Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Trident E6 on a new Neptune class??

Navy leaders said Wednesday the service must ensure the Pentagon remains committed to upgrades to the Trident missile launch system in line with the development of the replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear submarine fleet. Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, said it is necessary to revitalize and qualify the launch systems of the Trident II D-5, which is deployed aboard the U.S. Navy’s 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile subs and Britain’s four Vanguard-class submarines. “The Trident is the most survivable leg of the Triad, and it also gives the U.S. a second-strike ability,” Benedict said at the annual Sea Air Space Exposition at National Harbor, Md.

The missile – currently the Trident II D-5 version – was developed and deployed jointly by both the U.S. and the United Kingdom since the 1990s. The missile has been going through life-extensions and the two countries plan to continue deploying them as they transition to the next-generation nuclear submarine. While budget pressures mount with the sequestration cuts to defense funding, service leaders will be forced to balance modernization priorities. Benedict emphasized the importance of maintaining investment in updating the systems associated within the Nuclear triad. The U.S. Navy plans to replace its 14 Ohio-class subs with a dozen new ballistic missile submarines. The Navy awarded General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division a $1.85 billion contract for the development of the Ohio-Class Replacement Program.

The Ohio-class subs start hitting their end-of-life in 2027, and will be retired in the years following. The Navy anticipates its replacements to come on line by the mid-2020s. Navy leaders have said they can accept the risk of two fewer nuclear capable submarines because of the speed and stealth capability the service expects to develop into the new Ohio-class. Those same leaders will also depend on improved accuracy of upgraded Tridents.


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/04/10/navy-says-upgrades-required-for-trident-launch-system/#ixzz2Q7koIgjq
Defense.org
 
Russia to Load 16 Missiles on New Subs April 15, 2013

Russia intends to load 16 Bulava ballistic missiles on each of its new Borei-class submarines, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported on Sunday. The vessels were initially intended to be installed with 20 missiles, Interfax reported. However, that was found to demand changes including a longer hull that could undermine the submarines' capacity to make rapid changes in direction. "Sixteen missiles are enough to deliver a nuclear strike," according to one unidentified private defense sector insider told Interfax. "What is more important is to be able to clandestinely reach an attack position and launch missiles on designated targets." The first of eight anticipated Borei-class submarines, the Yuri Dolgoruky, has entered active naval service. The Bulava missile, which had a troubled development, are designed to fly up to 5,000 miles and to carry as many as 10 warheads,
 
http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12517
 
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department has dedicated a new supercomputer to monitoring the health of the nation's atomic arsenal, officials for the U.S. nuclear program announced this week. The National Nuclear Security Administration successfully shifted 1-year-old “Sequoia” from operating unclassified trial simulations to running classified replications of nuclear blasts.

The IBM-built supercomputer, one of the most energy-efficient on earth, placed first on the industry's Top 500 list of the world’s most powerful machines last summer. In November 2012, Sequoia fell to second place, but ranked best in the world at solving "big data" problems involving intensive information analysis. "These capabilities provide confidence in the U.S. deterrent as it is reduced under treaty agreements,” said Chris Deeney, the agency’s assistant deputy administrator for stockpile stewardship, in a statement. The United States in 1992 stopped blowing up materials underground to test weapons performance and now only runs digital simulations of explosions.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/supercomputer-now-focused-classified-nuclear-deterrence/
 
Summary of above by Bill Sweetman at Aviation Week, Ares Blog

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:a26e1bfc-4631-41a8-8cb0-ab09bb1bd87f

Three quotes from article :eek:

...."Watts notes that U.S. actions – reductions in nuclear forces and a steady drawdown in the ability to build new warheads – are at odds with activities in Russia, emerging nuclear nations and, possibly, with China...."

...."Indeed, U.S. extended deterrence is something that not enough people think about when they advocate further cuts in U.S. nuclear forces. The American “umbrella” covers nations such as South Korea, Japan and Turkey, which have the industrial and technological capability to go nuclear very quickly if they feel that they can no longer rely on the U.S..."

...."Watts points out, the intelligence community has not been focused on Chinese nuclear developments since 2001..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that my insight was..........well, overly insightful, but I said many time that other nations did not care what the US was doing and that the arms control at any cost crowd's 'lead by disarming and other nations will follow' was always malarky.

We should have been building RNEP, RRW and micro-nukes since first proposed in 2001 time for Manhattan Project II
 
I guess it is inevitable that South Korea, Japan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia will join the nuclear club. It's only really a question of when this will happen.
 
Postcript:

With the current, and expected, proliferation of nuclear weapons, it doesn't make sense that the United States only negotiate nuclear arms control and limitations treaties with the Russian Federation. Certainly, unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States will not lead us to a nuclear weapons free world.
 
Triton said:
Postcript:

With the current, and expected, proliferation of nuclear weapons, it doesn't make sense that the United States only negotiate nuclear arms control and limitations treaties with the Russian Federation. Certainly, unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States will not lead us to a nuclear weapons free world.
Click to expand...

And yet Mr. Triton that has been the Arms Control shibboleth since the end of the Cold War. If we just reduce under START, the world will follow, under START II the world will follow, under SORT.........under New START well you get the point. And what is the current focus of further reductions, before New START is even implemented? More Russian and US reductions to 1000 warheads.

It still concerns me greatly that Russia has a large AND active nuclear warhead production line and is building systems capable of carrying so many warheads especially when combined with how opaque China's weapons program is. In 10 years Russia and China could have double our arsenal. The 4500 limit under START II was far enough IMHO I don't think many were prepared to match us and that number gave credence to the nuclear umbrella our allies needed.
 
Minuteman follow-on AOA to start this summer

LRSO Analysis Of Alternatives Done, Heading To JROC Next Month Posted: Apr. 18, 2013
The Air Force has completed an analysis of alternatives for its Long-Range Standoff weapon, the future nuclear-capable cruise missile that will go on board the service's next-generation bomber, and that AOA will be reviewed by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council within weeks. Regarding a follow-on to the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, the Air Force is preparing to start a formal AOA and is working closely with the Navy, but both services would like "off-ramps" in case a shared development program proves too complex, according to senior service officials. Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the head of Air Force Global Strike Command, and Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, the Air Force's assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, both testified on April 17 before the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee. During the hearing, they discussed the status of two long-term acquisition programs: the LRSO cruise missile and the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), which will consider options ranging from sustaining the Minuteman III into future decades to completely replacing it with a new ballistic missile. On LRSO, Harencak revealed in his written testimony that a major study on the missile is done and is about to be reviewed.
"The Long-Range Standoff program -- the follow-on nuclear-capable cruise missile that will replace the 1980s-era Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) -- is advancing," Harencak wrote. "Notably, the LRSO Analysis of Alternatives was recently completed and is pending validation by the Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel (JROC) in May 2013." JROC approval will allow the program to continue to move through the acquisition process. LRSO development was funded at the expected level, $5 million, in the Air Force's FY-14 budget request, and spending is projected to ramp up dramatically in the following years: to $40 million in FY-15, $203 million in FY-16 and more than $340 million in the out years. The path forward for GBSD is less clear because the AOA is behind schedule, and because of a desire for the Air Force and Navy to develop common components for their ground- and submarine-based ballistic missiles. According to Kowalski, the first part of what should be a two-year study -- what he called a "pre-Analysis of Alternatives" -- was completed last fall. The official AOA's beginning has been slowed by bureaucratic delays but should now begin in July and wrap up in late fiscal year 2014, he wrote in his prepared testimony.

The air and sea services, while probably not striving for a completely joint ballistic missile development program, have publicly stated their desire to cooperate on components that can be shared, such as fuzes and guidance sets, to make them more affordable for both services. Asked about the relationship between the Air Force and Navy by Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), Harencak said the two are strongly partnered but wary of the complexity of ballistic missile development. Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, the Navy's director of strategic systems programs, testified alongside Harencak. "I'm very satisfied with the relationship that we have with Adm. Benedict and the Navy. I think we're making huge, huge breakthroughs, if you will, working on a very difficult, complex set of problems as we look to have adaptable . . . systems we could both use in the future," Harencak said. "My recommendation would only be that while we believe it will be successful -- I am very optimistic and the United States Air Force is very optimistic that this will be a successful endeavor -- I think we have to be mindful of the fact that, should there come a time where we believe for whatever reason that it is not be feasible or affordable to do so, that we have the good sense, if you will, to say, 'Hey, we tried it.' "[Cooperative development] may not work for a host of reasons, maybe technical reasons or just the world has changed, so to speak. I think we have to be ready to have some off-ramps, but right now, I remain very optimistic."

Benedict echoed Harencak's comments, saying that the Navy is fully committed to working with the Air Force while simultaneously leaving open the option of pursuing a standalone warhead for its submarine-launched weapons. The Air Force has several programs in place to upgrade the Minuteman III and keep it viable until GBSD is better-defined, and the FY-14 budget request is extremely supportive of those upgrade and modernization efforts. The single largest project is a plan to modernize the fuze on the Minuteman III at significant cost -- $129 million in FY-14 and growing to $396 million by FY-18, with the total development cost on the program listed only as "continuing." The service is requesting $232 million in additional funding next fiscal year, split across two separate budget lines, to perform ICBM development and research unrelated to the fuze upgrade. One such development effort is meant to upgrade the cryptography capabilities on the missile, adding security to the system. The Air Force plans to keep the Minuteman III in service until 2030. -- Gabe Starosta
 
Nuclear Policy Talks: Why the United States Should Err on the Side of Too Many (Not Too Few) Nuclear Weapons

Matt Kroenig, Assistant Professor of Government, Georgetown University

Enthusiasm for nuclear reductions is driven by three beliefs about arsenal size widely held by experts in Washington: First, a secure, second-strike capability is sufficient for deterrence and nuclear warheads in excess of this requirement can be cut with little loss to our national security. Second, proliferation to rogue states and terrorist networks is a greater threat than nuclear war with great powers, and reductions can advance our nonproliferation objectives in Iran and elsewhere. Third, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear weapons since 1945 and, in a time of budget austerity, reductions will result in cost savings. There is just one problem: all three beliefs are incorrect. A more pragmatic assessment suggests that the United States should not engage in additional nuclear reductions and should instead make the necessary investments to maintain a robust nuclear infrastructure for decades to come.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could not agree more.
 
A senior Russian defense official said arms firms are in the "early stages" of preparing a new railway-based ICBM launcher, Russia's Vedomosti newspaper reported on Thursday. "It is not particularly expensive yet," Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said. "Besides, we will have to analyze the existing railway infrastructure and decide whether or not it will do."

A Russian defense insider said Moscow had yet to reach any "political decisions with regard to missile trains," and such technology is "just one of the options we are toying with." The United States has also commissioned a study of using rail cars or other means of fielding mobile missiles. A number of developments since the end of the Cold War would affect any use of rail-based missile launchers in Russia, according to one insider. "When a missile is fired, pressure on the railroad bed is such that it has to be reinforced. And that was done in the Soviet Union.

Sophisticated Topol-M and Bulava missiles are much lighter. They may be used in missile trains, and their use won't require that much in terms of investments in infrastructure," the source said. Concealing movements by the launchers would prove to be a greater challenge than in the past, the insider added. "Missile trains ought to be moving secretly, the way they did in the USSR., but we do not live in the Soviet Union anymore. This is Russia, and Russia is different." In addition, "there are lots of private businesses running railroads in Russia these days," the source said.
 
Navy Shaves Costs from Future Nuclear Missile Sub

​The Navy has executed cost-saving measures to ease the price tag of the submarine destined to replace the current fleet of Ohio-class nuclear missile submarines, said Vice Adm. William Burke, deputy chief of naval operations for warfare systems, on Tuesday. By altering design requirements and engineering the ship for shorter maintenance periods, the Navy projects that it will save "$20 billion in acquisition, sustainment, and manning costs" in the Ohio-Class Submarine Replacement program, or SSBN(X), he told reporters on April 30 at a Capitol Hill talk sponsored by AFA, the National Defense Industrial Association, and Reserve Officers Association. The Navy has requested $1.1 billion in Fiscal 2014 for development of the new submarine, according to sea service budget documents. Under revised plans, the start of construction of the first sub in this series has slipped from Fiscal 2019 to Fiscal 2021 due to fiscal constraints, said Burke. "Further delay should not be considered" since the Navy and US Strategic Command leadership already believes "there is moderate operational risk associated with this plan," he said. "The triad is the foundation of our defense posture, the bedrock of our nation's security. All legs of the triad are important. The SSBN, as the most survivable leg, is necessary. . . . We must build the Ohio replacement SSBN," said Burke.
 
As the Obama administration prepares to launch a new round of strategic nuclear missile cuts, Russia’s strategic nuclear forces are undergoing a major modernization, according to U.S. officials. Russia's military announced last month that as part of the nuclear buildup, Moscow later this year will deploy the first of its new intercontinental ballistic missiles called the Yars-M. Details of the missile are being kept secret, but it has been described as a fifth-generation strategic nuclear system that Russian officials say will be able to penetrate U.S. missile defenses using a new type of fuel that requires a shorter burn time for booster engines. The solid-fueled, road-mobile ICBM was tested a year ago, and it is said to have an increased payload capacity for a warhead weighing up to 1.5 tons. The range is 6,835 miles. Like earlier mobile missiles known as SS-29s and SS-27s, the new ICBM is expected to have up to 10 multiple, independently targetable warheads. Retired Russian strategic forces commander Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin has said the Yars-M “is one of the military technological measures that the Russian military-political leadership has devised in response to the development of a global missile-defense system by the Americans.” Last year, a Russian official explained the new missile’s fuel and anti-missile defense capabilities in an interview with Moskovski Komsomolets. The strategic nuclear weapons specialist said the high-tech fuel “allows for the reduction of the working time of the engines during the boost phase of flight, when it [the missile] is most vulnerable to detection by defensive means.” “As a result, we achieve the most complex part of the rocket boost so fast that the enemy does not have time to calculate its trajectory and, therefore, cannot destroy it,” the official said. “That is, we can say that our ability to overcome missile defense will be significantly increased.”

Russia also announced last month that it has launched a new research-and-development program for a modernized rail-mobile ICBM. Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov told RIA Novosti April 23 that work on this rail-based missile is in the early stages and could be deployed by 2020. Russia, during the Soviet era, was the first to deploy a rail-mobile nuclear missile system known as the SS-24. The rail-based missile is being developed by Russia’s Moscow Institute of Thermal, which also is building the new Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles, as well as existing land-based Topol ICBMs. The rail-mobile ICBMs were prohibited under earlier versions of the U.S.-Russia START treaties. However, the 2010 New START treaty did not prohibit rail-mobile basing of missiles, and Moscow is taking advantage of the omission. In addition to the new strategic missiles, Russia is building a new strategic bomber that is expected to be deployed by 2020. By comparison, President Obama is expected to announced soon that he will seek a new round of talks with Russia aimed at cutting U.S. nuclear forces even further than the 1,550 deployed warheads under the 2020 New START treaty. The cuts are expected to be justified under a Pentagon strategic review that was completed months ago but withheld from release. That report is expected to suggest that U.S. warhead levels could be cut to as few as 1,000, causing critics to say the administration is undermining U.S. deterrence and the ability to extend the nuclear umbrella to European and Asian allies. Rep. Mike Rogers, Alabama Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, said in a recent speech that the administration is short between $1 billion and $1.6 billion that was promised in 2010 for nuclear modernization.

Among nuclear programs in trouble are a new strategic submarine, life extension programs for B-61, W-76 and W-88 nuclear warheads and a long-range standoff nuclear cruise missile. A needed plutonium facility in New Mexico was also canceled, Mr. Rogers said. The Pentagon also postponed a test launch of a Minuteman III ICBM last month over concerns that it might be misconstrued as an attack on North Korea, which threatened nuclear missile attacks on the United States. “I find this deeply concerning, given the sorry state of the nuclear modernization commitments made during the last round,” Mr. Rogers said of plans for additional nuclear cuts. The Pentagon also has signaled a further lack of resolve toward its nuclear modernization program by ordering an environmental impact study of shutting down an entire land-based nuclear-missile wing. “New START doesn’t require shutting down a missile wing, and I have heard no explanation for this requested study,” Mr. Rogers said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/1/inside-the-ring-russia-builds-up-us-down/#ixzz2S9qZqUW7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The US's military/foreign policy is to allow the development of a 'multi-polar' no 'one superpower' world.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/1/inside-the-ring-russia-builds-up-us-down/?page=all
 
"............ increased payload capacity for a warhead weighing up to 1.5 tons. The range is 6,835 miles. Like earlier mobile missiles known as SS-29s and SS-27s, the new ICBM is expected to have up to 10 multiple, independently targetable warheads............."
---------------------------------------------------------

So each warhead would weigh only 330lbs? Does that give us an 'upper yield' threshold and does the US have a comparable 'light' warhead?
 
bobbymike said:
"............ increased payload capacity for a warhead weighing up to 1.5 tons. The range is 6,835 miles. Like earlier mobile missiles known as SS-29s and SS-27s, the new ICBM is expected to have up to 10 multiple, independently targetable warheads............."
---------------------------------------------------------

So each warhead would weigh only 330lbs? Does that give us an 'upper yield' threshold and does the US have a comparable 'light' warhead?
Click to expand...

The W68.

The notional Topol-M/Yars/Whatever they call it now warhead would be closer to 75kg though, accounting for the bus which IIRC normally takes up close to half a missiles payload.
 
Void said:
bobbymike said:
"............ increased payload capacity for a warhead weighing up to 1.5 tons. The range is 6,835 miles. Like earlier mobile missiles known as SS-29s and SS-27s, the new ICBM is expected to have up to 10 multiple, independently targetable warheads............."
---------------------------------------------------------

So each warhead would weigh only 330lbs? Does that give us an 'upper yield' threshold and does the US have a comparable 'light' warhead?
Click to expand...

The W68.

The notional Topol-M/Yars/Whatever they call it now warhead would be closer to 75kg though, accounting for the bus which IIRC normally takes up close to half a missiles payload.
Click to expand...

The quote above says 'warhead' weight not total throw-weight which would include the bus. So I assumed he was referring to the warhead payload only.
 
~3 tons would be an awfully big throw weight for a 49 ton ICBM.
 
Void said:
~3 tons would be an awfully big throw weight for a 49 ton ICBM.
Click to expand...

Well there is the new fuel he talks about :eek:

..........'The strategic nuclear weapons specialist said the high-tech fuel “allows for the reduction of the working time of the engines during the boost phase of flight, when it [the missile] is most vulnerable to detection by defensive means........'
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/air-force-reportedly-strips-17-officers-power-to-launch-intercontinental
 
NNSA Committed to 'Interoperable' Ballistic Missile, Keeping LEPs On Track

Posted: May. 09, 2013

A senior National Nuclear Security Administration leader this week said Defense and Energy department officials are fully committed to developing an interoperable, adaptable nuclear weapon for the Air Force and Navy, with some limitations, and to keeping long-term warhead life extension programs on track despite sequestration. Don Cook, NNSA's deputy administrator for defense programs, told an audience in Washington on May 7 that the administration, in conjunction with various DOD organizations, has a clear idea of how much commonality can reasonably be expected between a future ballistic missile for use on the Navy's submarines and the Air Force's ground-based missile silos. Cook spoke at a breakfast sponsored by the Air Force Association, National Defense Industrial Association and Reserve Officers Association.

Air Force and Navy officials have voiced support for the common, or "interoperable," missile concept before Congress but stressed that possible exit strategies should be built into that program in case technical or other challenges cannot be overcome. Cook said those off-ramps are in place but are only a backup option. "In the event that we cannot develop or qualify the package and achieve interoperability requirements, then the Navy wanted to see an off-ramp, as we called it, where we would go in and refresh things in the W88 [submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead] system," Cook said. "So we're carrying that forward, but by agreement of all, that is not the primary path. The primary path is an interoperable explosive package that would go in both Air Force and Navy aeroshells, and then all of the other components, the Sandia components, the [arming, fuzing and firing unit], largely common, and there would be several elements, sort of three or four main blocks, that would be adaptable to the two different aeroshells and two different missile systems."

The joint effort is being supported by a variety of organizations, including the Nuclear Weapons Council and the Nuclear Weapons Council's standing safety committee, the Air Force and Navy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Strategic Command, the Joint Staff and NNSA, according to Cook. The government's plan is to develop a high degree of commonality among a handful of key components, rather than striving for superficial commonality across many components, he said. That project aims to replace or extend the life of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and Trident II D5 submarine-launched weapon. NNSA is more centrally involved in extending the lives of the actual warheads those missiles carry, as well as the lives of bombs carried by Air Force bombers. Cook said recent Nuclear Weapons Council decisions "have increased the scope of weapon life-extension programs (LEPs) . . . . It is a considerable increase," indicating a growing workload at NNSA sites. Around 80 percent of all U.S. nuclear warheads and bombs are at some stage of LEPs beyond the initial concept phase, and Cook said given the age of those munitions -- on average 26 years -- he would ideally like to see them all introduced into LEPs.

Some of the warheads being worked on today are the W76-1 and W78, used by the Navy, and the W78 and W87, mounted on Air Force Minuteman III missiles. The administration is also in charge of extending the life of the B61 gravity bomb, although the Air Force maintains lead responsibility for modernizing the tail kit on that bomb. Asked about the effects of sequestration on all of those ongoing efforts, Cook said some of NNSA's critical nuclear activities have been exempted from the strict budget cuts in fiscal year 2013. But the administration, like the rest of the government, submitted an FY-14 budget request that presumes sequestration will be lifted by then. "We enjoy a presidential anomaly for weapons activities for this year," Cook said. "It's a wonderful thing . . . so we have some flexibility. That's how I can confidently say we're going to deliver all the W76 warheads the Navy requires and we're going to take as small a slip as we can in the B61."
 
bobbymike said:
NNSA Committed to 'Interoperable' Ballistic Missile, Keeping LEPs On Track
Click to expand...
Sadly... little more than a few tiny islets common sense in an ocean of FUBAR. :(
 
A Very Serious Strategic Challenge Russia has no interest in reducing its nuclear forces beyond New START levels and is modernizing them as the Obama Administration prevents new US nuclear weapons and restricts delivery-vehicle improvements, asserted Mark Schneider, a senior analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy. Speaking on Capitol Hill on May 10, Schneider said while reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US security strategy is a US objective, Russia is pursuing new concepts and capabilities for expanding the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy. The Air Force Association, National Defense Industrial Association, and Reserve Officers Association sponsored the talk. As the United States draws down its strategic nuclear inventory to abide by New START, "Russia continues to develop and field new nuclear weapons, including strategic and tactical nuclear weapons," stated Schneider in his prepared remarks. Russia has increased its strategic delivery vehicles in the two years since New START has been in effect, while US levels have come down over that span, he said, citing State Department data released in April. (See also New START Decisions Eyed for Year's End.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Schneider is an expert on Russia's strategic modernization programs and should be listened to IMHO.
 
Modernizing the Nuclear Deterrent is Key

Foreign nations "are increasing the role of nuclear weapons in their national security and US policy needs to take that into account," said Franklin Miller, senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Speaking on Capitol Hill on May 15, he called on the Obama Administration to give direction and leadership to modernize the nuclear triad. During his talk—sponsored by AFA, the National Defense Industrial Association, and Reserve Officers Association—Miller pointed out the Navy's attempt to develop the Ohio-class replacement submarine only to have the program slip by two years. He also referenced the Air Force's new bomber, which will have a nuclear role, but not when initially fielded. "When it will have that role is left unsaid," he said of the bomber. He also expressed concern about the Air Force's plans to procure a successor to the Air Launched Cruise Missile, saying "the way that program is structured, seeking to procure only a few hundred nuclear-only missiles almost certainly makes it unaffordable." He said the United States shouldn't reduce its inventory of nuclear weapons unless there is a "plan to modernize," noting that "the last time the triad was modernized was in the 1980s." -----------------------------------------------------------

More and more experts are warning of the neglect of the Triad and nuclear enterprise and its danger to the future strategic environment, I started back in 1992 warning how cancelling all nuclear modernization at the end of the Cold War was a short sighted 'feel good' policy with negative and dangerous long term implications for national security. Now 20 years later we have reached a strategic tipping point that may be irreversible.
 
Operational ICBM Test Launch The Air Force is scheduled to conduct an operational test launch of a Minuteman III ICBM on Tuesday from Vandenberg AFB, Calif., announced Air Force Global Strike Command officials. The unarmed missile's single re-entry vehicle is expected to travel more than 4,000 miles until it touches down in the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, they said on May 20. The launch window runs from 3:01 a.m. to 9:01 a.m. West Coast time, they said. "These tests provide us the opportunity to demonstrate the readiness of the ICBM force," said Col. Richard Pagliuco, Vandy's 576th Flight Test Squadron commander. "Every test provides valuable data regarding the accuracy and reliability of the weapon system," he said. The Air Force had scheduled this launch for earlier in the year, but the Pentagon leadership postponed the mission, citing the desire not to inflame tensions at the time between the United States and North Korea
 
AFGSC just tweeted that the launch has been delayed. I didn't follow up to see why however.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom