Current Nuclear Weapons Development

A Stinging Nuke Rebuke

If the Air Force values the nuclear deterrent mission "it must change its ways" and properly recapitalize its nuclear missile, bomber, and command and control infrastructure, said Franklin Miller, former National Security Council defense and arms control director. "It appears, at least to this observer, that the Air Force leadership simply does not care about its nuclear deterrence," said Miller during a May 13 talk on Capitol Hill sponsored by AFA, the National Defense Industrial Association, and the Reserve Officers Association. "The modernization of the strategic bomber force is in disarray with the [Long-Range Strike Bomber] program slipping to the right and … having an explicitly non-nuclear role" in its planned initial operational capability. In addition, Minuteman III ICBMs will "become increasingly unreliable" without serious propulsion, guidance, and infrastructure upgrades, sacrificing their credibility, said Miller. The United States is "blessed as a nation" to have at least one leg of its nuclear triad in the hands of the Navy, "whose dedication to excellence" keeping up the submarine-launched ballistic missile capability "is legendary," he added.
—Arie Church

We Want Your Nukes, Stop Questioning

Air Force tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe are of "enormous political value" reassuring newer NATO members and the US government should stop questioning that value, said former National Security Council policy director Franklin Miller. NATO stressed the importance of the US's extended nuclear deterrence in its 2010 strategic concept and reiterated its importance again in 2012, noted Miller in a May 13 speech sponsored by AFA, the National Defense Industrial Association, and the Reserve Officers Association. "Those of you who have long-term relationships ... know that it doesn't really work to keep asking 'do you love me?'" he said. In light of Russian military aggression in Ukraine, its violation of existing arms treaties, and its assertive nuclear modernization, "you're not going to convince those guys" they don't need our nukes. "When you look at the newer members of the alliance whose borders touch on Russia, who are targeted by Russia in exercises, who listen to Russian pronouncements saying [when] you build that [ballistic missile defense] site, you have become a nuclear target, it is obvious," said Miller.
—Arie Church
 
Russia Tests Warhead for New Strategic Missile

May 22, 2014

Russia has tested a new warhead that analysts believe is designed to evade the antimissile systems of NATO, the Washington Times reported on Wednesday. A mobile SS-25 intercontinental ballistic missile fitted with the new warhead design was fired on Tuesday from a test complex in southern Russia to a target range in Kazakhstan.

"The purpose of the launch was to test a prospective warhead of intercontinental ballistic missiles," Russian defense ministry spokesman Igor Yegorov was quoted by the state-run Interfax news agency as saying. Security specialists say the test shows Russia is making good on its previous warnings that it would pursue new capabilities to counter missile defense systems that the United States is deploying in Europe. Mark Schneider, a former nuclear-strategy official at the Pentagon, noted that Russian news reports about the next Topol-M land-based strategic missile and the submarine-launched Bulava missile describe how both weapons are to be fitted with as many as 10 advanced warheads and "hypersonic vehicles."

Meanwhile, the head of the Russian air force on Thursday said the service is expected to begin initial deployments of a new strategic bomber in 2023, RIA Novosti reported. "The maiden flight should be performed in 2019," Lt. Gen. Viktor Bondarev said. "State tests and supplies will be completed in 2023." It had previously been reported that the air force could begin receiving the future-generation PAK-DA aircraft no later than 2020. The new bomber is anticipated to be designed to evade and neutralize advanced air defense systems.
 
Senate Bill Would Create Separate Fund for New Trident Submarine
May 27, 2014
By Rachel Oswald


Global Security Newswire A Senate defense panel wants to create a separate fund to underwrite the nation's new nuclear-armed submarine fleet, a step the House also supports. The Senate Armed Services Committee's mark-up of its annual defense authorization legislation calls for the establishment of a "National Sea-based Deterrence Fund" to finance the construction of new submarines to replace today's Ohio-class ballistic missile vessels, according to a detailed panel summary of the bill released on Friday. The Democratic-controlled committee approved the legislation on Thursday by a near-unanimous vote. On the same day, the Republican-controlled House passed its own version of the fiscal 2015 policy-setting bill that also included language ordering the creation of a special fund to pay for the new "SSBN(X)" fleet. The House legislation authorizes the Defense Department to transfer up to $3.5 billion to the Ohio-class replacement account from "unobligated funds" authorized for fiscal years 2014 to 2016.

Meanwhile, the Senate bill would authorize an initial $100 million to get the fund going. Congressional support for creating a separate fund for the Ohio-class successor stems from concerns that the submarine-building effort could eat up too much of the Navy's overall shipbuilding budget. The project currently is in the design and development stage, with construction of the planned 12 new strategic submarines expected to start in fiscal 2021. The vessels are to be armed initially with the Navy's nuclear-tipped Trident D-5 ballistic missile. The latest moves in the two chambers come on the heels of skepticism by a key supporter of the separate-funding idea for new submarines, Representative Randy Forbes (R-Va.), who said recently that the approach would be unlikely to gain full congressional approval this year. Meanwhile, the Senate Armed Services Committee also approved boosting funds for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system to the tune of $30 million above the Obama administration's request. The additional money is to be used "for improvements in reliability and maintenance" of the antimissile program, according to the summary report. The GMD program -- comprising 30 Ground Based Interceptors deployed in California and Alaska, plus a network of sensors -- is the country's principal line of defense against a limited long-range ballistic missile attack. However, it has had a number of recent testing problems that have been so troubling that the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency in March announced it would redesign the interceptor's front-end kill vehicle.

This comes as the military is planning to procure another 14 interceptors for fielding in Alaska, in response to a possible missile threat posed by North Korea. The draft Senate legislation would order the Pentagon to "develop a robust acquisition plan" for the redesign of the kill vehicle, which uses kinetic energy to destroy incoming ballistic missiles, in order "to provide confidence that it will work in an operationally effective manner," the summary states. The bill also would mandate that the Department adhere to the "fly-before-you-buy" approach for affirming through testing the soundness of ballistic missile defense technologies before they are purchased or deployed. The Missile Defense Agency has come under repeated criticism from independent experts and by Congress' internal watchdog for not sufficiently following this acquisition strategy in its development and expansion of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program.
 
Industry Leaders Awarded ICBM Guidance Modernization Study Contracts

Posted: May. 28, 2014

Three of the biggest companies in the defense industry have received contracts to study options for modernizing or recapitalizing the aging guidance system on the Air Force's Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. Those contracts went to Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, and their values range from $4.5 million to $6.4 million. Contract notices posted May 21 on the Federal Business Opportunities website state only that the awards will fund "[research and development] in support of the modernization of the MMIII ICBM Guidance System." The Air Force is relatively early in the process of designing a follow-on to the Minuteman III system, which could lead to a major upgrade of the legacy fleet or possibly the development of a variety of replacement systems. The Pentagon publicly announces contracts worth more than $6.5 million at the end of each work day, but this trio of awards fell just under that threshold and thus was not disclosed in a more public way.

The contract notices are nearly identical and extremely terse, listing only the awardee, dollar value of the contract and basic facts about the company. The awards are being managed by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center's ICBM systems directorate at Hill Air Force Base, UT. The guidance system is one of several critical components on the Minuteman III system in need of sustainment, life-extension efforts and possibly replacement. There are also a number of companies with experience maintaining and modernizing that system. The Air Force is currently running a four-part acquisition for sustainment of specific ICBM subsystems -- ground, guidance, re-entry and propulsion -- and both industry and Air Force officials have said the guidance portion will almost certainly be competitively procured. Boeing has publicly disclosed its intention to bid on that part of the acquisition program, known as the Future ICBM Sustainment and Modernization Construct or FISAC. Inside the Air Force contacted Boeing, Lockheed and General Dynamics to solicit additional information on the contracts they received last week, which fall under the program title "Guidance Modernization Concept Design & Architecture Study," and only General Dynamics responded by press time (May 28).

In a May 27 email provided by company spokeswoman Jennifer Montesano, a General Dynamics executive described what his organization would be looking into. GD's Advanced Information Systems business sector has extensive experience working on the Navy's Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile, which shares many characteristics with the Minuteman III, as well as earlier generations of the sea-borne leg of the nuclear triad.

"General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems was awarded a $6.4 million contract by the U.S. Air Force to study the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile guidance modernization design and architecture," said Mike Eagan, the vice president and general manager of critical mission systems in that business unit. "Under the contract, General Dynamics will conduct performance analyses and develop test strategies and life-cycle support plans for the next-generation missile guidance set architecture. The study results will provide the Air Force with the necessary input to determine the direction for the next phase of this program to ensure compatibility with the Minuteman III and future ICBM weapon systems." Eagan touted the company's experience with nuclear missiles and its open-architecture approach as reasons General Dynamics is well-positioned "to develop a conceptual architecture for any future fixed or mobile strategic-precision ballistic missile system," and to help the Air Force upgrade its existing force structure if desired. ITAF also contacted Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center headquarters at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, but the center did not respond to a request for comment by press time and has not responded to repeated queries about the status of the FISAC acquisition since early May. -- Gabe Starosta
 
Four-Star at Air Force Global Strike Command

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James wants to upgrade Air Force Global Strike Command leadership ranks from a three-star to a four-star billet. The recommendation—part of the Air Force’s efforts to improve the nuclear mission—comes at a time when the service is considering consolidating its four-star general ranks. The proposal, however, must first be approved by Congress, according to a May 28 Air Force release. “This important mission in the Air Force deserves the highest level of leadership oversight similar to our other operational core mission areas,” said James. USAF also will elevate the Air Force assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration from a two-star to a three-star billet and boost overall manpower in the nuclear career field. Each missile squadron also will get two new majors who will serve as assistant operations officers. The idea is to “fill the gap between the lieutenant colonel squadron commander and lieutenants and captains who perform the alert mission,” states the release. Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said the personnel moves demonstrate the importance of the nuclear mission. “We are not just increasing the rank within the organization, we are also increasing the overall manpower by more than 1,100 personnel to address shortfalls and offer our airmen a more stable work schedule and better quality of life,” said Welsh.​

5/30/2014
 
The Future of ICBMs

The Air Force is in the “home stretch” of an analysis of alternatives on the future of the ICBM force, said the head of plans and programs at Air Force Global Strike Command. The AOA, which is slated for completion by the end of the month, will emphasize affordability and modularity for any future Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), said Brig. Gen. Fred Stoss in an interview at AFGSC’s Barksdale AFB, La., headquarters. Stoss stressed the GBSD is not a follow-on missile, but a systematic approach to recapitalizing the existing ICBM force over the long term. “We are already on the front edge of GBSD,” Stoss said, noting USAF plans to begin procuring Minuteman III guidance replacement sets beginning in Fiscal 2015 that will be modular and transferrable in the event the Minuteman III is replaced. “GBSD is not just a missile,” Stoss said, it is the rocket motors, the guidance sets, the fuses, the command and control centers, and other aspects of the capability. “It is all these things, that’s what this analysis is doing. It is charting a path for how to modernize the whole weapons system,” he added. Some components, for example, will be replaced, some modified, and some could endure beyond the Minuteman III’s life span. “We have to make sure we buy the most economical and enduring option” for each part of the system, Stoss said. “We must look at this holistically.”
—Marc V. Schanz
6/6/2014

Sustaining Nuclear Standoff

The Air Force is investing in sustainment of its current fleet of nuclear standoff missiles, as it solidifies plans for a follow-on system in the 2020s. The current AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), first fielded in 1982, is slated to remain in the inventory for another decade. “It has been with us for a long time, but it has capability against a wide range of threats,” Brig. Gen. Fred Stoss, Air Force Global Strike Command head of plans and programs, told Air Force Magazine. USAF has approved a service life extension program of some $300 million across the five-year defense plan to extend the ALCM, and AFGSC also runs an “aggressive aging and surveillance program” and yearly flight tests on the ALCM fleet to simulate its “operational profile,” said Stoss. However, Stoss said AFGSC boss Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson is “highly interested” in making sure the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) program moves forward. Wilson said his goal is to have an ALCM replacement by the “mid-2020s.” USAF plans for the LRSO to field as a nuclear-only weapon, Stoss said, but there could be “other options” pursued in the future, such as converting some to conventional weapons. A portion of the ALCM fleet was converted to the conventional AGM-86C/D CALCM, he noted.
 
http://www.atlcom.nl/upload/AP_3_2014_Cimbala___Lowther.pdf
 
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Trident_II_D5_Missile_Reaches_150_Successful_Test_Flights_999.html
 
GAO Report Nuclear Modernization Budget


http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/664004.pdf
 
Air Force Nearly Done Studying Nuclear-Missile Fleet Options

June 11, 2014

The Air Force expects by the end of June to complete a study of options for maintaining a future ground-based strategic missile capability. The "analysis of alternatives" for maintaining an intercontinental ballistic missile force will focus on modularity and cost-effectiveness, Brig. Gen. Fred Stoss, who manages weapons requirements for the Air Force's Global Strike Command, said in a recent interview with Air Force Magazine. The nation's stockpile of approximately 450 Minuteman 3 ICBMs, which is managed and operated by Global Strike Command, has been deployed since the 1970s. Under the New START accord with Russia, the Pentagon has outlined a plan to by 2018 remove 54 of the missiles from their silos and place them in reserve. Stoss emphasized that a future "ground-based strategic deterrent" would not be a follow-on to the Minuteman 3. :'( "GBSD is not just a missile," the one-star general said. All of the weapon's components are being examined with an eye toward determining which parts need to be updated, which need to be replaced, and which can still be useful past the Minuteman 3's shelf life. "We have to make sure we buy the most economical and enduring option" for each component of the missile, he said. "We must look at this holistically." Meanwhile, experts are divided on whether reforms recently unveiled by the Air Force to boost morale and performance among its nuclear missileer corps will succeed. Those reforms include requesting that the head of Global Strike Command be elevated from a three-star to a four-star position, and expanding the command by 1,100 people.

The reforms follow a number of scandals in the strategic missile workforce that exposed a pervasive test-cheating culture at a base in Montana, allegations of drug possession by some launch-control officers, and problems securing a "stolen" nuclear weapon during a 2013 training scenario. Former Air Force missileer Brian Weeden told Stars and Stripes he views the suggested reforms as "mostly symbolic." "There are already plenty of three-stars and four-stars around, and creating a couple of new ones to represent the missileers is not going to have that big of an impact," he said. However, Dana Struckman, a former Minuteman 3 squadron head, told the Associated Press he views the reforms as "a step in the right direction. ... I think it will make a difference."
 
USAF Briefs Industry On LRSO Plans, Aims For Launch Sooner Than FY-19


Posted: Jun. 12, 2014

The Air Force office responsible for developing a new nuclear cruise missile has advanced key ground rules for the Long-Range Standoff weapon, meeting with a dozen companies to stress the importance of reliability and manufacturing and to assure industry of service efforts to buy back as much as a year from a four-year delay imposed on the program due to fiscal year 2015 budget constraints. On April 29, the LRSO program office hosted an industry day at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, to review "top-level" program objectives for the technology maturation and risk-reduction phase of the program -- recently delayed from FY-15 to FY-19 -- which include an emphasis on designing the new cruise missile with a focus on reliability, according to Air Force documents and a service spokeswoman. "Twelve companies participated in the meeting," the LRSO program office said in a statement provided by Air Force spokeswoman Lois Walsh to InsideDefense.com. "The government highlighted the need to focus on reliability and manufacturing in the Technical Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase of the program in order to improve upon experiences of previous cruise missile programs and achieve overall TMRR objectives," according to the Air Force statement. Before delaying the program, the Air Force earmarked $2.7 billion to develop the new cruise missile through FY-24, the Government Accountability Office reported this week, and had planned to proceed with TMRR this summer.

The Air Force's FY-15 budget, however, reduced funding for the program, setting aside a total of $220 million through FY-19 for LRSO. The FY-14 budget and accompanying five-year plan had proposed spending more than $1 billion on LRSO, an effort to field a replacement to the AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile in 2030 and bolster the airborne leg of the nuclear triad. The FY-15 budget request "represents a significant shift to TMRR start (late FY-19)," a briefing presented at the industry day event states. The FY-19 start is a change from the schedule the Air Force sent Congress in March with its FY-15 budget justification materials, which indicate plans for an FY-18 start.

The program office is advancing an initiative as part of the FY-16 five-year spending plan to "buy back" the schedule slip of about one year, according to the briefing. Meantime, the LRSO program office plans to "continue to refine the acquisition strategy" with plans to execute "potential pre-TMRR" work. The Air Force, according to the briefing, is "considering FY-16 to FY-18 efforts in lieu of program start if necessary." On Feb. 24, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh approved a draft capabilities development document (CDD) that outlines definitive LRSO parameters, sets key performance parameters and other attributes necessary for government acquisition officials and industry to design and propose a system -- as well as a programmatic baseline. A validated draft CDD is sufficient to transition into the TMRR phase of the acquisition system. "The TMRR expectations outlined to the attendees were a mature design with demonstrated manufacturing processes that would support competitively priced production by the end of TMRR," according to the Air Force statement. "The Government also outlined its emphasis on upfront engine work needed to support the system," the statement added. -- Jason Sherman
 
U.S., U.K. to Deepen Cooperation on Warhead Designs: Report

Official documents show the United States and United Kingdom plan to deepen their cooperation on nuclear warhead designs, the London Guardian reports. Partially censored papers provided through an open-records request reveal the two longtime military allies' plans to increase collaboration on nuclear weapon work and the sharing of materials essential for the production and retention of warheads, the newspaper reported on Thursday. London and Washington are expected to formalize the terms of their enhanced nuclear cooperation in the coming weeks with a quiet signing ceremony in the U.S. capital of an updated Mutual Defense Agreement, according to the Guardian. The U.K. defense ministry said it anticipates the defense pact will be reauthorized before 2014 is over. The defense pact enables the United Kingdom to benefit from research and design work done in U.S. atomic weapon laboratories, much of which focuses on ways to ensure a reliable, safe and credible nuclear arsenal absent a return to testing. The Trident weapons deployed on both U.S. Ohio-class and British Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines have long been assumed to be jointly designed and sustained by the two countries.


A paper written in preparation for the visit of a high-ranking U.S. atomic official to the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston mentions "enhanced collaboration" on "nuclear explosive package design and certification," on "maintenance of existing stockpiles," and the "possible development of safer, more secure, warheads," the newspaper reported. A separate document characterizes the bilateral Mutual Defense Agreement as an accord that authorizes the two nations' respective "nuclear warhead communities to collaborate on all aspects of nuclear deterrence including nuclear warhead design and manufacture." A document prepared for senior British department heads asserts that physical "movements under the MDA do not involve nuclear weapons or devices" and thus the accord does not violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The papers were released to the Nuclear Information Service -- a nonprofit group that supports nuclear disarmament. Peter Burt, research manager for the organization, in an interview said the agreement was hypocritical and hurt international nonproliferation efforts. "If Iran and North Korea had signed a similar agreement for the transfer of nuclear weapons technology, the U.K. and U.S. would be branding them pariah nations and screaming for the toughest of international sanctions to be imposed," Burt said.
 
Fading Solid Fuel Engine Biz Threatens Navy’s Trident Missile
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
on June 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM


Trident D5 launch with ATK boosters

CAPITOL HILL: “Failure to launch” isn’t a metaphorical concern when you work on nuclear weapons. That’s why the director of the Navy’s euphemistically named Strategic Systems Program (SSP) is a worried man. What has Vice Adm. Terry Benedict worried is something neither he, nor the Navy nor the entire Defense Department directly control. It’s the viability of what Benedict called “an already fragile industry” that produces the solid-fuel rocket boosters for the Navy’s Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The worst part is that the solid fuel rocket engine business is an industry that will live or die not on the military’s own decisions, but on NASA’s.

“NASA is the large procurer in this whole equation, so what NASA does affects everyone,” from the Navy to the custodian of the nation’s spy satellites, the National Reconnaissance Organization, Benedict told me after the Peter Huessy Congressional Breakfast here. The retirement of the Space Shuttle already hit US rocket-motor manufacturers hard and raised prices for the industry’s remaining customers, including the Trident program. Yes, in theory you could import rocket boosters from abroad, but in practice the big seller is Russia, which is a problematic partner on rocket programs (and other things) right now. “I don’t think we’d ever procure Trident motors outside the United States,” Benedict said bluntly when I raised the prospect.

Next, in 2016, NASA will decide whether its new boosters will use liquid fuel, solid propellant, or a mix. If they go all or mostly liquid, that’s a potential death blow for domestic solid fuel manufacturing, and the Trident’s a solid-fuel missile. Even if the Navy could afford to design a replacement, it would still have to use solid propellant, because liquid rocket fuel is simply unsafe in the tight confines of a submarine.

That’s a unique Navy dilemma. In the Air Force ICBM program, for instance, “they do use liquids today in their upper stage,” Benedict told me. “Liquid [fuels] are a prohibited item on submarines.”

This isn’t a problem Benedict or his bosses at the Pentagon can fix by themselves. “I don’t think this is an SSP issue, an Navy issue, a Department of Defense issue: This is a national issue,” Benedict said. “If you want to have that capability, it should not be on SSP’s back” to keep the industry alive until someone else decides to start buying again.

That sounds awfully similar to the argument that Benedict’s shipbuilding colleagues make about the submarine that will carry the Tridents when the current Ohio­-class SSBN becomes too old to operate in the 2030s: The Ohio Replacement Program (formerly SSBN(X)) is too expensive and too important for the Navy budget to have to carry alone, they argue. Congressional supporters are moving to set up a special account for ORP outside the Navy budget, but actually finding the funding will be much harder.

The service has already decided to save money by pouring old wine into new bottles. It will equip the future sub with the existing Trident D-5 missile — already 25 years old this December — rather than design a new one. That plan will keep the D-5 in service “more than twice as long as any previous missile program,” Benedict told the breakfast audience. “We will be entering uncharted territory.”

It’s up to Benedict and SSP to keep the Trident functional for decades to come. They’re working hard on overhauling and replacing aging components, from the flight controls to the navigation system to the rocket motor. SSP is buying least 12 new boosters a year to replace ones getting too old to safely use. (Trident fuel contains nitroglycerine and, unlike wine and cheese, definitely does not improve with age). But SSP is a relatively small player in the rocket motor market.

So what’s Plan B? If the Navy can’t convince NASA to keep buying solid propellant, maybe it can convince the Air Force to do so when it eventually builds the new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. Currently the Air Force has fully modernized its inventory of rocket motors and stopped procurement, Benedict said, but it is conducting an official Analysis Of Alternatives (AOA) for the future GBSD missile, and Benedict’s staff are participating.

“In the past, it’s been, ‘the Navy designs SLBMs, the Air Force designs ICBMs, and never shall they talk,’” Benedict said at breakfast. “I’m trying to break down those walls….We should be required to talk at the design and development phase.”

There are even commercial users of solid propellant — but they use lower-powered varieties than the Navy requires, so a single formula won’t work for civilians, sailors, and Air Force missileers. “You’d love it to be common across everybody; I’m not sure that’s realistic,” Benedict said. “But can we create a propellant mix that uses common constituents, so that we can get the cost advantage of bulk buys, and then mix them potentially in slightly different formulations [for each user]? That’s exactly the R&D that we’re running with the Air Force and with industry right now, and quite frankly it’s giving us some pretty positive returns.”

Another similar story;
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/navy-admiral-wants-more-stratgic-missile-cooperation-air-force/
 
No-Fun Nuclear Holiday

The United States is falling behind potential adversaries, such as Russia and China, in modernizing its nuclear deterrent, and the bills for that modernization are coming due at the worst possible time, said Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, strategic deterrence chief on the Air Staff. "Almost everybody else is modernizing, certainly at a pace beyond ours," he said during a Capitol Hill speech on June 17 sponsored by AFA, the Reserve Officers Association, and National Defense Industrial Association. "Part of the problem is a lot of these things should have been taken care of 25 years ago. We took a procurement holiday when it comes to strategic nuclear modernization" while our rivals have, in many cases, kept a steady pace since the end of the Cold War, he said. Now, with budget sequestration in force, and money becoming scarcer, the United States is saddled with having to upgrade or replace everything from ICBMs, bombers, and submarines, to warheads, cruise missiles, and command and control infrastructure at once, said Harencak. "It's just a fact," he said.​

—Arie Church
6/18/2014

Teach the Shorties: Deterrent Prevents War

US leaders took a "holiday" from educating the public about the continued stabilizing value of the nuclear deterrent after the Cold War, said Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, nuclear deterrent chief on the Air Staff. "The world in a lot of ways … might be even more dangerous now than it was during the Cold War," with more than just Russia's nuclear threat to contend with and a panoply of new threats to boot, he said during an AFA-sponsored speech in Washington, D.C., on June 17. "We have to go back and convince people who haven't been taught about the enduring value of these things for the past 25 years," said Harencak. The US military cannot expect the taxpayer to pay the price of modernizing the nuclear triad unless "people understand that this stuff is as relevant today as it was for our parents, and it will continue to be relevant for our grandchildren," he added. "We in the military are trying to play catch-up on that," he said. The Reserve Officers Association and National Defense Industrial Association also supported this event.​​
—Arie Church
6/18/2014
 
LRSO Industry Day presentation heavily redacted unfortunately;
 

Attachments

  • LRSO Industry Day.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 11
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/air-force-general-presses-need-future-nuclear-bomber/

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-pulls-multiple-warheads-all-nuclear-missiles/

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-objects-draft-treaty-submitted-russia-china-space-based-arms/
 
Next-Gen ICBM Study Completed And Will Be Briefed To OSD This Month


Posted: Jun. 19, 2014

The Air Force has completed its relatively short-duration analysis of alternatives for a follow-on to its legacy Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and will brief the results of that assessment to senior Pentagon leaders shortly, according to an Air Force general officer. The AOA for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), as the successor to the Minuteman III is currently known, was approved by the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council on May 22, Brig. Gen. Daryl Hauck told Inside the Air Force in an emailed statement. Hauck is the service's program executive officer for strategic systems -- essentially its lead acquisition official for nuclear programs. The preliminary results of that study are classified, he said, and will be briefed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in late June. But the Air Force has more analysis work left to do because it was instructed to constrain the scope and duration of this AOA to just nine months and three primary system options. An analysis of alternatives routinely lasts as long as two years, but Hauck said in an interview last October that the Air Force only began the GBSD study in September.

The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center "is currently planning for follow-on studies to the GBSD AOA to capture data not gathered during the shortened AOA, mostly in the ICBM [nuclear command and control] arena," according to the general. "The ICBM Futures Division is positioning itself to assume responsibility for the results of the GBSD AOA, and they have developed a roadmap that lays out the path to milestone A."

Milestone A represents the start of any military system's technological development within the Pentagon's acquisition process.

Hauck did not name the specific Minuteman III follow-on options that were studied in depth in the AOA, but in general the Air Force is looking at leaving its current system as is and accepting some capability degradation, upgrading the Minuteman III, replacing it with another stationary silo-based system, or possibly developing an underground tunnel system that would allow missiles to move from location to location.

Any new development work will probably be done in consultation with the Navy, which is similarly looking to modernize and sustain its Trident II D5 submarine-launched nuclear missile. The D5 and Minuteman III share many common parts and systems, and Hauck said the two services are working on a variety of initiatives that would bring more commonality than ever to the military's nuclear delivery systems.

Hauck highlighted reentry systems as one area with great potential, with a joint flight test set to occur later this decade.

"In Re-entry Systems, the Flight Test Instrumentation, Test Facilities, and Thermal Protection System (TPS) technology commonality areas are most promising," he said. "There will be a collaborative flight test experiment in the fall of 2017 to collect flight thermal data and assess performance of multiple TPS materials, integrate flight test instrumentation, and utilize both Navy and Air Force test facilities."

The general added that the two services are putting together a joint request for proposals for common thrust vector controllers, with that RFP expected in the next few months, and have already begun working with defense company ATK to build a more common propellant for the D5 and Minuteman III, as reported last year. That effort is intended to save money, make the missile propellants safer and easier to store, and give ATK the ability to produce propellants at more economically viable intervals and quantities. -- Gabe Starosta
 
Standoff, Stealth, and Deterrence

The Long Range Standoff weapon, the ​notional follow-on to the AGM-86 nuclear cruise missile, is necessary to maintain the strategic potency of the nuclear-capable bomber fleet, said Adm. Cecil Haney, head of US Strategic Command. If the United States fielded only stealth bombers, "gravity bombs would solve everything," said Haney on June 18 in a Capitol Hill speech that AFA sponsored, together with the Reserve Officers Association and National Defense Industrial Association. But as anti-access and area-denial defenses proliferate, the United States has to be able to deal with threats that will require a range of responses. While the B-2 fleet is stealthy, providing important penetrating capability, the reason the B-52 fleet still participates in strategic deterrence is "because it has standoff" weapons, said Haney. "We have to be careful with trying to balance capabilities," he said. Just because the nation's future bomber, the Long-Range Strike Bomber, will have "stealth characteristics," this does not obviate the need for a standoff nuclear-capable weapon, he said. (For more from Haney's talk, read The Russia Report from STRATCOM and Command and Control Critical to Strategic Deterrence.)​​
—Marc V. Schanz
 
Deterrence Strategy Ambivalence
EntryByline
By John Michael Loh

The Air Force continues to display ambivalence toward its role and responsibility in the nuclear deterrent aspects of national security strategy, writes John Michael Loh, retired Air Force general, in an opinion piece for Air Force Magazine.​​​​

June 23, 2014—The Air Force continues to display ambivalence toward its role and responsibility in the nuclear deterrent aspects of national security strategy. ​​When former Defense Secretary Robert Gates resumed the Air Force's program for a new bomber in 2011, he referred to it as a "nuclear-capable penetrating bomber."

Consecutive Nuclear Posture Reviews have validated the triad of nuclear bombers and ground-launched and sea-launched nuclear ballistic missiles as the fundamental, overarching security strategy for the nation. The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision that requires the Air Force to ensure the new bomber has a nuclear weapons capability at initial fielding and full nuclear testing and certification within two years after that. As recently as May, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in testimony before Congress, reiterated the nuclear triad as the basis for the nation's defense strategy. With such overwhelming clarity in support of the triad and the nuclear-capable bomber role within it, why does the Air Force continue to turn a blind eye toward the nuclear mission for Long-Range Strike Bomber, the new bomber? Initially, the former Air Force Secretary and former Chief of Staff stated that the new bomber would carry and deliver only conventional weapons. Later, the Air Force said it would provide some "provisions" for a nuclear role, but would defer installing them fully for cost reasons.

Even after the Congress prodded the Air Force to accept full nuclear capability in LRS-B, the Air Force, in its public statements, has consistently not advocated the nuclear deterrent role of LRS-B. In June of this year, the Air Force's assistant secretary for acquisition, in an interview with Air Force Magazine, said, "From a schedule and national perspective, the nuclear variant [of LRS-B] wasn’t the first version we needed," and "adequate provision will be made to make it easier to make a future nuclear version." A week later, the Air Force was forced to release a statement clarifying his remarks by reiterating its commitment in accordance with the Congressional requirement for full nuclear capability and testing within two years of initial fielding. But, why the persistent reluctance among Air Force leaders to fully embrace the nuclear deterrent role for LRS-B? This is out of character for the Air Force given the value and role of strategic nuclear bombers throughout its history. With the current re-emphasis on nuclear deterrence in national security policy, one would think the nuclear mission for LRS-B would be first in priority.

Moreover, there are many other reasons to promote the nuclear mission for LRS-B. As our military forces shrink while those of potential adversaries grow, those forces that are nuclear-capable increase in value. In the Cold War, the USSR and Warsaw Pact outmanned us on the ground, at sea, and in the air. We depended on our nuclear forces, not numbers, to compensate and deter aggression. The nuclear bomber enforces extended deterrence. We have committed to our allies that they can depend on us for their nuclear deterrent. Our allies count on our nuclear bomber force more so than the nuclear missiles to provide extended deterrence. Ironically, the bomber leg of the triad is the weakest, another reason to advocate a new nuclear bomber. We have only 60 nuclear bombers, 44 B-52s and 16 B-2s. B-52s cannot penetrate even modest defenses and must launch nuclear cruise missiles to contribute. B-2s are few in number and their ability to penetrate defenses continues to atrophy in the face of modern air defenses. The LRS-B must become the backbone of the bomber leg of the triad.

For these reasons and many more, Air Force leaders should restore the nuclear deterrence ethos throughout the Air Force, champion the nuclear-capable bomber's unique contribution to the triad, and reorder its priorities by advocating the nuclear deterrent mission as Job One for LRS-B.

John Michael Loh, a retired Air Force general, is a former Air Force vice chief of staff and a former commander of Tactical Air Command and Air Combat Command.​​
 
Air Force Plan For ICBM Follow-On Coming Into Focus; Industry Briefing In July

Posted: Jun. 25, 2014

The Air Force has finalized a plan to modernize the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad and will brief industry next month on the results of its Ground Based Strategic Deterrent analysis of alternatives, the service said this week. The AOA assessed a range of options, from maintaining the Minuteman III missile to developing a new ICBM that could be hidden in a custom-built underground rail network. On July 16, Air Force Global Strike Command, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center and the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Systems Directorate will host a "GBSD Post AoA Industry Brief" at Hill Air Force Base, UT, according a June 23 notice published in Federal Business Opportunities. "Purpose: Provide Industry the GBSD AoA results which addresses modernization or replacement of the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad," states the notice, which stipulates that attendance is limited to cleared U.S. defense contractors.

In March, the Air Force outlined plans to award a contract to launch a major new acquisition program to modernize the ICBM fleet in fiscal year 2016. Next month's event will be the culmination of actions directed in 2010 by the Obama administration as part of the Nuclear Posture Review, which included a call for a follow-on ICBM study. "This study will consider a range of possible deployment options, with the objective of defining a cost-effective approach that supports continued reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons while promoting stable deterrence," the 2010 nuclear policy report stated. The Air Force -- which expects the Minuteman III fleet to remain viable until 2030 -- has considered five different options for how to ensure the ICBM fleet remains credible until 2075 (DefenseAlert, March 12, 2013). The alternatives include maintaining the Minuteman III inventory through limited refurbishments and part replacements, likely the lowest-cost option; and upgrading the current ICBM fleet with more effective modular components as needed to keep pace with evolving threats. Other courses of action would involve plans to replace the Minuteman III fleet with a new ICBM. A third option would put the new ICBM in a "super-hardened" silo; a fourth option would emplace a new ICBM on a mobile transport system, similar to a controversial concept considered during the 1980s.

The Air Force also considered building a new ICBM that could be deployed in underground tunnels, with multiple launch points along a 10- to 20-mile rail track, according to a Sept. 20, 2013, report from the Government Accountability Office. The directive to find a "cost-effective approach" could be an important factor as the Defense Department is wrestling with how to afford a number of major new nuclear delivery systems, including a replacement for the Ohio-class submarine, a new bomber and a new air-launched cruise missile. DOD estimates the price tag for these new systems over the next decade will be $125 billion, which does not account for how the Air Force will proceed with its GBSD effort. Accordingly, the Pentagon may be "significantly underreporting" the cost to modernize the entire nuclear force, according to a June 10 GAO report. In March, the Air Force's FY-15 budget proposal outlined service plans to spend a total of $26 million on the GBSD analysis of alternatives between fiscal year 2013 and 2015 and to launch a new major acquisition program at milestone A of the acquisition cycle, allowing it to start work on meeting the GBSD requirement in fiscal year 2016. With the analysis of alternatives complete, the Air Force plans to "continue concept refinement, technology analyses, modeling and simulation support, engineering studies, program cost and schedule estimation, acquisition strategy development, risk reduction efforts, initial requirements definition, and Milestone A preparation," according to the service's FY-15 budget proposal. On Aug. 8, 2012, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the Air Force's proposed GBSD initial capabilities document, which recommended modernizing or replacing the Minuteman III fleet. The JROC "found that while the Minuteman III currently provides a robust deterrent, it is an aging weapon system that requires enhancement, recapitalization, replacement, or development of a new capability," according to a summary of the classified document published in the September 2013 GAO report. -- Jason Sherman
 
Air Force to Present Plan for Modernizing Nuclear Missiles in July

June 27, 2014

The Air Force has completed a study of options for modernizing its strategic nuclear missile arsenal and will present the plan next month. The "analysis of alternatives" for maintaining a ground-based strategic deterrent is to be briefed to interested companies on July 16 at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, Inside Defense reported on Wednesday, citing a federal notice. The assessment is understood to have looked at a number of alternatives including maintaining the existing Minuteman 3 missile arsenal through small-scale substitutions of aging components with newer ones; overhauling the Minuteman 3 with enhanced modular parts that can better respond to changing threats; and developing an entirely new class of intercontinental ballistic missile that could be placed in either a "super-hardened" underground launch center or on special mobile transporters. The issue of cost is expected to be a key factor in whatever alternative officials will ultimately pick, according to previous comments by senior Global Strike Command officials.

Earlier this year, the Air Force said it intended in fiscal 2016 to select a contractor for the ICBM modernization program. The service anticipates the Minuteman 3 arsenal will remain operational until 2030. The Air Force wants to maintain a ground-based nuclear missile capability until 2075.
 
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/228864.pdf
 
http://csis.org/files/publication/140625_Murdock_Building2021Military_Web.pdf

Put this here as there is Triad modernization stuff in the report.
 
Russia to Revamp Nuclear-Missile Force Within Decade

July 7, 2014

Russia on Friday said it plans to finish modernizing its nuclear-capable missile forces within several years, ITAR-Tass reports.

"By 2016, the share of new missile systems will reach nearly 60 percent, and by 2021 their share will increase to 98 percent," said Col. Igor Yegorov, a defense ministry spokesman for Russia's Strategic Missile Forces. The project would replace Russia's active-duty, nuclear-ready missiles left over from the Cold War. Yegorov said the upgrades would include systems designed to circumvent missile-defense technology employed by other countries, as well as improvements to their "troop- and weapon-command systems [and] combat equipment."

The spokesman added that Russia is moving this year to deliver RS-24 Yars strategic missiles to the country's Novosibirsk, Tagil and Kozelsk missile units. "At this stage, operations for their acceptance and commissioning are underway," Yegorov told ITAR-Tass in an interview. "The work for the creation of new infrastructure of positioning areas of missile regiments continues, it will ensure better conditions for the use of armaments and training of the alert forces," he added.


Meanwhile, a defense ministry insider said that new Voronezh-M and Voronezh-DM radar systems would fill in for Russian missile-detection capabilities once offered by a now-defunct satellite network, Russia Beyond the Headlines reported on Friday.
 
Navy: Plan to Build New Strategic Sub Requires 'Unsustainable' Funding
July 8, 2014

The U.S. Navy says that it cannot afford to simultaneously build a new strategic submarine fleet and to update the rest of its conventional ships. In a July 1 report to Congress on its long-term shipbuilding plan, the Navy said by fiscal 2032 it would be spending in excess of $24 billion annually -- almost double the traditional average of $13 billion, Inside Defense reported. The sea service described that amount of funding as "unsustainable." "There will be resourcing challenges outside the [fiscal 2015 - fiscal 2019 future years defense plan] largely due to investment requirements associated with the SSBN(X) requirement," wrote U.S.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work in the 28-page report. "SSBN(X)" refers to the planned successor class to the Ohio ballistic missile submarine. The Navy's long-term shipbuilding plan does not factor in current defense spending caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Acquisition costs for the next-generation nuclear delivery vehicle are forecast in the report to boost yearly shipbuilding spending to an average of $19.7 billion yearly during the fiscal 2015 - fiscal 2019 period. The need to modernize the U.S. strategic submarine fleet "will cause significant and noteworthy risks to the Navy's overall shipbuilding plan," the report says. The projected cost of the lead SSBN(X) submarine also has increased, rising by about $400 million from last year's projection to $12.4 billion, according to the Navy.

There is a movement in both chambers of Congress to create a separate fund to pay for the new strategic submarine fleet in order to prevent the expense from swamping the Navy's shipbuilding budget. The Senate Armed Services Committee in May passed annual defense-authorization legislation that would require the establishment of a "National Sea-based Deterrence Fund." Legislation with a similar goal has already been approved by the House of Representatives. Construction of the new submarine fleet is anticipated to begin in fiscal 2021. A total of 12 new vessels -- armed with nuclear-tipped Trident D-5 ballistic missiles -- are planned for acquisition

Another story - http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/mission-unsustainable-navy-officially-admits-it-cant-afford-future-fleet/
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/my-last-ship-was-older-than-i-was-sailor-quizzes-secdef-on-new-ssbns/

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/07/us-nuke-focus-has-drifted-a-little-hagel/
 
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/navys-trident-ii-missile-shows-why-its-the-backbone-of-the-u-s-nuclear-deterrent/
 
OSD Weighing Air Force Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Proposals

Posted: Jul. 24, 2014

The Office of the Secretary of Defense is currently reviewing the Air Force's proposal for how to modernize the ground-based component of the nuclear triad, the results of a recently completed classified Ground Based Strategic Deterrent analysis of alternatives, according to a service spokesman. The service is currently in the materiel solution analysis phase and has considered a wide range of options that span from maintaining the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile to developing a new ICBM that could be hidden in a custom-built underground rail network. "Results [of the analysis of alternatives] are not publicly releasable," said Air Force spokesman Maj. Eric Badger. In 2010, the Obama administration called for the Pentagon to study a follow-on ICBM with the goal of identifying a "cost-effective approach."

"Affordability was a factor considered," said Badger of the alternatives assessed. The spokesman added, "options are still being considered, are pre-decisional, and not releasable." On July 16, the Air Force provided a classified briefing to industry on the findings of the GBSD review (DefenseAlert, June 25). That limited disclosure took place 10 months after the Air Force presented the findings to the Pentagon's top acquisition officials. On Oct. 11, 2013, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall approved a materiel development decision for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrence requirement, according to Badger. That milestone marked the completion of the analysis of alternatives and the launch of the materiel solution analysis phase of the acquisition effort. Since then, the Air Force has been in the materiel solution analysis phase of the program, during which -- according to DOD acquisition documents -- the service is to choose the concept for the product that will be acquired, to translate capability gaps into key performance parameters, and to conduct planning to support a decision on the acquisition strategy for the product.

The Air Force -- which expects the Minuteman III fleet to remain viable until 2030 -- was tasked by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to assess five different scenarios for keeping the ICBM fleet credible through 2075. The alternatives included maintaining the current ICBM inventory through limited refurbishments and parts replacements, likely the lowest-cost option; and upgrading the current Minuteman III fleet with more effective modular components as needed to keep pace with evolving threats. Other alternatives explored replacing the Minuteman III with a new ICBM. A third option would put a new ICBM in a "super-hardened" silo; a fourth choice would deploy a new missile on a mobile transport system, similar to a controversial concept considered during the 1980s. Lastly, the service also is weighing a new ICBM deployed in tunnels, with multiple launch points along a 10- to 20-mile rail track, according to a Sept. 20, 2013, report from the Government Accountability Office. -- Jason Sherman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of ICBM Propulsion Sustainment Competition Released

Posted: Jul. 24, 2014

The Air Force this week laid out its strategy for judging a competition it did not expect to hold regarding the sustainment of its Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile propulsion system. The service is in the process of contracting for sustainment services for each of the Minuteman III's four main subsystems -- propulsion, ground, guidance and re-entry -- and has already selected BAE Systems to be a sort of in-house contractor that will assist in program management and system engineering. Together, those five contracts are known as the Future ICBM Sustainment and Acquisition Construct, or FISAC. Most of those will end up being competitively procured, but propulsion work was always meant to be awarded to ATK on a sole-source basis. However, the Air Force's decision to choose BAE as its lead contractor last year instead of incumbent Northrop Grumman has led to a contracting reshuffle, with Northrop now positioning itself as a competitor to ATK to try to stay involved in the Minuteman III business sector. The result is that the Air Force will have to hold and fairly evaluate a competition it did not intend to manage. To that end, the service recently released its final set of criteria by which it will judge any bids it receives for that ICBM propulsion contract. Had the Air Force selected Northrop Grumman as its lead FISAC contractor, the competition could and likely would have been avoided. A core part of its construct is that the lead company cannot also be the prime contractor on any subsystem work; that requirement, meant to limit conflicts of interest, would have precluded Northrop from bidding against ATK. The Air Force on July 18 posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website a number of new documents that will go into the propulsion contract's request for proposals. One of those, titled "Evaluation Factors for Award," lays out the service's evaluation criteria.

The propulsion competition will be held as a best-value source selection, meaning the lowest-priced bid will not automatically win. In fact, cost will hold relatively less importance for this program than technical ability, the most important factor, and a contractor's past performance. The document states that if combined, technical and past performance factors "are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision." The clearance for the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center to move ahead with a competition structured in that way is notable because of the major budget constraints the military services are under. Those tighter budgets have led many competitions to be held under "lowest-price-technically-acceptable" terms, in which the most affordable bid that meets technical standards is automatically selected. But those circumstances necessarily restrict innovation and new development, which the Air Force may be interested in on its ground-based nuclear deterrent.

However, the service indicates clearly in the document that it is not looking to take major risks with this award. One of the items that will be factored into any bid is its technical risk rating, and the document states in bold, capital letters that any bid deemed high-risk will no longer be considered for award. The past performance and cost aspects of a proposal will be judged as they normally are, with the Air Force studying how relevant a contractor's recent work is to the current program and how realistic a company's cost structures are. This competition will pit ATK, the lone producer of ballistic missile propellant in the market today, with Northrop Grumman, the firm with the most overall ICBM experience. It remains to be seen how much expertise the company has specifically in the propulsion area, but the contracting structure that FISAC will replace gave Northrop Grumman great flexibility as to the way tasks were subcontracted and completed on the complete weapon system. In addition to changing the Air Force's acquisition strategy, the existence of this propulsion competition has also changed its contracting schedule. The order in which the subsystem contracts are awarded has changed multiple times, and Brig. Gen. Daryl Hauck, the service's program executive officer for strategic systems, has said it does not particularly matter which order that occurs in, other than the fact that the award to BAE had to come first. Nevertheless, propulsion is now on schedule to be the last contract handed down in late 2015, rather than the first or second. Re-entry, the only remaining subsystem that will be sole-sourced, is the furthest along and may be awarded before the end of fiscal year 2014. That contract will be going to Lockheed Martin, the only company with sufficient experience to be entrusted with ICBM propulsion sustainment activities. -- Gabe Starosta
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers Worried Over State Of Domestic Rocket Motor Production :'(

Posted: Jul. 24, 2014

Senate appropriators are concerned that the domestic industrial base for rocket motors is being damaged by budget constraints that are killing competition and driving the Defense Department to foreign vendors. "Whenever possible, domestic sources should be considered, and full and open competition employed before awarding contracts," the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee wrote in a report accompanying its version of the fiscal year 2015 defense spending bill, which was approved by the full committee July 17. The lawmakers singled out the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System as examples of programs with foreign vendors or a lack of competition.

"A foreign supplier began development and qualification for a new rocket motor on the AMRAAM missile in 2009 after the domestically supplied rocket failed to qualify because of issues with the propellant and the blast tube insulation," the report states. Furthermore, "the committee has learned that the Navy may also be exploring a rocket motor source from a foreign vendor for a tactical missile program," the report continues. "Finally, the committee understands that the Army recently awarded a sole-source contract for rocket motors for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, a program that has been stable and in production for some time." The lawmakers note that they are "concerned that in these programs, a competition for a new rocket motor vendor was not executed; and in two programs, the department is becoming more reliant on a foreign supplier." The report states that the "committee is closely following these developments across all services, as rocket motors continue to be a critical component of the defense industrial base." The subcommittee's proposed legislation directs the Pentagon's acquisition executive to conduct an independent assessment of domestic and foreign-sourced rocket propulsion for DOD tactical missile programs. The assessment would be due within 180 days of the bill becoming law. "This report should include the impacts of foreign-sourced rocket motors on domestic suppliers, and the national security impacts on the defense industrial base," the lawmakers write.

The panel also wants the Government Accountability Office to come to the congressional defense committees with an analysis "that outlines the assumptions and analysis utilized by the Army to justify a sole-source contract to develop and qualify new, insensitive munitions-compliant rocket motors for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, and why a competitive acquisition strategy was not used," according to the report. The panel's bill calls for $125 million to fund an additional competitive Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle-class mission -- possibly opening the door for launch provider SpaceX -- and adds $25 million to the Air Force's $43 million request to continue development of liquid rocket engine technology. Since 2006, EELV missions have been awarded on a sole-source basis to the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a Boeing-Lockheed Martin partnership, which uses the Russian-made RD-180 engine. "When the department originally decided to use the RD-180 engine, the Air Force committed to develop an advanced rocket engine that would eventually replace the RD-180," the report states. "Unfortunately, the Air Force failed to make rocket engine development a priority, so the program remains a science and technology project with no formal completion schedule that would deliver a new engine in this decade." -- Tony Bertuca
 
Air Force Wants OSD To Allocate More Funds For Nuclear Enterprise


Posted: Jul. 31, 2014

The Air Force is hoping for a bigger share of the Pentagon budget to help pay for the modernization of its nuclear forces, and that desire will be reflected in the service's next resourcing request to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, senior service leaders said this week. Air Force leaders, both in response to an embarrassing cheating scandal involving nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile crews earlier this year and at the direction of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, have made fully resourcing and modernizing the nuclear enterprise a top priority going forward. The Air Force is responsible for the bomber and ICBM legs of the nuclear triad, with the Navy's nuclear submarines representing the third piece of the Pentagon's strategic deterrent. The bomber element is being modernized through the Long-Range Strike Bomber acquisition program, and the ICBM weapon system is the subject of a recently completed analysis of alternatives, which considered a number of options for sustaining, upgrading or replacing the Minuteman III missile.

In terms of addressing the more immediate needs of the ICBM and bomber communities, this year the Air Force re-aligned $50 million to fund near-term facility upgrades and to pay for additional personnel to fully staff eight critical jobs within the nuclear enterprise. Both changes, and others to follow, were identified as ways of addressing the underlying cause of low morale and other "systemic" issues within the nuclear force. The service has requested $154 million in fiscal year 2015, and will ask for a further $350 million over the next five years to continue those force improvement efforts.

During the July 30 unveiling of a 30-year strategy document, which states that nuclear infrastructure must be "recapitalized where necessary and modernized when needed," service Secretary Deborah Lee James said the nuclear enterprise is a national asset, and how to pay for the modernization will be determined in the coming months as the Air Force prepares its fiscal year 2016 program objective memorandum submission to OSD. James said the service is in discussions with OSD, both through Hagel and Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work, about how much the Air Force should pay and whether more money should come from the broader Pentagon budget. "A point that I continue to make, and I believe there's agreement on this point, is that this is a national asset," James told reporters at the Pentagon. "So it's not just an Air Force issue per se, it's a national asset and therefore it's an issue for all of us. We do feel that additional monies could well be in order, because this is such an important national asset."

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said further details about the service's nuclear modernization plan would be addressed in the overall "Air Force Master Plan" document, although he did not say when that document would be released. "If we're going to have this as a mission," Welsh continued, "we need to make sure the infrastructure is capable of doing the job, and supports the airmen who are conducting the mission." In response to an investigation earlier this year that found some missileers had been cheating on their monthly proficiency tests, the Air Force implemented a 100-percent manning policy for vital career fields within the nuclear force as a way of addressing the "cultural and morale" issues that the service identified as the root causes of the cheating.

Asked why those forces should be staffed at such a level while the Air Force downsizes elsewhere, James said the service needs to set forth clear priorities, and the nuclear mission is No.1. "That is precisely why we're shifting resources and we're shifting personnel," James said. "The personnel aren't all there on station yet, but they'll be coming. And there are eight what we consider critical specialties within the career field, and they have got to be staffed at 100 percent."

James said along with the service's overseas forces, nuclear personnel are considered "tip of the spear" forces and should be staffed appropriately. "If the requirement for people can be reduced by getting smarter about how we do the job without putting the mission or safety or security at risk, we can actually free up resources to use in other places again," Welsh added. "That's a part of this process that's ongoing now." In terms of modernizing or replacing the Minuteman III missile, the Air Force has been weighing a number of options through its Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent AOA, which concluded earlier this year and was briefed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in late June.

According to Welsh, recent advances in hypersonic weapon research are unlikely to have any near-term impact on the Air Force's ICBM modernization strategy. The introduction of a hypersonic strike capability has been floated as a way of bypassing conventional missile defense systems in the long term. "For our warfighting force, that's an important concept," Welsh said, adding: "Anything we can do to speed up the effects we want to create is a good thing, whatever domain we operate in. I don't think hypersonics in the near term will impact the ICBM modernization that we're looking at." -- James Drew
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/a-second-chance-on-nuclear-modernization/
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11005061/China-confirms-new-generation-long-range-missiles.html
 
http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2014/07/future-of-the-intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-inf-treaty/
 
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/12/american-still-needs-nukes-and-a-better-foreign-policy/
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom