Don't Scrap America's Ballistic Missile Submarines
Image Credit: Wikicommons

Don't Scrap America's Ballistic Missile Submarines

0 Likes
5 comments

Last week, Bryan McGrath of Information Dissemination made a surprising argument about the U.S. Navy’s boomer flotilla. McGrath argued that rather than spend a tremendous amount of money replacing the force (which will reach obsolescence by 2040), the U.S. should seek alternative deterrent options. 

This argument comes at an interesting time for world Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN) fleets. In the United Kingdom, the battle over the Trident replacement has been fully joined, with many in Labour suggesting that expensive new boomers are a waste of money. At the same time, other SSBN operators have decided to modernize their fleets. The Russians continue to push forward with the Borei-class submarines, while the PLAN has now built up to five of the Type 094 class boomer.  India’s first SSBN, INS Arihant, will likely enter service in the first half of 2013. Only France, with submarines roughly a decade newer than the UK, is not currently pursuing a substantial revision of its SSBN force.

McGrath’s case rests on five points.  First, boomers take up a disproportionate share of the shipbuilding budget for the utility they provide.  Second, in the modern nuclear environment “survivability” means considerably less than it did in the Cold War.  Third, eliminating the boomers might open the door to more effective conventional strike options, including Prompt Global Strike. Fourth, it allows the Navy to concentrate on warfighting and forward presence, rather than strategic deterrence.  Finally, if the global political environment changes, we can always build new boomers.

As much as I would like to agree with McGrath’s argument, I’m not convinced.  I do think that Trident replacement is a waste of resources for the United Kingdom, but then the UK does not play the same kind of global role as the United States. While concerns about boomers crowding out other platforms should be taken seriously, other parts of the triad suffer from similar problems.  The U.S. ballistic missile force is aging, although some studies suggest that the basic architecture could remain in place as late as 2075.  The bomber force has also grown old, even as the Air Force has increasingly diverted bombers to non-nuclear tasks. 

Any option, thus, involves unpleasant decisions. Maintaining all three legs of the triad probably won’t be possible.  Because long range bombers inherently have dual conventional and nuclear purpose, the United States cannot eliminate the bomber leg in any traditional sense, although it can reduce numbers and certain metrics of readiness. Thus, the choice comes down to the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force and the submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) force.  My own view is that the United States can accept a lower threshold for at sea nuclear deterrence, but this leg should still retain a rump deterrence capability.  Survivability concerns may not be what they were, but they are still relevant, and SSBNs have both survivability and flexibility advantages over ICBMs. It isn’t accidental that China, India, and Russia are all choosing to develop or upgrade their SSBN capabilities at the same time. Concerns about shipbuilding costs should be remedied by resource transfers between services; if the Air Force no longer operates an ICBM force, then funding can (at least theoretically) shift towards the Navy.

Replacement of the Ohio boats will still be expensive, but circumstances may allow life extension beyond current expectations. The long term answer may not be an entirely new SSBN design, but rather a modified Virginia class boat that could carry ballistic missiles. The Navy has argued that this design would become more expensive than an Ohio replacement, but issues of number and vulnerability may prove more manageable if the option is no boomers at all.  No other state in the world can match such a capability, and yet the U.S. presumably feels deterred from launching pre-emptive nuclear attacks on China or Russia.  A reduced SSBN force is still the best option for providing a foundational level of nuclear security.

Comments
5
Michael
January 29, 2013 at 08:20

the subs should be the last thing taken out of service!

Clausewitz
January 28, 2013 at 07:16

Farley never argued that the United Kingdom has no global role in modern times, Amesbury. Rather, he argued that the United Kingdom did not have the global role the United States has assumed as the global hegemon since the end of World War Two. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense for them to adopt a role of strategic deterrence, since the U.S. already fulfills that role, and the need for such a strategic asset has gone down since the fall of the Soviet Union. For this reason, the United Kingdom ought to focus on other aspects of defense reform. More specifically, in the realm of naval acquisition, the continued creation of platforms able to provide for U.K. interests and augment the United States in actions overseas.
http://thelineofsteel.blogspot.com

Steve
January 23, 2013 at 11:52

I would really like to see the breakdown (costs/materials/labor) and capability on a modified Virginia class sub vs. an Ohio replacement sub.

amesbury
January 23, 2013 at 08:37

UK has no global role?  Idiot. US has never taken unilateral action anywhere in world outsie western hemiphere. If Brits dont go, we dont go. UK has bases in the Med, S America,AFRICA, ASIA. AND IN WORLD  FULL OF NUKE THREATS UK HAS RIGHT TO PROTECT ITSELF. AND ONE OF BOOMERS CAN PUT PLANET BACK IN STONE AGE.  Try to outgrow your snot-nosed anglophobia. Forgive bad typing.

Pedro
December 21, 2013 at 21:40

the Brits are broke, they don’t even have money to fuel their Thypoons…

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief