66. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security
Affairs (Brzezinski) to President Carter1
Washington,
June 23,
1978
SUBJECT
- Memo from Harold Brown on
M-X/Trident II Commonality Study
In response to the request you made during the OMB Spring Budget Review, for information on the
feasibility of developing a common M–X/Trident II strategic missile, Harold Brown has sent you the memo at Tab A. The main
points made in the memo are that:
- —
- Taking all factors into account, a common missile appears to
offer a significant net savings, and
- —
- A detailed study to determine performance specifications and
costs is already underway and should be completed this
August.
Harold’s memo, the ongoing study it is drawn from, and feedback my staff
is getting from the Pentagon all suggest that the common missile option
is getting the high-level attention it needs if we are to overcome
Service biases against the common system.
[Page 293]
Tab A
Memorandum From Secretary of Defense Brown to President
Carter2
Washington,
June 17,
1978
SUBJECT
- M–X/TRIDENT II Commonality
Study (U)
We are conducting a detailed study to determine the extent of
commonality we should require in the M–X missile (currently in the advanced development
phase) and the TRIDENT II missile (currently still in the design
phase). There is a significant difference in the performance and
physical characteristics of these missiles as they are now
envisaged. [5 lines not declassified]
The estimated developmental cost of each of these missiles is about
$6 billion. If we developed only one common missile we could achieve
a savings of 3 to 4 billion dollars in R&D and about 10 to 15% in unit cost because of the
larger production run. On the other hand, our total M–X system costs would probably
increase because we would have to deploy more of the common missiles
than of the M–X missile if we
believe we have to provide the same total throwweight as now planned
for the M–X. On balance it appears
that the common missile would offer a significant net savings, but
the study has not yet determined either the cost or performance
details.
I will keep you informed as the study progresses; we expect to have
final results by this August. Enclosed for your information is a
status report on the study. It includes the study ground rules, a
listing of the baseline missile parameters, and some preliminary
conclusions.
[Page 294]
Enclosure
Paper Prepared in the Department of Defense3
M–X/TRIDENT II
Commonality Study
1. Major design considerations for a possible common missile
[5 paragraphs (26 lines) not declassified]
2. Study Ground Rules
- —
- Common missile to meet all key requirements per
above.
- —
- [1 paragraph (1 line) not
declassified]
- —
- [1 paragraph (2 lines) not
declassified]
- —
- Management plan to be based on one service taking the
lead, with its existing organization, to develop the system
and be the acquisition agent. Each service will have its
respective weapon system integration
responsibilities.
- —
- System cost-effectiveness evaluation to be consistent with
evaluation methods for baseline, dedicated missiles.
3. Study Output
- —
- Common Missile Definition
- —
- Assessment of Expected Accuracy
- —
- Cost and Performance Comparisons
- —
- Technical, Schedule and Management Plans
- —
- Identifications of Technical and Management
Problems
4. Common Missile Parameters
[2 columns (16 lines) not declassified]
5. When the common missile study is completed, we will consider
variations which would involve modifying the common missile (e.g.,
extra stage, new stage, liquid bus) for the M–X application, thereby achieving additional payload
at a relatively small increase in developmental cost. This probably
will be necessary (and possible) to avoid major degradation in
M–X potential capability.
