of fewer
than 12 SSBNs. A November 2013 CBO report on options for reducing the federal budget deficit,
for example, presented an option for reducing the SSBN force to eight boats as a cost-reduction
measure.83 Earlier CBO reports have presented options for reducing the SSBN force to 10 boats
as a cost-reduction measure.84 CBO reports that present such options also provide notional
arguments for and against the options. A June 2010 report by a group known as the Sustainable
Defense Task Force recommends reducing the SSBN force to 7 boats;85 a September 2010 report
from the Cato Institute recommends reducing the SSBN force to 6 boats,86 and a September 2013
report from a group organized by the Stimson Center recommends reducing the force to 10
boats.87
Views on whether a force of fewer than 12 SSBN(X)s would be adequate 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.88 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.
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, the number of warheads on an SSBN’s SLBMs, and factors
82 Christopher J. Castelli, “White House Opposes Incremental Funding For Multibillion-Dollar Sub,” Inside the Navy,
December 19, 2011.
83 Congressional Budget Office, Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 to 2023, November 2013, pp. 68-69.
84 See, for example, Congressional Budget Office, Rethinking the Trident Force, July 1993, 78 pp.; and Congressional
Budget Office, Budget Options, March 2000, p. 62.
85 Debt, Deficits, and Defense, A Way Forward[:] Report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, June 11, 2010, pp.
19-20.
86 Benjamin H. Friedman and Christopher Preble, Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint, Washington, Cato
Institute, September 23, 2010 (Policy Analysis No. 667), p. 8.
87 Strategic Agility: Strong National Defense for Today’s Global and Fiscal Realities, Stimson, Washington, DC, 2013,
p. 29. (Sponsored by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Prepared by Stimson, September 2013.)
88 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL33640, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and
Issues, by Amy F. Woolf.
Congressional Research Service
28
link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 5 link to page 33 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
independent of the number of warheads on the 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’s position (see “Planned Procurement Quantity: 12 SSBN(X)s to Replace 14 Ohio-
Class Boats” in “Background”) is that the requirement for having a certain number of SSBNs on
patrol at any given moment translates into a need for a force of 14 Ohio-class boats, and that this
requirement can be met in the future by a force of 12 SSBN(X)s.
Construction Shipyard(s)
Another potential issue for Congress regarding the Ohio replacement program is which shipyard
or shipyards would build SSBN(X)s. Two U.S. shipyards are capable of building nuclear-powered
submarines—General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division (GD/EB) of Groton, CT, and Quonset
Point, RI, and Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS), of Newport News, VA, which forms part of
Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII). GD/EB’s primary business is building nuclear-powered
submarines; it can also perform submarine overhaul work. NNS’s primary lines of business are
building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, building nuclear-powered submarines, and performing
overhaul work on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. The Navy reportedly plans to finalize its
acquisition strategy for the Ohio replacement program, including the issue of which shipyard or
shipyards will build the boats, in the fall of 2016 as part of DOD’s Milestone B decision for the
program.89
Table 5 shows the numbers of SSBNs built over time by GD/EB, NNS, 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.
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 NNS
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.
89 Lee Hudson, “Navy SSBN(X) Acquisition Strategy Will Not Be Finalized Until Fall 2016,” Inside the Navy,
September 8, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
29
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
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.
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 NNS. GD/EB was the builder of the first
boat in all four SSBN classes. The most recent SSBNs built by NNS 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.
There are at least 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 NNS;
build some SSBN(X)s GD/EB and some at NNS—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 NNS, with final assembly of the
boats alternating between the yards—the approach currently being used for
building Virginia-class SSNs;90 and
build each SSBN(X) jointly at GD/EB and NNS, with one yard—either
GD/EB or NNS—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 NNS, 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);
90 Under the joint-production arrangement for Virginia-class boats, GD/EB builds certain parts of each boat, NNS
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
NNS 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
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).
Congressional Research Service
30
link to page 20 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
the number of SSNs procured during the years of SSBN(X) procurement (which
can affect economies of scale in submarine production);
whether the current joint-production arrangement for the Virginia class remains
in effect during those years;91 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 NNS.
At a July 30, 2015, hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the nomination of
Admiral John Richardson for the position of Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Richardson
stated, “We’re conducting a study right now to both mature the design and mature the build plan
[for the Ohio replacement program]. We should get that completed by the fall timeframe, and I
look forward to collaborating when we have that more mature.”92 (Richardson was confirmed by
the Senate on August 5, 2015, and became the CNO on September 18, 2015.)
Legislative Activity for FY2016
FY2016 Funding Request
As shown in Table 3, the Navy’s proposed FY2016 budget requests $1,390.7 million in research
and development funding for the Ohio replacement program, including $419.3 million for Project
3219 (SSBN[X] reactor plant) in PE0603570N (Advanced Nuclear Power Systems) and $971.4
million for Project 3220 (SBSD [Sea-Based Strategic Deterrent] Advanced Submarine System
Development) in PE0603595N (Ohio Replacement).
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376)
House (Committee Report)
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-102 of May 5, 2015) on H.R.
1735, recommends approving the Navy’s FY2016 request for $419.3 million for research and
development work on the SSBN(X) reactor plant, but recommends transferring this funding in the
FY2016 budget from Project 3219 in PE0603570N to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund.
(See page 462, line 045, and pages 526-527, National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, Propulsion.)
Similarly, the report recommends approving the Navy’s FY2016 request for $971.4 million in
research and development funding for other research and development work for the Ohio
replacement program, but recommends transferring this funding from Project 3220 in
PE0603595N to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. (See page 462, line 050, and page 526,
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, Development.)
H.Rept. 114-102 states:
National Sea Based Deterrence Fund
91 The agreement governing the joint-production arrangement for the Virginia class cannot be changed without the
consent of both yards.
92 Transcript of hearing. See also Lee Hudson, “Richardson: Navy Will Wrap Up Ohio-Class Replacement Study This
Fall,” Inside the Navy, August 3, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
31
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
The committee notes that the National Sea Based Deterrence Fund (NDSF) was created
by the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) to address a congressional determination that
the recapitalization of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine was a national strategic
imperative. The committee also notes that the recapitalization of this strategic asset is
currently estimated at $95.77 billion. The committee believes that this acquisition
program will have an extraordinary and detrimental impact to investments in the
shipbuilding and construction, Navy, account if traditional funding levels of this account
are sustained. The committee also believes that the entirety of the Department of Defense
investment capabilities need to be used to recapitalize this strategic asset.
Therefore, the committee recommends the transfer of $1.39 billion for the Navy Ohio-
class ballistic missile submarine replacement program from the research, development,
test, and evaluation, Navy, account to the National Sea Based Deterrence Fund,
Department of Defense account. (Page 68)
Section 1002 of H.R. 1735 as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 1002. Authority to transfer funds to the National Nuclear Security Administration
to sustain nuclear weapons modernization and naval reactors.
(a) Transfer authorized.—If the amount authorized to be appropriated for the weapons
activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration under section 3101 or
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2016 is less than $8,900,000,000 (the amount
projected to be required for such activities in fiscal year 2016 as specified in the report
under section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2549)), the Secretary of Defense may transfer, from
amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016
pursuant to this Act, to the Secretary of Energy an amount, not to exceed $150,000,000,
to be available only for naval reactors or weapons activities of the National Nuclear
Security Administration.
(b) Notice to congress.—In the event of a transfer under subsection (a), the Secretary of
Defense shall promptly notify Congress of the transfer, and shall include in such notice
the Department of Defense account or accounts from which funds are transferred.
(c) Transfer mechanism.—Any funds transferred under this section shall be transferred in
accordance with established procedures for reprogramming under section 1001 or
successor provisions of law.
(d) Construction of authority.—The transfer authority provided under subsection (a) is in
addition to any other transfer authority provided under this Act.
Section 1051 of H.R. 1735 as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 1051. Enhancement of authority of Secretary of Navy to use National Sea-Based
Deterrence Fund.
(a) In general.—Section 2218a of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking “national sea-based deterrence vessels” and inserting
“a class of twelve national sea-based deterrence vessels, and cross-program coordinated
procurement efforts with other nuclear powered vessels”;
(2) in subsection (d), by inserting before the period at the end the following: “and cross
program coordinated procurement efforts with other nuclear powered vessels”;
(3) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections (j) and (l), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsections:
Congressional Research Service
32
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
“(f) Authority to enter into economic order quantity contracts.—(1) The Secretary of the
Navy may use funds deposited in the Fund to enter into contracts known as ‘economic
order quantity contracts’ with private shipyards and other commercial or government
entities to achieve economic efficiencies based on production economies for major
components or subsystems. The authority under this subsection extends to the
procurement of parts, components, and systems (including weapon systems) common
with and required for other nuclear powered vessels under joint economic order quantity
contracts.
“(2) A contract entered into under paragraph (1) shall provide that any obligation of the
United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of
appropriations for that purpose, and that total liability to the Government for termination
of any contract entered into shall be limited to the total amount of funding obligated at
time of termination.
“(g) Authority to begin manufacturing and fabrication efforts prior to ship
authorization.—(1) The Secretary of the Navy may use funds deposited into the Fund to
enter into contracts for advance construction of national sea-based deterrence vessels to
support achieving cost savings through workload management, manufacturing
efficiencies, or workforce stability, or to phase fabrication activities within shipyard and
manage sub-tier manufacturer capacity.
“(2) A contract entered into under paragraph (1) shall provide that any obligation of the
United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of
appropriations for that purpose, and that total liability to the Government for termination
of any contract entered into shall be limited to the total amount of funding obligated at
time of termination.
“(h) Authority to use incremental funding to enter into contracts for certain items.—(1)
The Secretary of the Navy may use funds deposited into the Fund to enter into
incrementally funded contracts for advance procurement of high value, long lead time
items for nuclear powered vessels to better support construction schedules and achieve
cost savings through schedule reductions and properly phased installment payments.
“(2) A contract entered into under paragraph (1) shall provide that any obligation of the
United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of
appropriations for that purpose, and that total liability to the Government for termination
of any contract entered into shall be limited to the total amount of funding obligated at
time of termination.
“(i) Facilities funding.—The Secretary of the Navy may use funds deposited into the
Fund to provide incentives for investments in critical infrastructure at nuclear capable
shipyards and critical sub-tier vendors. Additionally, the Secretary of the Navy may use
such funds for certain cancellation costs in the event of significant changes to the Long
Range Shipbuilding Strategy for nuclear powered vessels.”;
(5) by inserting after subsection (j), as redesignated by paragraph (3), the following new
subsection:
“(k) Report to Congress.—(1) The Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the
congressional defense committees, by March 1, 2016, and annually through the year
2025, a report on the Fund. Each such report shall identify separately the amount
allocated by ship for programs, projects, and activities for construction (including design
of vessels), purchase, alteration, and conversion. At a minimum, each such report shall
include—
“(A) information about the activities carried out using funds deposited into the Fund
during the fiscal year covered by the report, including the status of class design and
Congressional Research Service
33
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
construction efforts, including programmatic schedules, procurement schedules, and
funding requirements.
“(B) a plan detailing forecasted obligations and expenditures for construction (including
design of vessels), purchase, alteration, and conversion of vessels by ship for the fiscal
year following the fiscal year during which the report is submitted; and
“(C) the identification of the stable need and design for items, together with a description
of any savings associated with the authorities provided in subsections (e) and (f), as
documented in cost estimates.
“(2) The Secretary of the Navy shall provide to the congressional defense committees
notice in writing at least 30 days before executing any significant deviation to the annual
plan required under paragraph (1)(B).”; and
(6) in subsection (m), as so redesignated, by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
“(3) The term ‘advance construction’ means shipyard manufacturing and fabrication
activities (including sub-tier manufacturing of major components or subsystems).”.
(b) Availability of certain unobligated funds for transfer.—Section 1022(b)(1) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat.
3487) is amended by striking “for the Navy for the Ohio Replacement Program” and
inserting “to the Department of Defense”.
Section 1655 of H.R. 1735 as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 1655. Sense of Congress on importance of cooperation and collaboration between
United States and United Kingdom on nuclear issues.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) cooperation and collaboration under the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement and the
1963 Polaris Sales Agreement are fundamental elements of the security of the United
States and the United Kingdom as well as international stability;
(2) the recent renewal of the Mutual Defense Agreement and the continued work under
the Polaris Sales Agreement underscore the enduring and long-term value of the
agreements to both countries; and
(3) the vital efforts performed under the purview of both the Mutual Defense Agreement
and the Polaris Sales Agreement are critical to sustaining and enhancing the capabilities
and knowledge base of both countries regarding nuclear deterrence, nuclear
nonproliferation and counterproliferation, and naval nuclear propulsion.
Section 1656 of H.R. 1735 as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 1656. Sense of Congress on organization of Navy for nuclear deterrence mission.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:
(1) The safety, security, reliability, and credibility of the nuclear deterrent of the United
States is a vital national security priority.
(2) Nuclear weapons require special consideration because of the political and military
importance of the weapons, the destructive power of the weapons, and the potential
consequences of an accident or unauthorized act involving the weapons.
(3) The assured safety, security, and control of nuclear weapons and related systems are
of paramount importance.
(b) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that—
Congressional Research Service
34
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
(1) the Navy has repeatedly demonstrated the commitment and prioritization of the Navy
to the nuclear deterrence mission of the Navy;
(2) the emphasis of the Navy on ensuring a safe, secure, reliable, and credible sea-based
nuclear deterrent force has been matched by an equal emphasis on ensuring the assured
safety, security, and control of nuclear weapons and related systems ashore; and
(3) the Navy is commended for the actions the Navy has taken subsequent to the 2014
Nuclear Enterprise Review to ensure continued focus on the nuclear deterrent mission by
all ranks within the Navy, including the clarification and assignment of specific
responsibilities and authorities within the Navy contained in OPNAV Instruction 8120.1
and SECNAV Instruction 8120.1B.
H.Rept. 114-102 also states:
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement
The Navy’s Ohio-class replacement program is intended to replace the current fleet of
existing Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The Navy plans to procure 12
submarines to replace the 14 existing Ohio-class submarines, at an estimated total
program cost of over $95.00 billion in fiscal year 2015 dollars. The Navy plans to begin
procuring the lead ship in the class starting in fiscal year 2021, with detail design planned
for 2017. The Navy has recognized that given the investment requirements associated
with the Ohio-class replacement program, it will face serious resource challenges starting
in fiscal year 2020. The Navy is currently in the early design phase of this program and is
investigating various cost reduction efforts, such as an early reduction of requirements
and ongoing efforts to identify mature technologies that can be leveraged from other
submarine and ship programs. The Government Accountability Office has reported in the
past on the importance of attaining key knowledge early in shipbuilding programs in
order to reduce the risk of future cost growth and schedule delays.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide
a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2016, on the Ohio-class
replacement program, which should include the following specific elements:
(1) The feasibility of the Navy’s planned technical approaches to meeting identified
performance requirements;
(2) The maturity of the technologies identified for the Ohio-class replacement, including
the development of a new nuclear reactor;
(3) The status of prototyping efforts to reduce technical risk in advance of lead ship
construction;
(4) The readiness and capacity of the industrial base to design and build the submarines
and the availability of any unique materials necessary for submarine construction; and
(5) Any risk in the Navy’s planned acquisition strategy for the class. (Pages 30-31)
House (Floor Action)
On May 15, 2015, as part of its consideration of H.R. 1735, the House rejected, 43-375, H.Amdt.
227, which would require funding for the Ohio replacement program to cone from traditional
Navy appropriation accounts instead of the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. H.Amdt. 227
was amendment number 32 in H.Rept. 114-112 of May 13, 2015, the report on H.Res. 260,
providing for the further consideration of H.R. 1735.
Congressional Research Service
35
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Senate
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 114-49 of May 19, 2015) on S.
1376, recommends approving the Navy’s FY2016 requests for research and development funding
for the Ohio replacement program. (Page 405, lines 45 and 50.)
Section 119 of S. 1376 as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 119. Reporting requirement for Ohio-class replacement submarine program.
The Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget justification materials for the Ohio-
class replacement submarine program submitted to Congress in support of the
Department of Defense budget for that fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the
President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code) a report including the
following elements, described in terms of both fiscal 2010 and current fiscal year dollars:
(1) Lead ship end cost (with plans).
(2) Lead ship end cost (less plans).
(3) Lead ship non-recurring engineering cost.
(4) Average follow-on ship cost.
(5) Average operations and sustainment cost per hull per year.
(6) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
average follow-on ship affordability target.
(7) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
operations and sustainment cost per hull per year affordability target.
Regarding Section 119, S.Rept. 114-49 states:
Reporting requirement for Ohio-class replacement submarine program (sec. 119)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit Ohio-class replacement submarine cost tracking information, together with annual
budget justification materials. While the first Ohio-class replacement submarine is not
planned to be authorized until fiscal year 2021, the national importance of this program
and significant cost will continue to merit close oversight by the congressional defense
committees. In response to a committee request, the Navy provided the committee an
information paper dated February 3, 2015 with the following elements in fiscal year 2010
dollars and then-year dollars: lead ship end cost (with plans), lead ship end cost (less
plans), lead ship non-recurring engineering cost, average follow-on ship (hulls 2–12)
cost, operations and sustainment cost per hull per year, Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OSD AT&L) average follow-on
ship (hulls 2–12) affordability target, and OSD AT&L operations & sustainment cost per
hull per year affordability target (including disposal). The committee recommends this
format continue to be used to enable cost visibility, direct comparison of cost elements,
and year-on-year trend analysis. (Page 12)
Section 1022 of S. 1376 as reported by the committee states:
SEC. 1022. Amendment to National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund.
Section 1022(b)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) is amended by striking
“for the Navy for the Ohio Replacement Program”.
Congressional Research Service
36
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Section 1022 of P.L. 113-291 established the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. Section
1022(b), which provides a transfer authority for the fund, currently states (with the language that
would be struck by the above legislation appearing in bold):
(b) Transfer Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), and to the extent provided in appropriations
Acts, the Secretary of Defense may transfer to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
established by section 2218a of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection
(a)(1), amounts not to exceed $3,500,000,000 from unobligated funds authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years 2014, 2015, or 2016 for the Navy for the Ohio
Replacement Program. The transfer authority provided under this paragraph is in
addition to any other transfer authority provided to the Secretary of Defense by law.
(2) Availability.--Funds transferred to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall remain available for the same period for which the transferred
funds were originally appropriated.
Regarding Section 1022, S.Rept. 114-49 states:
Amendment to National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1022(b)(1) of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), which established the National Sea-Based Deterrence
Fund, to clarify what appropriations may be utilized as a source of transfer funds. The
committee’s intent is for amounts not to exceed $3.5 billion from unobligated funds
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2014, 2015, or 2016 in any Department of
Defense appropriation to be available for transfer to the National Sea-Based Deterrence
Fund. As stated in the existing provision, the transfer authority provided under this
provision is in addition to any other transfer authority provided to the Secretary of
Defense by law. (Pages 202-203)
FY2016 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 2685/S. 1558)
House (Committee Report)
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-139 of June 5, 2015) on H.R.
2685, recommended approving the Navy’s FY2016 requests for research and development
funding for the Ohio replacement program (page 227, lines 45 and 50).
Section 8122 of H.R. 2685 as reported by the committee states:
Sec. 8122. None of the funds provided in this or any other Act may be transferred to the
National Sea Based Deterrent Fund established by section 2218a of title 10, United States
Code.
H.Rept. 114-139 states:
SUBMARINE SONAR DOMES
The Committee understands the important role that a submarine bow dome plays in the
success of the mission of nuclear powered submarines. The Committee is extremely
supportive of the Navy’s original plan to acquire the bow domes for the Ohio Class
replacement program. This plan called for the development of domes fabricated from two
different composite material systems. The Committee believed that this plan would
reduce program risk while at the same time ensure competition to reduce the program’s
acquisition cost, an extremely important factor for a program whose potential cost was
described by a former Secretary of Defense as ‘‘being capable to suck the life from the
Congressional Research Service
37
link to page 41 Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Navy’s shipbuilding budget’’. Considering the many benefits of this plan, the Committee
is confused as to why the Navy prematurely down-selected to a single material system
last year. The selection was made before either system was fully qualified by the design
yard for the Ohio replacement program. The Committee assumes that a cost benefit
analysis was conducted and provided a convincing case for the early selection. Therefore,
the Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide the congressional defense
committees the cost benefit analysis that led to the early selection of a single material
system for the bow dome not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act. If a cost
benefit analysis was not conducted, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
conduct a cost benefit analysis and provide the results to the congressional defense
committees not later than January 31, 2016. (Pages 240-241)
House (Floor Action)
On June 10, 2015, as part of its consideration of H.R. 2685, the House agreed, 321-111, to
H.Amdt. 471, an amendment to strike Section 8122 regarding the prohibition of the transfer of
funds to the National Sea Based Deterrent Fund (see “House (Committee Report)” above).
On June 11, 2015, as part of its consideration of H.R. 2685, the House agreed by voice vote to
H.Amdt. 507, an amendment to provide that, notwithstanding Sections 8005 and 9003 of H.R.
2685, of the unobligated funds authorized to be appropriated in FY2016 and made available in
H.R. 2685, $3.5 billion is available to transfer to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund.
(Sections 8005 and 9003 of H.R. 2685 provide the Secretary of Defense with authority to transfer
funds under certain terms and conditions).
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 114-63 of June 11, 2015) on S. 1558,
recommended approving the Navy’s FY2016 requests for research and development funding for
the Ohio replacement program (page 159, lines 45 and 50).
S.Rept. 114-63 states:
The Committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2016 budget request continues a trend by
the Navy to submit budgets to the Congress that accept undue risk in programs deemed
by the Navy to be critical, with the expectation that the congressional appropriations
committees will fund these programs within its budget allocation for the Department of
Defense. For instance, in fiscal year 2016, the Navy did not fund the continued
procurement of tactical fighter aircraft, despite awareness of readiness shortfalls. In fiscal
year 2015, the Navy removed all funds required to retain and modernize CVN 73, USS
George Washington, from ts budget not only in clear contravention of Public Law, but
also in direct conflict with Navy leadership priorities identified to the Committee. In
fiscal year 2013, the Navy submitted a budget that removed funding for a Virginia class
submarine previously included in a ten-ship multiyear procurement plan.
As a result of these budgetary maneuvers, the Committee must question whether budget
requests from the Navy accurately reflect the service’s most important priorities. This is
particularly concerning with major acquisitions looming on the horizon, most
significantly the Ohio Class replacement program. The Ohio Class replacement is an
indispensable component of the Nation’s nuclear triad, but the program’s acquisition
costs are expected to exceed $135,000,000,000, with the first ship of the class scheduled
for procurement in fiscal year 2021. The Navy has raised concerns about affordability of
this ship within its total obligational authority, and has endorsed proposals for funding
mechanisms that appear to be unprecedented. The Committee notes that the Department
of Defense has not requested, nor appears to be considering, alternative funding
Congressional Research Service
38
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
mechanisms for other acquisition programs estimated to be of equal or greater cost: the
ballistic missile defense system and the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The Committee recommendation includes $1,390,663,000 in the Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Navy appropriation for continued development of the Ohio Class
replacement, as requested by the Navy. The Committee recommendation does not include
any new transfer authority or similar proposal in relation to alternative funding
mechanisms for the Ohio Class replacement. The Committee believes that support for
shipbuilding programs, including the Ohio Class replacement, is an imperative for the
future of the Navy, as evidenced by the recommendation’s significant funding increases
within the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation. The Committee welcomes
an ongoing dialogue with the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense, as
well as the other services, on prioritizing funding for modernization programs which are
indispensable to the defense of this Nation.(Pages 8-9)
Congressional Research Service
39
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Appendix A. June 2013 Navy Blog Post Regarding
Ohio Replacement Options
This appendix presents the text of a June 26, 2013, blog post by Rear Admiral Richard
Breckenridge, the Navy’s Director for Undersea Warfare (N97), discussing options that were
examined for replacing the Ohio-class SSBNs. The text is as follows:
Over the last five years, the Navy – working with U.S. Strategic Command, the Joint
Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense – has formally examined various options
to replace the Ohio ballistic missile submarines as they retire beginning in 2027. This
analysis included a variety of replacement platform options, including designs based on
the highly successful Virginia-class attack submarine program and the current Ohio-class
ballistic missile submarine. In the end, the Navy elected to pursue a new design that
leverages the lessons from the Ohio, the Virginia advances in shipbuilding and
improvements in cost-efficiency.
Recently, a variety of writers have speculated that the required survivable deterrence
could be achieved more cost effectively with the Virginia-based option or by restarting
the Ohio-class SSBN production line. Both of these ideas make sense at face value –
which is why they were included among the alternatives assessed – but the devil is in the
details. When we examined the particulars, each of these options came up short in both
military effectiveness and cost efficiency.
Virginia-based SSBN design with a Trident II D5 missile. An SSBN design based on a
Virginia-class attack submarine with a large-diameter missile compartment was rejected
due to a wide range of shortfalls. It would:
•
Not meet survivability (stealth) requirements due to poor hull streamlining and lack
of a drive train able to quietly propel a much larger ship
•
Not meet at-sea availability requirements due to longer refit times (since equipment
is packed more tightly within the hull, it requires more time to replace, repair and retest)
•
Not meet availability requirements due to a longer mid-life overhaul (refueling
needed)
•
Require a larger number of submarines to meet the same operational requirement
•
Reduce the deterrent value needed to protect the country (fewer missiles, warheads
at-sea)
•
Be more expensive than other alternatives due to extensive redesign of Virginia
systems to work with the large missile compartment (for example, a taller sail, larger
control surfaces and more robust support systems)
We would be spending more money (on more ships) to deliver less deterrence (reduced
at-sea warhead presence) with less survivability (platforms that are less stealthy).
Virginia-based SSBN design with a smaller missile. Some have encouraged the
development of a new, smaller missile to go with a Virginia-based SSBN. This would
carry forward many of the shortfalls of a Virginia-based SSBN we just discussed, and
add to it a long list of new issues. Developing a new nuclear missile from scratch with an
industrial base that last produced a new design more than 20 years ago would be
challenging, costly and require extensive testing. We deliberately decided to extend the
life of the current missile to decouple and de-risk the complex (and costly) missile
development program from the new replacement submarine program. Additionally, a
smaller missile means a shorter employment range requiring longer SSBN patrol transits.
This would compromise survivability, require more submarines at sea and ultimately
Congressional Research Service
40
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
weaken our deterrence effectiveness. With significant cost, technical and schedule risks,
there is little about this option that is attractive.
Ohio-based SSBN design. Some have argued that we should re-open the Ohio
production line and resume building the Ohio design SSBNs. This simply cannot be done
because there is no Ohio production line. It has long since been re-tooled and modernized
to build state-of-the-art Virginia-class SSNs using computerized designs and modular,
automated construction techniques. Is it desirable to redesign the Ohio so that a ship with
its legacy performance could be built using the new production facilities? No, since an
Ohio-based SSBN would:
•
Not provide the required quieting due to Ohio design constraints and use of a
propeller instead of a propulsor (which is the standard for virtually all new submarines)
•
Require 14 instead of 12 SSBNs by reverting to Ohio class operational availability
standards (incidentally creating other issues with the New START treaty limits)
•
Suffer from reduced reliability and costs associated with the obsolescence of legacy
Ohio system components
Once again, the end result would necessitate procuring more submarines (14) to provide
the required at-sea presence and each of them would be less stealthy and less survivable
against foreseeable 21st century threats.
The Right Answer: A new design SSBN that improves on Ohio: What has emerged
from the Navy’s exhaustive analysis is an Ohio replacement submarine that starts with
the foundation of the proven performance of the Ohio SSBN, its Trident II D5 strategic
weapons system and its operating cycle. To this it adds:
•
Enhanced stealth as necessary to pace emerging threats expected over its service life
•
Systems commonality with Virginia (pumps, valves, sonars, etc.) wherever possible,
enabling cost savings in design, procurement, maintenance and logistics
•
Modular construction and use of COTS equipment consistent with those used in
today’s submarines to reduce the cost of fabrication, maintenance and modernization.
Total ownership cost reduction (for example, investing in a life-of-the-ship reactor core
enables providing the same at-sea presence with fewer platforms). Although the Ohio
replacement is a “new design,” it is in effect an SSBN that takes the best lessons from 50
years of undersea deterrence, from the Ohio, from the Virginia, from advances in
shipbuilding efficiency and maintenance, and from the stern realities of needing to
provide survivable nuclear deterrence. The result is a low-risk, cost-effective platform
capable of smoothly transitioning from the Ohio and delivering effective 21st century
undersea strategic deterrence.93
93 “Facts We Can Agree Upon About Design of Ohio Replacement SSBN,” Navy Live, accessed July 3, 2013, at
http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/06/26/facts-we-can-agree-upon-about-design-of-ohio-replacement-ssbn/.
Congressional Research Service
41
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Appendix B. Earlier Oversight Issue:
A Design with 16 vs. 20 SLBM Tubes
Overview
An earlier oversight issue for Congress concerned the plan to design the SSBN(X) with 16 SLBM
tubes rather than 20—one of several decisions made to reduce the estimated average procurement
cost of boats 2 through 12 in the program to $5.6 billion in FY2010 dollars.94 Some observers
were concerned that designing the SSBN(X) with 16 tubes rather than 20 would create a risk that
U.S. strategic nuclear forces might not have enough capability in the 2030s and beyond to fully
perform their deterrent role. These observers noted that to comply with the New Start Treaty
limiting strategic nuclear weapons, DOD plans to operate in coming years a force of 14 Trident
SSBNs, each with 20 operable SLBM tubes (4 of the 24 tubes on each boat are to be rendered
inoperable), for a total of 240 tubes, whereas the Navy in the Ohio replacement program is
planning a force of 12 SSBNs each with 16 tubes, for a total of 192 tubes, or 20% less than 240.
These observers also cited the uncertainties associated with projecting needs for strategic
deterrent forces out to the year 2080, when the final SSBN(X) is scheduled to leave service.
These observers asked whether the plan to design the SSBN(X) with 16 tubes rather than 20 was
fully supported within all parts of DOD, including U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM).
In response, Navy and other DOD officials stated that the decision to design the SSBN(X) with
16 tubes rather than 20 was carefully considered within DOD, and that they believe a boat with
16 tubes will give U.S. strategic nuclear forces enough capability to fully perform their deterrent
role in the 2030s and beyond.
94 At a March 30, 2011, hearing before the Strategic Forces subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
Admiral Kirkland Donald, Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors and Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion, National
Nuclear Security Administration, when asked for examples cost efficiencies that are being pursued in his programs,
stated:
The—the Ohio replacement [program] has been one that we’ve obviously been focused on here
for—for several years now. But in the name of the efficiencies, and one of the issues as we work
through the Defense Department’s acquisition process, we were the first program through that new
process that Dr. [Aston] Carter [the DOD acquisition executive] headed up.
But we were challenged to—to drive the cost of that ship down, and as far as our part was
concerned, one of the key decisions that was made that—that helped us in that regard was a
decision to go from 20 missile tubes to 16 missile tubes, because what that allowed us to do was to
down rate the—the propulsion power that was needed, so obviously, it’s a – it’s a small[er] the
reactor that you would need.
But what it also allowed us to do was to go back [to the use of existing components]. The size [of
the ship] fell into the envelope where we could go back and use components that we had already
designed for the Virginia class [attack submarines] and bring those into this design, not have to do
it over again, but several of the mechanical components, to use those over again.
And it enabled us to drive the cost of that propulsion plant down and rely on proven technology
that’s—pumps and valves and things like that don’t change like electronics do.
So we’re pretty comfortable putting that in ship that’ll be around ‘til 2080. But we were allowed to
do that.
(Source: Transcript of hearing.)
Congressional Research Service
42
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Testimony in 2011
At a March 1, 2011, hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Admiral Gary
Roughead, then-Chief of Naval Operations, stated:
I’m very comfortable with where we're going with SSBN-X. The decision and the
recommendation that I made with regard to the number of tubes—launch tubes are
consistent with the new START treaty. They’re consistent with the missions that I see
that ship having to perform. And even though it may be characterized as a cost cutting
measure, I believe it sizes the ship for the missions it will perform.95
At a March 2, 2011, hearing before the Strategic Forces subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee, the following exchange occurred:
REPRESENTATIVE TURNER:
General Kehler, thank you so much for your continued thoughts and of course your
leadership. One item that we had a discussion on was the triad, of looking to—of the
Navy and the tube reductions of 20 to 16, as contained in other hearings on the Hill
today. I would like your thoughts on the reduction of the tubes and what you see driving
that, how you see it affecting our strategic posture and any other thoughts you have on
that?
AIR FORCE GENERAL C. ROBERT KEHLER, COMMANDER, U.S. STRATEGIC
COMMAND
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first of all, sir, let me say that the—in my mind anyway,
the discussion of Trident and Ohio-class replacement is really a discussion in the context
of the need to modernize the entire triad. And so, first of all, I think that it’s important for
us to recognize that that is one piece, an important piece, but a piece of the decision
process that we need to go through.
Second, the issue of the number of tubes is not a simple black-and-white answer. So let
me just comment here for a minute.
First of all, the issue in my mind is the overall number of tubes we wind up with at the
end, not so much as the number of tubes per submarine.
Second, the issue is, of course, we have flexibility and options with how many warheads
per missile per tube, so that’s another consideration that enters into this mixture.
Another consideration that is important to me is the overall number of boats and the
operational flexibility that we have with the overall number of boats, given that some
number will need to be in maintenance, some number will need to be in training, et
cetera.
And so those and many other factors—to include a little bit of foresight here, in looking
ahead to 20 years from now in antisubmarine warfare environment that the Navy will
have to operate in, all of those bear on the ultimate sideways shape configuration of a
follow-on to the Ohio.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I am not overly troubled by going to 16 tubes. As I look at
this, given that we have that kind of flexibility that I just laid out; given that this is an
element of the triad and given that we have some decision space here as we go forward to
decide on the ultimate number of submarines, nothing troubles me operationally here to
the extent that I would oppose a submarine with 16 tubes.
95 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
43
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
I understand the reasons for wanting to have 20. I understand the arguments that were
made ahead of me. But as I sit here today, given the totality of the discussion, I am—as I
said, I am not overly troubled by 16. Now, I don’t know that the gavel has been pounded
on the other side of the river yet with a final decision, but at this point, I am not overly
troubled by 16.96
At an April 5, 2011, hearing before the Strategic Forces subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee, the following exchange occurred:
REPRESENTATIVE LARSEN:
General Benedict, we have had this discussion, not you and I, I am sorry. But the
subcommittee has had a discussion in the past with regards to the Ohio-class replacement
program.
The new START, though, when it was negotiated, assumed a reduction from 24 missile
tubes per hole to, I think, a maximum a maximum of 20.
The current configuration [for the SSBN(X)], as I understand it, would move from 24 to
16.
Can you discuss, for the subcommittee here, the Navy’s rationale for that? For moving
from 24 to 16 as opposed to the max of 20?
NAVY REAR ADMIRAL TERRY BENEDICT, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC SYSTEMS
PROGRAMS (SSP):
Sir, as part—excuse me, as part of the work-up for the milestone A [review for the
SSBN(X) program] with Dr. Carter in OSD, SSP supported the extensive analysis at both
the OSD level as well as STRATCOM’s analysis.
Throughout that process, we provided, from the SWS [strategic weapon system]
capability, our perspective. Ultimately that was rolled up into both STRATCOM and
OSD and senior Navy leadership and in previous testimony, the secretary of the Navy,
the CNO, and General Chilton have all expressed their confidence that the mission of the
future, given their perspectives, is they see the environment today can be met with 16.
And so, as the acquisition and the SWS provider, we are prepared to support that decision
by leadership, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LARSEN:
Yes.
And your analysis supports—did your analysis that fed into this, did you look at specific
numbers then?
REARD ADMIRAL BENEDICT:
Sir, we looked at the ability of the system, again, SSP does not look at specific targets
with...
REPRESENTATIVE LARSEN:
Right. Yes, yes, yes.
REAR ADMIRAL BENEDICT:
96 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
44
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
Our input was the capability of the missile, the number of re-entry bodies and the throw
weight that we can provide against those targets and based on that analysis, the leadership
decision was 16, sir.97
At an April 6, 2011, hearing before the Strategic Forces subcommittee of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, the following exchange occurred:
SENATOR SESSIONS:
Admiral Benedict, according to recent press reports, the Navy rejected the
recommendations of Strategic Command to design the next generation of ballistic missile
submarines with 20 missile tubes instead of opting for only 16 per boat.
What is the basis for the Navy’s decision of 16? And I'm sure cost is a factor. In what
ways will that decision impact the overall nuclear force structure associated with the
command?
NAVY REAR ADMIRAL TERRY BENEDICT, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC SYSTEMS
PROGRAMS (SSP):
Yes, sir. SSP supported the Navy analysis, STRATCOM’s analysis, as well as the OSD
analysis, as we proceeded forward and towards the Milestone A decision [on the
SSBN(X) program] that Dr. Carter conducted.
Based on our input, which was the technical input as the—as the director of SSP, other
factors were considered, as you stated. Cost was one of them. But as the secretary, as the
CNO, and I think as General Kehler submitted in their testimony, that given the threats
that we see today, given the mission that we see today, given the upload capability of the
D-5, and given the environment as they saw today, all three of those leaders were
comfortable with the decision to proceed forward with 16 tubes, sir.
SENATOR SESSIONS:
And is that represent your judgment? To what extent were you involved—were you
involved in that?
REAR ADMIRAL BENEDICT:
Sir, we were involved from technical aspects in terms of the capability of the missile
itself, what we can throw, our range, our capability. And based on what we understand
the capability of the D-5 today, which will be the baseline missile for the Ohio
Replacement Program, as the director of SSP I’m comfortable with that decision.98
Section 242 Report
Section 242 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540/P.L. 112-81 of
December 31, 2011) required DOD to submit a report on the Ohio replacement program that
includes, among other things, an assessment of various combinations of boat quantities and
numbers of SLBM launch tubes per boat. The text of the section is as follows:
SEC. 242. REPORT AND COST ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS FOR OHIO-CLASS
REPLACEMENT BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINE.
(a) Report Required- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of the United States Strategic Command
shall jointly submit to the congressional defense committees a report on each of the
97 Source: Transcript of hearing.
98 Source: Transcript of hearing.
Congressional Research Service
45
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
options described in subsection (b) to replace the Ohio-class ballistic submarine program.
The report shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the procurement cost and total life-cycle costs associated with each
option.
(2) An assessment of the ability for each option to meet—
(A) the at-sea requirements of the Commander that are in place as of the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(B) any expected changes in such requirements.
(3) An assessment of the ability for each option to meet—
(A) the nuclear employment and planning guidance in place as of the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(B) any expected changes in such guidance.
(4) A description of the postulated threat and strategic environment used to inform the
selection of a final option and how each option provides flexibility for responding to
changes in the threat and strategic environment.
(b) Options Considered- The options described in this subsection to replace the Ohio-
class ballistic submarine program are as follows:
(1) A fleet of 12 submarines with 16 missile tubes each.
(2) A fleet of 10 submarines with 20 missile tubes each.
(3) A fleet of 10 submarines with 16 missile tubes each.
(4) A fleet of eight submarines with 20 missile tubes each.
(5) Any other options the Secretary and the Commander consider appropriate.
(c) Form- The report required under subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified
form, but may include a classified annex.
Subsection (c) above states the report “shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex.”
The report as submitted was primarily the classified annex, with a one-page unclassified
summary, the text of which is as follows (underlining as in the original):
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) directed
the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command
(USSTRATCOM) to jointly submit a report to the congressional defense committees
comparing four different options for the OHIO Replacement (OR) fleet ballistic missile
submarine (SSBN) program. Our assessment considered the current operational
requirements and guidance. The four SSBN options analyzed were:
1. 12 SSBNs with 16 missile tubes each
2. 10 SSBNs with 20 missile tubes each
3. 10 SSBNs with 16 missile tubes each
4. 8 SSBNs with 20 missile tubes each
The SSBN force continues to be an integral part of our nuclear Triad and contributes to
deterrence through an assured second strike capability that is survivable, reliable, and
credible. The number of SSBNs and their combined missile tube capacity are important
factors in our flexibility to respond to changes in the threat and uncertainty in the
strategic environment.
Congressional Research Service
46
Navy Ohio Replacement (SSBN[X]) Ballistic Missile Submarine Program
We assessed each option against the ability to meet nuclear employment and planning
guidance, ability to satisfy at-sea requirements, flexibility to respond to future changes in
the postulated threat and strategic environment, and cost. In general, options with more
SSBNs can be adjusted downward in response to a diminished threat; however, options
with less SSBNs are more difficult to adjust upward in response to a growing threat.
Clearly, a smaller SSBN force would be less expensive than a larger force, but for the
reduced force options we assessed, they fail to meet current at-sea and nuclear
employment requirements, increase risk in force survivability, and limit flexibility in
response to an uncertain strategic future. Our assessment is the program of record, 12
SSBNs with 16 missile tubes each, provides the best balance of performance, flexibility,
and cost meeting commander’s requirements while supporting the Nation’s strategic
deterrence mission goals and objectives.
The classified annex contains detailed analysis that is not releasable to the public.99
Author Contact Information
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
99 Report and Cost Assessment of Options for OHIO-Class Replacement Ballistic Missile Submarine, Unclassified
Summary, received from Navy Legislative Affairs Office, August 24, 2012. See also Christopher J. Castelli,
“Classified Navy Assessment On SSBN(X) Endorses Program Of Record,” Inside the Navy, September 10, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
47