Current Nuclear Weapons Development
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Not Your Grandfather's Cold War
—Arie Church
6/17/2015
Russia and China are becoming increasingly forceful toward neighboring states and developing, enlarging, and modernizing their nuclear arsenal, said US Strategic Command Deputy Commander Lt. Gen. James Kowalski during an AFA- and industry-sponsored speech on Capitol Hill on June 16. "We have to recognize that there are two authoritarian, nuclear-armed regimes dominating the Eurasian landmass," Kowalski said. Both "are using or threating to use a broad spectrum of force against their neighbors … and some of those neighbors are our allies," he added. Facing multiple nuclear-armed potential adversaries, more advanced conventional threats, and threats to the newer space and cyberspace domains, deterrence today is much more complex. "We must also contend with numerous, regional flash-points that not only challenge international standards, but could directly involve our allies. This environment is ripe for miscalculation," Kowalski stressed. Russia's treaty-violating, medium-range nuclear weapons threaten European stability, and the intensifying effects of conflict in space and cyberspace are poorly understood. "The effects of the decision to use force in space or cyberspace could rapidly escalate a conflict," and Russian military officials "openly maintain that they possess anti-satellite weapons," he added. All these things combined "puts strategic stability at risk," Kowalski said.
—Arie Church
6/17/2015
Russia and China are becoming increasingly forceful toward neighboring states and developing, enlarging, and modernizing their nuclear arsenal, said US Strategic Command Deputy Commander Lt. Gen. James Kowalski during an AFA- and industry-sponsored speech on Capitol Hill on June 16. "We have to recognize that there are two authoritarian, nuclear-armed regimes dominating the Eurasian landmass," Kowalski said. Both "are using or threating to use a broad spectrum of force against their neighbors … and some of those neighbors are our allies," he added. Facing multiple nuclear-armed potential adversaries, more advanced conventional threats, and threats to the newer space and cyberspace domains, deterrence today is much more complex. "We must also contend with numerous, regional flash-points that not only challenge international standards, but could directly involve our allies. This environment is ripe for miscalculation," Kowalski stressed. Russia's treaty-violating, medium-range nuclear weapons threaten European stability, and the intensifying effects of conflict in space and cyberspace are poorly understood. "The effects of the decision to use force in space or cyberspace could rapidly escalate a conflict," and Russian military officials "openly maintain that they possess anti-satellite weapons," he added. All these things combined "puts strategic stability at risk," Kowalski said.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/06/report-us-needs-new-small-nuclear-bombs/115765/
Included in Part I of CSIS Report;
http://csis.org/files/publication/150220_Cohen_GlobalFlashpoints_Web.pdf
Included in Part I of CSIS Report;
http://csis.org/files/publication/150220_Cohen_GlobalFlashpoints_Web.pdf
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
CSIS PONI: Project Atom: A Competitive Strategies Approach to Defining U.S. Nuclear Strategy and Posture for 2025-2050
Video and downloadable report at the link;
http://csis.org/event/report-release-project-atom
Video and downloadable report at the link;
http://csis.org/event/report-release-project-atom
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/22/white-house-pressed-to-extend-iran-nuclear-talks-d/
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Thornberry Promises to Educate Congress on Nuclear Deterrence
—Otto Kreisher
6/24/2015
The US nuclear deterrence forces and infrastructure are “atrophying,” while Russia is adding to its nuclear capabilities, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry said Tuesday during an appearance at the Atlantic Council. “Our nuclear defense needs more attention,” said Thornberry (R-Texas), who promised to hold a series of hearings to educate HASC members on the danger. As the Russian population and its oil revenues are shrinking, President Vladimir Putin “is putting much more emphasis on his nuclear forces. At the same time, ours are atrophying, ... getting older and older, as are the people who built them,” he said. “Where we’re really lacking is in the weapons systems.” Air Force and Navy leaders are requesting modernization of the land- and sea-based strategic missiles, a new strategic bomber, and replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic missiles submarines. The Pentagon also is seeking funds to refurbish the key warheads in the nuclear arsenal, but the defense nuclear infrastructure, which handles the warheads, has become “so deteriorated” that the engineers are leaving, Thornberry said. “I don’t think many of my colleagues on the Hill understand” the problem, the chairman said. (Atlantic Council video of speech.)
—Otto Kreisher
6/24/2015
The US nuclear deterrence forces and infrastructure are “atrophying,” while Russia is adding to its nuclear capabilities, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry said Tuesday during an appearance at the Atlantic Council. “Our nuclear defense needs more attention,” said Thornberry (R-Texas), who promised to hold a series of hearings to educate HASC members on the danger. As the Russian population and its oil revenues are shrinking, President Vladimir Putin “is putting much more emphasis on his nuclear forces. At the same time, ours are atrophying, ... getting older and older, as are the people who built them,” he said. “Where we’re really lacking is in the weapons systems.” Air Force and Navy leaders are requesting modernization of the land- and sea-based strategic missiles, a new strategic bomber, and replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic missiles submarines. The Pentagon also is seeking funds to refurbish the key warheads in the nuclear arsenal, but the defense nuclear infrastructure, which handles the warheads, has become “so deteriorated” that the engineers are leaving, Thornberry said. “I don’t think many of my colleagues on the Hill understand” the problem, the chairman said. (Atlantic Council video of speech.)
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/23/us-iran-nuclear-freeze-idUSKBN0P32A420150623
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
This Time It Will Work
—John A. Tirpak
6/26/2015
Revitalization of the nuclear enterprise is really going to work this time because of the high-level attention it’s getting, Pentagon point man on the effort, Yisroel Brumer, told a House Armed Services Committee panel Thursday. Responding to a question from Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), who noted that there have been “24 separate reports over nine years” investigating various problems with the enterprise, ranging from cheating to obsolescent equipment, Brumer said he’s been charged to “ensure this is not just the latest attempt” to fix things. Previous efforts, he said, were hampered by “a ‘checking the box’ mentality,” which sought to correct specific issues in isolation without addressing underlying, broad problems. This time around, there’s “personal involvement” from the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Air Force and Navy service Secretaries and Chiefs, he said. Evidence of their seriousness is the elevation of Air Force Global Strike Command to a four-star billet, commitments to higher funding, and top leader visits to hear and act on the concerns of nuclear personnel, he noted. Troops can see for themselves that new gear is showing up, more billets have been added, and the ways of doing business have changed, Brumer observed. That said, however, he admitted things won’t get fixed overnight. “It will take years to see that the risk margin has been regained,” he said. (See also Nuclear Force Improvements from the April issue of Air Force Magazine.)
OCO Approach Bad for Nukes
—John A. Tirpak
6/26/2015
The Republican approach of making up sequester-driven funding shortfalls largely through overseas contingency operations funding doesn’t really work for the nuclear enterprise, the Pentagon’s nuclear re-invigoration guru said Thursday. Yisroel Brumer, of the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shop, told a House Armed Services Committee panel that revitalizing the nuke enterprise “requires enduring, sustained attention,” and the OCO approach is too short-term for that to work properly. Short-term funding also puts the gains made in morale “at risk,” he said, because the workforce will sense an ambivalence and lack of commitment to the mission’s priority. Among troops in the field, “this comes up a lot,” he said, and they ask, “will this be sustainable?” Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein, 20th Air Force commander, told the panel he really needs “funding consistency,” and noted that things like a new missile transporter and especially a replacement helicopter is hard to buy one year at a time
—John A. Tirpak
6/26/2015
Revitalization of the nuclear enterprise is really going to work this time because of the high-level attention it’s getting, Pentagon point man on the effort, Yisroel Brumer, told a House Armed Services Committee panel Thursday. Responding to a question from Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), who noted that there have been “24 separate reports over nine years” investigating various problems with the enterprise, ranging from cheating to obsolescent equipment, Brumer said he’s been charged to “ensure this is not just the latest attempt” to fix things. Previous efforts, he said, were hampered by “a ‘checking the box’ mentality,” which sought to correct specific issues in isolation without addressing underlying, broad problems. This time around, there’s “personal involvement” from the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Air Force and Navy service Secretaries and Chiefs, he said. Evidence of their seriousness is the elevation of Air Force Global Strike Command to a four-star billet, commitments to higher funding, and top leader visits to hear and act on the concerns of nuclear personnel, he noted. Troops can see for themselves that new gear is showing up, more billets have been added, and the ways of doing business have changed, Brumer observed. That said, however, he admitted things won’t get fixed overnight. “It will take years to see that the risk margin has been regained,” he said. (See also Nuclear Force Improvements from the April issue of Air Force Magazine.)
OCO Approach Bad for Nukes
—John A. Tirpak
6/26/2015
The Republican approach of making up sequester-driven funding shortfalls largely through overseas contingency operations funding doesn’t really work for the nuclear enterprise, the Pentagon’s nuclear re-invigoration guru said Thursday. Yisroel Brumer, of the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shop, told a House Armed Services Committee panel that revitalizing the nuke enterprise “requires enduring, sustained attention,” and the OCO approach is too short-term for that to work properly. Short-term funding also puts the gains made in morale “at risk,” he said, because the workforce will sense an ambivalence and lack of commitment to the mission’s priority. Among troops in the field, “this comes up a lot,” he said, and they ask, “will this be sustainable?” Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein, 20th Air Force commander, told the panel he really needs “funding consistency,” and noted that things like a new missile transporter and especially a replacement helicopter is hard to buy one year at a time
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://news.usni.org/2015/06/25/congressman-asks-pentagon-for-more-involvement-in-funding-ohio-replacement-submarine
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/06/25/pentagon-says-it-needs-270-billion-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal.html
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/06/25/pentagon-says-it-needs-270-billion-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal.html
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
That’s One Hefty Price Tag
—Amy McCullough
6/29/2015
If the United States continues to delay expensive modernization programs to its aging nuclear systems, it will lose deterrent capability as early as the 2020s, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work told members of the House Armed Services Committee on June 25. “We’ve developed a plan to transition our aging systems,” which are “reaching a time where they will age out,” said Work. But he also acknowledged that, “Carrying out this plan is going to be a very expensive proposition.” The Defense Department projects it will cost $18 billion a year in Fiscal 2016 dollars from 2021 to 2035 to modernize the fleet. “Without additional funding dedicated to strategic force modernization, sustaining this level of spending will require very, very hard choices and will impact the other parts of the defense portfolio, particularly our conventional mission capability,” he added.
Although the United States is committed to reducing its nuclear arsenal to meet New START obligations, maintaining a “strong nuclear deterrent” remains “critical” to national security, said Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work. Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee on June 25, Work said Russia and China continue to modernize “already capable nuclear arsenals, and North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against the continental United States.” However, Russia’s provocative statements regarding its nuclear force have “failed” to intimidate the US and its allies as intended. “If anything, they have really strengthened the NATO Alliance solidarity,” he added. The US will not be allow Russia to “gain significant military advantage through INF violations,” said Work. “We are developing and analyzing response options for the President and we’re consulting with our allies on the best way forward here.” Work said he believes China’s nuclear modernization program is “designed to ensure they have a second strike capability, and not to seek quantitative nuclear parity with the United States or Russia.” As for North Korea, Work predicted efforts to expand national missile defenses and conventional counterforce options will keep the US ahead of North Korean capabilities
—Amy McCullough
6/29/2015
If the United States continues to delay expensive modernization programs to its aging nuclear systems, it will lose deterrent capability as early as the 2020s, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work told members of the House Armed Services Committee on June 25. “We’ve developed a plan to transition our aging systems,” which are “reaching a time where they will age out,” said Work. But he also acknowledged that, “Carrying out this plan is going to be a very expensive proposition.” The Defense Department projects it will cost $18 billion a year in Fiscal 2016 dollars from 2021 to 2035 to modernize the fleet. “Without additional funding dedicated to strategic force modernization, sustaining this level of spending will require very, very hard choices and will impact the other parts of the defense portfolio, particularly our conventional mission capability,” he added.
Although the United States is committed to reducing its nuclear arsenal to meet New START obligations, maintaining a “strong nuclear deterrent” remains “critical” to national security, said Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work. Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee on June 25, Work said Russia and China continue to modernize “already capable nuclear arsenals, and North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against the continental United States.” However, Russia’s provocative statements regarding its nuclear force have “failed” to intimidate the US and its allies as intended. “If anything, they have really strengthened the NATO Alliance solidarity,” he added. The US will not be allow Russia to “gain significant military advantage through INF violations,” said Work. “We are developing and analyzing response options for the President and we’re consulting with our allies on the best way forward here.” Work said he believes China’s nuclear modernization program is “designed to ensure they have a second strike capability, and not to seek quantitative nuclear parity with the United States or Russia.” As for North Korea, Work predicted efforts to expand national missile defenses and conventional counterforce options will keep the US ahead of North Korean capabilities
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Navy, Air Force Continue Work On Achieving Ballistic Missile Commonality
The Navy continues to work with the Air Force in achieving commonality for ballistic missile parts to make the munitions affordable for each service, according to a senior Navy official.
The Navy continues to work with the Air Force in achieving commonality for ballistic missile parts to make the munitions affordable for each service, according to a senior Navy official.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-violates-past-nuclear-promises-on-eve-of-deal/
Iran takes hard line on inspections, sanctions at nuke talks (AP)
Iran takes hard line on inspections, sanctions at nuke talks (AP)
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Inside the Air Force - 07/03/2015
GBSD pegged at $62 billion
Air Force Eyes $160B Tab For New Nuclear Modernization Projects
Posted: July 01, 2015
The Air Force could require as much as $160 billion to modernize its portion of the U.S. military's nuclear enterprise, a sum expected to propel annual spending across the Defense Department's strategic weapons accounts to more than $18 billion beginning in the next decade -- well beyond forecasted funding levels. The price tag for the Air Force's nuclear modernization needs is beginning to take shape as the service finalizes draft plans for a new intercontinental ballistic missile, a new nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile, and expects this summer to advance development of a new bomber. Trade publications in recent months have reported internal, draft cost-estimates for two new Air Force programs critical to modernizing the strategic weapons portfolio. The service is considering a $62.3 billion plan as one way to meet the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent requirement to keep the ICBM force operational beyond the end of the Minuteman III's service life in 2030, Nuclear Security and Deterrence Monitor reported last month.
Maj. Melissa Milner, an Air Force spokeswoman, confirmed on June 30 that a February 2015 draft estimate for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Program tallied $48.5 billion for new missiles, $6.9 billion for command and control systems, and $6.9 billion for renovation of launch control centers and launch facilities. Meantime, Arms Control Today shed new light on the program last week, reporting the Air Force is eyeing 642 new missiles, 400 of which would be operationally deployed. In May, Arms Control Today, citing unnamed sources, reported the Air Force portion of the Long-Range Standoff Weapon, a nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile, could be as much as $9 billion.
As soon as this month, the Air Force is expected to select a design -- and a builder -- for a new long-range strike bomber, a program defense analysts estimate could cost at least $90 billion to develop and procure. Meanwhile, the Navy is moving ahead with plans to build a new ballistic missile submarine, the Ohio-class Replacement program, which the service estimates will cost $139 billion to acquire a fleet of 12 boats. In addition, the Navy is contemplating what actions it will need to take in the near future to ensure this new ballistic missile submarine has a strategic weapon after the current Trident II missile reaches the end of its service life in the early 2040s.
"After adding the cost of making required improvements to our nuclear command-and-control systems, modernizing and sustaining our nuclear arsenal is projected to cost the Department of Defense an average of $18 billion per year from 2021 to 2035 in FY-16 dollars," Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work told the House Armed Services Committee on June 25. "This is approximately 3.4 percent of our current, topline defense budget. When combined with the continuing cost to sustain the current force while we build the new one this will roughly double the share of the defense budget allocated to the nuclear mission. This will require very hard choices and increased risk in some missions without additional funding above current defense budget levels." In April, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer said current Air Force and Navy strategic forces modernization plans are unaffordable, unless the Defense Department can secure an additional $10 billion to $12 billion annually beginning in 2021.
Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Ash Carter directed a review of strategic forces modernization plans with an eye toward scrutinizing whether the estimated program costs might be pared back. Senior Pentagon officials believe there are limited options available to pay for these modernization programs within the current U.S. military spending profile. Higher budgets are necessary, these officials argue. Total DOD spending on strategic forces in FY-16 is nearly $12 billion, set to increase to $14.5 billion annually in FY-17 and FY-18, $16.6 billion in FY-19, and then dip to $14.9 billion in FY-20, according to the National Defense Budget Estimates for FY-16, published in March. -- Jason Sherman
GBSD pegged at $62 billion
Air Force Eyes $160B Tab For New Nuclear Modernization Projects
Posted: July 01, 2015
The Air Force could require as much as $160 billion to modernize its portion of the U.S. military's nuclear enterprise, a sum expected to propel annual spending across the Defense Department's strategic weapons accounts to more than $18 billion beginning in the next decade -- well beyond forecasted funding levels. The price tag for the Air Force's nuclear modernization needs is beginning to take shape as the service finalizes draft plans for a new intercontinental ballistic missile, a new nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile, and expects this summer to advance development of a new bomber. Trade publications in recent months have reported internal, draft cost-estimates for two new Air Force programs critical to modernizing the strategic weapons portfolio. The service is considering a $62.3 billion plan as one way to meet the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent requirement to keep the ICBM force operational beyond the end of the Minuteman III's service life in 2030, Nuclear Security and Deterrence Monitor reported last month.
Maj. Melissa Milner, an Air Force spokeswoman, confirmed on June 30 that a February 2015 draft estimate for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Program tallied $48.5 billion for new missiles, $6.9 billion for command and control systems, and $6.9 billion for renovation of launch control centers and launch facilities. Meantime, Arms Control Today shed new light on the program last week, reporting the Air Force is eyeing 642 new missiles, 400 of which would be operationally deployed. In May, Arms Control Today, citing unnamed sources, reported the Air Force portion of the Long-Range Standoff Weapon, a nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile, could be as much as $9 billion.
As soon as this month, the Air Force is expected to select a design -- and a builder -- for a new long-range strike bomber, a program defense analysts estimate could cost at least $90 billion to develop and procure. Meanwhile, the Navy is moving ahead with plans to build a new ballistic missile submarine, the Ohio-class Replacement program, which the service estimates will cost $139 billion to acquire a fleet of 12 boats. In addition, the Navy is contemplating what actions it will need to take in the near future to ensure this new ballistic missile submarine has a strategic weapon after the current Trident II missile reaches the end of its service life in the early 2040s.
"After adding the cost of making required improvements to our nuclear command-and-control systems, modernizing and sustaining our nuclear arsenal is projected to cost the Department of Defense an average of $18 billion per year from 2021 to 2035 in FY-16 dollars," Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work told the House Armed Services Committee on June 25. "This is approximately 3.4 percent of our current, topline defense budget. When combined with the continuing cost to sustain the current force while we build the new one this will roughly double the share of the defense budget allocated to the nuclear mission. This will require very hard choices and increased risk in some missions without additional funding above current defense budget levels." In April, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer said current Air Force and Navy strategic forces modernization plans are unaffordable, unless the Defense Department can secure an additional $10 billion to $12 billion annually beginning in 2021.
Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Ash Carter directed a review of strategic forces modernization plans with an eye toward scrutinizing whether the estimated program costs might be pared back. Senior Pentagon officials believe there are limited options available to pay for these modernization programs within the current U.S. military spending profile. Higher budgets are necessary, these officials argue. Total DOD spending on strategic forces in FY-16 is nearly $12 billion, set to increase to $14.5 billion annually in FY-17 and FY-18, $16.6 billion in FY-19, and then dip to $14.9 billion in FY-20, according to the National Defense Budget Estimates for FY-16, published in March. -- Jason Sherman
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqZHlbFqSbY
Task Force 21: The Strategic Nuclear Triad
Long but interesting. Note there were some earlier questions on this thread with regard to the Ohio replacement going to a larger missile compartment. At 4:04:00 Navy Admiral said 97" was considered stayed at 87".
Task Force 21: The Strategic Nuclear Triad
Long but interesting. Note there were some earlier questions on this thread with regard to the Ohio replacement going to a larger missile compartment. At 4:04:00 Navy Admiral said 97" was considered stayed at 87".
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
http://news.yahoo.com/negotiators-still-not-where-iran-talks-us-155429603.html
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
Rogers Urges Stronger Nuclear Deterrence, Missile Defense
—Otto Kreisher
7/9/2015
The chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee issued a strong call Wednesday for strengthening US nuclear deterrence forces and ballistic missile defenses, noting growing capabilities developed by Russia, China, and others. “On the nuclear deterrent front, we probably have more reason for concern today than any time since the Soviet Union collapsed,” said Rep. Michael Rogers (R-Ala.). Addressing an AFA and industry-sponsored breakfast, Rogers noted that in recent hearings Pentagon officials said nuclear deterrence was their highest priorities. “That’s one of few things DOD says I agree with,” he said. Those hearings made clear, “DOD will fund nuclear deterrent, and I’m confident Congress will support it.” But the best way to support these programs “would be to lift the arbitrary defense spending caps required by sequestration,” he said. Rogers rejected calls to reconsider the nuclear deterrent triad, calling it “as critically important today as it’s ever been.” He also stressed the need to develop new capabilities in missile defense, citing directed energy weapons, the electromagnetic railgun, the redesigned kill vehicle, and the next-generation multiple object kill vehicle. And that should include space-based defenses, he added, noting that Russia and China already have weaponized space.
—Otto Kreisher
7/9/2015
The chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee issued a strong call Wednesday for strengthening US nuclear deterrence forces and ballistic missile defenses, noting growing capabilities developed by Russia, China, and others. “On the nuclear deterrent front, we probably have more reason for concern today than any time since the Soviet Union collapsed,” said Rep. Michael Rogers (R-Ala.). Addressing an AFA and industry-sponsored breakfast, Rogers noted that in recent hearings Pentagon officials said nuclear deterrence was their highest priorities. “That’s one of few things DOD says I agree with,” he said. Those hearings made clear, “DOD will fund nuclear deterrent, and I’m confident Congress will support it.” But the best way to support these programs “would be to lift the arbitrary defense spending caps required by sequestration,” he said. Rogers rejected calls to reconsider the nuclear deterrent triad, calling it “as critically important today as it’s ever been.” He also stressed the need to develop new capabilities in missile defense, citing directed energy weapons, the electromagnetic railgun, the redesigned kill vehicle, and the next-generation multiple object kill vehicle. And that should include space-based defenses, he added, noting that Russia and China already have weaponized space.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
GBSD RFI expected this fall
Boeing And Lockheed Martin Move Forward With ICBM Replacement
Posted: July 09, 2015
As the Air Force prepares to launch a competition to replace the Minuteman III, potential bidders Lockheed Martin and Boeing are participating in key research that will help shape the program's design.
Lockheed and Boeing detailed contributions to the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent system research in interviews this week. Along with Northrop Grumman, all the companies responded to the GBSD request for information in late March and are preparing for the draft request for proposals this fall.
The GBSD will recapitalize the infrastructure of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or the Minuteman III, including its entire flight system, weapons system and command-and-control infrastructure. The Air Force is looking to renovate the existing launch control centers and reach initial operational capability by 2027.
Boeing recently completed a basic phase of the concept design architecture guidance, which reviewed technologies and modes of replacing the current guidance system on the ICBM, as well as GBSD, said Ted Kerzie, Boeing's director of strategic missile systems futures, in an interview with Inside the Air Force on July 7.
Both the RFI and recent industry days indicate the Air Force will award multiple contacts during the technology maturation and risk reduction phase. The Air Force plan will likely consist of two to three contractors for the TMRR phase, one to two during the engineering phase and a single provider for production and deployment, Kerzie said.
As part of the Air Force's market research, Lockheed is assisting with the planning for the reentry systems for GBSD. The company has also responded to the Air Force's broad agency announcement, which explores potential modularity modernization and technologies that would assist the Air Force in determining GBSD guidance requirements, according to a July 6 interview with Everett Thomas, director of Air Force strategic programs at Lockheed. The company is also exploring modernization for countermeasures.
Lockheed is also able to share the latest technology in their Navy programs with their customer sets in the Air Force, Thomas said.
Any austerity in the current budget should not affect plans for the new GBSD, according to Jim Chilton, vice president and general manager at Boeing Strategic Missile and Defense Systems, who participated in the July 7 interview.
"I think the Air Force is prudently going through a deliberate process," he said. "I believe it will move forward."
While the RFI stipulates the program will retain the silo basing mode, the Air Force is looking at mobile options for the future, said Kerzie. -- Leigh Giangreco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cross posted on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent thread if people want to comment, speculate on new missile design.
Boeing And Lockheed Martin Move Forward With ICBM Replacement
Posted: July 09, 2015
As the Air Force prepares to launch a competition to replace the Minuteman III, potential bidders Lockheed Martin and Boeing are participating in key research that will help shape the program's design.
Lockheed and Boeing detailed contributions to the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent system research in interviews this week. Along with Northrop Grumman, all the companies responded to the GBSD request for information in late March and are preparing for the draft request for proposals this fall.
The GBSD will recapitalize the infrastructure of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or the Minuteman III, including its entire flight system, weapons system and command-and-control infrastructure. The Air Force is looking to renovate the existing launch control centers and reach initial operational capability by 2027.
Boeing recently completed a basic phase of the concept design architecture guidance, which reviewed technologies and modes of replacing the current guidance system on the ICBM, as well as GBSD, said Ted Kerzie, Boeing's director of strategic missile systems futures, in an interview with Inside the Air Force on July 7.
Both the RFI and recent industry days indicate the Air Force will award multiple contacts during the technology maturation and risk reduction phase. The Air Force plan will likely consist of two to three contractors for the TMRR phase, one to two during the engineering phase and a single provider for production and deployment, Kerzie said.
As part of the Air Force's market research, Lockheed is assisting with the planning for the reentry systems for GBSD. The company has also responded to the Air Force's broad agency announcement, which explores potential modularity modernization and technologies that would assist the Air Force in determining GBSD guidance requirements, according to a July 6 interview with Everett Thomas, director of Air Force strategic programs at Lockheed. The company is also exploring modernization for countermeasures.
Lockheed is also able to share the latest technology in their Navy programs with their customer sets in the Air Force, Thomas said.
Any austerity in the current budget should not affect plans for the new GBSD, according to Jim Chilton, vice president and general manager at Boeing Strategic Missile and Defense Systems, who participated in the July 7 interview.
"I think the Air Force is prudently going through a deliberate process," he said. "I believe it will move forward."
While the RFI stipulates the program will retain the silo basing mode, the Air Force is looking at mobile options for the future, said Kerzie. -- Leigh Giangreco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cross posted on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent thread if people want to comment, speculate on new missile design.
- Joined
- 3 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,973
- Reaction score
- 3,262
Picture: http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RMC_011.jpg
Source: http://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/b61-12-tonopah-test
Finally I found a video of this flight test.
Now I know, that flames around the bomb are rocket flames to make the bomb spin for better accuracy.
Video:
https://youtu.be/L14GMtf8Vwk
Code:
https://youtu.be/L14GMtf8Vwk- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
Via the Drudge Report:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150710/iran-nuclear_talks-0576f79950.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/iran-made-illegal-purchases-nuclear-weapons-technology-last-month_988067.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150710/iran-nuclear_talks-0576f79950.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/iran-made-illegal-purchases-nuclear-weapons-technology-last-month_988067.html
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150713/iran-nuclear_talks-670992d150.html
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,261
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11729176/Iran-nuclear-deal-live.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/August/Pages/PlantoFundOhioReplacementSubmarineReachesTippingPoint.aspx
Political drama surrounds the Navy’s Ohio replacement submarine, as the service tries to secure funding for its highest priority program.
Much hangs on the outcome of the high stakes budget battle playing out in Washington, D.C., which will shape the future of Navy shipbuilding and potentially have major effects on the other services and the industrial base.
A key issue in question is how to pay for the next generation of ballistic missile submarines — known as the SSBN(X) or the Ohio replacement — which the Navy says are needed to replace the aging Ohio-class vessels currently in service.
“The Navy is going to buy the Ohio replacement,” said Bryan Clark, a naval expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “The nation is not going to accept the Navy not building a new ballistic missile submarine.”
Ballistic missile submarines — nicknamed “boomers” — are the centerpiece of the nation’s nuclear deterrent. Moving stealthily undersea, they are considered the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. By 2018, when the U.S. military adjusts to the terms of the New START treaty, submarines will carry about 70 percent of America’s deployed nuclear arsenal, according to Navy officials.
But the Ohio-class boats that carry the missiles will begin reaching the end of their service lives in 2027, with the final one scheduled to retire in 2040. The Navy hopes to start procuring the Ohio replacement in 2021, and ultimately buy 12 of them to replace the 14 Ohio-class ships.
But building a dozen SSBN(X)s will be enormously expensive. In a March report, the Government Accountability Office estimated the total cost of the Ohio replacement to be $96 billion. In December the Congressional Budget Office came up with an even higher estimate, putting the total price tag at $102 billion to $107 billion, depending on R&D expenditures.
The Navy is expected to spend about $10 billion over the next five years on development and advance procurement even before the first ship is built, according to the Pentagon’s future years defense program.
Political drama surrounds the Navy’s Ohio replacement submarine, as the service tries to secure funding for its highest priority program.
Much hangs on the outcome of the high stakes budget battle playing out in Washington, D.C., which will shape the future of Navy shipbuilding and potentially have major effects on the other services and the industrial base.
A key issue in question is how to pay for the next generation of ballistic missile submarines — known as the SSBN(X) or the Ohio replacement — which the Navy says are needed to replace the aging Ohio-class vessels currently in service.
“The Navy is going to buy the Ohio replacement,” said Bryan Clark, a naval expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “The nation is not going to accept the Navy not building a new ballistic missile submarine.”
Ballistic missile submarines — nicknamed “boomers” — are the centerpiece of the nation’s nuclear deterrent. Moving stealthily undersea, they are considered the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad. By 2018, when the U.S. military adjusts to the terms of the New START treaty, submarines will carry about 70 percent of America’s deployed nuclear arsenal, according to Navy officials.
But the Ohio-class boats that carry the missiles will begin reaching the end of their service lives in 2027, with the final one scheduled to retire in 2040. The Navy hopes to start procuring the Ohio replacement in 2021, and ultimately buy 12 of them to replace the 14 Ohio-class ships.
But building a dozen SSBN(X)s will be enormously expensive. In a March report, the Government Accountability Office estimated the total cost of the Ohio replacement to be $96 billion. In December the Congressional Budget Office came up with an even higher estimate, putting the total price tag at $102 billion to $107 billion, depending on R&D expenditures.
The Navy is expected to spend about $10 billion over the next five years on development and advance procurement even before the first ship is built, according to the Pentagon’s future years defense program.
Similar threads
-
-
New Plan for Sub Launched Conventional Ballistic Missile for PGS Mission?- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 0
-
British alternative to NATO INF (Cruise and Polaris)
- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 10
-
-
