The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) wants the Air Force to spend less on its new ICBM effort than the service has proposed.

HASC Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said Thursday if Congress and the Pentagon have a realistic view of what the United States can accomplish, they can live with a lot less money in the defense budget and one of the first places he would start is in nuclear modernization. Smith said he doesn’t oppose nuclear modernization, just that he is against what the Pentagon has so far proposed.

Air Force Global Stroke Command airmen from the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base test launched an unarmed Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Photo: U.S. Air Force.
Air Force Global Stroke Command airmen from the 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base test launched an unarmed Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Photo: U.S. Air Force.

Smith said he opposes the new cruise missile, called the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon, and believes savings can be found in the new ICBM effort, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). Smith likes the submarines, calling them the best deterrent the U.S. has due to their low detectability. The Navy is currently embarking on the Ohio-class replacement program to build new nuclear submarines.

“Obviously we have to modernize the nuclear force. We need new submarines and we’re going to need new nuclear weapons,” Smith said at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington. “I just don’t think we need as much.”

Smith said divvying up budget dollars is a zero-sum game. If the Pentagon wants to be able to raise an Army and build new ships, it will be hampered by unnecessarily tying money up in a nuclear program it doesn’t need. Smith said focusing on global partnerships for posture would be a good way for the U.S. to spend less money on defense, yet remain secure.

GBSD promises to be one of the Air Force’s most expensive programs as debate focuses on the true cost of the program. The Air Force has estimated the program would cost $62.3 billion over 30 years in then-year dollars. But DoD acquisition czar Frank Kendall said in an acquisition decision memorandum issued in late August that it would cost roughly $85 billion.

However, in late September, Jamie Morin, director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), said the CAPE-determined $85 billion may actually be on the lower end of the estimated cost range. Air Force Secretary Deborah James said it could take over a year for the service to refine its cost estimate with input from industry, CAPE, and other defense officials (Defense Daily, Oct. 13).

The Air Force plans to issue up to two contracts in the fourth quarter of FY ’17 for an estimated 36-month period of performance. Boeing [BA], Northrop Grumman [NOC] and Lockheed Martin [LMT] are all pursuing the program.