Current Nuclear Weapons Development

U.S. Conducts Nonexplosive Nuclear Test The United States on Wednesday completed a nuclear test that did not involve the fission process necessary for atomic detonations, the National Nuclear Security Administration said. The trial, dubbed "Pollux," would yield findings critical for ensuring the dependability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent, the semiautonomous Energy Department agency said in a press release. The study took place at the Nevada National Security Site and involved personnel based at that complex, as well as with specialists from the Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories in New Mexico. “Challenging subcritical experiments maintain our capabilities to ensure that we can support a safe, secure and effective stockpile without having to conduct underground testing,” NNSA Administrator Thomas D’Agostino said in provided remarks. “I applaud the work done by the men and women who worked to make this experiment successful. Experiments such as this help deliver President Obama’s nuclear security agenda.”

The subcritical test was the 27th in a series of exercises completed to examine how plutonium responds to a conventional explosive detonation. The last such trial, "Barolo B," took place on Feb. 2, 2011. Diagnostic equipment fielded by our scientists resulted in more data collected in this single experiment than all other previous subcritical experiments,” NNSA Deputy Administrator Don Cook said in the statement. “This type of data is critical for ensuring our computer simulations can accurately predict performance, and thus continued confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the nation’s stockpile.”
----------------------------------------------
New nukes and new underground tests are needed IMHO. Exercise design skills and manufacturing capability.
 
bobbymike said:
New nukes and new underground tests are needed IMHO. Exercise design skills and manufacturing capability.
Click to expand...
I think there should be a couple of above-ground tests, just so they can filmed in HD.
 
Triton said:
2IDSGT said:
I think there should be a couple of above-ground tests, just so they can filmed in HD.
Click to expand...
No thank you. Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie narrated by William Shatner is enough for me.
Click to expand...
Well, grainy old footage doesn't really do for me. Besides, it would be a reminder. Fifty years from now, when above-ground tests have faded from living memory, we will have raised an entire generation of kids who think nukes are something you unlock in a video game. They won't remember the fear; it won't even be part of their subconscious and they will be the ones with fingers on the button. I think people need to see what the things can really do in IMAX format.
 
In 1950, Senator Brien McMahon (Democrat of Connecticut), chairman of the powerful Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE) and a powerful proponent of an accelerated nuclear weapons program, grew concerned that insufficient funding was being allocated to nuclear armaments

This was a quote from a nuclear weapons cost article and not to get political but I believe factual will we ever see a time when there is strong advocacy for 'accelerated nuclear weapons program' and my guess you will NEVER hear it from a Democrat :eek:
 
"Fiscal Cliff" Prompts Fresh Push for U.S. Nuke Spending Cut Dec. 12, 2012 By Diane Barnes
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- Dozens of Democratic lawmakers have revived a call for $100 billion in U.S. nuclear weapons spending reductions over 10 years as Congress pushes to enact $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions by the beginning of January. Washington must meet the deadline to avert automatic, across-the-board cuts to federal programs imposed under the 2011 Budget Control Act, but no deal appears imminent. The law's sequestration provisions are part of a series of scheduled tax increases and spending cuts anticipated to have far-ranging implications for the U.S. economy if they are allowed to begin taking effect next month.

Failure in Congress to negotiate a deficit spending agreement would leave open the potential for significant nuclear cuts under budget sequestration. The Defense Department last week received White House instructions to identify $500 billion in potential spending cuts that could be implemented to meet mandates under the budget control law. "Unchecked spending on nuclear weapons threatens to push us over the fiscal cliff," Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and 44 other House Democrats stated in a Dec. 4 letter to the top Democratic and Republican lawmakers in both chambers, citing the term popularly used to refer to the anticipated funding moves. "We know there is plenty of waste in the nuclear weapons budget." The lawmakers singled out plans to refurbish approximately 400 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs, a project expected to cost roughly $10 billion. They also cited the scheduled construction of a new highly enriched uranium processing facility in Tennessee; the effort is projected to cost between $4.2 billion and $6.5 billion. "Cuts to nuclear weapons programs upwards of $100 billion over the next 10 years are possible," the letter says. The United States is now on track to spend at least $640 billion through fiscal 2022 on the operation and upkeep of its nuclear deterrent, the Democrats cited the independent Ploughshares Fund as determining in a September estimate. "Specific programs have been identified that can be decreased in scope or eliminated to bring our nuclear forces into better alignment with our 21st century needs," the lawmakers wrote. "Such cuts should be included in any final deal to avoid the fiscal cliff." The letter also calls for reduced spending on the nation's ICBM fleet, as well as on B-52 and B-2 nuclear bomber aircraft. Those recommendations are not likely to be welcomed by Republicans, who have already criticized President Obama for failing to keep up with nuclear complex spending levels pledged as the administration successfully pressed for Senate ratification of the U.S.-Russia New START arms control treaty.


"During the Senate’s consideration of the New START treaty, the president made many promises to achieve support for Senate ratification," House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) stated in March, referring to a decade-long, $85 billion nuclear weapons spending plan submitted by the administration in 2010. "With the president’s [fiscal year 2013] budget request, it is ... apparent that those promises have been broken." The panel's top Democrat, though, on Wednesday urged Washington to zero any funding for "new nuclear weapons." "If you see the budget, there's new monies in there to make more nuclear weapons," Representative Loretta Sanchez (Calif.) said at a defense policy luncheon in Washington. The lawmaker did not specify what nuclear arms programs she was referencing, but updates planned for the nation's B-61 bombs would reportedly involve replacing nearly every component of each weapon. Sanchez called for further examination of "what nonproliferation will bring us," and for the New START pact to "actually be implemented." Republican lawmakers at the Wednesday event did not address the nuclear arms spending question. U.S. atomic arsenal spending is likely to face the chopping block even if a compromise is reached to prevent curbs under the 2011 legislation, according to findings from a planning exercise carried out earlier this year by the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

-----------------------------------------------------
I'd have more respect for politicians who just said, "We don't like nukes and want to totally unilaterally disarm," rather than try and tell us US nuclear weapons spending is a lot of money given a federal budget of close to $4 trillion.
 
Air Force: LRSO Analysis Of Alternatives Set For JROC Review In March Posted: Dec. 13, 2012

The Air Force has completed an analysis of alternatives for a new nuclear-armed, bomber-launched cruise missile to replace the aging AGM-86, setting up a Joint Requirements Oversight review of the Long-Range Standoff Weapon in March, according to a service official.
Meanwhile, the Air Force last week announced plans to invite select companies to conduct trade studies in support of the LRSO requirement, lining up what could become a four-way competition. Based on the LRSO analysis of alternatives, "the contract efforts will provide additional refinement of the most viable concepts," Air Force spokeswoman Vicki Stein told InsideDefense.com. The resulting trade studies will "inform the future LRSO request for proposals," she said. On Dec. 5, the Air Force announced its intent to award sole-source contracts to Boeing, St. Louis, CA; Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ; Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Orlando, FL; and Northrop Grumman, El Segundo, CA. "The government intends to solicit, negotiate and award to the contractors listed above using other-than-full-and-open competition procedures," the service said in a Federal Business Opportunities notice.

The firm, fixed-price contracts "will procure trade studies in support of the Long Range Standoff program in preparation for the technology development phase," states the notice, which does not specify the value of the planned award. The notice grants interested parties 15 days to register their desire and capability to respond to the Pentagon's requirement as required by law.


In fiscal year 2011, the Air Force began an analysis of alternatives for an LRSO capability that aimed to evaluate the operational effectiveness, cost and risks of various material solutions. That analysis was completed this fall, according to Stein. "The AOA final report is currently in coordination and on track for final JROC validation in March 2013," she said. In February, the Air Force announced it would delay until FY-15 its plans to proceed with technology development of the cruise-missile replacement program. The delay came after the Defense Department last year 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. In FY-13, the Air Force asked Congress for only $2 million to complete the AOA. Congress appropriated $9.9 million for LRSO last year, funds that the Air Force said were 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 FY-13 budget documents. The Air Force has a service-life extension program in place to ensure its AGM-86 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 W80 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 statement. "Despite the LRSO delay, there will not be a gap between ALCM and LRSO." -- Jason Sherman
 
Future Russian ICBM Could Carry Non-Nuclear Warhead: General Dec. 14, 2012

A senior Russian military officer on Friday said his country could if needed prepare a developmental ICBM to accommodate conventional warheads, RIA Novosti reported. Russian strategic missile forces head Col. Gen. Sergei Karakayev stated: "The availability of a powerful liquid-fueled ICBM allows us the capability of creating a strategic high-accuracy weapons system with a conventional payload with practically global range, if the U.S. does not pull back from its program for creating such missile systems." The officer was referring to the U.S. Defense Department's program to establish a "prompt global strike" capacity to hit targets with a conventional warhead within a short period of time.

Development of the new Russian ICBM is on the "right path" following multiple trial launches of early versions of the missile, according to Karakayev. Karakayev said liquid fuel could allow for "more varied and effective methods of countermeasures against global missile defense screens including space-based elements of those systems." He said his country intends next year "to fire 11 ICBMs with the main aim being the life extension of existing missile systems and state acceptance trials of future systems," RIA Novosti reported separately.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So if history in any guide, Russia hears about new US technology 1) says it is destabalizing and will cause WWIII, 2) threaten to build their own system as a response but , really, in order to stop the US from building the weapon 3) builds it anyway in secret ;D
 
What a bunch of hypocrites. Whine their asses off if someone else does it. ::)
 
Why I would insist the MMIII replacement is the maximum sized maximum throw weight missile to give the US both a nuclear upload capability as well as the ability to carry large conventional payloads.

Or two new missiles, a small mobile Midgetman type for the nuclear mission and something along the lines of a heavily modified Ares booster for PGS. And yes I am living in a fantasy world. :eek:
 
http://freebeacon.com/number-the-nukes/

A former commander of Russia’s nuclear forces warned the Obama administration this week that China’s short-range nuclear missiles are undermining the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the United States and Russia.
Retired Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, a former commander of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, also said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon that U.S. and Western arms specialists have dramatically underestimated China’s nuclear arsenal. Beijing’s warhead arsenal, he said, likely is between 1,600 to 1,800 nuclear warheads and bombs.

Yesin met with Pentagon, military, State Department officials, and members of Congress and congressional staff Wednesday and Thursday. The visit culminated with consultations Thursday with Rose Gottemoeller, acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, to discuss the national security risks posed by China’s growing nuclear arsenal.
“It’s not a secret that we talked about China’s nuclear potential and the increase of the Chinese nuclear arsenal,” Yesin said, speaking through an interpreter.
-------------------------------------------------
I would put money on the Chinese having at least this many nukes. It is the 'arms control communities' best interest to play down the number so they can get Russia and America to continue reductions. Besides that it appears to be the 'quiet' strategy of the US to make China an equal in this area of weapons.

The other reason the arms control zealots keep telling us China has 'about 300 warheads' because there is no way in HE** we would have gone below SORT levels of 2200 deployed warheads and signed New Start reductions (in a lame duck session of Congress if you recall) if China had this many nukes.
 
Russia, U.S. Slow Rate of Nuclear Drawdowns, Report Says
Dec. 18, 2012

A new report from the Federation of American Scientists finds that Russia and the United States have slowed the rate at which they reduce their nuclear arsenals, even while they enacted a new atomic arms control deal less than two years ago. The U.S. stockpile of strategic and tactical nuclear warheads presently stands at roughly 4,650, down from more than 19,000 in 1991, according to FAS Nuclear Information Project Director Hans Kristensen. Russia has seemingly seen its corresponding arsenal of active and reserve warheads drop from 30,000 warheads to about 4,500 over the same post-Cold War period. "There are indications that, although U.S. and Russian reductions are continuing, both countries are becoming more cautious about reducing further. The drawdown of forces has slowed since 2007 and both countries are now investing huge sums of money in new nuclear weapon systems that are designed to operate toward the end of the century," according to the analysis. "Unless new unilateral reductions take place or significant arms control agreements are reached, large nuclear forces could be retained far into the future." The New START accord, which entered into force in February 2011, requires both nations to reduce their stocks of deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery systems. The accord does not address reserve or tactical armaments. "Now that the U.S. presidential election is over, President Obama should once again make nuclear arms control a prominent and visible part of his foreign policy agenda," Kristensen stated in the report. "The financial crisis will probably help by making simple and quick reductions more attractive to save money in the short term. Fortunately, there are several changes that can and should be made to the U.S. nuclear posture that does not require negotiating a new treaty."


He cited reduction examples including expediting New START nuclear cuts ahead of the accord's 2018 deadline, along with slashing the number of Minuteman 3 ICBMs from 450 to 300 and "the decision to reduce by four the missile loading on each Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). ... The SSBN missile reduction should be doubled, however, and combined with reducing the SSBN fleet by two boats." Kristensen also offered recommendations for Russia among a host of nuclear arms-cutting suggestions. His proposals included having Russia call off plans for a new "heavy" ICBM and to keep only one nuclear warhead on its mobile RS-24 ICBMs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - Ya good luck with that! I suggest go to Russia and protest Putin, hopefully, we never see you again ;) Of course it is easy to tell Russia what to do from the safety of your New York office.

I would have never gone under Start levels of 6000 warheads Peace Through Strength.
 
http://defense.aol.com/2012/12/19/all-s-well-with-the-nation-s-nukes-in-theory/

Bottom line really is, 'we have no idea whether the weapons will work." It is time to find out through testing.
 
Russia Boosts Deployment of New ICBMs
Dec. 19, 2012

Russia plans before the close of 2012 to place roughly 100 advanced Topol-M and Yars ICBMs on active duty, the Xinhua News Agency quoted the Russian Defense Ministry as saying on Tuesday. Following fielding of those missiles, "the share of modern weapons in the strategic missile forces will approach 30 percent," according to ministry spokesman Vadim Koval. Topol-Ms have been delivered to two regiments of the Teikovo missile division, while two other regiments have been supplied with multiwarhead Yars missiles. That finishes the project to completely supply the central Russia division with more advanced missiles. Yars missiles are being sent to divisions in the Novosibirsk, Kaluga and Saratov regions. The Saratov division is also to receive Topol-Ms this year, after which "the program of re-equipment of the strategic forces with the Topol-M will be completed," according to Koval. The solid-fuel Topol-M can carry a nuclear warhead more than 6,200 miles, while the top flight distance of the Yars is more than 6,800 miles, Xinhua reported.
 
http://defense.aol.com/2012/12/19/all-s-well-with-the-nation-s-nukes-in-theory/

All's Well With The Nation's Nukes -- In Theory

What kind of shape are our nuclear weapons in? Used to be, you'd have to test them to find out. But the State Department's Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance has some good news: Over the last decade, our ability to predict how our aging nukes will perform--without resorting to explosive testing--has greatly improved.

There's still a problem, though. The last time the U.S. conducted a nuclear explosive test was in 1992. So, while the State Department thinks we can now assess the condition of our nukes better than before, there's really no way of knowing how accurate those assessments really are-since there has been absolutely no explosive testing to confirm the predictions.

That's not the way the scientists wanted to proceed. After the 1992 test, the Directors of the National Nuclear Laboratories requested funding to conduct some yield-producing experiments. The experiments were designed to help them to validate advanced computer codes that had been developed to understand the science of nuclear explosions and then to predict what happens within a nuclear weapon overtime.

Congress never funded these experiments, though. And so, to this day, we don't know how predictive these codes truly are. They're based entirely on theory, which may be more or less correct. To add insult to injury, U.S. nuclear stockpile has never been older. That makes it very difficult to draw on previous experience regarding aging of our nuclear systems, since the nukes have never been this old before.

It's foolish to think the U.S. can safely maintain our nuclear stockpile without ever conducting another yield-producing experiments. Nuclear warheads comprise thousands of finely calibrated parts, and all of them must work with split-second precision for a warhead to perform as designed and expected. Without yield-producing experiments to validate or correct our theoretically predictive capabilities, we can't be sure we understand every critical element of the complex physical processes at work during a nuclear detonation.

During negotiations over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Directors of the National Nuclear Laboratories urged the U.S. to preserve its right to conduct modest (lower than one kiloton) yield-producing experiments. Such limited tests pose minimal risk of damage to either people or the environment. In fact, some of these experiments can be conducted in an apartment-sized facility with only tiny amounts of radioactive material.

Ultimately, the CTBT remained silent on what constitutes an acceptable nuclear weapons test. The Clinton Administration, sadly, interpreted the treaty as prohibiting all yield-producing experiments. Meanwhile, Russia and China--both signatories to the treaty--continue to conducting yield-producing experiments on their own inventories.

More than 30 countries around the world rely on U.S. nuclear weapons for their security. Some, such as Turkey and Japan, are in highly volatile neighborhoods. According to an article in the Journal of Turkish Weekly this March, 54 percent of Turkish survey respondents favor Turkey developing its own nuclear weapons in response to an Iranian nuclear threat. Japan maintains break-out capability and could develop a nuclear weapon within weeks if the perceptions of its security situation and U.S. guarantees changed. This dynamic might give the word "credibility" a whole new meaning in the U.S. nuclear weapons context.

The predictive capability to assess the nuclear stockpile will remain essential in the years to come. But without testing, that capability may not be enough to convince others--both friend and foe--that U.S. nuclear forces are a credible deterrent.
Click to expand...
 
New Russian Ballistic Missile Sub to Enter Water
Dec. 20, 2012

Russia's third Borei-class submarine is set to enter the water later this month, a new milestone in preparing a line of ballistic missile vessels set to form a key component of the nation's future sea-based nuclear deterrent, RIA Novosti reported. “The Vladimir Monomakh will be floated out on Dec. 30 and its construction will continue as planned," Russian navy head Adm. Viktor Chirkov said on Wednesday. Russia is conducting ocean tests for a pair of previously completed Borei-class submarines: the Yuri Dolgoruky and the Alexander Nevsky. Moscow intends before 2021 to possess eight Borei and Borei-A vessels. Each submarine could be loaded with as many as 16 Bulava ballistic missiles that can carry a number of nuclear warheads. The Yuri Dolgoruky was slated to join the nation's active force in 2012, but the move has faced multiple delays. Problems involving computer code for the submarine's self-operating firing management mechanism have held up additional trials of the developmental Bulava. Chirkov on Wednesday said the submarine could enter active service before Dec. 31 "if the final ongoing tests show positive results."

Armed forces officers previously said the development would not take place until next year. The Yasen-class atomic submarine Severodvinsk is expected to join the active fleet next year, Interfax quoted Chirkov as saying on Wednesday. "Large-scale trials of the submarine are presently under way," he said. "As the sub is carrying a large number of new technical systems and weapons, attention is now attached to the active stage of the joint work of the navy and industry on these items."
 
bobbymike said:
Older article but interestng nontheless.
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/09/12/russias-new-icbm-an-arms-race-cloaked-by-a-bears-diplomacy/
Click to expand...

FTFA:

“We should carry out the same powerful, all-embracing leap forward in modernization of the defense industry as the one carried out in the 1930s.”
Click to expand...

Other than the Famines, secret police, gulags, purging of the officer corps and the deaths of millions, it was truly a golden age. I can only hope Russia attempts such self destruction again.

Am I missing something? If Germany mentioned bringing back the 1930s the world would stop in its tracks. Why doesn't that statement make everyone a tad nervous?

Sub-question, What do russian history books say about the 1930's that would inspire nostalgia at their mention? :eek:
 
Super-modern, powerful and almost noiseless Russian nuclear submarine Vladimir Monomakh has been put in water to become the third ship of the Borei project. The cruiser is about to begin sea trials and mooring to become fully operational in 2013. ­Vladimir Monomakh was laid down at Russia’s largest shipbuilding complex Sevmash, located on the shores of the White Sea in the town of Severodvinsk in northern Russia on March 19, 2006 – the 100th anniversary of the Russian submarine fleet. ­

Borei-class submarine
Length: 170 m
Beam: 13.5 m
Draught: 10 m
Test depth: 450 m
Displacement:
14,720 tons surfaced
24,000 tons submerged
Speed: 29 knots (54 km/h)
Complement: 107 (55 officers)
Armament: 16-20 × Bulava SLBMs
6 × 533 mm torpedo tubes
It belongs to a class of missile strategic submarine cruisers with a new generation of nuclear reactor, which allows the submarine to dive to a depth of 480 meters. It can spend up to three months in autonomous navigation and, thanks to the latest achievements in the reduction of noise, it is almost silent compared to previous generations of submarines. The submarine is armed with the new missile system, which has from 16 to 20 solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles Bulava (SS-NX-30 by NATO classification). The rocket is able to overcome any prospective missile defense system. On August 27, 2011, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on a successful test of Bulava to investigate its maximum range. The missile was launched from the White Sea, flew 9,300km in just 33 minutes, and then fell in the specified area in the Pacific Ocean. All Borei class submarines are equipped with a floating rescue chamber designed to fit in the whole crew.

http://rt.com/news/russian-noiseless-borei-submarine-106/
 
Defense Act Targets Future Bomber's Nuclear Gap: H.R. 4310, this year's defense policy act, mandates that the Air Force's future bomber must be capable of carrying nuclear weapons on the date that it commences initial operations. Further, the new bomber must be certified to use those weapons no later than two years after that date, according to the legislation. President Obama signed H.R. 4310 into law on Jan. 2. Section 211 of the act contains the language on the future bomber. Air Force officials have said the service wants to have the new bomber design available for operations starting in the mid 2020s to complement the B-2A and B-52H fleets, and eventually supplant those two platforms. Unlike bombers of the past, the Air Force is designing the new airplane first and foremost for conventional long-range-strike roles. At some later to-be-determined point, the platform would take on the additional role of nuclear deterrence, the officials have said. (H.R. 4310 conference report; caution, extremely large-sized file.)
 
Russia to create two new super missiles, more powerful than Satan Two kinds of new strategic missiles, which Russian experts develop, should become a response to the deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe. It goes about a heavy liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) weighing 100 tons. The new missile will surpass the most powerful missile in the world RS-20B Voyevoda (Satan). The second type is a solid-fuel ICBM, which is said to replace fifth-generation Yars and Topol-M complexes. The news was revealed Friday by the Commander of Strategic Missile Forces of Russia, Colonel General Sergei Karakayev. Since the potential of solid-fueled ICBMs may not be enough to overcome the U.S. missile defense, a heavy liquid ICBM will be able to oppose the system. Such an ICBM would create a strategic precision weapon with non-nuclear equipment of "practically global reach," if the United States does not refuse from its program, ITAR-TASS quoted the commander as saying. Karakayev condemned Washington for its anti-Russian activities in the field of missile defense. He also said that in the future there would be missile defense complexes deployed of the European continent that would be able to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles. "We are told that this is being done against the missile threat from Iran. However, only Russia has such missiles in Europe," said Karakayev. As for the new solid-fuel ICBM, it is the first time when Russia announces its creation. According to General Karakayev, strategic missile forces have already conducted several launches of the prototype of this missile this year. The last launch took place on October 24th. The missiles were launched at Kapustin Yar range ground from a mobile launcher.

The official declined comments about the interim results of this work, having referred to "obvious reasons." He noted that judging by the results of the launches the creators of the new missile were on the right track. Next year, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces plan to conduct 11 launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles, Sergei Karakayev told reporters on the eve of the Day of Missile Forces, which Russia celebrates on December 17th. This year, he said, there were five launches conducted. Three of them were performed in accordance with the programs to test the missile systems that are being developed. One launch was made under combined programs, and another one was conducted to extend the service life of missiles. By the end of December, the official said, the Strategic Missile Forces will have 96 launchers of new missile Topol-M and Yars. Thus, in recent years, the share of state-of-the-art weapons in the Strategic Missile Forces approached 30%, the official concluded. Sergei Karakayev also said that although the warranty period of RS-20 Voyevoda (NATO reporting name Satan) was overestimated 1.5 times, their extension will keep the missile in service until 2022. Earlier, the general named different deadlines for Voyevoda missiles to stay in service, including the years 2018 and 2026. Russia will continue to update the arsenal of its missile forces. In addition, by 2020, the Strategic Missile Forces will fully switch to digital technologies for transmitting information, said the commander.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US to produce NOTHING!
See bolded items:
1) Can a missile of 1/2 the weight of the SS-18 have as large a throw weight with advanced propellants?
2) Is this maybe the Avante Guard missile or a brand new design?
 
bobbymike said:
1) Can a missile of 1/2 the weight of the SS-18 have as large a throw weight with advanced propellants?
Click to expand...

Yes. The SS-18 used relatively mundane storable propellants; throw weight cn be increased substantially with more advanced - but far less storable - liquids. Throw weight can be increased further if you throw in a little dash of the magic that Pravda and RT and the like tend to add to stories about how great Russian weapons are.
 
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
1) Can a missile of 1/2 the weight of the SS-18 have as large a throw weight with advanced propellants?
Click to expand...

Yes. The SS-18 used relatively mundane storable propellants; throw weight cn be increased substantially with more advanced - but far less storable - liquids. Throw weight can be increased further if you throw in a little dash of the magic that Pravda and RT and the like tend to add to stories about how great Russian weapons are.
Click to expand...
But doesn't Pravda mean truth? ::)
 
Hagel has offered little detail on what spending he could target for cuts if he is confirmed to lead the Pentagon, but the former Republican senator backed a 2012 assessment seeking the elimination of four-fifths of the nation's atomic arsenal. The Global Zero analysis suggested the potential reduction could reduce anticipated expenses by $100 billion in one decade.


Representative Michael Turner (R-Ohio) characterized Hage's stance on nuclear arms cuts as "at odds with mainstream thinking and the President's stated choices," Foreign Policy reported. "This includes drastic and possibly unilateral reductions in U.S. nuclear forces, eliminating the ICBM leg of our nuclear deterrent and canceling our other nuclear modernization programs." the House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee chairman said by e-mail. The Obama administration pledged in the U.S.-Russian New START treaty to by 2018 cut the nation's arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery systems. There have been reports of consideration of further reductions, but the White House has not put forward any formal plan.


"Like President Obama, [Chuck Hagel] clearly supports a balanced and energetic U.S. leadership role in reducing the role, number and spread of nuclear weapons, and his record in the Senate shows that his views on the subject are quite mainstream," according to Arms Control Association head Daryl Kimball.
------------------------------------------------------
1) We have already drastically reduced from 13,000 deployed strategic warheads to 1550 under New Start or 88%
2) Getting rid of ICBM's would leave us with about 6 to 8 aimpoint just wainting for a decapitation strike. Also, there are modernization programs to cancel?
3) Mainstream my a**.
 
Sequestration Endangers New Bomber, Air Force Secretary Warns WASHINGTON -- The head of the U.S. Air Force on Friday said his service hopes to keep plans for developing a future strategic bomber on track in the face of looming budget cuts, but he suggested the project's future could be in question if federal sequestration takes effect. The Air Force hopes by the mid-2020s to start receiving the new bombers, which are intended to gradually replace the service's aging B-1 and B-2 aircraft. The Pentagon has indicated it wants to design and build between 80 and 100 of the aircraft designed to carry nuclear bombs. "Long-term, we're committed to the Long-Range Strike Bomber," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters at the Pentagon. "We're going to try to keep programs like that on track, but every program would be affected if sequestration were to hit." A "fiscal cliff" plan signed into law on Jan. 2 delayed by two months a set of mandatory, across-the-board spending cuts previously set to take effect at the start of this year under the 2011 Budget Control Act. The scheduled reductions would slash funding for most Pentagon programs by nearly one-tenth. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday announced his department would develop plans to implement the sequestration curbs and would immediately eliminate nonessential spending to soften their blow if Congress fails to reach a cancellation agreement. The "near-term actions cannot fully mitigate the impacts of sequestration should that occur," Donley warned. "If we do not have resolution by March, sequestration will have immediate and negative impacts on Air Force readiness, specifically flying hours and maintenance."

"As Secretary Panetta has reiterated, the focus now must be on taking the threat off the table and enacting a budget agreement that will stabilize defense planning for the remainder of [fiscal year 2013] and the years ahead," the official added. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said "we can be confident that the defense budgets will shrink, but how far remains to be seen." The fiscal 2013 defense authorization law enacted this month requires the planned aircraft to be ready to accommodate nuclear bombs immediately upon becoming operational, and to be certified to host such armaments within 24 months of the initial milestone. Donley said the Air Force is "in a much stronger place than [it was] a few years ago" in managing its nuclear weapons. The serviceunified its nuclear missile and bomber operations in 2009 under the new Global Strike Command and undertook various other reforms following a series of mishaps that included a mistaken 2006 shipment of nuclear missile fuses to Taiwan and an accidental 2007 flight of six nuclear-armed cruise missiles across several U.S. states.

The service has rolled out "more rigorous inspection processes [and] put in place much more intensive oversight ... to help us get unified management over this capability," Donley said. "We've worked very hard through the Nuclear Weapons Center and Air Force Materiel Command to get very close alignment between operations and sustainment," he added. "So I think we've made considerable progress in our oversight of the nuclear enterprise." Donley said his service is "in the midst of implementing" a bilateral strategic arms control accord with Russia. The New START agreement requires the United States and Russia to by 2018 each cap their arsenals of deployed long-range nuclear weapons at 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery systems. The service is making "preparations for adjusting the size of the bomber force, and also planning for adjustments in the size of the ICBM force," Donley said. "We're doing the advance planning that goes with START implementation,"he added without elaborating.
 
WASHINGTON -- There is cause to suspect that Russia might be deploying some number of sea-launched cruise missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, two decades after the United States put its version of the weapon into storage, issue experts say. The Kremlin might also be developing a next-generation version of that same missile type as part of its broader nuclear forces modernization, according to some observers.

If true, the missiles could present a complication to future U.S.-Russian arms control negotiations -- and a stealthy threat in the unlikely event of a nuclear conflict. “The sky is not falling. I don’t think that they’re on the verge of deploying large numbers of new nuclear-armed cruise missiles,” said arms control specialist Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “But it’s something that’s worth taking seriously and thinking about. And, if one is committed to doing more in the arms control field, this is a question that is going to come up.”----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just love when some other nation increases in nuclear capabilities the US arms control network goes into full "Nothing to see here" mode. But when the US says, hey we are neglecting our nuclear forces, these same people respond, "Oh my God we are going back to a Cold War mindset" Some times I think they are not concerned with nuclear weapons just US ones.
 
bobbymike said:
WASHINGTON -- There is cause to suspect that Russia might be deploying some number of sea-launched cruise missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, two decades after the United States put its version of the weapon into storage, issue experts say. The Kremlin might also be developing a next-generation version of that same missile type as part of its broader nuclear forces modernization, according to some observers.

If true, the missiles could present a complication to future U.S.-Russian arms control negotiations -- and a stealthy threat in the unlikely event of a nuclear conflict. “The sky is not falling. I don’t think that they’re on the verge of deploying large numbers of new nuclear-armed cruise missiles,” said arms control specialist Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “But it’s something that’s worth taking seriously and thinking about. And, if one is committed to doing more in the arms control field, this is a question that is going to come up.”----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just love when some other nation increases in nuclear capabilities the US arms control network goes into full "Nothing to see here" mode. But when the US says, hey we are neglecting our nuclear forces, these same people respond, "Oh my God we are going back to a Cold War mindset" Some times I think they are not concerned with nuclear weapons just US ones.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm quite happy with the direction Russia's strategic decision-making has taken in recent years and where their resources are being directed. Their priorities are baffling and don't make a much sense in terms of their global influence/security, which is probably indicative of Putin's moribund, cold-war ego. Not that I'm complaining.


-PAK-DA? I hope they spend whatever it takes to make a supersonic, strategic stealth bomber happen. I'd be more worried if they were to develop a cheap, new, long-range patrol bomber that was available for export.

-PAK-FA? Better a pissing contest with the F-22 than ISR UCAVs being developed and proliferated. A cheap, lightweight fighter (a Fishbed for the 21st century as it were) would be even more scary.

-SS-18 replacement? I'd rather see them waste money and their New START warhead-quota on a small number of big silo missiles than build a larger force of smaller, mobile ICBMs like the Toplol M.

-Borei class SSBN? I'm rather pleased that this project has been prioritized over more useful attack submarines that could dog our fleets and snoop our coasts.

-Yasin class SSN? On the matter of attack submarines, I'm also glad that the design they've chosen is in the Seawolf's class in terms of capability AND cost. I'd be much more concerned if they were to develop a 21st century Victor that could be built in large numbers.
 
2IDSGT said:
bobbymike said:
WASHINGTON -- There is cause to suspect that Russia might be deploying some number of sea-launched cruise missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, two decades after the United States put its version of the weapon into storage, issue experts say. The Kremlin might also be developing a next-generation version of that same missile type as part of its broader nuclear forces modernization, according to some observers.

If true, the missiles could present a complication to future U.S.-Russian arms control negotiations -- and a stealthy threat in the unlikely event of a nuclear conflict. “The sky is not falling. I don’t think that they’re on the verge of deploying large numbers of new nuclear-armed cruise missiles,” said arms control specialist Jeffrey Lewis of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “But it’s something that’s worth taking seriously and thinking about. And, if one is committed to doing more in the arms control field, this is a question that is going to come up.”----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just love when some other nation increases in nuclear capabilities the US arms control network goes into full "Nothing to see here" mode. But when the US says, hey we are neglecting our nuclear forces, these same people respond, "Oh my God we are going back to a Cold War mindset" Some times I think they are not concerned with nuclear weapons just US ones.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm quite happy with the direction Russia's strategic decision-making has taken in recent years and where their resources are being directed. Their priorities are baffling and don't make a much sense in terms of their global influence/security, which is probably indicative of Putin's moribund, cold-war ego. Not that I'm complaining.


-PAK-DA? I hope they spend whatever it takes to make a supersonic, strategic stealth bomber happen. I'd be more worried if they were to develop a cheap, new, long-range patrol bomber that was available for export.

-PAK-FA? Better a pissing contest with the F-22 than ISR UCAVs being developed and proliferated. A cheap, lightweight fighter (a Fishbed for the 21st century as it were) would be even more scary.

-SS-18 replacement? I'd rather see them waste money and their New START warhead-quota on a small number of big silo missiles than build a larger force of smaller, mobile ICBMs like the Toplol M.

-Borei class SSBN? I'm rather pleased that this project has been prioritized over more useful attack submarines that could dog our fleets and snoop our coasts.

-Yasin class SSN? On the matter of attack submarines, I'm also glad that the design they've chosen is in the Seawolf's class in terms of capability AND cost. I'd be much more concerned if they were to develop a 21st century Victor that could be built in large numbers.
Click to expand...
So maybe Jeffrey Lewis is a closet Cold Warrior who wants the Russians to pursue weapon systems that will ineveitably bankrupt them? :eek:
 
bobbymike said:
2IDSGT said:
Actually, I'm quite happy with the direction Russia's strategic decision-making has taken in recent years and where their resources are being directed. Their priorities are baffling and don't make a much sense in terms of their global influence/security, which is probably indicative of Putin's moribund, cold-war ego. Not that I'm complaining.


-PAK-DA? I hope they spend whatever it takes to make a supersonic, strategic stealth bomber happen. I'd be more worried if they were to develop a cheap, new, long-range patrol bomber that was available for export.

-PAK-FA? Better a pissing contest with the F-22 than ISR UCAVs being developed and proliferated. A cheap, lightweight fighter (a Fishbed for the 21st century as it were) would be even more scary.

-SS-18 replacement? I'd rather see them waste money and their New START warhead-quota on a small number of big silo missiles than build a larger force of smaller, mobile ICBMs like the Toplol M.

-Borei class SSBN? I'm rather pleased that this project has been prioritized over more useful attack submarines that could dog our fleets and snoop our coasts.

-Yasin class SSN? On the matter of attack submarines, I'm also glad that the design they've chosen is in the Seawolf's class in terms of capability AND cost. I'd be much more concerned if they were to develop a 21st century Victor that could be built in large numbers.
Click to expand...
So maybe Jeffrey Lewis is a closet Cold Warrior who wants the Russians to pursue weapon systems that will ineveitably bankrupt them? :eek:
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about Mr. Lewis or how close the Russians might be to bankruptcy. What I do know is that a great deal of their policy (like their dogged support for Assad) doesn't make common sense; and their current priorities in weapons development will basically leave them with the same two options they have now when it comes to global power-politics: threaten nuclear war or do almost nothing. If Putin wants to play keeping-up-with-the-Joneses and support his dictator buddies out of personal pride, I'm ok with that. All I'm saying is that if I were trying to enhance Russia's security and place in the world, I'd do things somewhat differently.
 
2IDSGT said:
bobbymike said:
2IDSGT said:
Actually, I'm quite happy with the direction Russia's strategic decision-making has taken in recent years and where their resources are being directed. Their priorities are baffling and don't make a much sense in terms of their global influence/security, which is probably indicative of Putin's moribund, cold-war ego. Not that I'm complaining.


-PAK-DA? I hope they spend whatever it takes to make a supersonic, strategic stealth bomber happen. I'd be more worried if they were to develop a cheap, new, long-range patrol bomber that was available for export.

-PAK-FA? Better a pissing contest with the F-22 than ISR UCAVs being developed and proliferated. A cheap, lightweight fighter (a Fishbed for the 21st century as it were) would be even more scary.

-SS-18 replacement? I'd rather see them waste money and their New START warhead-quota on a small number of big silo missiles than build a larger force of smaller, mobile ICBMs like the Toplol M.

-Borei class SSBN? I'm rather pleased that this project has been prioritized over more useful attack submarines that could dog our fleets and snoop our coasts.

-Yasin class SSN? On the matter of attack submarines, I'm also glad that the design they've chosen is in the Seawolf's class in terms of capability AND cost. I'd be much more concerned if they were to develop a 21st century Victor that could be built in large numbers.
Click to expand...
So maybe Jeffrey Lewis is a closet Cold Warrior who wants the Russians to pursue weapon systems that will ineveitably bankrupt them? :eek:
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about Mr. Lewis or how close the Russians might be to bankruptcy. What I do know is that a great deal of their policy (like their dogged support for Assad) doesn't make common sense; and their current priorities in weapons development will basically leave them with the same two options they have now when it comes to global power-politics: threaten nuclear war or do almost nothing. If Putin wants to play keeping-up-with-the-Joneses and support his dictator buddies out of personal pride, I'm ok with that. All I'm saying is that if I were trying to enhance Russia's security and place in the world, I'd do things somewhat differently.
Click to expand...

Russia/Soviet Union had no where near the non-nuclear power projection forces that the US did, yes of course they could project incredible power with their land forces if they wanted but globally they always relied on nukes. Now is no different also it is much much cheaper to renew their nukes forces than build a truly global conventional force. I believe if that is what you were referring to it would be more expensive to have a conventional global power projection capability than new nukes.
 
Input Sought on Future ICBM Concepts: The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center is asking industry for ideas on future concepts for the ground-based leg of the nation's nuclear triad. Center officials requested white papers by the end of February that describe a Ground Based Strategic Deterrent with an operational service life from 2025 to 2075, according to a notice posted last week at the Federal Business Opportunities website and revised on Jan. 15. AFNWC is supporting the Air Force's efforts to examine potential material solutions to modernize or replace the Minuteman III ICBM fleet. To that end, the center seeks input on four types of concepts: continued use of the MM III with incremental changes to close identified capability gaps; a new fixed-site system; new mobile system; and new tunnel-based system. "Each white paper should provide adequate technical, schedule, and cost information to allow feasibility analysis of the concept," states the notice. Service officials intend to take the concepts judged to be "adequate"—including potential continued use of the MM III until 2075 with no attempt to close capability gaps—into the GBSD analysis of alternatives study, states the notice. The AOA will help identify the best option.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I truly believe we need to have a larger throw weight missile than MMIII in order to have a potential PGS variant and carry heavier ultra-accurate AMaRVs or to uploand more MIRVS if China or Russia try and 'breakout' in the number of deployed strategic warheads. Also you could download a larger missile giving in truly global range with the ability to not overfly other nuclear states like Russia and China but still strike Iran for example. In the Future ICBM/SLBM thread a range of 26,000km was proposed for this purpose.
 
Streamlining the Nuclear Stockpile: The Air Force and Navy are proceeding with a long-term strategy dubbed "three plus two" to streamline the care and sustainment of the nation's nuclear warhead stockpile, Billy Mullins, associate director of strategic deterrence and nuclear integration on the Air Staff, told the Daily Report on Wednesday. Currently, the stockpile features some 12 variants of warheads—including five alone for the B61 nuclear bomb—said Mullins in a Jan. 16 interview. Under the new strategy, the two services will bring this number down to five: three warheads shared between Air Force and Navy ballistic missile systems (with requirements coordinated between the services), and two warhead types for nuclear-capable bombers and dual-capable fighters, he said. "These variants, long term, will take us well into the 21st century," said Mullins. The joint Defense Department-Energy Department Nuclear Weapons Council signed off on the strategy in December, noted Mullins. The strategy has been briefed to Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter and is now going through the budgeting process with all stakeholders involved, he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still need long term research, development, production and testing of future designs must stay on the cutting edge of all things nuclear IMHO.
 
Ideally I'd want a megaton range warhead (W83), a couple hundred kt (W61), a 10kt variable yield, and a 25+ Mt for the "you never know" situation. Maybe 5-10 of the latter. Make them all so they could be used in either a bomb or missile.
 
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
Ideally I'd want ...
Click to expand...

There should also be a 25 to 500 *ton* warhead, preferably of the Winterberg fission-free type. For launching Orions. And for the occasional "gentle tap."
Click to expand...

Back in the late 80's they were looking into micro nukes in the 10 - 50 ton range for torpedos. The Oscars and Typhoons are big mothers with double hulls and they wanted to make sure they were dead. Don't know if it was anything more than a paper exercise or if they drew upon the work done for Orion for ideas.
 
sferrin said:
Back in the late 80's they were looking into micro nukes in the 10 - 50 ton range for torpedos. The Oscars and Typhoons are big mothers with double hulls and they wanted to make sure they were dead. Don't know if it was anything more than a paper exercise or if they drew upon the work done for Orion for ideas.
Click to expand...

When you get down to 10 tons, you're in the area where it's even odds that the bomb won't function at all; conventioanal nukes just don't like to be that weak. Essentially you have to make a good bomb *badly* to get yields that low, and performance goes all over the place. However, Ted Taylor made claims that he had good designs for very small, very efficient bombs of that class. He claimed that he never pushed to develop those bombs because the proliferation/terrorism risk was too high, suggesting that these bombs would have been easy to make (i.e. minimal fissionables).

While nobody in the declassified world seems to have seen any proof of that, I wouldn't argue against him.
 
sferrin said:
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
Ideally I'd want ...
Click to expand...

There should also be a 25 to 500 *ton* warhead, preferably of the Winterberg fission-free type. For launching Orions. And for the occasional "gentle tap."
Click to expand...

Back in the late 80's they were looking into micro nukes in the 10 - 50 ton range for torpedos. The Oscars and Typhoons are big mothers with double hulls and they wanted to make sure they were dead. Don't know if it was anything more than a paper exercise or if they drew upon the work done for Orion for ideas.
Click to expand...


At the point where you are using nukes against enemy ballistic missile subs, I see no more point to going through the trouble of using micro nukes. You might as well make doubly sure of not missing by using kiloton warheads.
 
Cruise Missile Warhead Pick Coming: Air Force nuclear deterrence planners are building the requirements for the service's future air-launched nuclear cruise missile and will likely choose which warhead will go on the weapon this spring, said Billy Mullins, associate director of strategic deterrence and nuclear integration on the Air Staff. In a Jan. 16 interview, Mullins said there are three warhead candidates for the Long Range Standoff vehicle, or LRSO: the W80 warhead currently used on the AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile that LRSO is meant to replace; the B61 nuclear bomb warhead; and the W84, the design formerly integrated on the now-retired BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile. LRSO is part of the Air Force's notional future "long-range strike family of systems" that will be centered on a new nuclear-capable bomber, dubbed LRS-B. "We don't see any reason why we won't need an air delivery system" as part of the LRS family, said Mullins. Regardless of the warhead chosen, the future bomber will carry LRSO, as will the B-52 fleet, and the service's B-2s, he said. In the case of the latter, LRSO will give the stealth bombers a nuclear standoff capability to carry out missions in heavy air defense environments, he noted. (See also Streamlining the Nuclear Stockpile for more from Mullins' interview.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new cruise missile and the potential nuclear warhead to go with it seems to be flying under the radar (Oh no he didn't ;D just write that) but I will keep a close eye on this. Anytime the Labs get to work on old weapons they may need to incorporate new tech, maybe (hopefully) and get to exercise needed intellectual skills.
 
The U.S. Navy is betting the future of its submarine force on a secret and revolutionary nuclear drive system that aspires to be more efficient and quieter than anything under the water today.
The heart of the planned ballistic missile Ohio Replacement (OR) program will be built around a drive that will not need to be refueled for the 50-year life of the boats and cuts out potentially noisy direct mechanical connection to the drive train. In other words, the Navy’s next-gen subs could be almost silent, and keep running for a half-century straight.
The Navy’s ballistic missile fleet, or boomers, rely on stealth to hide from rival boats, ships and sub-hunting aircraft. The quieter the boat, the harder it is to find. (And these boats are big: the current Ohio boomer is more than a football field and half long displacing 19,000 tons.)
Now the Navy is developing an innovation that attempts to give OR boomers the quietest nuclear engine yet by “going to [an] electric drive,” Sean Stackley, the Navy’s chief weapons buyer, said in a January interview with the U.S. Naval Institute.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It reminds me of the heady days of Spunik and Yuri Gararin when the world trembled at the sound of our rockets....they will tremble again at the sound of our silence......Sorry that's Sean Connery in the 'Hunt for Red October'

Rest of the story from 'Wired' http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/secret-sub-design/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Wired%3A+Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom