Current Nuclear Weapons Development

The US is mulling economic sanctions against Russia for violating the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, as well as potential military responses if Russia actually deploys nuclear cruise missiles in violation of INF, officials told members of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. "Russian possession, development, or deployment of a weapons system in violation of the treaty will not be ignored," said Rose Gottmoeller, under secretary of state for arms control. "We are actively reviewing potential economic measures in response to Russia's violation and the United States is assessing options in the military sphere to ensure that Russia will not gain a significant military advantage from its violation of the INF treaty," she added. Russia has reacted to US negotiations since 2013 by accusing the US of treaty violations, which "we believe, are meant to divert attention from its own violation," added DOD Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Brian McKeon. "In our view, all of Russia's claims are categorically unfounded," McKeon said. "Russia's lack of meaningful engagement on this issue, if it persists, will ultimately require the United States to take actions to protect its interests and security, along with those of its allies and partners," he said, which will without question "make Russia less secure." The US aims to negotiate Russia back into compliance with the treaty but "the Joint Staff has conducted a military assessment of the threat, were Russia to deploy an INF treaty range ground-launched cruise missile in Europe or the Asia-Pacific region," McKeon noted.
===================================================================
Detailing recent changes to the Department of Defense’s nuclear mission, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the realignment of parts of USAF’s nuclear mission under a dual-hatted major general will lead to greater sustainment efficiencies for the Air Force’s nuclear systems. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Tuesday evening, James said the plan to merge the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland AFB, N.M., and the Air Force Program Executive Office for Strategic Systems, also at Kirtland, will join together acquisition efforts and support management duties for USAF nuclear systems. Going forward, the Air Force will have “one senior leader accountable for the entirety of the weapons system … the missile, the launch facilities, and the supporting equipment” for both support activities and acquisition. The 377th Air Base Wing, host of the AFNWC, will move from Air Force Materiel Command to Air Force Global Strike Command as part of the change, to streamline product support and modernization. The USAFNWC also will be reorganized into three directorates—two of which will focus on ICBMs and aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons and the third to focus on nuclear requirements and engaging with the rest of the nuclear enterprise and other agencies.
 
http://warontherocks.com/2014/12/the-u-s-military-will-need-more-low-end-strike-options-in-the-second-nuclear-age/?singlepage=1

http://www.aei.org/publication/an-obsolete-nuclear-treaty-even-before-russia-cheated/
 
Russia Jeopardizing Future Arms Control

—Arie Church12/12/2014

Russia's development and testing of a treaty-prohibited class of nuclear capable cruise missiles guts the US' ability to move forward with future arms control agreements, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Rose Gottmoeller told lawmakers on Wednesday. "The ramifications of Russia' [violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty] and our response affect more than just one arms control agreement, they affect our ability to pursue future arms control and non-proliferation regimes," Gottmoeller told members of the House Armed Service Committee on Dec. 13. Russia is currently complying with its obligations under the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty, she said. However, Russia is currently in violation of five other treaties and agreements: INF, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Budapest Memorandum extending security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for giving up its nuclear arsenal. "We hope the Russian Federation will remember why the Soviet Union signed the INF treaty in the first place" and acknowledge the stabilizing effects of confidence-building treaties, Gottmoeller said. "When implemented fully by all parties, arms control agreements advance US national security interests," she added. (See also US Assessing Military Response to Russian INF Violations for more on Gottmoeller’s testimony.)
 
Should Ukraine rewrite history and reacquire nuclear weapons? No and no.

Twenty years ago in Budapest, Hungary, leaders of the United States, Russia, Britain and Ukraine signed a memorandum on nuclear weapons and Ukrainian security. It committed Ukraine to remove nuclear arms from its territory and join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a nonnuclear-weapon state — the last former Soviet republic to make that pledge. In exchange, the other three signatories — still nuclear armed — would respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and existing borders and not threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.

Two decades later, Russia annexed Crimea and began supporting separatists throughout eastern Ukraine, including with materiel and men from Russia — a clear violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Understandably, many Ukrainians now believe that agreement was a calamity for their country: They got rid of their nuclear arsenal and got a security and humanitarian disaster in return. Polling suggests that a sizable chunk of the Ukrainian public would support Ukraine's reacquisition of nuclear weapons. Are they correct?

The answer is no. To think otherwise is to perpetuate myths regarding nuclear weapons and Ukrainian security in 1994 and today.

It is indisputable that when the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine was left with hundreds of nuclear launchers and missiles and thousands of nuclear warheads. What is less clear is whether Ukraine ever had operational control over this arsenal — and if it did, whether it could have realistically hoped to retain such control. In other words, it is misleading to suggest that Ukraine gave up weapons that it could have credibly threatened to use, then or later.

And even if one assumes that 20 years after the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine did have operational control over some portion of the former Soviet nuclear arsenal on its territory, it is questionable whether the possession of these weapons or the threat of their use by Kiev would have deterred Moscow from intervening in Crimea in 2014.

As former secretaries of State and Defense George P. Shultz, Henry Kissinger and William J. Perry, along with former Sen. Sam Nunn, have written, nuclear deterrence “is importantly psychological, depending on calculations for which there is no historical experience. It is therefore precarious.” Crimea, where Russia has deployed a large fleet and ground force since well before and after the Soviet breakup, could never have fit easily under any Ukrainian nuclear umbrella. Its protection from Moscow would have been by no means guaranteed through precarious deterrence.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-andreassen-ukraine-nuclear-weapons-20141211-story.html
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Mu-Oi/Nuclear-Weapons.html
http://rt.com/politics/213111-russia-nuclear-preemptive-strike/
 
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/nuked-destroying-the-myth-minimum-deterrence-11843
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-15/nuclear-armed-subs-may-cost-u-s-17-more-budget-office-finds.html

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/navy-sticks-by-ohio-replacement-costs-cbo-says-its17-higher/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/12/15/super-sub-why-the-navys-next-boomer-is-the-most-important-program-in-the-pentagon-budget/
 
China carried out a long-range missile flight test on Saturday using multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, according to U.S. defense officials. The flight test Saturday of a new DF-41 missile, China’s longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile, marks the first test of multiple warhead capabilities for China, officials told the Washington Free Beacon. China has been known to be developing multiple-warhead technology, which it obtained from the United States illegally in the 1990s. However, the Dec. 13 DF-41 flight test, using an unknown number of inert maneuvering warheads, is being viewed by U.S. intelligence agencies as a significant advance for China’s strategic nuclear forces and part of a build-up that is likely to affect the strategic balance of forces. China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated to include around 240 very large warheads. That number is expected to increase sharply as the Chinese deploy new multiple-warhead missiles. The current deployed U.S. strategic warhead arsenal includes 1,642 warheads. All 450 Minuteman III missiles have been modified to no longer carry MIRVs. However, Trident II submarine-launched missiles can carry up to 14 MIRVs per missile.

Additionally, the development of China’s multiple warhead technology was assisted by illegal transfers of technology from U.S. companies during the Clinton administration, according to documents and officials familiar with the issue. Details of the flight test and the number of dummy warheads used during it could not be learned. However, the DF-41 has been assessed by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), the intelligence community’s primary missile spy center, as capable of carrying up to 10 warheads. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeff Pool declined to comment on the DF-41 test. “We encourage greater PRC transparency regarding their defense investments and objectives to avoid miscalculation,” Pool said in response to questions about the Chinese missile launch. China’s government has made no mention of the test, which was carried out at an unknown missile test facility. Past tests of the DF-41 have been carried out at the Wuzhai Missile and Space Testing facility, located about 250 miles southwest of Beijing. A report made public earlier this month by a congressional China commission stated that the DF-41 will be able to carry up to 10 warheads and is expected to be deployed next year.

“The DF-41, which could be deployed as early as 2015, may carry up to 10 MIRVs, and have a maximum range as far as 7,456 miles, allowing it to target the entire continental United States,” the report said. “In addition, some sources claim China has modified the DF–5 and the DF–31A to be able to carry MIRVs.” China also conducted a flight test in late September of another long-range missile, called the DF-31B that also could be outfitted to carry MIRVs.

“China could use MIRVs to deliver nuclear warheads on major U.S. cities and military facilities as a means of overwhelming U.S. ballistic missile defenses,” the report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said. NASIC intelligence analyst Lee Fuell told the commission that China’s mobile MIRV-modified missiles provide greater targeting with fewer missiles and allow for a larger reserve of missiles during a conflict. “China is likely to employ a blend of these three as MIRVs become available, simultaneously increasing their ability to engage desired targets while holding a greater number of weapons in reserve,” Fuell was quoted as saying in the report. A classified NASIC report dated Dec. 10, 1996 stated that China developed a “smart dispenser” for launching multiple satellites using technology developed under a contract with Motorola to launch Iridium communications satellites. The technology transfer was approved by the administration of President Bill Clinton.

“An initial NAIC study determined that a minimally-modified [smart dispenser] stage could be used on a ballistic missile as a multiple-reentry vehicle post-boost vehicle” that could be used for multiple warheads “with relatively minor changes.” In 2000, the State Department fined Lockheed Martin Corp. $13 million for improperly exporting weapons data on the rocket technology used in multiple-warhead missiles The U.S. data was provided to China’s state-run Great Wall Industries, a missile manufacturer, through a Hong Kong company called Asiasat and used in systems called expendable perigee kick motors—a key element used in MIRV guidance. The kick motors are used to position a multiple warhead “bus” or stage as part of the targeting process. The transfers were made under loosened export controls by the Clinton administration beginning in 1993.

Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence official who specialized on China, said the Chinese military has been working on a MIRV-modified DF-41 for a number of years. Wortzel said Chinese military research literature has documented work on the DF-41 but the Pentagon “has been reluctant to discuss or confirm these developments.”

“The United States is now threatened with a more deadly and survivable nuclear force that makes our weak ballistic missile defenses less effective,” Wortzel said. “We need to improve our own defenses and modernize our own deterrent force as the Chinese are doing.” Rick Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military, said the advent of China’s MIRV capability should mark the end of U.S. efforts to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. “The Chinese have not and likely will not disclose their nuclear warhead buildup plans, Russia is modernizing its nuclear forces across the board and violating the INF treaty with new classes of missiles, so it would be suicidal for the Washington to pursue a new round of nuclear reductions as is this administration’s preference.” Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said China may deploy a combination of single-warhead and multiple warhead DF-41s, with the single warhead version carrying a huge “city buster” multi-megaton bombs.

“The beginning of China’s move toward multiple warhead-armed nuclear missiles is proof that today, arms control is failing to increase the security of Americans,” Fisher said. “Instead, it is time to be rebuilding U.S. nuclear warfighting capabilities, to include new mobile ICBMs, new medium range missiles and new tactical nuclear missile systems.”

Georgetown University Professor Phillip Karber has studied China’s nuclear forces and believes its arsenal is far larger than the U.S. intelligence estimate of 240. “The Chinese development of the DF-41 has been a long term, methodical process,” Karber said. “However, if as we suspect they are going to put a MIRVed version of the missile on both rail and road-mobile launchers, the number of reentry vehicles could grow quite rapidly depending on the number of warheads they end up putting on the missiles.” The DF-41 was revealed inadvertently by the Chinese government last summer when details, including the fact that it will be a multi-warhead missile, appeared on a provincial government website before being quickly censored and removed. The Shaanxi provincial government announced June 13 in a progress report on its Environmental Monitoring Center Station that the DF-41 missile was among its projects. “On-site monitoring for Phase Two of the project’s final environmental assessment and approval of support conditions for the development of the DF-41 strategic missile by the 43rd Institute of the 4th Academy of Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) was initiated,” the notice said. AVIC is China’s state-owned aerospace and defense conglomerate. A state-run Global Times report, also later censored and taken offline, quoted a Chinese expert as saying the missile will carry multiple warheads. The flight test Saturday was the third such test for the new DF-41. The Free Beacon first reported the second flight test of the missile in December 2013. The first flight test was carried out July 24, 2012. After several years of silence on the DF-41, the Pentagon disclosed the existence of the new missile in its latest annual report on the Chinese military, made public in June. “China also is developing a new road-mobile ICBM known as the Dong Feng-41 (DF-41), possibly capable of carrying multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRV),” the report says.
 
Report Chinese Nukes, Missiles and Space Warfare

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20141103_Fisher_Nucs_110314.pdf
 
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/welcome-china-americas-nuclear-nightmare-11891
 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/20/air-force-admits-nuclear-flaws-faces-uncertain-path-to-remedying/
 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/390185/20141215-Successor_Update_to_Parliament_final.pdf
 
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/russias-terrifying-nuke-trains-will-be-roving-the-rails-1675562485
 
Back to news, please !
If Foxtrot Alpha is a serious and viable source, every reader of this thread has to decide
on his own, I think. Discussions about news posted here, please via email or PM.
Would like to add a warning, something like
"Only pure statements from publicly available sources are posted here. They have to be let
without comment. This thread has to be read on one's own risk. Reading can lead to fits of
rage and tirades of hate, but those have strictly to be kept private or only shared by non-
public media !"
But this could only be added to the very first thread, or repeated every day, something I don't want
to do.
But to be fair, to my opinion, this thread here runs really smoothly now, often pointing to news, I
would have missed otherwise. So I think, it's really a worthwhile thread, even without discussions !
Keep it up !
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/rethinking-the-ground-based-strategic-deterrent/
 
As an addition to my post from yesterday, I would like to ask for some
consideration, if the stated source is a reliable and serious one. Don't knew
the Foxtrot Alpha site before, it somehow really sounds like gutter press.
That doesn't mean, that the content is plainly wrong, but maybe it would be
better then, to look for the same them mentioned by a more trustful source.
 
Jemiba said:
As an addition to my post from yesterday, I would like to ask for some
consideration, if the stated source is a reliable and serious one. Don't knew
the Foxtrot Alpha site before, it somehow really sounds like gutter press.
That doesn't mean, that the content is plainly wrong, but maybe it would be
better then, to look for the same them mentioned by a more trustful source.
Click to expand...

Jemiba - I have visited the site a few times and while they definitely use 'click bait' tactics "Terrifying Nuke Trains" for example, the information presented is generally accurate if not overhyped.
 
Thank you for that information. Assessing the correctness of an information is difficult,
even more just by judgíng the source. I think, everybody here should decide, as the
case arises.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/03/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSKBN0KC06W20150103
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/04/us-russia-era-nuclear-rivalry
 
Quarterly New START strategic forces update;

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Documents/2015/January%202015/NewSTART010115.pdf
 
Air Force Identifies Key Attributes Of Minuteman III Replacement, Holding Talks With Industry

Efforts to begin developing a new intercontinental ballistic missile appear to be progressing with the release of a Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent capabilities document and the announcement of two upcoming industry days.
 
More............

Efforts to begin developing a new intercontinental ballistic missile appear to be progressing with the release of a Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent capabilities document and the announcement of two upcoming industry days. The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center's ICBM directorate will host classified sessions with industry Feb. 18-20 at Hill Air Force Base, UT, to provide an overview of key performance parameters and system attributes of the service's future ICBM, according to a notice posted Jan. 5 on the Federal Business Opportunities website. Last year, the Defense Department completed an analysis of alternatives for replacing the existing 1970s Minuteman III system with what is currently known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). According to Air Force press statements, the AOA determined that the new system should be a replacement missile installed in modernized and refurbished Minuteman III silos. The Jan. 5 notice confirmed the Air Force has produced a GBSD capabilities development document, which is an early overview of the proposed Minuteman III replacement.

As Inside the Air Force reported last August, Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, expects a decision on whether to proceed with the GBSD program in early 2016. The FBO notice states the industry day in February will provide contractors with "an overview of the latest GBSD capability development document to include key performance parameters and key system attributes which addresses replacement of the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad." The current plan is to sustain the Minuteman III ICBM, which has been on alert since the 1970s, through 2030. The service maintains 450 Minuteman III silos and 45 command sites. The Jan. 5 notice also highlights a separate industry day slated for Jan. 27-28 at Hill AFB, which is meant to provide an update to industry on a program designed to replace the test and support equipment of the Minuteman III's MK12A reentry vehicle and MK21 arming and fuzing assembly. Called the Reentry Support Equipment Replacement Program, the effort will replace the legacy MK12A and MK21 test units that were delivered more than 30 years ago and are now "unreliable" and difficult to maintain.

The Air Force has been engaged in market research since June 2013 to identify suitable replacement equipment to ensure Minuteman III reliability testing can continue through 2030. "The current test suite in use is 30+ years old and is a completely custom design," an October 2013 request for information states. "Because of the suite's age and implementation, it has become unreliable and efforts to sustain and support the current test suite have become unaffordable." In December, a Global Strike Command official confirmed that developing a new ICBM is a top acquisition priority going into the fiscal year 2016 budget cycle. -- James Drew


https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4c2591aa2974d18ef4abc19e7b71955c&tab=core&_cview=0
 
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/07/pentagon-ohio-replacement-funding-300-ship/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Why US nuclear modernization is necessary

Matthew Kroenig

My childhood dream was to star in the National Basketball Association. But I stand only six feet one inch tall, I'm entering my late 30s, and I haven't played competitive basketball in over 15 years. My chances of playing at the professional level are essentially zero. Some might argue that, if I am to have any hope of realizing my boyhood wish, I should spend my days running wind sprints and practicing free throws. But that path would improve my chances from none to extremely slim, and would certainly take away from my duties as a professor, researcher, and analyst. In the end, it simply isn't worth ruining the life I have in order to chase a fantasy.

The same can be said of the United States' choices regarding its nuclear posture. Over the next decade and beyond, the United States will go through a much-needed modernization of its aging nuclear capabilities, and these plans enjoy strong bipartisan support. But some critics argue that the modernization project conflicts with stated disarmament goals, including President Obama's vision of bringing about "a world without nuclear weapons."

The fact, however, is that the world is characterized by intense security competition and sometimes outright conflict. Though some observers hoped that the end of the Cold War would bring the end of history, political discord among great powers has returned in recent years. Russia is using force to redraw the map of Europe. China is asserting revisionist territorial claims in East Asia. Over the past two decades, conventional military dominance has allowed the United States to de-emphasize its nuclear weapons, but the US conventional advantage is eroding as Russia and especially China build up their non-nuclear military capabilities. Moreover, nuclear weapons remain the ultimate instrument of military power—and Washington's potential adversaries, including Russia, China, and North Korea, are modernizing their nuclear arsenals with an eye toward using those weapons in the event of conflict with the United States.

This is reality.

Nonetheless, some argue that achieving the fond hope of complete nuclear disarmament requires the United States to cut its arsenal and refuse to modernize its forces. But other countries will not blindly follow Washington's lead. In recent years, as the United States has slashed the size of its arsenal, other countries have moved in the opposite direction, building up their nuclear forces. Complete nuclear disarmament may be desirable, but achieving it will require nothing less than a major transformation of the international political system. Simply allowing the US arsenal to rust away, therefore, will not meaningfully affect chances for eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide.

Failure to modernize would not contribute to disarmament—but more than that, it would be irresponsible. A crippled US nuclear force would embolden enemies, frighten allies, generate international instability, and undermine US national security. In other words, it would risk ruining the world that currently exists.

Rather than preparing for an alternate reality, therefore, Washington needs to build the nuclear forces that it needs in this reality. The United States must maintain a robust nuclear posture and fully modernize its nuclear forces, as planned. This means upgrading all three legs of the nuclear triad, refurbishing nuclear warheads, modernizing the production complex, and, if necessary, summoning the political will to build new capabilities to meet new demands. As Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel put it in November, "Our nuclear deterrent plays a critical role in assuring US national security, and it is [the Defense Department's] highest priority mission. No other capability we have is more important."

Some might argue that modernization in the United States will spur reactions in other states, contributing to a new arms race—but, as pointed out above, modernization plans are proceeding apace in the rest of the world quite apart from any decisions being made in Washington. Critics also cite cost as an obstacle, but, at its peak, the nuclear upgrades will only account for around 5 percent of the defense budget. Thus, nuclear weapons provide a strategic deterrent at a reasonable price. Or, as incoming Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in 2013, "nuclear weapons don't actually cost that much."

In sum, there is no good reason for the United States not to follow through on its planned modernization of nuclear forces. Perhaps one day we will be pleasantly surprised by an opportunity to live out our fantasies. But until then, we must live up to our responsibilities.
 
Air Force Prioritizing Huey, ICBM, Cruise Missile Replacement Efforts

Posted: January 08, 2015


Air Force Global Strike Command's top modernization priorities as the Defense Department enters the fiscal year 2016 budget cycle include replacing the Huey helicopter, Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and Air-Launched Cruise Missile as well as B-2 and B-52 bomber upgrades, according to a top planning and requirements official. Equally important will be nuclear command, control and communications infrastructure modernization and the construction of new weapons storage facilities, the official added. "In truth, none can wait," Brig. Gen. Ferdinand Stoss said in a Dec. 18 statement provided to Inside the Air Force. "Therefore, we are developing strategies to modernize each based on rational risk and program maturity." The director of strategic plans, programs, requirements and assessments added that ongoing conflicts have for too long diverted the nation's attention away from the nuclear forces and modernization has also been deferred. "We can no longer wait," he said. Over the past few months, the Air Force has been working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to finalize its latest five-year spending plan and FY-16 budget submission -- and nuclear modernization is emerging as a priority area for investment after decades of deferred action.

In November, during the release of a high-profile nuclear forces review, outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called for a $1.5 billion increase in spending on the nuclear mission over five years starting in FY-17. This month, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James predicted a ramp-up in nuclear modernization spending in the FY-16 budget, to be presented to Congress in early 2015. "Stay tuned, because when the FY-16 budget rolls out, I predict that half-a-billion dollars will grow to multibillions-of-dollars of additional investment," James said during a Dec. 9 Center for Strategic and International Studies conference in Washington, referring to a prior commitment to boost nuclear forces spending by $500 million. "I predict to you, when the dust settles and you see our FY-16 budget and the accompanying five-year plan, you're going to see even greater investment in our nuclear enterprise." In their statements, James and Stross both proritized investment in the so-called Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, an effort to replace the 1970s Minuteman III nuclear ICBM, and the Long Range Standoff Weapon -- a new nuclear-capable cruise missile to replace the existing 1980s Air-Launched Cruise Missile. They also point to a new effort to replace the outdated UH-1N Huey helicopter, which supports security missions at the Air Force's three primary missile wings in Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota. "We are focused on the four major areas of ICBM, bombers, weapons and security," Stross said. "These four major areas are connected through NC2/NC3 systems, of which we are also modernizing." Stross expects funding for B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress upgrades to be prioritized, and James said the nuclear forces must get new weapons storage facilities. How much money the service will need to meet these objectives is not clear, but it will easily take a sizable portion of the service's approximately $110 billion base budget. Nuclear modernization efforts would also need to compete against the service's top four acquisition priorities, which James has pledged to protect from cuts. Those priorities are the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, KC-46 Tanker, Next-Generation JSTARS, and Long Range Strike Bomber -- a new nuclear-capable aircraft. "We are working through the DOD budgeting process to provide our requirements and balance priorities and resources," Stross explained. "DOD senior leaders recognize the importance and critical nature of nuclear force modernization, as reflected in their recent comments." The estimated cost of replacing the Air Force's 65 Huey helicopters, delivered in the 1960s, with 72 refurbished Army UH-60 Black Hawks is $980 million, ITAF reported Dec. 11. Of that fleet, 20 are operated by Global Strike.

The FY-15 budget programs $440 million through FY-19 to begin developing the Long-Range Standoff Weapon, and officials have called for the start of that effort to be brought forward. A materiel decision on how best to replace the Minuteman III is due in early 2016 following a Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent analysis of alternatives that wrapped up earlier this year. According to a Government Accountability Office report, more than 12 concurrent B-2 modernization efforts are ongoing, and the primary one is the Defensive Management System Modernization program. The Air Force expects to spend $228 million on that effort in FY-16, budget documents state.

The B-52 is in the late stages of receiving an improved internal weapons bay and new combat network communications equipment. For nuclear command, control and communications infrastructure (NC3), the Air Force conducted a series of reviews of the network through 2014 and future modernization decisions are expected some time in 2015. -- James Drew
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/new-reactor-cores-key-to-ohio-replacement-subs/?utm_source=Breaking+Defense&utm_campaign=6c6e532e4f-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4368933672-6c6e532e4f-407814345
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/12/funding-new-submarines-outside-the-navy.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1

Stackley: Sea-Based Deterrence Fund 'Good First Step' In SSBN(X) Debate

The sea-based deterrence fund that House and Senate authorizers inserted into the 2015 defense authorization bill is a "good first step" on a long journey the Defense Department and Congress are taking to determine how to pay for the next-generation ballistic submarine and other shipbuilding priorities, according to the Navy's top acquisition executive
 
There was a man who worked on the first atomic bombs and his name was Doctor Doom, OK no PhD he was Mr. Doom.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/11/7529111/doom-of-los-alamos
 
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/01/new-air-force-bomber-critical-piece-pentagons-pacific-weaponry/102798/
 
http://insidedefense.com/defensealert/dod-wants-upgrade-air-force-one-doomsday-aircraft-communications-suites
 
More from Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/01/13/a-doomsday-plane-reminder-nuclear-weapons-havent-gone-away/
 
http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/strategic-stability-second-nuclear-age/p33809?cid=ppc-Google-display-mobile_banner-nuclear_CSR

Downloadable report available for free
 
http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/692/47692/Russia_upgrades_its_missile_arsenal.pdf
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/us-northrop-nuclear-boeing-idUSKBN0KO05820150115
 
STRATCOM Frets Over Modernization As FY-16 Budget Submission Nears

In advance of the Defense Department's release of the fiscal year 2016 budget, the chief of U.S. Strategic Command said his top priority is to ensure the careful investment of funds for modernizing and sustaining long-term nuclear assets.
 
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/time-may-be-running-out-for-iran-deal/article/2558681
 
AF General Lobbies For New 'Affordable' Nuclear Modernization Programs

Posted: January 20, 2015

The Air Force has been on a 25-year nuclear weapons "procurement holiday" and now all its bills are coming due at once, but those bills are affordable despite declining military budgets, according to a top service official. The branch wants to replace just about every nuclear weapon in its inventory, from outdated bombers to the 45-year-old Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, and those programs are competing for funding at a time when resources are spread thin.

"It is unfortunate a lot of these bills are all coming due now," Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, told a Jan. 20 Air Force Association forum in Washington. "It sucks to be us. We should have been taking care of this, we didn't. That's in the past. I've got to deal with today and the future." The general's comments come as other countries, including Russia and China, outpace the United States on nuclear modernization and field new land- and sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, according to media reports and Air Force Global Strike Command's latest strategic guidance document. On Feb. 2, President Obama is expected to submit the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2016, which is expected to be higher than sequester-level budget caps and include funding for a range of new nuclear weapon programs.

"It's not going to be inexpensive but it's also not unaffordable," Harencak said. "It's something we have to do to protect our nation." As Inside the Air Force reported last month, Global Strike's top acquisition priorities for the nuclear force going into FY-16 include the Long-Range Strike Bomber, Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent and Long-Range Standoff Missile programs as well as B-2 and B-52 bomber upgrades. At the same time, the command wants to replace its fleet of UH-1N Hueys that fly security sorties around the missile fields with restored Army UH-60 Black Hawks. How the Air Force plans to squeeze all of these priorities into its base budget has not been explained, but Harencak believes these new recapitalization projects are affordable. The general added that he fully supports the Navy's multibillion-dollar program to replace the Ohio-class submarine, which carries the sea-based Trident missile.

"My two legs of the triad are less than 1 percent of the defense budget," he said. "Add our brothers and sisters in the Navy and the submarine portion of the triad, and it's less than 2 percent." Speaking to reporters after the presentation, Harencak pointed to the development of a tail kit that gives the new B61-12 tactical nuclear bomb more range and precision as an example of a nuclear weapons program staying on cost and schedule. The general said the Air Force has taken too long to modernize its two legs of the nuclear triad, the bomber and missile forces, and other nations have been doing what they needed to do to upgrade their nuclear stockpiles. "Over the past 20-25 years, we took a procurement holiday in getting this stuff done," he said. "Other countries have not, they did not take that procurement holiday."

Harencak said he is not necessarily worried about the pace of modernization elsewhere, but the United States cannot afford to be left behind. "That should concern us, and that's what we've found, this realization that we need to get on with it," he said. Next month, the Air Force plans to brief industry on its latest approach to replacing the Boeing-built Minuteman III with what is known now as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. The service expects to move that program to milestone A by December. A request for proposals for the new Long-Range Strike Bomber was released last summer. The Air Force plans to buy between 80-100 of those next-generation aircraft for $550 million each. "This is an easy one," Harencak said of the new bomber. "There are lot of hard decisions we have to make out there, but this is not one of them."

The program to replace the service's aging cruise missile is expected to move to the technology development phase somewhere from FY-15 to FY-19, depending on funding. According to the general, the U.S. government is committed to a world without nuclear weapons, but the president's orders are to keep the nuclear deterrent "safe, secure and effective" until that day comes. "That's what the Air Force is doing for our two legs of the triad," he said. -- James Drew
 
GBSD RFI

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7969ef06fa4af5bf2cc343735b8264e8&tab=core&_cview=0
___________________________________________________________________________________

Navy Continues Working Toward SSBN(X) Cost Target, Slashes $360M

The Navy slashed $360 million from the original $5.6 billion cost estimate for each Ohio-class replacement ballistic missile submarine, which is over half the amount needed to achieve a $4.9 billion cost target that was set in 2011 by the Pentagon, according to a top official.
____________________________________________________________________________________

CBO: Nuclear Weapons Enterprise To Cost $348B Over Next Decade (Updated)

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost to maintain and upgrade the nation's nuclear enterprise is $348 billion through 2024 as the Pentagon and Energy Department pursue new programs to recapitalize the strategic submarine, intercontinental ballistic missile and bomber forces.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/americas/2015/01/23/348-billion-for-nuclear-weapons/22224727/
____________________________________________________________________________________
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom