Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Russian boycott of the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit confirmed: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001696554
 
And Iran is still running rings around the IAEA: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29957334

EDIT: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001704625
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/08/us-iran-nuclear-uranium-idUSKBN0IS0AO20141108
 
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-may-have-violated-interim-nuclear-deal/
 
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-World-must-not-cave-to-Irans-demands-381239
 
"As U.S. nuclear arsenal ages, other nations have modernized"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nukes-silos-20141110-story.html#page=2
 

Attachments

  • la-me-g-nuclear-arsenals-20141110.png
    la-me-g-nuclear-arsenals-20141110.png
    253 KB · Views: 55
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-u-eu-start-second-day-nuclear-talks-075017709.html
 
I see putting it in The Bar as step one in a political flame thread. Not sure I see the point.
 
I agree, that such themes should be concentrated under a single title and that this one
here gives us the chance to point ot news without too great a danger of starting flaming.
Has worked now for quite a while here successfully ! ;)
Topics merged
 
Modernization of US nuclear forces not optional

Posted 9/18/2014 Updated 9/18/2014

by Airman 1st Class Joseph Raatz

Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs

9/18/2014 - WASHINGTON -- The dire need for modernization of the United States' nuclear forces was made clear by speakers at a strategic nuclear enterprise symposium held here, Sept. 18. The annual symposium, sponsored by the Minot Chamber of Commerce's Task Force 21, brings together defense officials, government executives and civic leaders to discuss strategic force structure and modernization. "We're here to share thoughts about the current state of, and the way forward for the nuclear strategic deterrent enterprise." said Mark Jantzer, Task Force 21 chairman. Much of the discussion during the symposium centered around the need for modernization of U.S. nuclear forces. "As we look forward, I think that our modernization programs are absolutely essential." said Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command. "I'm paraphrasing the Chief [of Staff of the Air Force,] but it's time for us to become the nuclear force that our nation needs us to be, not the nuclear force we used to be."

"You don't want them to have to be the person to walk into the Oval Office in 2025 or 2028 or 2030 and say 'Mr. or Madam President, I'm so sorry but we just aren't able to neutralize that threat to America,'" said Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, the Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration assistant chief of staff. "We have to convince the American people, folks in our government and folks in our own military of the incredible relevancy of a nuclear deterrent today and in the future... Unless we do that, it's going to be much more difficult to give these great Airmen, and these great Sailors and those that will follow, the tools they will need to defend America in the coming decades." One such modernization program spoken about at length during the symposium was the upcoming Long Range Strike Bomber. The LRS-B is one of the Air Force's top acquisition priorities, Wilson explained. Of the current U.S. nuclear-capable bombers, the last B-52 came off the line in 1962 and the B-2 just turned 25. If The U.S. is to be able to continue holding any target at risk, anywhere in the world, it's going to need a bomber capable of penetrating whatever advanced air defense systems America's adversaries can come up with in the foreseeable future. Other current modernization efforts discussed included the Long Range Standoff Missile as well as upgrades for the Minuteman III ICBM and its eventual replacement program, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. "[The GBSD] is a key program as we move forward," Wilson said. "The Minuteman III was designed in the 1960s and it's been on alert since 1973. We have to replace that missile."

"Earlier this year we completed a very thorough and detailed analysis of alternatives, and we plan to modernize the ground-based leg of the triad," said Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein, commander of 20th Air Force and Task Force 214. "This will not simply be a service life extension program, but a comprehensive effort that leverages useful Minuteman infrastructure and prioritizes needed upgrades. The process captured the requirements and required capabilities to ensure a very capable and secure GBSD follows the Minuteman III." A replacement for the current Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine was also discussed. "Both Russia and the People's Republic of China currently have new models of ballistic missile submarines in the water and are testing new sea-based ballistic missiles," said Rear Adm. Joe Tofalo, director of the Navy's Undersea Warfare Division. "You cannot say that about the United States." The Ohio-class was originally designed with a service life of 30 years, but due to budget constraints the retirement of the class has been delayed until 2031 -- 20 years past its original expected retirement.

"For the foreseeable future, certainly for our and our children's and our grandchildren's lifetimes, the United States will require a safe, secure and effective strategic nuclear deterrent," Tofalo said. "The ballistic nuclear submarine forces are and will continue to be a critical part of that deterrent... Each of the legs of the triad brings unique strengths that provide a strong deterrent against different classes of adversary threat, and each of the legs reinforces the effectiveness of the others." In his keynote address, Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, discussed components beyond the triad that support the nuclear enterprise. "Strategic deterrence is more than just the triad of platforms," Haney said. "It includes robust and agile intelligence capabilities, dedicated space and ground sensors that provide critical early warning and assured national nuclear command, control and communications to move that information. [Deterrence] also includes sustaining the necessary infrastructure to support our nuclear roles, missions and weapons; maintaining missile defenses to defend against attacks and providing relevant space and cyberspace capabilities.

"All these areas are interrelated and we must leverage our capabilities and assess today's threats in an integrated manner to ensure strategic stability," the admiral continued. "In a world where our traditional adversaries are modernizing, emerging adversaries are maturing and non-state actors remain elusive and dangerous, we must get 21st century deterrence right... the reality is that an effective modernized nuclear deterrent force is needed now more than ever."
 
MOSB111-1112_2014_194643_high.jpg

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/russias-bombers-conduct-regular-patrols-ranging-arctic-gulf-140627703.html

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/russia-plans-long-range-bomber-flights-near-north-170336315.html
 
From Pravda;

On September 1, 2014 the US State Department published a report, in which it was stated that for first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia reached parity with the US in the field of strategic nuclear weapons. Thus, Washington admitted that Moscow regained the status that the Soviet Union had obtained by mid-70's of the XX century and then lost.

According to the report from the State Department, Russia has 528 carriers of strategic nuclear weapons that carry 1,643 warheads. The United States has 794 vehicles and 1,652 nuclear warheads.

It just so happens that today, Russia's strategic nuclear forces (SNF) are even more advanced in comparison with those of the US, as they ensure parity on warheads with a significantly smaller number of carriers of strategic nuclear weapons. This gap between Russia and the United States may only grow in the future, given the fact that Russian defense officials promised to rearm Russia's SNF with new generation missiles.

The progress was made possible thanks to the treaty on the limitation of nuclear weapons, also known as START-3. The treaty was signed by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on 8 April 2010 in Prague (came into force on 5 February 2011). In accordance with the document, nuclear warheads of the parties are to be reduced to 1,550 by 2021. The number of carriers (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers) is supposed to be cut to 700 units.

It was the first strategic agreement, after the treacherous policy of democrats, in which Russia managed to win significant advantages. In the treaty, the Americans, for the first time in history, undertook to reduce their strategic nuclear potential, while Russia won an opportunity to increase it. Furthermore, the new treaty removed important limitations that existed in the previous START 1 and START 2 treaties. It goes about the size of areas for the deployment of mobile ICBMs, the number of multi charge ICBMs, and the possibility to build railway-based ICBMs. Russia did not make any concessions.

Having written off Moscow as a serious geopolitical rival, flying on the wings of inaccessible military and technological superiority, Washington drove itself into a trap, from which it does not see a way out even in a medium-term perspective.

Recently, a lot has been said about so-called "sixth-generation wars" and high-precision long-range weapons that should ensure victory over enemy without coming into direct contact with its armed forces. This concept is highly questionable (The US failed to achieve victory in such a way both in Iraq and Afghanistan). Yet, this is the point, where Russia enters the parity line as well. The proof is long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla.

In today's Russia, many find this hard to believe. This is a common belief for many of those, who still enthusiastically remain in captivity of the myths about the absolute "weakness" of Russia and the absolute "superiority" of the West. The myth was made up in the 90's under the influence of Boris Yeltsin and his betrayal of Russian national interests. One has to admit that during that time, the myth was real, if one may say so.

Times have changed. One can easily understand the new state of affairs.

For example, let's consider the potential of conventional weapons of Russia and the West in the European Theater of Operations (ETO). In this area, it is generally believed that NATO is a lot stronger than Russia. Yet, a first encounter with reality smashes this misbelief into pieces.

As is known, the main striking force, the core of combat power of the ground forces are tanks. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Armed Forces had about 20,000 tanks in the ETO.

The Americans, in turn, deployed 6,000 heavy Abrams tanks on the territory of the allied group. Despite this, the combined potential of NATO forces in Europe was still significantly inferior to the Soviet potential. To compensate this imbalance, NATO strategists were forced to resort to tactical nuclear weapons (TNW).

In the first half of the 1950s, NATO conducted a research about what kind of forces the bloc should have to show reliable resistance to large-scale ground offensive of superior forces of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. The calculations showed then that one required at least 96 full-fledged divisions for the purpose. Yet, the cost of armament for one of such divisions exceeded $1 billion. Plus, one required two or three more billion to maintain such a large group of troops and build appropriate infrastructure. This burden was clearly beyond the power of the economy of the West.

The solution was found in a move to deploy a group of US tactical nuclear weapons on the continent, and that was done soon. By early 1970s, the US arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons counted about 7,000 units of ammunition. The highest achievement in the area was the creation of weapons of selective action - neutron warheads (for guns of 203-mm and 155-mm caliber, and for Lance missiles) with a capacity from 1 to 10 kilotons. The warheads were seen as the key in combating land forces personnel, particularly Soviet tank crews.

Given the nuclear factor, to reflect "Soviet aggression," NATO required to deploy only 30, rather than 96 divisions, and so they were deployed.

How do things work in this area now? In early 2013, the Americans withdrew the last group of heavy Abrams tanks from Europe. In NATO countries, over the last 20 years, one new tank would replace 10-15 old, yet still capable, tanks. At the same time, Russia was not decommissioning its tanks.

As a result, today Russia is the absolute leader in this regard. In mid-2014, the balance of the Defense Ministry had as many as 18,177 tanks (T-90 - 400 pcs., T-72B - 7,144 pcs., T-80 - 4,744 pcs, T-64 - 4,000 pcs, T-62 - 689 pcs, and T-55 - 1200 pcs.).

Of course, only a few thousand tanks are deployed in permanent readiness units, and most of them remain at storage bases. Yet, NATO has the same picture. Therefore, the decisive superiority of Russian tanks has not gone anywhere since the times of the USSR.

Here is another surprise. As for tactical nuclear weapons, the superiority of modern-day Russia over NATO is even stronger.

The Americans are well aware of this. They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too late.

To date, NATO countries have only 260 tactical nuclear weapons in the ETO. The United States has 200 bombs with a total capacity of 18 megatons. They are located on six air bases in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. France has 60 more atomic bombs. That is pretty much it. Russia, according to conservative estimates, has 5,000 pieces of different classes of TNW - from Iskander warheads to torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads! The US has 300 tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but this does not change the situation against the backdrop of such imbalance. The US is unable to improve it either, as it has destroyed the "Cold War legacy" - tactical nuclear missiles, land-based missiles and nuclear warheads of sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles.
 
When it rains, it pours: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iranian-negotiator-u-s-must-bow-to-our-inalienable-nuclear-rights/
 
Officials: Nuclear Modernization Needed To Meet Russian, Chinese Threats

Posted: Nov. 13, 2014

Two senior leaders of the Pentagon's nuclear forces last week expressed concern about the nuclear capabilities being fielded by Russia and China, and the ambitions of North Korea to procure ballistic missile submarines. Speaking at an Air Force Global Strike Challenge event at Barksdale Air Force Base, LA, last week, the officials stressed the need to modernize the nuclear force, and to deter strategic attacks in space and cyberspace. The comments come as Air Force Global Strike Command releases a new strategic master plan that highlights the need to recapitalize and modernize the bomber and intercontinental ballistic missile forces in the face of emerging threats. U.S. Strategic Command Vice Commander Lt. Gen. James Kowalski said recapitalization of the nuclear force is 15 years overdue, and he noted that Russia and China continue to modernize their nuclear assets and North Korea has fielded an antiquated ballistic missile submarine. "We're all limited by having to talk only about what's been able to leak out into the press, but one thing that leaked out in the press recently is the North Koreans are coming up with their own SSBNs," the general said. "It looks like mid-1950s Russian technology, but that doesn't mean it's not a threat. So we continue to pay attention to those developments."

Kowalski said there is constant pressure on the nuclear mission, particularly relating to the constrained budget environment, but the rest of the world "is continuing to march out, to modernize, to develop." The general said he shares the concerns of STRATCOM Commander Adm. Cecil Haney about the direction the rest of the world is going with regard to the development of nuclear-capable weapon systems and their potential to alter the strategic balance. "It's very concerning right now where the Russians are with their violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and with a lot of the other developments we're seeing," he said. Kowalski was referring to Russia's alleged test of a mid-range, ground-launched cruise missile, which the 1987 treaty specifically outlaws. The STRATCOM official also expressed concern about the ability of potential adversaries to conduct strategic attacks in space and cyberspace, and how those attacks could inadvertently cross a "red line" by degrading nuclear command and control. "We've seen in the escalation war games we've done, we've seen a synergy between nuclear, space and cyber where an adversary may inadvertently be crossing a red line because they execute a cyber attack that in turn degrades nuclear command and control or the ability to do missile warning from space," Kowalski said. "There's a lot of things that need to be taken care of out there in terms of making sure this entire system from the missile warning architecture to the nuclear command and control, what we call the nuclear triad, stays linked up and stays together -- because that's where the credibility of the weapon system is."

Vice Adm. Michael Connor, commander of the Navy Submarine Force, expressed similar sentiments at the same forum, and was especially concerned about the modern submarines being fielded by Russia and China. "We're not doing this in a vacuum and the world gets a vote in what the future strategic balance will be," he said. "As we sit here with our aging fleet, both the Russians and the Chinese are putting out some very capable submarines, at a very great rate as it turns out, about one to two per year." Connor said there were reports that Russia's newest submarine has already tested its ballistic missile capability. Additionally, he expressed concern about the capability of China's new ballistic missile submarine. "They claim it can hit the United States from waters off of China," he said. The Ohio-class submarines Connor commands, while still very capable, are nearing the end of their service life -- which has already been extended once. He said the Navy has accepted some delays to the Ohio-class replacement program because of budget pressures, but "no amount of science or testing" can extend the Ohio-class submarine's life beyond 42 years. The Navy has plans to replace its 14 Ohio-class submarines with 12 new vessels that are more capable and don't require refueling. According to Navy budget documents for fiscal year 2015, construction of the first Ohio-class replacement, or SSBN-X, is due to start in 2021. The first one is expected to go on patrol in 2031, Connor said. "We're at the point now where for budget reasons we've accepted a few delays, but we can't accept any more," he said. "So for us to hold up our end we need to keep working to build those ships."

New strategic plan

This week, Air Force Global Strike Command published a new strategic master plan that concurs with many of the sentiments expressed by Kowalski and Connor. The document, signed by Global Strike Commander Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson in March, said that along with the proliferation of ballistic missile technology, non-state actors such as terrorists, insurgents and computer hackers also pose a threat to the U.S. and its allies. In the near term, through 2019, Global Strike expects potential adversaries will field new types of fighter aircraft, radars, surface-to-air missiles as well as quieter ballistic missiles and attack submarines. "Due to the [weapon of mass destruction] desires of many third-world countries and the fast-paced development of ballistic missile and cruise missile technology, protection of the U.S. homeland and our allies will become more critical," the document states. "Potential adversaries are also nearing initial operational capability for new ICBMs, sea-launched ballistic missile capabilities, and land-attack cruise missiles."

From 2020 to 2024, the document points to the threat from fifth-generation fighter aircraft, more modern and integrated air defense systems, and anti-satellite weapons. Beyond 2025, the biggest concern is the continued proliferation of all of these modern weapon systems. The strategic master plan lists a range of modernization efforts Global Strike is pursuing. However, each line references the need to continue to advocate for funding because of the constrained budget environment. Of note, the B-52 Stratofortress will be kept viable through 2040 with the addition of a modern digital cockpit, advanced weapons bay and new radar system. The document does not express the need for an engine replacement program, but service officials have said recently they are looking for ways to fund and deliver that capability. For the B-2 Spirit, the document lists a range of capability improvements including new weapons carriage assemblies. Global Strike is also seeking funds to pursue the development of a next-generation bomber, known as the Long-Rage Strike Bomber. Other critical development programs include the Long-Range Standoff Missile to replace the aging Air-Launched Cruise Missile, and the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent to replace the service's Minuteman III ICBM. The glut of modernization programs includes the life-extension of the B-61 nuclear gravity bomb and the upgrade of nuclear command, control and communications infrastructure.

Lastly, the command is looking to replace the UH-1N Huey helicopter that supports security missions around the ICBM missile fields. "The UH-1N does not meet DOD survivability, carrying capacity, endurance or speed requirements," the document states. The service wants to replace the Huey with upgraded Army UH-60 Black Hawks. The need to modernize the nuclear force must compete against other Pentagon priorities in future budgets, such as the delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. A Government Accountability Office report in June pegged the cost of sustaining and modernizing the nuclear enterprise over 10 years at about $264 billion. GAO estimates the cost of keeping and upgrading the nuclear weapons arsenal and its associated infrastructure through 2023 is $97.5 billion, and the cost of supporting nuclear delivery systems could be as high as $125.5 billion over the same period. Sustaining the nuclear command, control and communications infrastructure will cost about $40.8 billion through 2023, the report states. -- James Drew
 
http://news.yahoo.com/hagel-order-nuke-force-overhaul-fix-failures-010143821--politics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has concluded that problems in the nation's nuclear forces are rooted in a lack of investment, inattention by high-level leaders and sagging morale, and is ordering top-to-bottom changes, vowing to invest billions of dollars to fix the management of the world's most deadly weapons, two senior defense officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Click to expand...
 
CSIS Report first section on deterrence and nukes:

http://csis.org/files/publication/141110_Cohen_GlobalForecast2015_Web.pdf
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/nuclear-woes-drive-7-5b-increase-depsecdef-work-takes-on-nuke-oversight/?utm_source=Breaking+Defense&utm_campaign=370cb337ae-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4368933672-370cb337ae-407814345

PENTAGON: It isn’t official but Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work hinted today that the United States will undertake a fundamental reordering of its national security budget by paying for new nuclear submarines, new nuclear bombers and new ICBMs in new accounts set aside just for them.
 
Air Force Global Strike Command Master Plan 2014;

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140407-018.pdf
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/next-wave-of-u-s-supercomputers-could-break-up-race-for-fastest/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook

New Supercomputers for ORNL & LLNL.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/inside-the-ring-ransom-paid-for-bergdahl/?page=2

RUSSIAN SUB TESTS MIRV

Russia’s recent flight test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile involved multiple warheads, according to U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports of the test.

The Nov. 5 test of an SS-N-23 Skiff missile was carried out from a Delta IV nuclear missile submarine submerged in the Barents Sea.

State-controlled Russian media reported that the missile’s unspecified number of multiple warheads traveled some 3,100 miles across northern Russia to the Kura missile impact range on the Kamchatka Peninsula.

The SS-N-23 was declared in the 2011 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) as having four warheads. However, more modern versions of the SS-N-23 have been reported in the Russian press as carrying between eight and 12 warheads. If confirmed, the additional warheads would violate the treaty.

The flight test highlights Russia’s continuing development of strategic missile capabilities, including systems with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs.

By contrast, the Obama administration is reducing its multiple warhead missiles. The last of 450 land-based Minuteman III missiles was downsized from three warheads to one in June.

Russia conducted a flight test of a new land-based multiple warhead missile, the SS-27 Mod 2, in April that some experts say may have violated the New START prohibition on adding warheads to existing missiles.

The Pentagon’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review stated that all U.S. land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles will be “deMIRVed” from three warheads to one.

“This step will enhance the stability of the nuclear balance by reducing the incentives for either side to strike first,” the review stated.

U.S. Trident submarine-launched missiles, however, will continue to be armed with multiple warheads.

There are concerns, however, that Russia may be improving its new Bulava submarine-launched missiles with multiple maneuvering warheads — systems designed to defeat U.S. strategic missile defenses.

“There is a lot of talk in the Russian press about maneuvering warheads and 10 warhead packages for the Bulava,” said Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon strategic nuclear weapons specialist.

The Russian military enthusiast blog russianforces.org reported in August that the Makeyev Design Bureau, a nuclear missile center, is developing a maneuvering warhead for land- and sea-based missiles.

The Bulava was last tested in October and was equipped with six dummy warheads. It will be deployed on two new Borei-class missile submarines.
Click to expand...
 
Via the Drudge Report:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-iran-secretly-continuing-nuclear-weapons-work/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/bad-deal-gets-worse_819693.html
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/iran-nuclear-talks-extension-gives-republicans-tim/
 
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-looks-to-revive-nuclear-missile-trains-to-counter-u-s-attack-capability/511979.html
 
"The Russian nuclear forces are the prime beneficiaries of Moscow's sweeping 20 trillion ruble ($500 billion) military rearmament drive, with authorities pledging to completely modernize the country's arsenal with new rockets better suited to respond to modern threats."
 
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/28/russian-navy-successful-missile-test-bulava/19621133/?sf34163061=%5B%271%27%5D
 
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/12/why-does-navy-still-not-have-enough-money-new-submarines/100169/
 
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-nukes-20141130-story.html#page=2
 
c4isrnet.com - France Studies Nuclear Missile Replacement


PARIS — France has launched studies for an airborne nuclear-tipped missile to replace the current weapon, with the focus on stealth and hypersonic technology on the next-generation atomic arms, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said.


The Air Force flies the Dassault Mirage 2000N and Rafale F3 fighters armed with the air-sol moyenne portée-améliorée (ASMP-A) nuclear missile, respectively on the Gascogne and La Fayette squadrons. These are the airborne systems in addition to the four ballistic nuclear missile submarines.


“The studies for the successor to the ASMP-A missile, dubbed ASN4G, have already begun,” Le Drian told a high-level conference on the French nuclear deterrent on Nov. 20. ASN4G is understood to refer to air-sol nucléaire fourth-generation, an industry executive said.


The sensitivity of the deterrent was such that the conference organizer showed an extended video clip of a training mission that obscured an ASMP-A missile carried under the fuselage of a Rafale. A special edition of specialist magazine Air & Cosmos carried a cover picture of a weapon marked ASMP-A under a Rafale. The published pictures are understood to have been adapted by the Air Force to avoid giving too much detail. Air & Cosmos was not available for comment.


Copies of the magazine were distributed at the conference.


“The daring concepts, for example, based on stealth and hypersonic technologies, at the forefront of technological development, will be explored,” Le Drian said.


The projects are key to overcoming the enemy’s interdiction and also for the domestic industrial and technology base, he said.


“The choice of the future weapon system, comprising the ASN4G missile and a platform to be decided, is therefore a major issue for the services,” he said. The project is closely tied to the future format of the Air Force, he said.


Work began in the summer on the ASMP-A, intended to allow the air-breathing missile to defeat future air defense systems out to 2035, Le Drian said. The work consists of design and development studies for the mid-life upgrade, a source said.


Chief of the Air Staff Gen. Denis Mercier previously gave a glimpse of the technology studies on the future airborne weapon, which will call for a choice between stealth or speed.


A stealth study and one on hypersonic speed are underway for the successor to the ASMP-A, Mercier told the defense committee of the lower-house National Assembly in April. The hypersonic weapon might be capable of Mach 7 or 8, he said.


MBDA is prime contractor on the ASMP-A.


Mercier told the parliamentarians he preferred the hypersonic missile.


“It’s the second solution that I prefer,” he said. Mastery of the hypersonic is already a given factor, he said. The U.S., Russia, China, India are looking at the hypersonic technology as they consider a modernization of the airborne nuclear element, with experimental work conducted, he said.


On the future platform carrying the atomic weapon, a choice had to be made on the architecture and performance of the missile, he said. Two options are under study: a new generation fighter, and a bomber.


“The challenge is to select a system able to penetrate defense systems which will be deployed in 20 to 50 years,” he said. The work was also important for the industrial base, he said.


Anti-missile defense has made much progress against ballistic and cruise weapons, he said.


The work on the stealth or hypersonic missile technology will influence development of the future aircraft. For instance, if a hypersonic missile were capable of flying at Mach 7 and were 20 meters long, the aircraft would need to be a large plane, such an Airbus A400M, rather than a fighter such as the Rafale.
Click to expand...


Attachment source: Air & Cosmos N 2431 - 28 Novembre au 4 Decembre 2014
 

Attachments

  • Air & Cosmos N 2431 - Force de Frappe - 28 Novembre au 4 Decembre 2014.png
    Air & Cosmos N 2431 - Force de Frappe - 28 Novembre au 4 Decembre 2014.png
    413.4 KB · Views: 81
Some news regarding Nuclear Weapons, but not tied together!

A video of Rafale B on a training mission, armed with an air-launched nuclear missile ASMP-A.
Armée de l'air française said:
Au cœur d'une mission des forces aériennes stratégiques
Jeudi 20 novembre 2014, l’armée de l’air et le commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives ont organisé un colloque intitulé « 50 ans de dissuasion nucléaire : exigences et pertinence au 21ème siècle ».
Lors de ce colloque une vidéo fut projetée illustrant les différentes phases de la mission des Forces aériennes stratégiques (FAS).
Click to expand...


Link:
http://youtu.be/Acxj1DNBqe0
Code: 
http://youtu.be/Acxj1DNBqe0
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Some interesting blog posts at fas.org/blogs/security/ :)


FAS.org - W80-1 Warhead Selected For New Nuclear Cruise Missile


FAS.org - Polish F-16s In NATO Nuclear Exercise In Italy
 
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/dods-sophies-choice-moment-choosing-between-strategic-and-conventional-forces/
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom