Analyst: Stretch sub-buying schedule - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

Analyst: Stretch sub-buying schedule

A top Congressional analyst suggests one alternative to ease the effect of paying for the Navy’s new missile submarine is to stretch the procurement schedule from 15 years to 19.

Ronald O’Rourke, naval analyst for the Congressional Research Service, wrote in a new report that stretching out the schedule would create more gaps between submarines, which would allow for greater use of split funding — the practice of paying for a ship in more than one year. O’Rourke wrote that expanding the schedule would mean eight of the proposed 12 submarines could be paid for in two-, three- or four-year increments. The Navy’s current plan would allow that option for only five of the subs, O’Rourke wrote.

The Navy now plans to buy the first SSBN(X) submarine — the replacement for today’s Ohio-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines — in 2019, and the last in 2033. O’Rourke’s alternative would purchase the first sub in 2017 and the last in 2035.

But O’Rourke pointed out the submarines could still be built at the existing schedule. Under that scenario, the Navy would request funding for the first SSBN(X) in 2017 but construction would still begin as if the ship was purchased in 2019. Similar schemes were used in the 1980s to pay for and build three aircraft carriers, he wrote.

The Navy is struggling to come up with a plan to pay for the submarines, which are roughly estimated to cost about $6 billion apiece — about four times the cost of a new Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The service fears the impact of having to pay for the new subs while at the same time seeking about $15 billion a year for new carriers, destroyers, amphibious ships and attack submarines. One new SSBN(X) would be about 40 percent of an entire annual shipbuilding budget.

Buying Outside the Budget

One alternative to having the Navy pay for the new missile submarines — which are subordinated to a national, strategic deterrent role and do not normally take part in fleet operations — is to shift the burden to a separate Pentagon account. The new Nuclear Posture Review, which could be released in weeks, could address that issue.

O’Rourke, in his first report on the SSBN(X) replacement program, noted there are precedents for buying ships outside the Navy shipbuilding budget. Sealift ships, which largely carry Army and Air Force cargoes, and Navy auxiliary ships are funded through the National Defense Sealift Fund. And, he noted, the Pentagon already breaks out spending for strategic forces into its own budget area, with $10.7 billion requested last year.

Two-year split-funding, O’Rourke wrote, would be appropriate in years where no SSBN(X) submarine is planned for the following year. A two-year gap would mean three-year funding might be suitable, and a four-year gap would be appropriate when program procurement reaches its planned end in 2033 and funding would be pushed beyond that date.

O’Rourke noted that stretching out the payment schedule might actually raise the cost of a submarine, although it would be more affordable on a year-by-year basis.