Ok, I am annoyed.
I am writing a paper about the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) program—an effort to replace the nuclear warheads on two Trident D5 missiles on each of the nation’s 12 SSBNs with a conventional payload.
I think this is a mildly pointless idea. I admire General Cartwright’s determination to equip his command with nonnuclear forces as part of an inevitable reduction of our reliance on nuclear weapons and a sincere desire to do something useful. It just isn’t clear to me that CTM is the way toward that future.
But, hey, the program is cheap—around 500 million bucks. As mildly pointless programs go, this is a bargain. (By comparison, the Air Force’s Conventional Strike Missile screams “schedule delays” and “cost overruns.”)
I do worry that the Russians might misinterpret a CTM launch, but General Cartwright has made lots of noise about improving data exchange with the Russians to manage the risk. If Cartwright can get the Joint Data Exchange Center up-and-running, I’d be willing to have the Treasury cut the man a check for $500 million directly. He can spend the cash on CTM, hookers, blow, Sands of Iwo Jima DVDs, whatever. Hell, every dollar that Cartwright spends is one that DARPA can’t waste on chembots, hafnium bombs or the other crazy ideas they come up with while high.
Anyway, the point. I wanted to check in on the cost estimates and program of work for CTM in the 2008 President’s Budget Request (PBR) to illustrate that the program has the twin virtues of being inexpensive and relatively easy to implement.
Last year (FY2007 PBR), the President asked for $127 million for the Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) program. Congress put the program on hold and cut the budget, pending a National Academies Study.
The Descriptive Summary for PE 0604327N Hard and Deeply Buried Defeat Systems, in the FY07 President’s Budget Request, contained the best factual information about the CTM program. The descriptive summary, also known as an R2, included the handy little chart (above) showing program milestones and the future funding breakdowns (below).
| Account | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 | FY 2008 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RDTE/BA4/PE 0604327N/9611 | 9.6 | 0.0 | 77.0 | 69.0 | 155.6 |
| WPN/BA1/1250/PE 0101228N | 38.0 | 146.0 | 112.0 | 31.0 | 327.0 |
| OPN/BA4/5358/PE 0101221N | 12.0 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 30.0 |
Source: PE 0604327N Hard and Deeply Buried Defeat Systems
Helpful, huh? You can see they thought they could crank this puppy out in two years. So, I decided to get the most recent budget data for FY2008.
DOD didn’t release a descriptive summary for PE 0604327N Hard and Deeply Buried Defeat Systems this year. The information isn’t classified—the R1 clearly requests $126.4 million for PE 0604327N Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat System. Moreover, the Chief of Naval Operations stated that ”$175 million is included in the FY 2008 request” for CTM. (Subtracting the $100 million in the two procurement accounts, that leaves about $75 million in PE 0604327N is for Conventional Trident.)
So, why refuse to release the descriptive summary? There must be a story here.
Late Update Okay, the PE was released here but not here. I could swear I looked in both places. Weird. Thanks, Robot Economist.
Dr. J – The Navy’s R-2 book for FY08/FY09 is at:
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/08pres/rdten/RDTEN_BA4_book.pdf
The complete set of R-2 documents for 0604327N located on (pdf) pages 742 through 752.
I assume that CTM first mission is to destroy the Natanz centrifuge bunkers.
In any case, I have been a little confused nonetheless. I read that the accuracy of the normal RV without GPS is poor(380 m). That doesn’t seem good enough. And, it is unclear to me whether GPS is going to work at 6000 m/s. The temperature behind the shock front will be something like 5000 K, and it seems like ionization processes are going to start occurring which, even at part per million levels, will mask the GPS signals. Maybe it’s going just slow enough to let GPS still work?
And, then there has been all this talk about little fins and a new maneuvering system which all sounds like perhaps a slower vehicle.(I saw a hint of something like this in the NYT even) But, this wouldn’t be any good for attacking Natanz because it will be too slow I would guess. Much below 3000 m/s at the impact point and I don’t think it’s clear it will go through the 70 feet of concrete and dirt roof.
So, maybe the CTM program is undergoing some mission creep, change, or proliferation and they don’t want to talk about it?
DARPA has done some wacky things of late (name one government department that has not under the present leadership). Still, it is relatively small potatoes. At least the program managers have not been spreading the funds around per Congressional district so as to render DARPA’s budget reduction-proof.
Thought CTM was dead( at least per this 1 Feb 07 press release):“No Conventional TRIDENT: Defense News, February 1, 2007. Pressure from Capitol Hill has derailed Pentagon plans to refit nuclear-tipped Trident missiles with conventional warheads, which will force the U.S. military to seek more expensive ways to perform the prompt global strike (PGS) mission. Lawmakers worry that placing conventional warheads on the Tridents could spawn confusion – and potentially global chaos – if other nations thought the Cold War-era weapons were carrying their traditional nuclear payloads, according to Lisa Marie Cheney, acting assistant undersecretary of defense for legislative affairs. … Though many lawmakers and congressional aides agree a new prompt strike weapon is needed, the staff members made clear last month that Congress would put the kibosh on any Trident conversion plan. …” – SJS
Jeffrey, I can’t get your links to load, so I’m not sure what you’ve found, but I have the R-2 for PE0604327N right here with me. The request for FY2008, for this PE, is $126.434 million. This is the funding to finish work on the reentry vehicle (at an accelerated rate, compared with last year). There is also a request of $36 million, within the Trident modifications (P-1) request. This is the funding to modify the missiles. I could not find the third segment, the modification funding for the submarines, but, without it, I fall a little short of the $175 million, so it must be somewhere, at about $12 million for FY2008. The numbers are all in my report, which you can find posted at FAS.
By the way, I totally agree with you about the Air Force program. But I don’t think Cartwright should be selling CTM on the basis of a functioning JDEC. That’s a pipe dream.
Dr. J – It is not as weird as it is emblematic of the budgeting problems in the DOD. OSD’s comptroller nominally manages the DOD budget, but the bulk of military spending (and almost all R&D spending) is overseen by the military department assistant secretaries for financial management:
Army – http://www.asafm.army.mil/Air Force – http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Navy – http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmc/
> it is unclear to me whether GPS is going to work at 6000 m/s. The temperature behind the shock front will be something like 5000 K, and it seems like ionization processes are going to start occurring which, even at part per million levels, will mask the GPS signals. Maybe it’s going just slow enough to let GPS still work?
Many military “GPS weapons guidance systems” are actually GPS-assisted inertial systems. I.e., I’d expect the GPS to update the initial part until reentry, after which the INS would take the RV the rest of the way.
I’m glad you left harvard for this sentence alone … blog tone is definately creeping back to where it should be! Nice work.
“He can spend the cash on CTM, hookers, blow, Sands of Iwo Jima DVDs, whatever.”
I don’t know what to say other than 1) I looked for it the other day and didn’t see it, and 2) I asked someone for it, who said it wasn’t there.
“If Cartwright can get the Joint Data Exchange Center up-and-running, I’d be willing to have the Treasury cut the man a check for $500 million directly.”
So Dr. Wonk: Is this issue as simple as solving the nuke vs. conventional warhead identification problem? Do you put any value on the de facto ICBM nonuse norm or are ICBMs just like any other weapon when conventionally armed?