tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4147164310130860315..comments2024-03-18T17:57:44.714-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: SSBN(X) CostsComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82846725574683568362012-09-06T12:07:55.472-07:002012-09-06T12:07:55.472-07:00Certainly I agree the result would be less spent e...Certainly I agree the result would be less spent elsewhere but that's a better outcome, balancing SSBN's within the total defense budget, than putting it all within the USN shipbuilding budget. Strategic nuclear forces shouldn't be funded by the individual services.Lanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01368300993889074491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60678047919697135332012-09-05T05:58:39.446-07:002012-09-05T05:58:39.446-07:00Lane, I have no problem with funding the SSBN(X) a...Lane, I have no problem with funding the SSBN(X) at the higher DoD level rather than the Navy budget. However, unless DoD goes to Congress and (successfully) requests additional funding, it's just going to be moving money on paper. Every dollar spent on SSBN(X) at the DoD level will be a dollar less on some other program. Absent additional funding, what programs would you see as "donors" for the several billion dollars per year for twelve years?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82549389474412124562012-09-05T05:51:48.370-07:002012-09-05T05:51:48.370-07:00"The Navy has its work cut out for it." ..."The Navy has its work cut out for it." -WireguidedMarine<br /><br />"This is one of those difficult to understand costs." -Lane<br /><br />Wow! Two strong candidates for understatement of the year. :)<br /><br />Just kidding, guys! Thanks for the comments.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14558069986508930382012-09-04T22:57:31.849-07:002012-09-04T22:57:31.849-07:00This is one of those difficult to understand costs...This is one of those difficult to understand costs. The USN is basically taking a $2.4 billion Virginia and inserting a module in the middle which is going to be ballpark 1/3rd the size of the sub. Is that missile module room with design and installation really, plus any other modifications to the boat, really need to cost $5 billion? <br /><br />Separately the SSBN's shouldn't be part of the Navy's budget given it's the most important strategic asset the nation has. Lanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01368300993889074491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67853040084860175152012-09-03T14:14:47.554-07:002012-09-03T14:14:47.554-07:00The same thing happened in the 1960's with the...The same thing happened in the 1960's with the introduction of the SSBN to the US Navy. The overall shipbuilding budget was not incresed to handle an entire new class of expensive warships which were needed quickly. The "41 for Freedom" SSBNs were built between 1958 and 1965 and the Navy had to cancel several other ships like a sister to the Enterprise and the Typhon missile system to keep within Congressional limits. That was partly why the next two carriers after Enterprise (America, JFK) were oil-fueled. <br /><br />At the time the Navy cried foul over having to pay for a national, strategic asset out of their budget. But the USAF and Army are the only real non-Navy accounts worth dipping into.<br /><br />I see the same thing happening if we are not careful in the next decade. The Navy has its work cut out for it.<br /><br />WireguidedMarineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com