CQ Weekly: A ‘Gold-Plated’ Bomb Upgrade
This article originally appeared in CQ Weekly on July 29, 2013. A copy of the article can be found here.
By Megan Scully, CQ Staff
President Barack Obama delivered a sweeping arms control speech in June that called for bold reductions in the number of tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe. His vow to work to cut nukes drew applause from the crowd assembled outside Berlin's historic Brandenburg Gate and approval from arms control advocates around the world, but the administration's own plans " at least for the tactical bombs in Europe " seem to contradict the president's stated goals.
Just days before Obama's Berlin speech, the National Nuclear Security Administration sent Congress a 300-page assessment of the nation's nuclear stockpile and modernization plans. Contained in the report was a 25-year spending plan to pay for substantial upgrades to the B61 gravity bombs, the oldest nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, placed in Europe during the Cold War to protect the continent from a Soviet invasion. About 180 B61s remain there today to support NATO.
The lengthy report was just the latest administration endorsement of the so-called life extension program for the B61, a bomb that has both tactical and strategic variants. Its projected costs have more than doubled in the past several years as The NNSA and Defense Department officials widened the scope of what was once envisioned to be a modest effort to breathe new life into these nearly 50-year-old bombs. Independent cost analysts within the Pentagon have put a $10.1 billion price tag on the effort " $2 billion higher than the NNSA's in-house estimates. Either way, it's the most expensive nuclear-bomb life extension program in history.
|
Many Democrats on Capitol Hill " as well as some fiscally conservative Republicans " are crying foul. The bomb refurbishment is simply too costly and too ambitious, they say, especially if the White House ultimately wants to cut tactical nukes in Europe. With an intense budget squeeze forcing a reprioritization of funds across government agencies, the administration can ill afford to spend $10 billion to do a soup-to-nuts overhaul of most of the roughly 400 B61s in the arsenal, they contend. But Obama pledged to spend billions on nuclear modernization " a promise he made to help secure ratification of the New START pact with Russia in 2010 " and updating the decades-old gravity bomb is central to that.
Now, some of Obama's closest allies are imploring the administration to explore one of the cheaper alternatives that officials originally considered to upgrade the B61. The one the White House chose was not the most expensive option, but it wasn't the cheapest, either.
"The B61 would certainly be in the competition for reduction, and so the question comes, ˜Why the higher number?' asks Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate's Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. "To do the higher number, you have to cut a number of other things, non-proliferation being one of them.
In late June, Feinstein's panel whacked $168 million from the NNSA's $537 million fiscal 2014 request for the B61, bringing it in line with the money appropriated for the program in fiscal 2013. Feinstein wants the NNSA to focus on replacing the non-nuclear components only and reconsider its costly plans to consolidate four of the bomb's five variants into one design. That consolidation adds about 20 percent to 25 percent to the program's total costs, The NNSA estimates.
Feinstein has grilled NNSA officials on what critics consider to be a "gold-plated life extension program and she plans to soon take up her concerns with the White House, which stands by the plan.
"All of our nuclear forces are aging, and in many cases the costs of sustaining them have been deferred or delayed for too long, a senior administration official says. "In particular, for the B61, a life extension program is needed now to ensure the system remains safe, secure and effective, in keeping with the president's commitment concerning the nuclear enterprise.
But Feinstein isn't opposed to modernizing the B61, which can be dropped from F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, B-52 and B-2 bombers, and certified NATO aircraft. According to a Sandia National Laboratories information sheet, there are eight goals for the B61: dealing with the aging radars, replacing neutron generators, replacing power supplies, replacing or upgrading other aging components, replacing algorithms, making the bomb compatible with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, modernizing safety features, and consolidating the variants in the stockpile.
Feinstein's panel is fine with all of the goals, except the last. She believes the administration's current plans aren't in line with fiscal reality or the president's own strategic goals.
"In a sense, I do see it at odds, she says.
Many of the non-nuclear components, such as the radar, date back four decades or longer and need to be replaced quickly for the bombs to continue to meet the high safety and reliability standards demanded of the nuclear force. Meanwhile, the nuclear components, which would be involved in consolidating the stockpile, could continue to be effective until about 2030, just three years before another life extension program for the B61 is planned, critics of the current plans say.
"They're scheduled for 2033 " it's already on the books, says one Senate Democratic aide. "And if you have to move it up, fine.
But scaling back the B61 upgrade would be a tough political fight for the administration, which promised during the run-up to the 2010 Senate vote on the New START agreement to spend an additional $4.1 billion to upgrade the nation's nuclear enterprise over the following five years. Many Republicans in Congress have criticized the president for not living up to that promise, which was made to gain GOP support for the treaty.
Not surprisingly, Feinstein's efforts have been met with stiff resistance from NNSA and Defense Department officials, as well as hawks on the Hill who say consolidating the variants is necessary and ultimately could help with efforts to reduce the total number of B61s in the arsenal.
"For as far as we can see into the future, we're going to need the B61, Gen. C. Robert Kehler, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told reporters last week. Kehler conceded that the number of nuclear weapons may change, depending on policy decisions. But he maintained that consolidating four of the B61 variants into one safer and more-secure warhead could help bring those numbers down.
The initial, lower-cost plan for the program, which totaled just $4 billion, did not take into account many of the life expectancy issues for various components, Kehler said. Failing to address all of the issues while also consolidating the variants, he said, will cost more in the long run.
"We think this is a good investment for the long term, Kehler said. "It makes the most sense to do a more comprehensive life extension program now.
Donald L. Cook, deputy director of defense programs at the NNSA, likewise says that retaining four separate variants of this bomb will ultimately drive up costs. He says he has discussed the potential cost savings with lawmakers and is wrapping up a more formal report on the agency's analysis.
Cook also says he stands by the NNSA's $8.2 billion estimate for the program, which already factors in a $200 million increase because of delays caused by across-the-board sequester cuts this year. The independent Pentagon estimate, he says, added $2 billion because analysts believed the schedule was too ambitious. But barring more sequester-related delays, Cook is confident he can keep the program " a top priority " on track.
"The reason that we're placing such emphasis on B61 is it is the core of America's extended nuclear deterrent, he says. "It's not only important in Europe, it's important in South Asia as well. ©Underscoring the difference of opinion on the Hill, a House GOP aide estimates that pursuing a scaled-back approach for the B61 would require another extensive life extension program within the next decade. The NNSA would essentially have to "start over from scratch.
But Feinstein's panel and arms control advocates remain unconvinced and want to see the facts to back up that argument. Kingston Reif at the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation says he has not seen any kind of official assessment from the NNSA or the Defense Department detailing the cost savings from consolidating the variants.
"Why are we rushing forward with an enormously expensive life extension program when there are cheaper alternatives available? Reif asks.
In their report on the bill, Senate appropriators demand that the NNSA submit its analysis of the reduced long-term costs of the option the NNSA has proposed, including the cost savings from consolidating the different B61 variants.
The debate over the B61 spilled over into House consideration of the Energy-Water appropriations bill earlier this month. Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois offered an amendment that would trim $23.7 million from the B61 program, bringing the bill's total down to the administration's request.
Quigley acknowledges the amendment, which would have redirected the funding to debt and deficit reduction, was a modest proposal. But it put the issue on the map, particularly for fiscally conservative Republicans intent on trimming fat from the federal budget. In the end, Quigley lost by only 31 votes despite opposition from 31 Democrats, including House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland.
"It was a first benchmark, says Quigley, who wants to take up the non-proliferation mantle long carried in the House by former Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey, who became the junior senator from Massachusetts earlier this month.
Quigley knows he could have picked up more Democratic votes if he had put the money saved from the B61 program toward domestic programs, but that would have come at the cost of the 30 votes he won from fiscally conservative Republicans.
"They wouldn't have been with me if I used the program for WIC, right?, he says, referring to the popular Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. "And I get that. It's a very strange calculus.
Politics aside, the closer-than-expected vote on Quigley's amendment could ultimately boost Senate appropriators' position going into conference negotiations on the spending bill.
"If there was a victory, Quigley says, "I suppose that's it.
