The Air Force awarded separate 36-month contracts to BA and NOC valued at $349M and $329M respectively to conduct technical maturation and risk reduction for the development of the $85B ICBM replacement program known as Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD).
This downselect knocked LMT and its partners, GD and MOG-B, out of the competition for the Engineering, Manufacturing and Development phase set to begin in 2020. After development is complete in the late 2020s, procurement of 642 missiles at an average unit cost of at least $66M will begin.
BA, which developed the current ICBM system in the late 1950s and is a repeat winner of the Missile Defense Agency's integration contract for the Ballistic Missile Defense System, was expected to be included in the downselect to two competitors.
The exclusion of LMT in favor of NOC is a surprise given the company's long time production of the submarine-launched ballistic missile Trident, and the company's experience with BA in their joint monopolistic venture, United Launch Alliance, which produces the Delta and Atlas family of launch systems.
As the third and final leg of the strategic triad, the long term future of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program is not 100% secure. The replacements for the other two legs, the Colombia class submarine (Ohio-class replacement) being developed by GD and the B-21 being developed by NOC, as well as the updating of the nuclear weapons themselves, are accepted as essential and are further along in their spending cycle. Secretary of Defense Mattis himself has previously publicly questioned whether it is time to transition to a "dyad" from the current triad although this does not seem to be Administration policy.
The driver for the discussion is, of course, cost. CBO estimates that the US will spend $400B on the triad between 2017 and 2026 if it sticks to its current plans. These costs come on top of the bills that are now coming due for the conventional weapon recapitalization of ships and tactical aviation. The Pentagon is currently conducting a nuclear posture review as part of a series of strategic reviews that should report out by the first of the year and are intended to drive Administration policy in FY19 and beyond.
