Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Navy Estimates $14.5B Tab For Lead Ohio-Class Replacement Submarine

Posted: March 16, 2015

The Ohio-Class Replacement lead submarine will carry a $14.5 billion price tag -- a behemoth of a bill, even by Pentagon standards -- that the Navy must reckon with for the first time this spring as it drafts a new five-year spending plan that is supposed to pay for the first boat in fiscal year 2021, pitting the service's top modernization priority against its entire conventional modernization portfolio.

A recent Navy update of the Ohio-Class Replacement program presented to Pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall includes estimates of $8.8 billion in construction costs and $5.7 billion in non-recurring engineering work attributed to the first boat of the new class, according to a Navy spokeswoman, sums that account for inflation in accordance with DOD budgeting guidelines.

"I can tell you: lead ship [cost will be] $14.5 billion," Cmdr. Thurraya Kent, a spokeswoman for Navy acquisition executive Sean Stackley, said in a March 12 email to InsideDefense.com. Previously, the Navy has expressed cost estimates for the new strategic deterrence submarine program in constant-year 2010 dollars, updating on occasion to current fiscal year dollars.

In constant-year 2010 dollars, the Navy expects the lead ship to cost $10.4 billion, including $6.2 billion in new ship construction and $4.2 billion in non-recurring engineering work. When building a five-year budget plan, however, Defense Department guidelines stipulate the inclusion of “most likely or expected full costs,” and that figures be expressed using then-year cost estimates.

Last month, the Navy revealed a $139 billion total development and acquisition cost for the 12-boat Ohio-Class Replacement program, the first time the service had publicly tallied the new shipbuilding program in "then-year" dollars, accounting for the anticipated effects of future inflation (DefenseAlert, Feb. 27). That accounting consolidated non-recurring engineering and design costs for the entire class: $22.4 billion in then-year dollars, or $17.1 billion in constant-year 2010 dollars. Kent said the portion attributable to the lead boat is $5.7 billion in then-year dollars, $4.2 billion in constant-year 2010 dollars.

Follow-on ships two through 12 are projected to cost an average of $9.8 billion, or $5.2 billion in constant-year dollars.

Last July, the Navy warned Congress that its plan to simultaneously build a new ballistic missile submarine while modernizing the conventional fleet would require "funding at an unsustainable level" that would drive the annual shipbuilding budget to twice its historical average (DefenseAlert, July 7).

Over the last year, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert has repeatedly warned that the Navy requires a larger budget to build the new strategic deterrent submarine fleet and continue to modernize the conventional arm of the service.

"CNO and I have been talking for some time now about when we begin to build the Ohio-Class replacement in 2021, if it is a pure Navy build it will devastate some part of the Navy, either our shipbuilding or readiness or something, because the high cost of these and because we don't recapitalize them very often," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 10.

This spring, the Navy is beginning work on its FY-17 budget plan and accompanying five-year program.

For perspective, the Navy's five-year plan outlined last month in FY-16 budget documents sent to Congress assumes a shipbuilding account of $15.2 billion in FY-20 to buy two Virginia-class attack submarines, two DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, three Littoral Combat Ships, a new oiler and a support vessel.

The Congressional Budget Office, in a December 2014 analysis of the Navy's FY-15 30-year shipbuilding plan, underscored concerns about the potential for a new, nuclear-armed submarine program to disrupt Navy plans.

"The design, cost, and capabilities of the Ohio Replacement submarine class are among the most significant uncertainties in the Navy's and CBO's analyses of the cost of future shipbuilding," according to the CBO report. "Estimating the cost of the first submarine of a class with an entirely new design is particularly difficult because of uncertainty about how much the Navy will spend on nonrecurring engineering and detail design."

The Navy is conducting an internal study examining future submarine plans. An assessment is expected to be complete this spring in time to inform the service's FY-17 to FY-21 five-year spending plan.

Among the issues the Navy is exploring is the capacity of the three industrial players to support current plans -- General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls, and Babcock & Wilcox. Navy officials have previously discussed the possibility of bundling a future block buy of the Virginia-class attack submarine with Ohio Replacement Program boats; service officials said the study is also exploring whether work to develop a Virginia Payload Module can be accelerated.

"We're doing those studies right now in concert, frankly, with an overarching study that we're doing which is looking at how in fact are we going to build Ohio Replacement in concert with the ongoing Virginia submarine construction, in concert with the introduction of Virginia Payload Modules all within a couple of years window," Stackley said at a Feb. 25 hearing. -- Jason Sherman
 
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/03/17-russia-nuclear-weapons-modernization-pifer
 
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4c7ad2158ed944579dc1e7ed6c550899/ap-exclusive-iran-limited-6k-centrifuges-draft-accord
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/18/navys-next-generational-nuclear-submarine-fund-has-no-money.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1
 
http://theweek.com/articles/545085/america-expensive-plan-replace-old-nukes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZFnQEwxkeM&list=UUwJe2j3D3Cmb4WBwxG-Lfmw
 
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/03/pentagon-has-done-bad-job-defending-nuclear-triad-air-force-general-says/108235/?oref=d-river
 
Nuclear modernization around the globe from Foreign Policy magazine

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/24/disarm-and-modernize-nuclear-weapons-warheads/?utm_content=buffercb6fa&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 
STRATCOM Chief Pushes Nuclear Modernization As Lawmakers Threaten Cuts

Posted: March 25, 2015


The head of U.S. Strategic Command has called on Congress to provide the level of funding prescribed in the fiscal year 2016 budget request as lawmakers consider legislation that would cut expenditure on nuclear weapons by about $100 billion over the next decade.

The so-called Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures bill was reintroduce this week by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and would reduce the Navy's strategic nuclear submarine force from 14 to eight and cut the planned Ohio-class replacement boomer purchase from 12 to eight. The bill would cut a number of aircraft projects and defer the planned recapitalization of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, if enacted.

Speaking at a March 24 media conference at the Pentagon, Adm. Cecil Haney said it is "imperative" that the United States move ahead with the president's nuclear modernization program at the proposed funding levels to maintain a credible deterrent against countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran -- which he said recently “launched a space vehicle that could be used as a long-range strike platform.”

"We've put some of these programs on hold as we've had to address other things, but as you look at the modernization that is going on in various other countries, it's very important that we have a safe, secure, effective and credible strategic deterrent -- not just today but in the future," Haney said.

The FY-16 budget request proposes billions of dollars more in spending on the nuclear enterprise. The Air Force wants to start the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Program to replace the Minuteman III and the Long-Range Strike Weapon program to replace the Air-Launched Cruise Missile.

Haney said the deterrence mission requires a nuclear triad of bombers, submarines and ICBMs and that strategy was validated in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review.

The admiral also called for stable and predictable funding and a departure from the year-to-year budget uncertainty that has become the norm in Washington.

"[It's] very important that we're able to plan more than one year and be able to have that outlook," he said. "It's important for our workforce as well as for our mission in terms of achieving the ends we ascribe to [in] our strategy. Being able to look at it year-to-year is very problematic."

The admiral said while he hopes for a world without nuclear weapons, the United States will not disarm unilaterally. He said future, "verifiable" arms control agreements would determine future stockpile requirements but for now, the government is moving toward the New START level of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads.

STRATCOM is the combatant command responsible for nuclear forces and counts on the entire system working, not just the delivery platforms like cruise missiles and bombers, according to Haney.

"When I look at our strategic deterrent it's more than weapons," he said. "It's our warnings systems, it's our national nuclear command, control and communications capability, our platforms all the way to the weapons. We have platforms modernization that we have to get to. For example, the Ohio-class replacement program, it is important to me that we do not delay that any further or we will have gaps."

The commander told a congressional hearing recently that nuclear spending would need to grow from 3 to 5 percent of the DOD budget to be sustained. -- James Drew
 
http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/goodby_shultz_-_the_war_that_must_never_be_fought_-_scribd.pdf

Book from the Hoover Institution 5Mb file size
 
Two successful MMIII launches in two days

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123443414
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/29/us-nuclear-iran-israel-idUSKBN0MP0B520150329
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/iran-could-enrich-32-nuclear-bombs-each.html
 
http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/threat-news/russian-strategic-missile-forces-to-begin-counter-terrorist-exercise/

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/03/30-us-missile-defense-limits-pifer?rssid=arms+control&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Global strike command tests ICBM, bomber capabilities

Posted 3/27/2015 Updated 3/30/2015

by Capt. Christopher Mesnard

Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs

3/27/2015 - VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- The roar of rocket engines rumbles to life in the early hours of the morning along the California coast. In an instant, a missile longer than a tractor trailer emerges in a blast of smoke and fire, accelerating toward the dark sky, on its journey to a target 700 nautical miles southwest of Guam in the Pacific Ocean.

The launch of an unarmed Minuteman III missile on March 27 rounded off three weeks of operational tests, involving both Air Force Global Strike Command and partner agency personnel and assets, executing three Air Launched Cruise Missile and two Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile tests.

The Department of Defense's nuclear deterrence strategy, built on the foundation of what's known as the nuclear triad, encompasses nuclear capable bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched ballistic missiles; of which the Air Force oversees and maintains the testing and evaluation programs for bombers and ICBMs.

During the test time frame, three ALCM Nuclear Weapons System Evaluation Program test flights originated out of Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, followed by two ICBM operational test launches, involving maintenance and operations crews from F. E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, and Malmstrom AFB, Montana.

"The United States' nuclear deterrent forces play a foundational role in guaranteeing international stability at the strategic level, providing assurance to our allies and deterring adversaries alike" said Maj. Gen. Michael E. Fortney, AFGSC Director of Operations. "As the force provider for two legs of the nuclear triad, the Air Force is responsible for ensuring these weapon systems meet reliability checks and operational standards."

Each test was planned and executed individually, allowing multiple teams to exercise their training, but they all integrated into an overarching AFGSC focus to ensure operations, maintenance and support personnel could carry out the tests under a condensed timeline.

"We're confident we know what we're doing day in and out, and we go do it as proficiently as possible," said Senior Airman Jake McBroom 90th Missile Maintenance Squadron cage man, F. E. Warren AFB. "[Our] job is important because it's the first hand for America's nuclear deterrence. We're actually putting these missiles on alert; setting ourselves up for success, by keeping our nation safe."

Proficiency at all levels helps ensure the command's weapons systems remain reliable for operational use.

"Our procedures, our training and everything from start to finish [are] to help us successfully deliver a weapon on target," said Capt. Colin Blouse, 69th Bomb Squadron radar navigator, Minot AFB. "When it comes to testing it's something you want to have controlled well."

The nuclear strike capability of both the B-52 and the Minuteman III serve as critical components for ensuring the nation retains a high standard of security.

The B-52's air-to-air refueling makes it a literal around-the-world standoff strike option, able to use both conventional and nuclear weapons anywhere on the planet and use standoff weaponry to negate contested air space. For such missions, many hours of training and familiarization with the weapons systems are required to achieve peak proficiency.

"We show up and we study the entire process, we get the brief on why we're doing it and how we're going to go about performing it," Blouse said. "After that it's a lot of sitting down and talking through the steps that we're going to perform, because our biggest goal for this is to eliminate human error as best possible."

In addition to the standoff capabilities of the B-52, a key aspect of the bomber is the relative lag time in its ability to deliver a weapon, giving the President flexibility to show force and recall the weapons system as necessary.

"Strategic deterrence, that's part of what the B-52 is meant to do and it's just one of the things the President has available to him," said Capt. Corrine Bird, 5th Operations Support Squadron Nuclear Support Flight commander, Minot AFB. "We can [take off] as a deterrence factor and be recalled, and it comes down to the crew to process [message] traffic from the President to determine if we need to launch or retain our missiles as appropriate."

The Minuteman III, on the other hand, serves as a rapid nuclear response capability with the missiles from the most recent operational test launches reaching their target range near Guam in about 40 minutes. The test launch on March 23 set a new record for the Minuteman III covering a distance of over 6,000 miles, traveling farther than any other ever tested.

"We provide a credible deterrent that has prevented global conflicts from escalating to the scale of WWI and WWII," said 1st Lt. Benjamin May, 490th Missile Squadron Missile Crew commander, Malmstrom AFB. "Since the atom bomb was employed at the end of WWII, there hasn't been a similar conflict with such high casualties, and that's what nuclear weapons provide [to the nation]."

Both ICBM test launches and the three NucWSEPs followed "cradle to grave" formats, meaning the tests incorporated all aspects of what personnel could actually expect to go through if they had to employ one of these weapons systems.

"The testing validates that everything is safe and reliable prior to installing the test equipment," said Staff Sgt. Aaron Ruan, 705th Munitions Squadron maintainer, Minot AFB.

The consistency of these cradle-to-grave tests validates the processes and systems that keep the Air Force's nuclear arsenal ready and reliable.

"There are thousands of people in 20th Air Force who spend 24 hours a day, every day of the year, operating, maintaining, protecting and supporting this weapons system," said Capt. Joe Liles, 576th Flight Test Squadron ICBM Field Test Management chief, Vandenberg AFB. "We have the privilege here [at Vandenberg] of demonstrating the capability of that weapons system physically to the rest of the world. To show the rest of the world that this system works well, and that's all part of the strategic deterrence mission."
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-again-flight-tests-new-icbm-to-treaty-violating-range/

[Mark] Schneider, the former Pentagon official, currently working as a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, said a photo analysis of the new missile shows a uniform diameter the length of the missile, an indication it is not a modified SS-27 ICBM as the Russians have asserted. The SS-27 has stages of differing size diameters.

Instead, Schneider said the RS-26 appears similar to the new submarine-launched Bulava-30 missile.

“The Bulava-30 has a uniform diameter,” Schneider said. “It is the only other possibility consistent with what the Russians are saying about the missile. Why lie about its genesis? New START has a prohibition against deploying a Bulava-30 on anything other than a missile submarine.”
 
Nuclear Weapons Center Reorganizes

The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center reorganized on March 30 and is now broken into three execution directorates, including the existing ICBM Systems, and the newly formed Nuclear Technology and Interagency​, and the Air Delivered Capabilities, according to a March 31 release. “Our mission is still to deliver nuclear capabilities and winning solutions that warfighters use daily to deter our enemies and assure our allies,” said Maj.Gen. Sandra Finan, AFNWC commander. “Implementation of this [reorganization] will better align our organization to that mission.” The new technology directorate will focus on the “unique aspects of nuclear weapons technology and engagement with interagency partners in the nation’s nuclear enterprise,” states the release. Both the ICBM and Air Delivered Capabilities directorates directly relate to the Air Force’s two legs of the nuclear triad. The ICBM Systems Directorate includes the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, Minuteman III, engineering, operations management, program control, and product support divisions. The Air Delivered Capabilities Directorate includes, engineering, strategic systems, nuclear weapons systems integration, outside continental United States support, nuclear weapons acquisition, and a cruise missile sustainment division
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHEOq2eQDY0&feature=youtu.be&list=UUwJe2j3D3Cmb4WBwxG-Lfmw

They launched three ALCM's as well as two MMIIIs :eek:
 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/04/02/usaf-eyes-larger-say-in-nuclear-enterprise/70827882/

State Dept. New START numbers with commentary.

http://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/04/newstart2015/
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-accuses-u-s-of-lying-about-new-nuke-agreement/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obama-aides-doubt-iran-regime-116661.html
 
http://nypost.com/2015/04/04/translated-version-of-iran-deal-doesnt-say-what-obama-claims-it-does/
 
Just Be Curt

—John A. Tirpak

4/6/2015

Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told Gen. Robin Rand, the first four-star to lead Global Strike Command, to “go become the next Curtis LeMay,” Welsh said April 2. Speaking at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast, Welsh said he wants Rand to “bring this nuclear mission ... back to the front page of Air Force attention every single day,” and be USAF’s point man in a broader top governmental nuclear debate in which Welsh sees the Air Force playing a much larger role than it has for the last 17 years. Welsh acknowledged the puzzlement by some over Rand’s appointment, given that Rand’s career has been almost exclusively in fighters and most recently at Air Education and Training Command. However, “the most important” attribute for the job, Welsh said, is “leadership” and Rand brings “a leadership style and an inspirational charisma with him that is truly going to be important as we grow” the command. Welsh said Rand “understands the business, and he’ll learn the details just fine,” but it will “take some time” to get AFGSC all the resources it needs to be successful. Rand will be surrounded by experts and is “the right guy to get us going,” and build on the “fantastic job” done by Lt. Gen. Steven Wilson. USAF is “not anywhere where we need to be” on revitalizing the nuclear enterprise, but “we’ll just keep grinding on this one.”

An Empty SAC of Troubles

—John A. Tirpak

4/6/2015

​The Air Force lost its "presence" in the top tier of the nuclear deterrence conversation when Strategic Air Command was abolished in the early 1990s, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said April 2. "We lost the focal point," he said, and with it, expertise on nuclear issues on the Air Staff. Welsh said he recently convened a number of senior-leader seminars, "just to re-educate ourselves" on the nuclear mission and how it affects the broader Air Force, during which leaders are "learning a lot that we should already have known." In his opinion, Welsh said, USAF should be central to the nuclear discussion, offering "practical solutions [and] priorities," as well as "options other than what we're used to" for national leaders. The service has not "influenced those discussions" on the direction of the nuclear enterprise "in my opinion, to the level we need to." Welsh said the decisions regarding USAF's nuclear mission since SAC went out of business "all made sense at the time," but during those 17 years, USAF "slowly slid out of the picture in this discussion." That's sometimes "because all the people who do the nuke work for us are not here in Washington, and don't visit enough. Sometimes it's because there's a lot of things going on in the Air Force and the Chief of Staff wasn't engaged directly enough ... We lost the knowledge on the Air Staff." (See also Nuclear Force Improvements from the April issue of Air Force Magazine.)
 
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/state-dep-t-clarifies-obama-s-muddled-words-iran-nuclear-breakout

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-framework-silent-on-key-nuclear-site/

EDIT: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e9fd4ba772a34b06ab296ffacc2f1956/irans-rouhani-wants-sanctions-lifted-right-after-nuke-deal
 
http://news.yahoo.com/irans-khamenei-says-no-guarantee-nuclear-deal-114149020.html
 
North Korea is now assessed as having an operational road mobile ICBM (KN-08); and they are also assessed as having a minaturized nuclear warhead small enough to fit on it and still retain intercontinental range.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2015/04/08/north-korea-icbm-nuclear-weapon/25422795/

WASHINGTON — US intelligence believes North Korea is capable of miniaturizing a nuclear weapon and putting it on its KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missile, the head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) said Tuesday.
It has been widely assumed that North Korea would look to develop the technology to place a nuclear warhead on top of the KN-08, a mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. But the statement by Adm. Bill Gortney is further confirmation that the US believes the Kim regime has that capability at hand.

"Our assessment is that they have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 and shoot it at the homeland," Gortney told reporters during a Pentagon briefing. "That is the way we think, and that's our assessment of the process.

"We haven't seen them test the KN-08 yet and we're waiting for them to do that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they will fly it before they test it," he added.
Click to expand...

Back in 2012; the Arms Control Wonk people said:

http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2012/04/KN-08_Analysis_Schiller_Schmucker.pdf

On April 15, 2012, North Korea presented six road-mobile Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) at a parade in Pyongyang. At first glance, the missile seems capable of covering a range of perhaps 10,000 km. However, a closer look reveals that all of the presented missiles are mock-ups. Therefore, the situation has not changed: There is still no evidence that North Korea actually has a functional ICBM.
Click to expand...

There is no discussion on the KN-08's estimated operational capability on the Arms Control Wonk blog at


http://armscontrolwonk.com/
 
SSBN(X) model at Sea-Air-Space 2015 (hat tip - sferrin)

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2608
 
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/04/pentagon-we-cant-afford-replace-aging-icbms-bombers-subs/110134/
 
U.S. Cuts Nuclear Warhead Levels In compliance with New START, U.S. now has 1,597 treaty warheads; Russia, 1,582

AP

BY: Bill Gertz

April 16, 2015 5:00 am

Despite nuclear saber-rattling by Moscow, U.S. nuclear forces are close to reaching warhead, missile, and bomber numerical cuts required under the 2010 New START arms treaty, a senior Pentagon official told Congress on Wednesday.

U.S. nuclear warheads counted under the treaty with Russia were reduced from 1,642 to 1,597 between Sept. 1 and March 1, said Robert Scher, assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans, and capabilities.

Russian nuclear warheads were cut from 1,632 to 1,582 during the same period, Scher told the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee in prepared testimony.

The treaty requires both nations to reduce their deployed strategic warhead arsenals to 1,550 by February 2018.

For land-based and sea-based missiles and bombers, U.S. forces were reduced from 912 to 898, and Russian missiles and bombers were cut from 911 to 890. The treaty limit for those weapons is 800 strategic delivery vehicles by 2018.

Scher said the reductions continued despite “serious concerns” over souring U.S.-Russia relations. “Russia’s recent behavior, which currently poses one of our most pressing and rapidly evolving strategic challenges, underscores the importance of stable and robust deterrence,” Scher said. “We are confronted with Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, continuing aggressive Russian actions in eastern Ukraine, Russia’s increasingly aggressive nuclear posturing and threats, including the prospect of nuclear weapons in Crimea, and its violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty,” he added.

Scher was pressed by subcommittee members to say when the administration will take steps to counter the INF violation, which officials have described as deployment of a new Iskander cruise missile. Efforts to convince the Russians to return to INF treaty compliance so far have been unsuccessful. Scher said several options are being examined to counter the INF violation. “Our patience is not limitless,” he said, when asked when the United States would take action.

China also is engaged in a major strategic nuclear buildup and has so far refused to engage the United States in talks about its forces. “We maintain several ongoing security dialogues with China, and we continue to express our interest in realizing potential mutual benefits of increased bilateral transparency and deeper engagement regarding nuclear weapons and other strategic issues,” Scher said.

The hearing was called as the subcommittee examined President Obama’s fiscal 2016 request for $142 billion for nuclear weapons and infrastructure over the next five years. A total of $8.5 billion was added for force improvements, including equipment and personnel training and weapons security. Air Force Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence, said some elements of the U.S. nuclear force are so old they would qualify for antique license plates if they were vehicles. Harencak said from the 1990s to the early 2000s, there was an “erosion of the nuclear mission” in the Air Force. “This period of decline was characterized by a loss of senior leader focus, fragmentation of responsibility, and chronic underinvestment in our personnel, weapon systems, and supporting infrastructure,” he said. “While in recent years we have reversed this downward trend and made substantial progress towards addressing these deficiencies and the problems that resulted from them, we recognize considerable work lies ahead.”

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.) questioned those who testified about how the administration is following through on the recent statement that maintaining strong U.S. nuclear forces is the Pentagon’s highest priority mission. Rogers said nuclear forces suffered a 20-year “procurement holiday” when funds were not invested.

“Well, it’s time to come back from that holiday and get to work,” he said. “In the fiscal environment we are facing it won’t be easy. But if nuclear deterrence is truly the nation’s number-one priority defense mission—and I strongly agree that it is—then budgets and policies must follow.” On Russia, Rogers said: “Our position should be clear: as Russia continues to rattle its nuclear saber, it is the strength of U.S. nuclear forces that makes sure we and our allies will never be intimidated or coerced.”

Scher testified that the number of U.S. nuclear weapons “is the smallest it has been since the Eisenhower Administration, and the number of deployed nuclear warheads will continue to go down as we and Russia both reach the New START Treaty limit.” Russia is engaged in a major strategic nuclear modernization program while U.S. nuclear forces are aging and in need of modernization, which has slowed under the Obama administration’s defense spending cuts. Scher stated that defense sequestration, as mandated by the Budget Control Act, poses a serious threat to the Pentagon’s ability to maintain U.S. nuclear forces as a strategic deterrent. “Sequestration presents the greatest threat to the viability of our sustainment plan,” he said. To prevent nuclear forces from becoming hollow, Scher said support is required for “a viable sustainment and modernization plan, stable funding, and consistent focus.”

“We must achieve and maintain the necessary funding balance among three critical areas to allow continued certification that our nuclear weapons remain safe and secure, and to sustain effective deterrence over time,” Scher said.

New strategic systems that are facing delays under administration defense cuts include a new nuclear submarine, a new long-range bomber, and a new air-launched cruise missile.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/15/inside-the-ring-russia-cold-war-posture-resumes-wi/?page=all#pagebreak
 
Air Force's New Intercontinental Ballistic Missile To Be Fielded By 2027

Posted: April 16, 2015


The Air Force has nominated 2027 as the targeted initial operational capability date for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program, a time line that teeters precariously close to the forecast expiration of critical Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile components, including the rocket booster and guidance unit.

According to a GBSD request for information notice posted in January, the service will not consider ICBM recapitalization strategies that would deliver a Minuteman replacement beyond the 2027 time frame due to those aging concerns.

In written testimony to the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee's April 15 nuclear forces hearing, the service's assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration revealed 2027 as the target IOC date. That fielding time line would leave very little room for schedule delays, since the Minuteman is only expected to remain in service through 2030. Furthermore, achieving full operational capability with the replacement missile system would take several more years beyond the IOC date.

Testifying before the committee, Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak said the Minuteman III is a 1970s weapon system housed in underground missile silos that are many years older. "It's an amazing engineering challenge to keep that system up and functioning," he said.

An analysis of alternatives for replacing the Minuteman wrapped up last summer, and the replacement program is funded in the Air Force's fiscal year 2016 budget submission now before Congress. GBSD would require $946 million over the next five years to meet the Air Force's program objectives.

According to the GBSD request for information, the service intends to replace the Minuteman with an entirely new missile stack while renovating the ground silos and launch control centers. In addition, the program would replace the legacy nuclear command, control and communications network with an entirely new one.

"The GBSD system should begin fielding in the 2027 time frame due to booster age-out, guidance age-out and asset depletion," the Jan. 23 RFI states. "Strategies that do not meet this date will not be considered."

Recapitalizing the Minuteman is just one component of the Air Force's nuclear modernization program, and there are other multibillion-dollar requirements to replace the air-launched cruise missile and deliver a new, nuclear-capable bomber.

Defense Department officials, including the Pentagon's top acquisition executive, have lamented the bow wave of nuclear modernization programs, especially at a time of constrained budgets. A $10 billion to $12 billion funding gap exists in the early 2020s when many of these modernization programs are due to enter the production phase, according to Frank Kendall, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

Speaking to Inside the Air Force after the hearing, Harencak said both the nuclear and conventional forces need more money, and the Air Force is trying to find innovative ways to recapitalize the ICBM and bomber force affordably.

"We're underfunded; the Department of Defense is underfunded," he said. "In order to do everything we need to do, we're going to need more money, and I think everybody understands that. We just have to have more money, or we're not going to be able to meet all of the commitments and all of the requirements that we have."
Peter Huessey, a senior defense consultant with the Air Force Association, said since about 1992, America has taken its eye off the nuclear force and underfunded modernization. However, the FY-16 budget proposal is plussed up in the right areas to address the most pressing recapitalization needs, he said.

"It was a robust, necessary modernization program that was plussed up in the right areas and I think Congress is going to approve most of it," Huessey told ITAF April 10.

"I think they'll bury some money in the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts -- but that's not long-term, that's year-to-year [funding]. But they get to say the [Budget Control Act] caps are the same and we added money to defense," he added.
According to DOD budget documents, spending on the nuclear force over the next five years will peak at $16.6 billion in FY-19. Officials have said spending on the nuclear force needs to grow to about 5 percent of the annual DOD budget to pay for planned modernization programs, particularly the Ohio-class submarine replacement. -- James Drew
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/20/congress-adds-cash-to-special-account-to-build-new-nuclear-subs.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
 
​The Air Force’s B-1 fleet, along with its Long-Range Strike Bomber program, is moving from the oversight of Air Combat Command to Air Force Global Strike Command, effective Oct. 1, announced the service on Monday. The 63 B-1s in the inventory and some 7,000 airmen will transfer to AFGSC under the move, joining the Air Force’s nuclear-capable B-2A and B-52H fleets under the command, states the service’s release. The B-1s, which deliver only conventional munitions, are primarily spread across the 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess AFB, Texas, and the 28th BW at Ellsworth AFB, S.D. “With a single command responsible for the Air Force's entire long-range strike fleet, the airmen in AFGSC will benefit from better coordination and increased sharing of expertise,” said Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh. Plus, the consolidation will “help provide a unified voice to maintain the high standards necessary in stewardship” of the bombers, said Secretary Deborah Lee James. AFGSC spokeswoman Capt. Michele Rollins told Air Force Magazine the detailed planning surrounding the realignment was still a work in progress, when asked if the 7th BW and 28th BW would become part of 8th Air Force, AFGSC’s organization that oversees the B-2 and B-52 forces.
 
Last Remaining Peacekeeper ICBM Silos Removed From Service

The Air Force has sealed the last of its Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile launch silos including one test launcher at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, as the United States and Russia move closer toward compliance with agreed New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty numbers.
 
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/04/russianotebook/

Russia's nuclear forces update
 
House Would Launch New Weapon Development To Counter Russian Cruise Missile

Posted: April 22, 2015

House lawmakers are laying the groundwork for the Pentagon in fiscal year 2016 to start -- if necessary -- a major new weapon system program to counter Russia's development of a ground-launched cruise missile, which Washington maintains violates the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, in its mark of the FY-16 defense authorization bill, grants the Defense Department wide latitude to begin work on a yet-to-be-identified capability in the event the White House determines Russia is not taking action "to return to full compliance with the INF Treaty," the draft bill states.

The draft bill would authorize funding from defense-wide research, development, test and evaluation accounts to begin developing "counterforce capabilities to prevent intermediate-range ground-launched ballistic missile and cruise-missile attacks, including capabilities that could be acquired from allies."

In addition, the draft legislation would allow the Pentagon to start developing "countervailing strike capabilities to enhance the armed forces of the United States or allies of the United States, including capabilities that may be acquired from allies."

Last July, the State Department's Arms Control Verification and Compliance Bureau published a report declaring the Russian Federation "in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles."

Since then, DOD officials have repeatedly voiced concerns about Russia's development of this new ground-launched cruise missile, noting the Pentagon is exploring a wide range of options for how to respond, including active defense to counter the new cruise missile, counterforce capabilities, and new strike capabilities.

Last month, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the House Armed Services Committee the Pentagon is exploring its options. "So we are looking at our alternatives in the areas of defense against the systems that they might field in violation of the INF treaty, counterforce options and countervailing options," Carter told the panel on March 18. "All of those are available to us. We're looking at all of those because the Russians need to remember this is a two-way street."

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearing said he believed Washington has to make it clear to Moscow that the INF treat violation cannot stand.

"I think we have to make it very clear that . . . things like their compliance with the INF treaty -- that there will be political, diplomatic and potentially military costs in terms of the way we posture ourselves and the way we plan and work with our allies to address those provocations," Dempsey said. "So I've seen it, it concerns me greatly. I certainly would counsel them not to roll back the clock to previous experiences."

Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, U.S. European Command head, told the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 25 that "we need to first and foremost signal that we cannot accept this change and that if this change is continued that we will have to change the cost calculus for Russia in order to help find their way to a less bellicose position." -- Jason Sherman
 
I chanced upon new satellite imagery evidence of the North Korean ballistic missile sub program. The SSB ('Sinpo Class') has two launch tubes in the sail which looks a bit like the classic Dillinger 1866 pistol. A submersible launch raft is also present at the same location for testing. My attempt at DoD style intell report artwork:
tSnFRz1.jpg


Sat imagery:
HFz1NZF.jpg

93U0fZr.jpg



Similar raft (Soviet example, 1961):
4xmB6mL.jpg


As always I posted a fuler analysis on the Covert Shores website http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis%20-%20Sinpo%20Class%20Ballistic%20Missile%20Sub.html
 
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/26/a-gentle-nudge-with-a-nuke-deflecting-earth-bound-asteroids/
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom