Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[bobbymike]

Air Force, Industry Meet To Discuss New Nuclear Cruise Missile Requirement

The Air Force is meeting with industry representatives today to discuss how to modernize the Pentagon's inventory of nuclear-armed, bomber-launched cruise missiles, with the discussions expected to inform a decision on which weapon will replace the aging AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile. The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center's Nuclear Capabilities Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, is hosting the forum, formally called the Long Range Standoff Warhead-Contractor Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM), according to a notice posted on Federal Business Opportunities. "This TIM is in support of the LRSO analysis of alternatives (AOA) effort," the brief posting, dated May 3, states -- noting that participation is limited to individuals with "critical nuclear weapon design information" security clearances. The Office of the Secretary of Defense last summer granted the Air Force the green light to proceed with an exploration of potential material solutions for a LRSO capability, conducting an analysis of alternatives to the case for a major acquisition effort. While the AOA is due to be complete in FY-13, the Air Force earlier this year announced it would delay until FY-15 plans to proceed with technology development of the cruise-missile replacement program.


The delay came after the Defense Department last fall reduced spending plans by $487 billion over the coming decade. As part of those reductions, the Air Force decision to stretch out the LRSO acquisition reduced allocations for the effort by 31 percent in the service's five-year spending plan. The Pentagon's FY-12 budget request included $884 million through FY-16 for LRSO; the FY-13 budget request would allocate $609 million for the program through FY-17. Of the current request, the Air Force is seeking only $2 million in FY-13, funds that would complete the AOA. Congress appropriated $9.9 million in FY-12 for LRSO, funds that the Air Force says are being spent on "concept refinement, technology analyses, modeling and simulation support, engineering studies, program cost and schedule estimation, [and] acquisition strategy development." The Air Force is also developing criteria to prepare for technology development, according to budget documents. The Air Force has a service-life extension program in place to ensure its Air-Launched Cruise Missile inventory, based on a design first fielded in 1982, remains viable for another two decades -- an effort that includes attending to the propulsion system, guidance and flight control systems as well as components that arm the W-80 nuclear warhead. In accordance with a 2006 Pentagon assessment of nuclear cruise missile force structure, the Air Force is paring back its ALCM inventory -- once greater than 1,100 -- to 528 missiles. "The LRSO analysis of alternatives, which began in August 2011, continues apace and is scheduled to be completed in early FY-13," Maj. Gen. William Chambers, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, told the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee in a March 28 prepared statement. "Despite the LRSO delay, there will not be a gap between ALCM and LRSO." -- Jason Sherman

 

[bobbymike]

Navy, Air Force Could Consider Joint Missile Guidance Set Development


An Air Force official last week spoke optimistically about the possibility of his service and the Navy collaborating on some aspects of nuclear weapon development in an effort to drive down mounting recapitalization costs. The Navy and Air Force are, on their own, studying possible replacements for their aging nuclear-capable platforms. At a May 10 breakfast sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation, Air Force Lt. Gen. James Kowalski said the projected cost of those efforts in the 2020s should drive the two services to seek some commonality.
=================================

 

[bobbymike]

Russia Launches New ICBM in Trial

May 23, 2012

A Russian Topol-M ICBM carrier, shown on display earlier this month during a parade in Moscow’s Red Square. Russia on Wednesday conducted a test launch of a new ICBM said to incorporate features more advanced than those in Russian armaments such as the Topol-M (AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev). A new Russian ICBM on Wednesday for the first time functioned as intended in a trial firing, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, May 21). The missile took off from a mobile carrier at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome at 10:15 a.m. local time and flew 3,700 miles. “The dummy warhead reached its target area at the Kura test range on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The set goals of the launch were reached,” Russian strategic missile forces spokesman Vadim Koval said in an Interfax report. The weapon is said to be designed to defeat missile defense systems. The test occurred just three days after NATO formally declared an "interim capability" to protect against missile attacks (see GSN, May 21). Moscow has repeatedly said it suspects the developing U.S.-NATO missile shield for Europe is aimed at Russia's long-range nuclear forces. It has threatened a military response to the alliance project, including potential deployment of short-range ballistic missiles in territory that borders NATO states Poland and Lithuania. Earlier this month, Russian General Staff chief Gen. Nikolai Makarov suggested the military could take pre-emptive action against the NATO shield (see GSN, May 3). Brussels and Washington counter that the missile shield is actually intended to defend against a potential Iranian ballistic missile threat to the continent. However, multiple rounds of talks with Russia have not resolved the dispute. "This is one of the ... measures being developed by Russia's military and political leadership in response to the U.S. deployment of a global antimissile system," one-time Russian nuclear missile chief Viktor Yesin said in the Interfax report (see GSN, May 5, 2011).


The Russian ICBM had only been launched once before, in a Sept.. 27, 2011, trial that ended when an unspecified glitch caused the missile to come down after flying six miles, according to an anonymous armed forces insider. The missile has not received a specific designation. The armed forces identify the ICBM as a "fifth-generation" armament loaded with systems more advanced than those found in Russia's existing Topol-M and RS-24 missiles. The new ICBM "uses a new type of fuel that helps reduce the time required to operate the propellants in the active stage of the rocket's trajectory," according to an armed forces official. That upgrade reduces the potential for the missile to be observed in flight. The missile also carries multiple separate warheads that can shift direction as a defense against interception, Interfax reported (Dmitry Zaks, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 23).

Russian news reports indicated the ICBM is an altered version of the Topol missile, according to the New York Times. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who recently began his third term in office, has demanded a twofold boost in missile manufacturing in 2013 (Andrew Kramer, New York Times, May 23).

 

[bobbymike]

Since we don't want to produce are own and may no longer be able to maybe India will sell us some of their new ICBMs to replace our MMIIIs

India Pursuing ICBM With 6,000-Mile Range

India intends within the next two years to begin initial testing of an ICBM, the New Indian Express reported on Wednesday (see GSN, April 20). The future-generation Agni 6 is intended to have a traveling distance of between 4,970 miles and 6,210 miles.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The new ICBM "uses a new type of fuel that helps reduce the time required to operate the propellants in the active stage of the rocket's trajectory," according to an armed forces official. That upgrade reduces the potential for the missile to be observed in flight. The missile also carries multiple separate warheads that can shift direction as a defense against interception, Interfax reported (Dmitry Zaks, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 23).

My guess would be that this translates to "it is a high-thrust, high-acceleration system." Perhaps something akin to an ICBM version of a Sprint missile.

 

[sferrin]

The new ICBM "uses a new type of fuel that helps reduce the time required to operate the propellants in the active stage of the rocket's trajectory," according to an armed forces official. That upgrade reduces the potential for the missile to be observed in flight. The missile also carries multiple separate warheads that can shift direction as a defense against interception, Interfax reported (Dmitry Zaks, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 23).

My guess would be that this translates to "it is a high-thrust, high-acceleration system." Perhaps something akin to an ICBM version of a Sprint missile.

I'd be surprised if it were something that extreme.

 

[RyanC]

There's no free lunch in ballistic missile development. I'd be very interested in what exactly they traded away for this ability to retain multiple warheads, yet giving each one a small capability to manouver.

I mean; when the Brits added Chevaline to their Polaris boats, it cut big time into the range of their missiles; forcing the boats to have to get closer to the USSR (and thus more vulnerable to Soviet ASW assets) to hit the same targets as before.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I'd be surprised if it were something that extreme.

The text indicates that it spends less time under boost in order to be less detectable. In order to do that, it would either be a shorter-range system (unlikely) or a higher thrust system. The claim of new propellant would indicate the latter. Sprint and HiBEX are the ultimate examples of such a concept... not real advisable for ICBMs due to the severe drag losses if done on the first stage, but might make sense on the upper stages.

 

[sferrin]

I'd be surprised if it were something that extreme.

The text indicates that it spends less time under boost in order to be less detectable. In order to do that, it would either be a shorter-range system (unlikely) or a higher thrust system. The claim of new propellant would indicate the latter. Sprint and HiBEX are the ultimate examples of such a concept... not real advisable for ICBMs due to the severe drag losses if done on the first stage, but might make sense on the upper stages.

"Less time under boost" could mean they shaved 10 seconds off the boost time. From what I've heard it's not a radically different missile.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Perhaps the first stage utilises something like a VRD (vertical air-augmented engine), such as in the old Gnom missile?

 

[sferrin]

Perhaps the first stage utilises something like a VRD (vertical air-augmented engine), such as in the old Gnom missile?

That would actually probably reduce acceleration and increase boost time.

 

[bobbymike]

The U.S. Air Force is moving ahead with plans to modernize its inventory of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, a top service general said. The Air Force plans to maintain and modernize its Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and extend the life of the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) so both last until at least 2030, according to Maj. Gen. William Chambers, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration at the Pentagon. The ALCM improvement programs include the guidance and flight control system and warhead arming components.
At the same time, the Air Force plans to modernize the B-2 stealth bomber and keep flying the B-52 bomber “until a replacement capability comes online,” Chambers said. “The B-52 has recently seen some of the highest readiness rates in its 60-year history,” he said during a May 24 speech sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association. “It remains one of our most flexible airframes and one of the least expensive to operate.” Replacements for the Minuteman III and ALCM also are in the works. The Air Force also has “dual capable plans ready as the F-35 program matures,” Chambers said. This would allow the Joint Strike Fighter to launch nuclear weapons, like today’s F-15E and F-16 fighter jets.
Service officials have made “significant strides in assessing and modernizing the nation’s nuclear command-and-control network,” and have established a baseline nuclear command, control and communications architecture, Chambers said. “We’re focused on a very prioritized investment strategy concentrating on our senior leadership aircraft, our bomber fleet and multiple cryptographic improvements,” he said.
-------------------------------------------------------
Will I see a new ICBM in my lifetime? How 'bout Titan-X with about a 15 ton payload just for fun. B)

 

[bobbymike]

FY2013 Nuclear Budget News:


- The legislation "authorizes funding for U.S. scientists to work with scientists in countries of proliferation concern, to gain transparency and insight in these countries as well as to share best practices on nonproliferation," according to the committee release. The budget blueprint also mandates "a review of funding, threat assessments of countries of concern, and metrics to measure success and to ensure that programs close down in such countries when their work is complete."

-- The bill mandates that the Nuclear Weapons Council inform lawmakers on "the definition of a common W-88/W-78 warhead."
The National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous branch of the Energy Department, is developing three separate projects to extend the service lives of the W-78 warhead, which is fielded on Minuteman 3 ICBMs; the W-88 warhead, which is loaded onto Navy Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles; and the Air Force's B-61 gravity bomb (see GSN, March 8).


-- The Nuclear Weapons Council is required under the authorization bill to "oversee the Nuclear Command, Control and Communications System, certify the [NNSA budget] to meet stockpile and stewardship requirements and report to Congress whenever an authorization or appropriation bill reported out of committee falls below the president's budget request level on an significant impacts."


-- The panel is also directed to "determine the feasibility of further consolidations to the NNSA complex and, if feasible, requires in its report a proposed process," the Senate committee said. The assessment must be delivered to Congress before building starts on the planned Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement center at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Both projects have been criticized for their enormous and escalating costs and other matters of concern. However, the committee did approve returning "to fiscal year 2013, the proposed deferral by 'at least five years' of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement building, requiring the nuclear agency to use $150 million from funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2013" with the stipulation that the building be active before 2025. The panel recommended a maximum of $3.7 billion be spent on the Los Alamos plutonium facility and a limit of $4.2 billion be allocated for the initial phase of the Y-12 uranium site (see GSN, April 27).


-- Armed Services Committee members granted the unfinished mixed-oxide facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina an extra two years to "reach target levels of plutonium disposition." The $4.8 billion MOX facility is three-fifths finished; it was previously scheduled to go online in 2016 and to begin recycling warhead plutonium for nuclear power plant fuel by 2018 (see GSN, May 3).

 

[bobbymike]

Kehler Stresses Need for Investment in National Labs, Industrial Complex

The head of U.S. Strategic Command this week expressed concern about the projected level of investment over the next several years in the country's national laboratories and associated industrial facilities that supply the Defense Department with an effective nuclear arsenal.
---------------------------------
Bobbymike really stresses need for this plus delivery system modernization (sound of crickets chirping)

 

[bobbymike]

A Tall Order: Protecting the nuclear enterprise may be "central" to the new defense strategy, but it won't be easy as defense dollars continue to dwindle, said Gen. Robert Kehler, US Strategic Command boss, during a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. "Of all the elements of the nuclear enterprise, I'm most concerned with the potential for declining or inadequate investment in the nuclear weapons enterprise itself, some declining investment that would result in our inability to sustain the deterrent force," said Kehler during his May 30 talk. He added, "Our weapons are aging, and we face the continued erosion of the nuclear enterprise's physical and intellectual capital." Kehler said the President's Fiscal 2013 budget request protects funding for stockpile certification, warhead life extension, and infrastructure recapitalization, but the United States must keep its commitment to such investments in the future if it wants to maintain the "long-term credibility and viability" of the nuclear deterrent. "No question that's a tall order while we are facing significant budget reductions," he added. (Kehler transcript)

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Air Force Approves Concept for Future ICBM, Eyes Navy Collaboration
June 1, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire


WASHINGTON -- A senior-level U.S. Air Force panel has approved a document that formally articulates the need for a new ground-based missile system to replace today’s nuclear-armed Minuteman 3 arsenal (see GSN, Feb. 10). The future intercontinental ballistic missile might be either a modernized Minuteman or a completely new design, but one attribute appears increasingly certain: The ICBM will likely share an unprecedented number of “common” hardware and software components with a new Navy ballistic missile for basing on submarines, according to Defense Department officials. There is even some talk of building identical missiles for Navy deployment at sea and Air Force fielding on land, though at this early date the odds appear against that for military and technical reasons. Plans are for the Air Force’s new “ground-based strategic deterrent” to begin replacing today’s 450-missile Minuteman 3 force by 2030. Under the terms of last year’s New START arms control agreement with Russia, the United States has said it would retain no more than 420 ICBMs in coming years.

The Air Force Requirements Oversight Council on May 17 signed off on an “initial capabilities document” for the future ICBM, according to Capt. Caroline Wellman, a service spokeswoman. Such military documents typically are kept secret, spelling out key attributes needed for military equipment, such as range, speed and payload. To proceed with an ICBM developmental effort, the Air Force must next vet the document through a multiservice review board, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. That top-level Pentagon panel is chaired by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and includes the No. 2 military officers from the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. Once armed with the joint board’s approval -- anticipated sometime in roughly the next two to 12 months -- the Air Force can begin work in fiscal 2013 on a more detailed assessment of technical options. The Obama administration requested $11.7 million to launch the Analysis of Alternatives after the new spending year commences on Oct. 1 (see GSN, Feb. 14). The analytical work is to continue in fiscal 2014 at a cost of $9.4 million, laying the groundwork for a White House decision on how the Minuteman 3 force -- first fielded in 1970 -- should be replaced. As the Air Force prepares for the Analysis of Alternatives, “we are looking at basing modes. We are looking at affordability,” said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, the service’s assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. “We are looking at the right -- and the most compatible -- warhead.” Speaking at a May 24 breakfast event on Capitol Hill, the Air Force two-star general noted it was early in the developmental process and said the future system’s technical attributes will “become more clear” once the two-year Analysis of Alternatives is complete. Still, some hints have surfaced that could make the Minuteman follow-on missile interesting to policy wonks, technology junkies and maybe even some in the broader American public. For one thing, the Pentagon’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review -- a wide-ranging assessment of the nation’s deterrence policy, forces and readiness -- said the Defense Department would consider “new modes of ICBM basing that enhance survivability and further reduce any incentives for prompt launch.”


That might mean the replacement missile could be made mobile, with a capability for transport on trucks or trains, according to defense experts. In a crisis, the ICBMs could be dispersed or hidden, making them more survivable against potential enemy attack and less likely to trigger a preemptive nuclear launch by either side. Today’s Minuteman 3 missiles are based in fixed underground launch silos in five states: Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming. Whether the U.S. public is ready to embrace nuclear-armed missiles on its roads or railways is not entirely clear, following heated debate over similar concepts during the 1980s. On the other hand, mobility could make the ICBM force more secure and potentially serve as a basis for additional nuclear arsenal reductions -- initiatives that could draw popular support. New ICBM basing schemes might also include non-mobile options, such as “dense pack” deployment once contemplated -- and rejected -- for the since-retired Peacekeeper missile under President Reagan, according to one senior defense official interviewed last month. Under this concept, silos would be closely spaced and theoretically made more challenging to destroy in an all-out attack. Another basing alternative could be to maintain some underground silos with ballistic missiles in them while others randomly remain empty, creating a “shell game” that similarly could complicate enemy targeting and help deter a massive nuclear strike against U.S. forces. “We could give [adversary] folks lots of aim points, which keeps your stability up,” said the senior official, who cited political and military sensitivities surrounding nuclear weapon programs as the reason for requesting anonymity in this article. “But they may be targeting an empty hole.”


There is also some early debate over whether to give the future ICBM a capacity for delivering multiple warheads. This comes despite a decision announced in the 2010 posture review to winnow down -- or “de-MIRV,” in Pentagon parlance -- each Minuteman from a maximum three warheads to one per missile. The Nuclear Posture Review also alluded to retaining an ability to increase warheads on strategic platforms, as a hedge against the possibility -- however remote -- of a resurgent threat to the nation. “Some ability to ‘upload’ non-deployed nuclear weapons on existing delivery vehicles should be retained as a hedge against technical or geopolitical surprise,” the 2010 policy document stated. Although the posture review said that “preference will be given to upload capacity for bombers and strategic submarines,” some defense officials say the Pentagon will also likely move to preserve this option on its future ICBM. “I think it’s clear” that the Pentagon will “keep a MIRVed capability on the missile,” even if the ICBM continues to be typically deployed with a single warhead, the senior official told Global Security Newswire. A latent capacity to upload, if ever needed, would serve as insurance against “that resurgent threat, that unknown future that you have to worry about,” the official said. There are technical and cost incentives to include a multi-warhead option in the missile design, according to the senior official. “It doesn’t take that much, if you build [an upload capacity] in from the beginning,” the official said. “Now, if you have a missile that’s only designed for singlets and now you want to reMIRV it, ouch. You’ve got a problem. It’s just money, but it’s … big money.” Affordability will play a central role in the process to determine what technology replaces today’s land-based missile arsenal, this and several other officials emphasized. A vocal group of lawmakers -- mostly comprising Republicans -- has suggested that plans for modernizing U.S. nuclear weapon systems should be spared from the budget axe that has affected many of the Pentagon’s conventional warfare procurement efforts (see GSN, April 20). The 2011 Budget Control Act mandates a roughly $450 billion cut in defense spending over the next decade. That amount could more than double under the sequester process if lawmakers do not by the end of this year reverse the legislation’s demand for $1.2 trillion in additional government-wide reductions.


The senior defense official said that Pentagon personnel are operating under an assumption that cost discipline must be maintained across the board, to include nuclear weapon programs. “Affordability is now a key parameter in every [Analysis of Alternatives] we do,” the official said. “The days of ‘it must be funded’ are over.” Those suggesting in Pentagon meetings that nuclear efforts be exempted from budget-cutting considerations “get laughed right out of the room,” the official added. The search for savings in tightening defense budgets has prompted the Navy and Air Force to discuss new ways of combining efforts. That has included new exploration of the potential for cross-service work on future ballistic missile development and procurement -- largely a new frontier after decades of building and buying nuclear systems separately. The Navy currently deploys 1,152 nuclear warheads aboard 288 Trident D-5 ballistic missiles, fielded on a fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines, according to a 2012 profile of U.S. nuclear forces compiled recently by atomic force experts Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris. The service plans to continue fielding the D-5 missiles on a newly designed submarine in coming decades, but anticipates eventually replacing its ballistic missile with an updated weapon (see GSN, March 30). Navy Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, who directs the Navy Strategic Systems Programs office, has led the charge on collaboration. In January he reportedly told Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, who heads the Air Force Global Strike Command, that potential areas of commonality between his D-5 replacement and the air service’s Minuteman follow-on could include a number of major components:


-- Strategic guidance systems -- the technology that directs a missile precisely from Point A to Point B;
-- Rocket motor and propulsion systems -- which allow a missile to blast off and fly fast;
-- Infrastructure and support equipment -- to help control, monitor and maintain the weapon system; and
-- Strategic industrial capacity -- to sustain a national ability to produce ballistic missiles and supply them with spare parts.


“In today’s budget environment we must ensure that we are not unnecessarily duplicating effort,” Benedict is said to have told his Air Force counterpart in an early 2012 letter. Kowalski did not reply to Benedict in writing for more than two months, but is said to have told the two-star admiral in an April missive that the two services must “leverage one another’s efforts” and “be in sync from nose cone to nozzle,” according to defense sources. In May 10 remarks on Capitol Hill, Kowalski appeared convinced of the merits of joint work on the two future ballistic missiles -- as well as, perhaps, in keeping today’s Minuteman 3 ICBMs functional. “I need to replace the missile guidance set on the Minuteman 3,” the general said during a breakfast event. “I think Terry’s going to need a new missile guidance set. I know that the follow-on to the Minuteman 3 -- the ground-based strategic deterrent -- is going to need a new missile guidance set.” “Does the nation need to go out and buy three different missile guidance sets?” Kowalski continued. “Or is there some way we can work this where we buy one missile guidance set -- or at least have common components -- so that we’re not paying the same bill three times over?” The Air Force and Navy are also working with the Energy Department’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration to develop a joint fuse for ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, as well as a common modernization package for warheads, the W-78 and W-88, respectively (see GSN, Sept. 14, 2010, and Jan. 7, 2010).


Sharing a single airframe for both missiles could be a stretch, though, Chambers said in response to an audience question during his appearance last month. Others agreed that the two services would likely have different parameters for the length and diameter of the missiles, and disparities in propulsion requirements might prove to be insurmountable. “Given the two very different platforms, our charter is to pursue maximum amount of commonality, but it’s going to be very difficult to be identical,” Chambers said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting article but will we ever see anything?

 

[Skybolt]

This is only the very early requirement, that leaves open a lot of different path. We'll see something in it obviously, but which one, who knows. As for now, something can be said (if the requirements stay these: the upload capability rules out a Midgetman-2 missile (i don't know of recent breakthroughs in miniaturization of MIRV warheads, expecially the explosive part); basing schemes will be interesting to follow (the ones mentioned covered almost the entire field of ideas conceived in the last 50 years...), I'll go for mobility, preferably road and dispersal on alarm in disguised vehicles (an idea GM explored in 1962 for Minuteman). Navy collaboration is a must for reducing cost, so it is a no-news. something not-said is interesting: MaRV and very advanced, active, penaids.

 

[sferrin]

If they wait until 2030 to start I doubt there will be anybody left who remembers how to design an ICBM. Good luck.

 

[bobbymike]

If they wait until 2030 to start I doubt there will be anybody left who remembers how to design an ICBM. Good luck.

Maybe I don't understand how the DOD works or am naive or both but why can't they - for very unique systems like ICBMs - have a prototype program? You could keep design skills current, teach the new young engineers and scientists (who could actually get hands on experience) etc., etc.

While one offs will be expensive it has got to be cheaper than trying to restart an entire industrial base after 20 years of neglect.

 

[bobbymike]

Russia to Develop New Bomber Aircraft: Medvedev

June 13, 2012


Russia intends to construct a new line of strategic bomber aircraft, RIA Novosti quoted Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev as saying on Saturday (see GSN, June 7). “Alongside a fifth-generation fighter there are also plans to develop an advanced long-range aviation complex. I am talking about a new strategic bomber,” Medvedev said, adding it would be insufficient merely to update and sustain existing aircraft. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin recently questioned the need for a new line of long-range nuclear bombers (RIA Novosti, June 9).

 

[bobbymike]

NNSA Supercomputer Declared Most Powerful
June 19, 2012


A supercomputer at one of the U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories has been declared the fastest in the world, the National Nuclear Security Administration said in a Monday press release (see GSN, Nov. 3, 2011). The IBM-made Sequoia based at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California was ranked the fastest computers on an industry list comparing 500 systems around the world. The listing was issued at the International Supercomputing Conference in Germany. Sequoia clocks in at "16.32 sustained petaflops (quadrillion floating point operations per second)," according to the NNSA release. The system is used as part of the agency's program to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal. "Computing platforms like Sequoia help the United States keep its nuclear stockpile safe, secure, and effective without the need for underground testing (see GSN, June 15). While Sequoia may be the fastest, the underlying computing capabilities it provides give us increased confidence in the nation's nuclear deterrent as the weapons stockpile changes under treaty agreements," NNSA Administrator Thomas D’Agostino said in provided comments.


"Sequoia will provide a more complete understanding of weapons performance, notably hydrodynamics and properties of materials at extreme pressures and temperatures," NNSA Advanced Simulation and Computing program head Bob Meisner said in shared remarks."In particular, the system will enable suites of highly resolved uncertainty quantification calculations to support the effort to extend the life of aging weapons systems; what we call a life extension program"(U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, June 18).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's use it to develop new modern weapons to replace our 30+ year old arsenal ;D

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=20059

 

[bobbymike]

Obama Administration to Pursue Further Nuclear Weapons Cuts

The Obama administration intends to pursue a deal with Russia enabling a significant decrease to the quantity of U.S. long-range deployed nuclear warheads, senior U.S. government insiders told Kyodo News on Friday (see GSN, May 18). Curbs under consideration could lower the size of the nation's launch-ready nuclear force to between 1,000 and 1,100 weapons, according to atomic specialists associated with the related U.S. government entities. Such a change would go significantly beyond the 1,550 strategic warhead limit established by the New START arms control accord with Russia. Finalization and formal announcement of the plan could take place in the near future, possibly before July, senior U.S. government personnel said. The effort would fall in line with the President Obama's 2009 Prague speech calling for eventual worldwide nuclear disarmament, according to Kyodo.


The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review initiated the process expected to ultimately produce the president's arsenal guidance. The U.S. nuclear force serves a critical need in Washington's strategy by acting as an extended deterrent for partner nations including Japan and South Korea, Obama officials have contended (Kyodo News, June 16). The anticipated NPR "implementation study" would exclude the possibility of lowering the deployed long-range nuclear force to between 300 and 800 warheads, the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday quoted U.S. government insiders as saying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought we were not going to pursue further reductions unless all nuclear nations were involved next time, especially China?

 

[bobbymike]

Nuke Updates Moving Forward: Obama Insiders

June 22, 2012

High-level administration officials on Thursday attempted to deflect GOP accusations that President Obama has moved only tentatively to update the U.S. nuclear arms complex as he seeks stockpile curbs exceeding the mandates of a treaty with Russia, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, June 20). The administration in 2010 announced a 10-year, $85 billion nuclear weapons complex spending plan as it sought to secure Senate endorsement of the New START accord. The pact, which entered into force in February 2011, requires Moscow and Washington by 2018 to reduce their respective deployed strategic arsenals to 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery devices. Some GOP observers commended President Obama's call to spend $7.6 billion on pursuing the plan in fiscal 2012, though it had previously projected a $7.9 billion expenditure in the coming budget cycle (see GSN, March 15). Republican legislators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, though, said Obama officials failed to adequately push for the proposed amount and ultimately accepted a $7.2 billion funding level in approved legislation. "It seems like things are being slow-walked," Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said of U.S. atomic arsenal update activities. "And I almost wonder whether as the president is announcing further reductions, the reason that much of the modernization is being slow-walked is that there's no intention to follow through, and they actually hope to come up with more reductions so that much of the modernization that we're talking about does not have to take place."

Obama is seeking $7.6 billion for nuclear arms complex funding for fiscal 2013, which begins on Oct. 1. His administration had previously projected requesting $7.9 billion, AP reported. "They put no effort whatsoever into trying to make [its proposed funding level] happen. None. Zero," Corker told AP. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said he had "to understand the president's remarks to [then-Russian President] Dmitry Medvedev a few months ago when behind his hand when he thought the mike was off he said, 'Let us get this election behind us and I'll be more flexible' (see GSN, May 24). "I understood that statement to be in reference to missile defense, but I don't totally know," the lawmaker said. "But we cannot afford to be in the business we are in on this committee or as a country and be counting on one representation for meeting commitments while on the other hand we're seeing a wink and a nod to the other side." The federal government is committing substantial funds and pursuing updates to four-fifths of the nation's atomic armaments, National Nuclear Security Administration head Thomas D'Agostino contended during the committee hearing.


"It's about spending the dollars wisely and doing it in a way that we can ensure that the taxpayers are getting what they need and we continue to support the stockpile and get that done," added the official, who leads the semiautonomous Energy Department office responsible for the nation's nuclear weapons complex (Donna Cassata, Associated Press/Google News, June 21). Separately, U.S. acting Undersecretary of State Rose Gottemoeller touted inspections practices under the U.S.-Russian strategic arms control treaty.


"Our experience so far demonstrates that the New START's verification regime works and will help push open the door to new and more complicated verification techniques in the future," she said in testimony to the Senate panel (U.S. State Department release, June 21). The pact has resulted in 25 snap audits of delivery systems, bomber installations, trial sites and other locations, AP quoted Gottemoeller as saying (Cassata, Associated Press). Assistant Defense Secretary Madelyn Creedon said the country "is on track to complete the reductions necessary to comply with the New START treaty's central limits by February 2018.” U.S. Ohio-class submarines would host 240 ballistic missiles, and as many as 60 bomber aircraft and 420 ICBMs would remain in place under the Pentagon's blueprint, a press release quotes her as saying. "To meet the treaty's central limits,” Creedon stated, “the Obama administration plans to convert or eliminate a yet-to-be-determined combination of ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers (and) our nuclear-capability heavy bombers.” "As the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013 makes clear, [the Defense Department] is committed to modernizing the delivery systems covered by the New START treaty that underpin nuclear deterrents,” she said (U.S. Defense Department release, June 21).

 

[sferrin]

"As the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013 makes clear, [the Defense Department] is committed to modernizing the delivery systems covered by the New START treaty that underpin nuclear deterrents,” she said (U.S. Defense Department release, June 21).

At least until November anyway.

 

[bobbymike]

Don't know if this fits here but didn't want to start a new thread

GD Awarded $11 M for Development of Advanced Submarine Technologies

General Dynamics Electric Boat has been awarded an $11 million contract modification from the U.S. Navy to support research and development of advanced submarine technologies for current and future undersea platforms. Electric Boat is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD). Under the terms of the modification, Electric Boat will perform advanced submarine research and development studies in support of a wide range of technology areas including manufacturability, maintainability, survivability, hydrodynamics, acoustics and materials. General Dynamics will conduct research and development work in additional areas including hull integrity, performance, ship control, logistics, weapons handling and safety. The program also supports near term insertion of Virginia-class technology; identification of Ohio-class replacement technology options; future submarine concepts; and core technologies.

​

 

[bobbymike]

Further Nuclear Cuts May be Coming: The Obama Administration could announce a decision as early as this month to slash the nation's nuclear arsenal beyond the caps established in the New START agreement with Russia, according to the Associated Press. Although a "range of options" remains on the table, these reductions likely would involve the United States reducing its force of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,000 and 1,100, down from New START's cap of 1,550 that takes effect in February 2018, reported AP (via the Philadelphia Inquirer) on July 4. Such a cut, although robust, would still be less severe than the proposal put forth by the Global Zero initiative in May for the United States to maintain only several hundred deployed strategic nuclear warheads. GOP lawmakers have said they would resist any attempt to further reduce the US nuclear stockpile beyond New START levels without first addressing Russia's large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. "I just want to go on record as saying that there are many of us that are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction," Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) told AP.
-----------------------------------------

 

[bobbymike]

Congressional Discussion Addresses U.S. ICBMs
July 12, 2012


The U.S. arsenal of nuclear-armed ICBMs was the focus of a Wednesday discussion facilitated by Senators Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) (see GSN, Oct. 14, 2011). The United States maintains 450 Minuteman 3 ICBMs managed by Air Force bases in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. That number is expected to drop to 420 missiles in coming years under the New START nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. The Obama administration is also eyeing opportunities for further cuts in the nuclear stockpile.


Meanwhile, the Air Force's next “ground-based strategic deterrent” is to start replacing the existing Minuteman force by 2030 (see GSN, June 1). "Today, we brought together experts from across the nuclear world to discuss the varied challenges our nation faces in securing our nuclear deterrent," Conrad, who co-leads the Senate ICBM Coalition with Enzi, said in a statement. ”This is a pivotal moment for America's nuclear posture. I am confident that today's meeting will lead to even more productive talks in the coming months to further improve the nuclear enterprise, which is fundamental to keeping Americans and our allies safe." Among the event's participants were Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Brad Roberts; Maj. Gen. William Chambers, the Air Force’s assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration; Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, head of the Navy Strategic Systems Programs office; and Brig. Gen. Sandra Finan, a principal assistant deputy administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration.


Speakers addressed alternatives for securing finances to maintain U.S. nuclear-weapon operations, armament control efforts and preparation of new technologies (U.S. Senator Kent Conrad release, July 11). “I believe that our missiles must remain as the centerpiece of our defense strategy and I will stand in the way of any efforts to change that,” a press release quotes Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont.) as saying on Wednesday. “We need to highlight their cost-effectiveness in a nuclear world. A world where more countries are seeking nuclear capabilities” (U.S. Senator Jon Tester release, July 11).
---------------------------------------------
We need to being now to replace the MMIII not 2030 IMHO!

 

[bobbymike]

Who was there;

Briefers included the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, Dr. Brad Roberts; the heads of the Air Force and Navy nuclear programs, Major General Bill Chambers and Rear Admiral Terry Benedict; and a senior military leader at the National Nuclear Security Administration, Brigadier General Sandy Finan. The panelists spoke specifically about options for funding the sustainment of the nuclear complex, the development of next-generation systems and arms control policy.
---------------------------------
Does anyone know if they publish transcripts of caucus meetings? I know they do of committee meetings.

 

[bobbymike]

Axe the Triad? As You Wish, Mr. President: US Strategic Command would consider eliminating part of the US nuclear triad at the President's request, but the mix of bombers, ICBMs, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles remains the best deterrent option for now, said STRATCOM Commander Gen. Robert Kehler July 12. "My view today is that the triad continues to serve us well. It may not be true in the future, but it continues to serve us well," stated Kehler during a Capitol Hill address sponsored by AFA, the National Defense Industrial Association, and Reserve Officers Association. US nuclear doctrine has traditionally adhered to an indivisible triad concept, wherein each "leg" provides unique and indispensable capability. Kehler stressed that the survivability, speed of response, and flexibility offered by each respective leg is "the best arrangement that we have today." He noted, however, that there has "always been concern" about whether the ICBM force is stabilizing or destabilizing, adding that for now it's "still a valuable component" in the range of alternatives for the President. Kehler said the command regularly reviews the triad concept, and if the President determines that the deterrent need has diminished, "it's up to us to meet his needs."

 

[sferrin]

Axe the Triad? As You Wish, Mr. President: US Strategic Command would consider eliminating part of the US nuclear triad at the President's request, but the mix of bombers, ICBMs, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles remains the best deterrent option for now, said STRATCOM Commander Gen. Robert Kehler July 12. "My view today is that the triad continues to serve us well. It may not be true in the future, but it continues to serve us well," stated Kehler during a Capitol Hill address sponsored by AFA, the National Defense Industrial Association, and Reserve Officers Association. US nuclear doctrine has traditionally adhered to an indivisible triad concept, wherein each "leg" provides unique and indispensable capability. Kehler stressed that the survivability, speed of response, and flexibility offered by each respective leg is "the best arrangement that we have today." He noted, however, that there has "always been concern" about whether the ICBM force is stabilizing or destabilizing, adding that for now it's "still a valuable component" in the range of alternatives for the President. Kehler said the command regularly reviews the triad concept, and if the President determines that the deterrent need has diminished, "it's up to us to meet his needs."

This kind of spineless compliance makes me sick.

 

[Arjen]

Kehler said the command regularly reviews the triad concept, and if the President determines that the deterrent need has diminished, "it's up to us to meet his needs."

This kind of spineless compliance makes me sick.

1) different circumstances lead to different judgments - ICBMs may, over time, be just as redundant as battleships - Kehler doesn't think that time has come yet
2) elected officials telling the armed forces what to do, though frowned upon in countries like, say, Egypt, seems all the rage in democratic societies

 

[Orionblamblam]

2) elected officials telling the armed forces what to do, though frowned upon in countries like, say, Egypt, seems all the rage in democratic societies

The President does not have absolute power. I don't think it's within his power to direct the military to abandon specific weapons system... he couldn't tell the Air Force to stop flyng manned fighter jets, for instance.

 

[Arjen]

The President does not have absolute power. I don't think it's within his power to direct the military to abandon specific weapons system... he couldn't tell the Air Force to stop flyng manned fighter jets, for instance.

Not entirely sure about that particular case, but I take your point. Within the bounds of law. Declaring war on another country without consulting the people's representatives seems to be unlawful in many societies. But laws can be changed. Not always for the better.

 

[sferrin]

Kehler said the command regularly reviews the triad concept, and if the President determines that the deterrent need has diminished, "it's up to us to meet his needs."

This kind of spineless compliance makes me sick.

1) different circumstances lead to different judgments - ICBMs may, over time, be just as redundant as battleships - Kehler doesn't think that time has come yet
2) elected officials telling the armed forces what to do, though frowned upon in countries like, say, Egypt, seems all the rage in democratic societies

Guess you've never heard of the concept of "feedback". If the military doesn't express concern (assuming it feels it) it isn't doing its job. See "Admirals Revolt".

 

[Arjen]

Guess you've never heard of the concept of "feedback". If the military doesn't express concern (assuming it feels it) it isn't doing its job. See "Admirals Revolt".

Thank you for your concern. As a matter of fact cybernetics was part of the syllabus in biology.

You were saying Kehler is spineless. I disagree. He clearly states he considers ICBMs a valuable part of the triad.

Axe the Triad? As You Wish, Mr. President: US Strategic Command would consider eliminating part of the US nuclear triad at the President's request, but the mix of bombers, ICBMs, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles remains the best deterrent option for now, said STRATCOM Commander Gen. Robert Kehler July 12. "My view today is that the triad continues to serve us well.

Kehler leaves room for changing circumstances.

It may not be true in the future, but it continues to serve us well," stated Kehler during a Capitol Hill address sponsored by AFA, the National Defense Industrial Association, and Reserve Officers Association. US nuclear doctrine has traditionally adhered to an indivisible triad concept, wherein each "leg" provides unique and indispensable capability. Kehler stressed that the survivability, speed of response, and flexibility offered by each respective leg is "the best arrangement that we have today." He noted, however, that there has "always been concern" about whether the ICBM force is stabilizing or destabilizing, adding that for now it's "still a valuable component" in the range of alternatives for the President. Kehler said the command regularly reviews the triad concept, and if the President determines that the deterrent need has diminished, "it's up to us to meet his needs."

You appear not to allow yourself that leeway. Noted.

 

[bobbymike]

I would actually be doubling down on the Triad and introduce R&D projects and development time frames for all new ICBM's, SLBM's and bombers (firm time frames) as well as restart R&D and production of a new warheads for them.

When our leaders talk like this our opponents only get emboldened. Why negotiate when we are disarming ourselves through neglect, neglect since 1991 I might add. :'(

 

[Orionblamblam]

Declaring war on another country without consulting the people's representatives seems to be unlawful in many societies.

As it is in the US. And thus we've not had a President declare war without the say-so of Congress.

But laws can be changed. Not always for the better.

Sure. But Obamacare is rather outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[bobbymike]

Who was there;

Briefers included the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, Dr. Brad Roberts; the heads of the Air Force and Navy nuclear programs, Major General Bill Chambers and Rear Admiral Terry Benedict; and a senior military leader at the National Nuclear Security Administration, Brigadier General Sandy Finan. The panelists spoke specifically about options for funding the sustainment of the nuclear complex, the development of next-generation systems and arms control policy.
---------------------------------
Does anyone know if they publish transcripts of caucus meetings? I know they do of committee meetings.

Just heard back from Wendy Gnehm aide to Senator Enzi who sits on the ICBM Caucus, unofficial meeting no transcript.

 

[bobbymike]

US National Security Strategy and the New Strategic Triad Report;

http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGconfApr2012.pdf