Current Nuclear Weapons Development

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421453/iran-deal-hidden-congress-Obama-admin-house-republican-
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-most-dangerous-nuclear-weapon-americas-arsenal-13433
 
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2015/July%202015/Sketching-Minuteman-IV.aspx
 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2015/07/13/commentary-sustaining-nuclear-deterrence-requires-new-capabilities/30084823/
 
Annual GAO report of nuclear weapons sustainment:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671788.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richardson: Navy Will Wrap Up Ohio-Class Replacement Study This Fall

The Navy will complete a study in the fall concerning the multibillion-dollar Ohio-class ballistic submarine replacement program, according to the nominee to become the next chief of naval operations
 
Via ye old Drudge Report:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-obama-admin-lying-about-nuclear-deal-for-domestic-consumption/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/saudi-reaction-deal-send-us-more-missiles_1001233.html

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-30/top-french-official-contradicts-kerry-on-iran-deal

Iran says will ban US experts from UN nuclear inspections (Associated Press)
 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/03/iran-accuses-u-s-of-breaking-nuclear-deal-already/
 
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015/08/the-cost-of-u-s-nuclear-forces-from-bca-to-bow-wave-and-beyond/
 
"Nuclear upgrade costs $700 billion over next 25 years, think-tank study estimates"
By Phillip Swarts, Staff Writer 3:59 p.m. EDT August 5, 2015

Source:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/08/05/nuclear-upgrade-costs-700-billion-over-next-25-years-think-tank-study-estimates/31127977/

The U.S. will face a “bow wave” of increased costs to update its nuclear arsenal, but operating budgets could thereafter return to levels comparable to today's, according to a new study released by a Washington, D.C. think tank.

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, in a report released Tuesday, estimates it could cost $704 billion between 2015 and 2039 to fully update and upgrade the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Although all parts of the nuclear triad need updates, the largest cost is likely to be borne by the Navy while working on a replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear submarines. The Navy’s costs could climb above $12 billion annually in the late 2020s and early 2030s, Harrison said.

The Air Force, meanwhile, will see its greatest expense between fiscal 2029 and 2031, as costs break $4 billion a year as the service seeks to bring the next-generation Long Range Strategic Bomber online, the study estimates.

“Once the peak of these modernization programs is reached, funding for nuclear forces will gradually decline to roughly the level it is today (adjusting for inflation) by the late 2030s,” the report said.

The Pentagon currently spends about $15 billion a year maintaining the nation's nuclear force. Both Defense Department estimates and the CSBA study expect that costs could approach $25 billion annually through the 2020s as launch systems are upgraded or overhauled.

But once upgrades are completed by the 2030s, CSBA said the cost would likely settle to between $16 billion and $17 billion a year.

As the Pentagon works to update the nation’s nuclear arsenal capabilities, the program’s cost would likely never exceed 5 percent of the entire defense budget, said Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the center and the study’s lead author.

“Nuclear modernization is affordable within current budget constraints if it remains a priority,” he said in prepared talking points.

Maintaining the warheads themselves and the Ohio-class sub replacement are the two most expensive components, together equaling 72 percent of the cost estimate, the report said.

It’s an estimate not too far off what the Defense Department itself projected in a July 30 report released by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative branch.

In an annual report, DoD and the Energy Department expect it would cost $298.1 billion between 2014 and 2024 to upgrade nuclear weapons systems and capabilities.

GAO called upgrading nuclear systems “a long-term, multifaceted effort that requires resource planning and commitment by both the administration and Congress.”

Getting an exact accounting of nuclear costs can vary depending on what areas are looked at, Harrison said. For example, CSBA’s study did not take into account nuclear waste cleanup, possible cost reductions due to arms control treaties, and missile defense or warning systems.

And he noted there is often overlap between nuclear and conventional equipment, such as the upcoming Long Range Strategic Bomber being purchased by the Air Force.

If the nation decided to mothball its entire nuclear arsenal, “the Air Force has said it would still buy the LRSB,” Harrison said. “The primary reason the Air Force has given for buying the bomber is conventional missions.”

Specific nuclear costs often only represent a small portion of the cost for equipment used mainly for conventional means. Installing nuclear shielding and other considerations for a bomber, for example, usually only represents about 3 percent to 8 percent of the cost of procuring that plane, Harrison said.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-05/iran-already-sanitizing-parchin-nuclear-site-intel-warns
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/08/06/nuclear_deterrence_70_years_after_hiroshima_108335.html
 
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/08/08/air-force-nuclear-costs-30-billion-over-next-four-years-report-estimates/31180181/
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-blocks-pentagon-report-on-russian-treaty-breach/

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/BG3028.pdf
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/china-df-5b-liquid-fuel-icbm-can-hit.html

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150816000155&cid=1101
 
http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123456279

MMIII test launch
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1925

The advancement of China's ballistic missile modernization program may pose the greatest risk to the United States' long-term security, analysts said Aug. 19.

"Deterrence of China is absolutely critical," said Mark Schneider, a senior analyst for the National Institute for Public Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "It's not the largest current threat to the United States but it will in the foreseeable future become that."

According to the Pentagon's annual report to congress, "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2015," the current Chinese arsenal includes 1,200 short-range ballistic missiles and 50 to 60 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

"I expect all these numbers understate actual Chinese capability," Schneider said, noting that it is hard to pinpoint a precise number because most nuclear weapons are sheltered in a 3000-mile tunnel known as China's underground "Great Wall."

China has introduced double-digit increases in defense spending in 18 of the last 20 years, he said during a panel discussion at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. A 2013 report from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center found the Pacific nation has the most "active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world," expected to expand in both size and variety. Within the next 15 years the number of Chinese ICBM nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States could grow to more than 100, it said. Currently the nation boasts four types of ICBMs and two types of submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

The nation is also developing MIRV, or multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle, variants of its ballistic missiles, Schneider said. These variants have a payload containing several warheads, each capable of being aimed at separate designated targets. "We've got a very serious threat out there that we're not adequately dealing with," he said. U.S. policies on China are not working and there have been signs that the country would not adhere to its "no-first-use" doctrine regarding nuclear weapons, he added.

An important conventional capability that China has developed is the DF-21, or CSS-5 Mod 5, anti-ship ballistic missile, nicknamed the "carrier killer." It "is clearly and specifically targeted at our carrier battle groups," said Henry Obering III, executive vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton and former director of the Missile Defense Agency. "This missile is a formidable threat, which represents very advanced technology." He also noted successful tests executed by China for its WU-14 hypersonic glide vehicle, which is capable of speeds at about Mach 10. The most recent and fourth test of the WU-14 was conducted in June.

To address these threats, the United States needs to invest more in next-generation systems such as "advanced kill vehicles, directed energy weapons and space-based capabilities," Obering said. The U.S.military also has to develop more integrated approaches across the entire defense architecture enabling the use of sensors to track enemy warheads from birth to death, he added. In addition to the threats posed to the homeland, the dangers of Chinese missiles to U.S. forward-deployed forces and allies in the western Pacific cannot be overlooked, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

"We can't discount the threat to our forward-deployed forces when we focus on the ballistic missile threat to the United States," he said. "The Chinese objective, strategically, is to try to reinforce a belief on the part of our allies that we would not be able to come to their aid were the Chinese to pursue some aggressive act against them," he said. Within the next few years the number of surface-to-surface missiles the Chinese military currently has, about 1,500, is expected to grow at a faster rate than the U.S. programs of record for missile defense. This growth "will overcome our ability to defend against it relatively soon," Clark said.

Chinese airstrikes are another concern because in the event of a war the nation would layer its attack, following up a missile assault with airstrikes, he noted. "Their strategy is to use missiles — both ballistic and cruise missiles — from long range in an attempt to paralyze U.S. bases and ships from places where we would project power and then follow up with airstrikes to annihilate." Current U.S. strategy does not defend well against this approach because the Navy does not distinguish between airplanes and missiles when defending against an enemy system, Clark said. "When an airplane or a missile comes at a U.S. base or U.S. forces, we treat them all relatively equally and we try to shoot them all down using the defensive systems at hand [from] as far away as possible," he said. U.S. forces "could end up in that situation using all of our best missile defenses against relatively cheap and numerous missiles that the Chinese could develop."

The U.S. military is also at a distinct disadvantage when shooting down enemy platforms — ships, airplanes and missile launchers — because Chinese anti-ship missiles tend to have longer ranges than U.S. anti-ship missiles, Clark said. To address this problem the Navy should shift its strategy to better allocate defensive weapons against offensive threats, using larger, more expensive weapons to destroy platforms, and less expensive weapons to shoot down missiles at shorter distances, he said. In certain situations, the Navy could use interceptors such as the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 or new technology such as electro-magnetic and directed energy weapons when engaging enemy missiles from shorter range, he said. These could be less expensive but still effective alternatives.
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-nearing-deployment-of-new-intermediate-range-naval-missile/
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/us-nuclear-strategy-20252050-nuclear.html
 
Nuclear history but no doubt sending a message for today.

Russia will display a replica of the most powerful nuclear device ever to be exploded - the Soviet "Tsar Bomba" - near the Kremlin in Moscow next month.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33975032
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/08/25/number_one_priority_nuclear_deterrence_108408.html
 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/iran-extension-nuclear-site/2015/08/27/id/672169/
 
http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/other-news/report-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal-could-become-the-worlds-third-biggest/

http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/threat-news/russia-test-fires-topol-ballistic-missile/
 
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/236940-the-costs-of-nuclear-disarmament#.VRq3rJE-1qs.facebook
 
http://www.janes.com/article/53896/china-previews-new-ballistic-missiles-in-practices-for-3-september-parade
 
http://csis.org/files/publication/issuesinsights_vol15no7.pdf

Issues and Insights Vol. 15, No. 7 - US-China Strategic Nuclear Relations: Time to Move to Track-1 Dialogue
 
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0903ma.html

Reviving America's Nuclear Culture
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/israel-gets-fifth-diesel-electric.html

Able to launch nuclear armed cruise missiles
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-nuclear-armed-drone-submarine/

kanyon.jpg


Russia is building a drone submarine to deliver large-scale nuclear weapons against U.S. harbors and coastal cities, according to Pentagon officials.

The developmental unmanned underwater vehicle, or UUV, when deployed, will be equipped with megaton-class warheads capable of blowing up key ports used by U.S. nuclear missile submarines, such as Kings Bay, Ga., and Puget Sound in Washington state.

Details of the secret Russian nuclear UUV program remain closely held within the U.S. government.

The Pentagon, however, has code-named the drone “Kanyon,” an indication that the weapon is a structured Russian arms program.

The nuclear drone submarine is further evidence of what officials say is an aggressive strategic nuclear forces modernization under President Vladimir Putin. The building is taking place as the Obama administration has sought to reduce the role of nuclear arms in U.S. defenses and to rely on a smaller nuclear force for deterrence.

Officials familiar with details of the Kanyon program said the weapon is envisioned as an autonomous submarine strike vehicle armed with a nuclear warhead ranging in size to “tens” of megatons in yield. A blast created by a nuclear weapon that size would create massive damage over wide areas.

A megaton is the equivalent of 1 million tons of TNT.
 
Justifying the Cost of Nuclear Modernization

—Amy McCullough 9/15/2015

​​The cost of nuclear modernization is going to grow in the coming years, but the total price tag is debatable and often varies considerably depending on the timeline considered, the capabilities included, and the assumptions made, said Evan Montgomery, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, at ASC15 on Monday. CSBA estimates the annual cost of the United States’ nuclear forces will increase by about 50 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over the next 12 years and “tail off” to “today’s levels” around 2030, said Montgomery. “It sounds like a lot, and it is a lot, but even if you assume that [Budget Control Act] caps will remain in effect indefinitely, nuclear forces will still only account for about five percent of the total defense budget, even during those peak spending years,” he said. “In addition, potential savings from reductions in nuclear force structure or deferral of modernization will mostly occur after the BCA expires, which is something a lot of people miss. In a recent study, CSBA developed several “hypothetical savings options,” including some that involved “pretty significant cuts in force structure,” noted Montgomery. Even if added all together, Montgomery said it would save about $15 billion to $20 billion over the next five years. “The bottom line then is that unless you want to radically and quickly slash the US nuclear arsenal, cuts aren’t going to save you much money when you actually need to save it,” he said. ​​​
 
http://defensetech.org/2015/09/10/us-upgrades-nuclear-weapon-sites-in-europe-report/

http://defensetech.org/2015/09/14/futurist-risk-of-miscalculating-nuclear-war-is-higher-than-ever/
 
Panel: Rethinking the Nuclear Triad
Clark Murdock and Evan Montgomery

http://secure.afa.org/events/Conference/2015/transcripts/Monday-4pm-TriadPanel.asp
 
No Special Nuclear Kitty

—John A. Tirpak 9/17/2015

​Funding the nation’s nuclear triad separately from the services’ other accounts—an idea put forward by Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James at last year’s Air & Space Conference—doesn’t seem to be in the cards, based on Wednesday’s remarks from Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Answering questions after his speech at ASC15, Carter said the “nuclear deterrent is a must-have ... it’s the​ foundation, the bedrock, it needs to remain healthy and we all know we need to make additional investments, both in the Navy and, importantly, in the Air Force.” Asked about a special fund for nuclear, however, Carter said, “the money’s got to come from somewhere, and you don’t get money by re-labeling it. And so the hard question remains where the money comes from in all the services. ... I think we ought to face that question and stick to the central commitment of having a nuclear deterrent. That’s the fundamental concern.” Carter praised industry and USAF’s efforts so far at updating the existing nuclear force structure, saying it “needed to be done” and has been done well. Recapitalizing the Air Force’s Minuteman ICBMs, AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, and buying the new Long-Range Strike Bomber are expected to demand upwards of $200 billion in the next 15 years.
 
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123458616

AFGSC completes first New START bomber conversion
 
Seeking “Intelligent Commonality” in New Ballistic Missiles

—Otto Kreisher

9/21/2015

Faced with similar requirements to modernize their aging strategic ballistic missiles, the Air Force and Navy are working on an “intelligent commonality” program to find ways to reduce the cost of replacements for the land- and sea-based nuclear-armed missiles, said Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, on Sept. 17. The silo-based Minuteman III and the submarine-launched Trident D5 both use decades-old technology and the services are struggling to keep them operating as parts of the nuclear deterrent triad, Benedict said. But both will have to be replaced by new missiles, he added. With an expected high cost for new missile and constrained budgets, “we need to do something different, smarter.” The two services “have an obligation to present to national leaders ways to make that modernization affordable,” Benedict said at a conference sponsored by Task Force 21, the Minot, N.D., chamber of commerce, and AFA. Benedict said members of his staff are working with similar Air Force personnel to study “what components can be made common” in the future missiles. The staffs have been told that any replacement missiles must fit in the existing silos and submarine missile tubes without major adjustments, he said.
====================================================================
Experts Defend Nuclear Deterrent Triad

—Otto Kreisher 9/21/2015

An array of defense experts, ranging from retired Air Force four-stars to members of Congress and academicians, argued Sept. 17 that the nuclear deterrent force is as important to US security today as it was in the Cold War, but it must be modernized. Citing President Vladimir Putin’s statements that Russia might use nuclear weapons to constrain a conventional conflict, and their possession by China and North Korea, retired US Strategic Command boss Gen. Robert Kehler said “nuclear weapons are not gone, and are not going to be gone any time soon.” They are still part of the defense policies “of many nations around the world.” The same argument was offered by former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Larry Welch and Frank Miller, a former non-proliferation official, who joined the bipartisan congressional delegation from North Dakota in supporting retention and improvement of the US nuclear triad. The speakers also disputed the claims by anti-nuclear groups that eliminating nuclear weapons would be a “humanitarian” step, asserting that they have prevented conflict between major powers since 1945, in contrast to the massive destruction of 20th century conventional wars. The forum was held by the Minot, N.D., chamber of commerce, Task Force 21, and the Air Force Association.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom