Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Air Force, Navy Identify Technologies To Preserve Missile Industrial Base

Posted: Aug. 13, 2014

The Air Force and Navy have identified eight technology areas in which to exchange data to preserve the intercontinental ballistic missile and submarine-launched ballistic missile industrial base, according a top Air Force official. The eight areas include the ailing solid rocket motor industry, which has seen a significant drop in demand after the NASA Space Shuttle program concluded in 2011. "While differences in our systems may not allow us to pursue common rocket motors, we are exploring common propellant constituents," Navy spokesman John Daniels said in an Aug. 4 email. "If successful this will help the Navy and Air Force stabilize industrial demand and should generate cost savings by allowing for larger bulk purchases of constituent ingredients."

The two branches have also created technology area working groups to study collaboration opportunities in command and control, reentry, guidance, propulsion, strategic electronics, nuclear weapons surety and testing and surveillance, according to Daniels. In April, Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, the Navy's director of Strategic Systems Programs, told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee that the two are "embarked on a deep set of cooperation initiatives where we're going to be able to leverage both our buys, if you will, whether they be in raw materials or completed components that I think will certainly provide some inefficiencies, but also help our industrial base."

The Air Force and Navy have been working together since the late 1990s to capitalize on emerging technologies, leverage common components and eliminate redundancy as party of the ICBM Demonstration Validation Program, according to Maj. Eric Badger, an Air Force spokesman. It was not until 2003 that a formal memorandum of understanding was signed to outline roles, relationships and operating practices between the branches. The partnership was further defined in a November 2012 memorandum of agreement, Badger said. -- Scott Maucione
 
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-06/deterrence%E2%80%94now-more-ever
 
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2014/08/budget-cuts-delay-new-nuclear-missile-two-years/91859/?oref=d-river :'(

Looks like the 'hybrid' (whatever that means) model won the day.
 
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/uk-ukraine-crisis-russia-exercises-idUKKBN0GY0H620140903
 
After a two year hiatus AIAA Conference
 

Attachments

  • AIAA Conference.PNG
    AIAA Conference.PNG
    41.3 KB · Views: 296
http://armedservices.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=361

INF Treaty discussion and whether it is relevant given Russian violations and China's massive IRBM force.
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/lrs-b-next-boomer-may-force-weapons-cuts/
 
Lawrence Livermore National Lab stockpile stewardship program

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MmujbPYT80#t=371
 
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_to_boost_nuclear_space_defence_forces_against_US_999.html
 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/510636/Nuclear-weapons-should-move-to-US-if-Scotland-independent
 
The Nuclear Budget Option

—John A. Tirpak 9/17/2014

​The Air Force has asked the Pentagon leadership for extra monies, separate from its regular accounts, to fund nuclear modernization, said service Secretary Deborah James on Tuesday. The Air Force argued that its two legs of the nuclear triad (i.e, ICBM force, bombers) constitute a national mission and deserve to be funded as such, James acknowledged during a press conference at AFA’s Air & Space Conference in National Harbor, Md. “We very much did pitch this,” in the service's recent Fiscal 2016 program objective memoranda submission, she said. The POM goes to the Pentagon leadership, which will adjudicate the request and render final decisions "later this year," she said. "We have redirected substantial monies within our own topline toward the nuclear mission," explained James, but "there is more to be done." She said she's optimistic about the approach, saying Pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall "is quite understanding that, given the totality of our Air Force, even when we put nuclear as No. 1, which is what we’re doing, we still have other important missions, and we have to have a reasonable balance." Kendall has been "a great partner in telling this story," said James.

From Breaking Defense;

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/kendall-budget-gimmicks-wont-fix-nuclear-deterrent/
 
Decision On Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Due In Early 2016

Posted: Sep. 17, 2014

The head of Air Force Global Strike Command said he expects the Pentagon to settle on a materiel solution for replacing or upgrading the Minuteman III nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile system within 15 months. The Air Force has completed a study into options for a follow-on ICBM system and the Office of the Secretary of Defense is vetting the results. The follow-on solution, known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, would keep the ICBM portion of the nuclear deterrent viable through 2075 and could include a major upgrade to the current LGM-30 Minuteman III or the development of a new weapon system.

Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson told reporters at the Air Force Association's annual Air and Space Conference in Washington this week that the Pentagon is scheduled to make a milestone A decision on GBSD, which would move the program from the materiel solutions analysis phase through to technology development, in about 15 months. This would place the decision date in the early 2016 time frame. "Now we're taking the options given to us through the [analysis of alternatives], and that's when we'll come to what we want to do next," Wilson said Sept. 16. "We cannot discuss it in detail because it has not been vetted through OSD yet." No decision has been made yet on the best way forward, or whether the Air Force would prefer to replace or upgrade the Minuteman III, according to Wilson. The current weapon system was delivered during the 1970s. "The feedback we're getting back is that we're pleased with the AOA and we're going to vet it through OSD, and once we vet it we'll move to the next step, which will be this milestone A decision in about 15 months," he said.

For now, the Air Force is moving ahead with a follow-on Minuteman III sustainment contracting arrangement called the Future ICBM Sustainment and Acquisition Construct. Speaking alongside Wilson, Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, the Air Force's assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said any mid-term Minuteman III upgrade or sustainment work would be considered through the lens of GBSD utility. "We must sustain and make sure the Minuteman III remains the outstanding weapon system that it is to defend America, but we're going to have to do things between now and 2030," Harencak said. "But whatever we do, our Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center and Air Force Global Strike Command are going to make very crystal clear that that will have applicability to whatever ends up being followed." -- James Drew
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/21/us-iran-nuclear-exclusive-idUSKBN0HG03T20140921
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone&_r=1
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/new-nuke-cruise-missile-as-crucial-as-new-bomber-haney/#disqus_thread
 
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/24/the_unaffordable_arsenal_defense_spending_nuclear_weapons
 
NEW MISSILE!!!!


STRATCOM: GBSD Will Be New, Flexible Minuteman III Replacement

Posted: Sep. 25, 2014

The future replacement for the LGM-30 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile will be a flexible weapon system that utilizes the existing silo network and launch control facilities, according to the deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command. Speaking at a Sept. 25 forum on Capitol Hill, Lt. Gen. James Kowalski said the way ahead for modernizing the ground-based component of the nuclear triad has not been fully determined, but the near-term plan is to replace the Minuteman III missile with a new weapon system that is adaptable to different basing options and concepts of operation.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense is currently assessing the results of a recently completed analysis of alternatives for a Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) -- as the Minuteman III follow-on is known -- that would keep the ground-based nuclear enterprise viable out to 2075. The Pentagon estimates the current Minuteman III weapon system, delivered in the 1970s, is only sustainable out to 2030 in its current form. The AOA examined options for either significantly upgrading the Minuteman III missile or replacing it with an entirely new weapon system.

At the annual Air Force Association conference in National Harbor, MD, last week, Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) Chief Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson declined to say what the materiel solution for GBSD would be going forward and whether the preferred option is to replace or sustain the current Minuteman III. He said options are still being vetted by OSD and a milestone A decision is due in the first quarter of fiscal year 2016. Asked about the preferred option for GBSD this week, Kowalski -- the former head of AFGSC -- said the replacement the Air Force and others are considering would "fundamentally be a land-based system the way the current Minuteman III is today" rather than a Minuteman III upgrade or some other type of nuclear capability. "What we have today provides the responsiveness and strategic ability within the constrains of the New START Treaty," Kowalski said. "We've got 450 hardened and dispersed silos and 45 launch control centers, and that presents any adversary with an insurmountable problem."

The general said the GBSD should have built-in flexibility so that in the long term the Defense Department can consider other basing options or even new concepts of operation. Kowalski confirmed that he was talking specifically about a one-for-one, modular replacement for the Minuteman III rather than an upgrade to keep the legacy system viable into the 2070s. "I think what we want to be able to do is develop a system that would give us an option later on to go back and re-visit what is the right basing mode, and do we need to move this missile to another basing mode," Kowalski said. "Can we do that, and how do we do that? Certainly with the system we have today we can't do that, and so if we're going to replace the system we should probably build into it the flexibility to do some other things in the future that the Minuteman [III] can't."

The general said the current silo and launch control facilities are "sound," but the equipment inside, primarily the computing and communications equipment, will need to be replaced. "All of that needs to be re-thought, especially if we want to build in the flexibility for the future," he said. "We need to do this from the ground up." Kowalski said a lot of the discussions surrounding GBSD are ongoing, and further studies are needed to fully determine the path forward. "Clearly the land-based component of our [nuclear] triad remains important and it needs to be modernized," he said. "We can keep the Minuteman III viable out to 2030, but beyond that it becomes very problematic and as you've seen in some of the reporting, we have a lot of aggressive, young, committed people and we put them in some pretty old facilities. It's not just the human element, but it reflects on our commitment to their mission when we don't make the investments that are clearly necessary." -- James Drew
 
Let the Nuclear Debate Begin

—Otto Kreisher 10/1/2014

The nation must start a debate now on whether to maintain all three legs of the nuclear deterrent triad because the Navy will have to spend “several billion dollars over the next five years” preparing to build a replacement for the Ohio class strategic nuclear submarines, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said Sept. 30. That debate cannot wait until the Navy must start building the first of the new missile-carrying subs, Mabus told reporters in Washington, D.C. Mabus repeated his warning that if the Navy is forced to bear the total cost of building the new sea-based leg of the triad “it will break something.” Buying one of the new “boomers,” optimistically estimated to cost more than $7 billion each, would consume half the normal shipbuilding budget for at least 12 years, leaving little to buy all the other ships the Navy needs, he said. “The ‘boomers’ are the most survivable leg of the triad,” Mabus said. “This is a national mission. We’ve got to have this debate now.” The Air Force provides the other two legs of the nuclear deterrent force—the land-based Minuteman III ICMBs and the nuclear-capable bombers.
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/30/us-russia-re-arming-for-a-new-cold-war.html
 
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2014/10/strange-true-reason-us-isnt-destroying-its-old-nukes/95561/?oref=d-skybox
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-conducts-flight-test-of-new-mobile-icbm/

For the first time, Russia, which is in the midst of a major strategic nuclear modernization, has more deployed nuclear warheads than the United States, according to the latest numbers released by the State Department.
Russia now has 1,643 warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers. The United States has 1,642, said the fact sheet released Wednesday


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/1/inside-the-ring-compromise-of-classified-documents/#!#ixzz3F0op1GOi
 
An unarmed AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile is released from a B-52H Stratofortress Sept. 22, 2014, over the Utah Test and Training Range during a Nuclear Weapons System Evaluation Program sortie. Conducted by Airmen from the 2nd Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base, La., the launch was part of an end-to-end operational evaluation of 8th Air Force and Task Force 204Â’s ability to pull an ALCM from storage, load it aboard an aircraft, execute a simulated combat mission tasking and successfully deliver the weapon from the aircraft to its final target. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Roidan Carlson)
 

Attachments

  • B-52-AGM-86B-09-2014.jpg
    B-52-AGM-86B-09-2014.jpg
    343.9 KB · Views: 106
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001633001

9:39 pm, October 10, 2014



The Associated Press

VIENNA (AP) — A new U.N. effort to probe suspicions that Iran worked on atomic arms ended on a downbeat note Thursday, with diplomats saying that Tehran refused entry to Iran to a U.S. nuclear expert on the U.N.’s investigating team.

The diplomats also said that the trip this week didn’t succeed in advancing a decade of U.N. efforts to investigate suspicions that Tehran worked on such weapons.

Iranian envoy Reza Najafi confirmed that an International Atomic Energy Agency staff member of a “particular nationality” was refused a visa.

The inquiry is formally separate from U.S.-led talks with Iran focused on long-term caps on Tehran’s atomic programs in exchange for an end to nuclear-related sanctions, which resume next week in Vienna.

But Washington says a successful investigation by IAEA must be part of any final deal. That is unlikely by Nov. 24 — the target date for sealing a deal.

Two diplomats from IAEA member nations who spoke to The Associated Press demanded anonymity because their information is confidential. They said the U.S. expert had been repeatedly turned down since first applying for a visa eight months ago.

Iran says it doesn’t want nuclear arms and never worked toward them.
Click to expand...
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-deploying-tactical-nuclear-arms-in-crimea/
 
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2014/10/pivotal-moment-us-nuclear-arsenal/96365/?oref=d-skybox
 
Official: 1980s ALCM Remains Accurate, Reliable Strategic Deterrent (Updated)


Posted: Oct. 16, 2014


Air Force Global Strike Command's bomber test manager has expressed confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the decades-old Air-Launched Cruise Missile following a successful test flight at the Utah Test and Training Range in September. Noting some age-related concerns and hopes for a follow-on cruise missile, known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon, Larry Hannon, of AFGSC's weapons and tactics office, said the nuclear-capable ALCM continues to be a robust strategic deterrent, and service-life extension programs and periodic engine overhauls should keep the weapon viable through 2030. All three legs of the United States' nuclear triad -- the bomber, missile and submarine forces -- consist of Cold War-era weapon systems that need replacing over the next 20 years. The Air Force plans to invest billions of dollars over the next decade procuring new long-range bombers, nuclear-capable cruise missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles through various recapitalization programs, and the Navy is pursing an Ohio-class submarine replacement program. The ALCM, like the B-52 bomber and the Minuteman III ICBM, is expected to remain in service through 2030, or until a replacement comes online. Periodic tests like the one in September help maintainers at Tinker Air Force Base, OK, identify parts that need replacing and highlight any reliability issues. In an Oct. 10 interview with Inside the Air Force, Hannon discussed the results of the September test, which evaluated the nuclear-capable version of the ALCM, designated AGM-86B. He also commented about the reliability of the 50-year-old B-52 Stratofortress, which carries the ALCM. He said the old bomber's reliability is "trending in the positive direction."

The test on Sept. 22 involved two B-52s from the 20th Bomb Squadron. The aircraft emulated a tactical mission, flying from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana to the Utah Test and Training Range where they were given clearance to release one ALCM. The ALCM, a subsonic cruise missile with an unclassified range of 1,500 miles, flew for more than three hours, all while transmitting air vehicle telemetry data back to weapons testers. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) also received data from its testing device that emulates the ALCM's W80 nuclear warhead. Although not an actual nuclear test, the ALCM was destroyed once it reached the target. "This test was completely successful and everyone from U.S. Strategic Command and Global Strike Command were very pleased with the outcome," Hannon said. "The testing sends a signal that it's a viable deterrent, but it is also a cradle-to-the-grave type of test. It provides great training for the crews to ensure they can execute this mission, but the testing itself is truly how we confirm the reliability and also detect any issues in the system that we need to fix so this missile continues to be serviceable through 2030."

The entire test process is known as the Nuclear Weapon Systems Evaluation Program, or NucWSEP, and is conducted six to seven times per year depending on available funds. The Sept. 22 test coincided with a larger strategic deterrent exercise conducted by U.S. Pacific Command known as Valiant Shield as well as a Minuteman III test launch from Vandenberg AFB, CA. Hannon described the bomber run, which culminated in the ALCM test, as an end-to-end test that evaluates the bomber crews of the 8th Air Force at every point of the mission, from loading and takeoff to deployment of the ALCM and, if all goes well, simulated destruction of the target. The Air Force is primarily responsible for sustaining the air vehicle component of the ALCM, but Hannon's team works closely with the NNSA to determine the reliability of the W80 warhead by gathering data from a unit known as the W80 Joint Test Assembly. "They provide the payload asset, and through telemetry we're able to monitor that asset's functionality," he said. "They capture all of their specific payload data, and they evaluate it and they report to us the reliability."

With the retirement of the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile in 2012, the AGM-86B is now the Air Force's only nuclear-capable cruise missile. Development of an ALCM replacement through the Long-Range Standoff Weapon program was pushed out by around three years in the fiscal year 2015 president's budget due to competing priorities, such as the new bomber program. This means the ALCM will remain in service even longer than anticipated. Hannon said the service's inventory of 560 ALCMs will be kept viable through a series of service-life extension programs (SLEPs), and each F107 turbofan engine is overhauled every six years. About half the inventory has received the SLEP since that program started in August of FY-11, he said, and so far 19 refurbished ALCMs have been tested. "This weapon system was designed and built in the late '70s and early '80s, so it was designed with a 10-year service life and it's far exceeded its service life," Hannon said. "They are aging, and so we are continuing to test to ensure they stay reliable during this aging process. It is still meeting all of our design specifications for reliability and accuracy. We are seeing some aging concerns, but we're addressing each of those and it is still staying reliable -- but it is aging and we are looking forward to a follow-on system."

Hannon was unable to speak to the importance of delivering the Long-Range Standoff Weapon in a timely manner, but service officials within Global Strike Command and at STRATCOM have commented that delivering an ALCM replacement remains a top priority. "Moving forward with the replacement for the Air-Launched Cruise Missile is just as important as having a future bomber," STRATCOM Chief Adm. Cecil Haney told a forum in Washington recently. Regarding the B-52 bomber, Hannon said its reliability is trending in a positive direction thanks to a series of upgrades. He said the 50-year-old bomber's reliability could be further improved with installation of a new radar system, and he noted there is also talk of a re-engining program to keep the B-52 viable out to 2040. "It is staying viable but I do want to emphasize, along with the cruise missile, the B-52 is still aging and we're putting in a lot of effort to keep it viable," Hannon said.

AFGSC Chief Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson discussed the potential for an engine replacement program at an Air Force Association event in Washington earlier this month. "Industry has come to me and said they think there's a way we can do this," Wilson said. However, the general noted there is currently no funding anywhere to support such an effort.

The AFGSC has about 76 B-52 bombers, each powered by eight Pratt & Whitney TF33 turbofan engines. Not all of the bombers are nuclear-capable, and there is a conventional variant of the ALCM known as the AGM-86C Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile. -- James Drew
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/us/politics/obama-sees-an-iran-deal-that-could-avoid-congress-.html
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/run-silent-run-scared-a-crucial-year-for-navys-new-nuke-sub/
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/u.s.-nuclear-arsenal-due-for-modernization/article/2555237?custom_click=rss
 
Assistant U.S. Navy Secretary James Thomsen floated a rather unique perspective on competition earlier this month.

During the annual Naval Submarine League Symposium, Thomsen, the service’s principal civilian deputy, said, “We’re all competing against the budget.” And it is that competition, he says, that is keeping a lid on costs as the service and contractors strive to develop and build the Pentagon’s most expensive submarines, ships and other platforms. In theory, that sounds good -– and Thomsen’s probably right as far as that goes. The problem is that the budget is rigged -– rigged by rigid lines of thinking that gs back to the Cold War or even earlier, when U.S. naval, land and air forces all split the pie evenly, as if service operations all rank the same in importance at any given time. But we all know that isn’t true and this is as good a time as any to have a serious debate on what the nation really wants and needs. In the throes of an Asia-Pacific rebalance, the U.S. now is starting to design the ballistic-missile submarines it needs to replace the Ohio class, bolstering ballistic missile defense (BMD) for its own forces and that of its allies. Those supposedly are the priorities for the Pentagon and the nation now.

If that is the case, then the U.S. should really recarve its funding stream. If the strategic submarine force is the most important shipbuilding program, the nation should find the funds, or even create a national fund, to back up that desire. The same goes if the country feels the need to buy more bombers and missiles. (Although many in the Pentagon still make the argument that the subs are the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad and carry the most firepower.)

The rebalance to the Asia-Pacific represents an even clearer choice. There’s a reason why the region is named after the world’s largest body of water. By nature, it is maritime. It is naval. If the U.S. is serious about this shift, its funding streams should reflect it. You just can’t beef up your naval force in such an expansive and expensive region of the world without providing the money to make it possible. To expect the U.S. Navy to lead the way back into the Pacific with the same amount of funding it has had -– while possibly paying for a new strategic sub fleet and building a larger fleet of destroyers with greater BMD capability -– simply does not make sense.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/navweek-fund-foolish
 
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_NUCLEAR_SECURITY_RUSSIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-03-19-00-21
 
Russian boycott of the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit confirmed: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001696554
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom