- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/10/inside-the-ring-china-adds-warhead-to-older-df-5s/
Current Nuclear Weapons Development
- Thread starter bobbymike
- Start date
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/12156598/Arab-states-are-seeking-nuclear-weapons-to-counter-Iran-Israel-warns.html
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_KOREAS_TENSION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-14-21-55-12
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_KOREAS_TENSION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-14-21-55-12
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0002752182
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
Top Secret U.S. Nuke War Plans Thwarted
They’re the ultimate weapons of war. And they’re being directed by Cold War-era guidance systems—throwing off the Pentagon’s top-secret doomsday plans. It was Sept. 19, 2005, and the last MX Peacekeeper ballistic missile was being hoisted out of its underground vault in southeast Wyoming. Two hundred forty-two days into President George W. Bush's second term, one of the most formidable nuclear weapons in the nation's history was trucked off into retirement, following nearly two decades on 24/7 alert. At the time, a smattering of news headlines noted the quiet milestone.
But what few people realized then -- or even in the decade since -- is that the Peacekeeper's exit from the arsenal also marked the disappearance of what the White House regards as an essential facet of U.S. nuclear deterrence: A constant ability to hold virtually all key Russian political and military targets at risk. Should that worst-case scenario play out, Washington also wants to retain enough residual weapons to deter any opportunistic attack by Beijing. Even before the 10-warhead mega-missile retired, plans were hatched for the Air Force to retrofit MX-like accuracy into remaining land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, called ICBMs.
But that never happened. Somewhat amazingly, nearly nobody's noticed. After a series of fits and starts -- marked by bureaucratic infighting and budgetary machinations -- the Air Force has left its arsenal of roughly 450 Minuteman 3 missiles with a 1960s-era mechanical guidance system. As the name implies, the guidance system is a component that directs a ballistic missile towards its target. Minuteman 3's old missile-guidance technology is accurate enough for striking some potential enemy targets. But hundreds of the missiles would have little chance of damaging their assigned targets -- Russia's most valuable war-making assets -- as top-secret U.S. nuclear war plans demand, according to government documents and sources privy to closed-door meetings about military requirements.
Many of these aim points are considered "very-hard targets" -- like VIP shelters, command-and-control facilities, hardened missile silos and military storage bunkers -- buried deep beneath the earth's surface in reinforced-concrete shelters. The difficult-to-destroy Russian facilities would be among the White House's highest priority targets, and the first to be hit, in virtually any nuclear conflict, according to defense insiders. The objective: To swiftly handicap the Kremlin's ability to inflict any further damage on the United States or its allies. That's why U.S. military commanders have assigned the bulk of these targets to ICBMs. The land-based missiles can be launched within minutes of receiving a presidential order, unlike bomber aircraft (which went off alert in 1991) or submarine-based weapons (which may take hours or days to be ready for launch).
"We must demonstrate to potential foes, that if they start a war, we have the capability to win," Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in a Feb. 2 speech in Washington. "Because a force that can deter conflict must show that it can dominate a conflict." To many Americans, it might seem counterintuitive that even a single nuclear explosion would be anything short of catastrophic, no matter its accuracy. In fact, when a ballistic missile is lobbed against "soft" targets like buildings or people, its devastating nuclear payload would more than compensate for whatever it may lack in precision. But the vexing accuracy gap isn't about targeting innocent civilians or ending the world as we know it. If deterring war requires a capacity to limit the damage a nuclear-armed enemy could wreak, both a nuclear blast and pinpoint accuracy are believed required to disable or destroy the hardest targets, according to defense sources.
Air Force briefing slides reviewed by The Daily Beast characterize the Minuteman 3 as being 50 percent less accurate than MX was. That could mean the difference between disabling a very hard target and leaving it untouched. "We are no longer able to cover the targets that Peacekeeper covered, ever since Peacekeeper went away," said one former ICBM operations commander at the squadron and wing levels. "The math is really simple."
This source and others interviewed for this article asked to remain anonymous. Several said they were concerned the delicate matter would get resolved only after being publicly aired. Ironically, Carter and the nation's commander in chief, President Obama, may be unaware that the U.S. arsenal cannot actually accomplish what's enshrined in the nuclear-contingency blueprints they've approved, according to defense sources. The promise of greater accuracy for the land-based missiles reportedly helped lay the groundwork for reductions in the 2011 New START agreement between Washington and Moscow, and many have assumed the precision now exists.
It's conceivable, strangely enough, that the Kremlin has already taken stock of the U.S. targeting deficiency. Considerable data about the capabilities of U.S. Air Force and Navy ballistic missiles can be found in open sources and online. It turns out, though, that at least one very important American has noticed the lapse. Adm. Cecil Haney -- a four-star Navy officer who heads U.S. Strategic Command, based in Omaha, Neb. -- says Air Force ICBMs must do a better job at preventing big nuclear rivals from threatening the United States and its allies, according to defense sources and government documents. He and his Pentagon desk-warrior allies appear to be trying to get the matter resolved internally, without resorting to White House intervention.
Solid-state guidance technologies, commercially available today, could lend ICBMs the accuracy Haney insists he needs. Advocates also bill these advanced electronics -- routinely installed in commercial aircraft and conventional missile systems -- as less than a third of the cost of their mechanic predecessors, safer to operate and easier to maintain. Some investment would be needed to "militarize" solid-state parts to withstand a ballistic missile's hypersonic flight and nuclear-blast radiation, but much of this development work has already been done.
The so-called Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, or "GBSD," missile is to begin replacing Minuteman 3s by 2030. Yet, the next 14 years still may not be enough time to make ballistic missiles accurate enough to meet Haney's expectations for hard-target damage, some Air Force officials contend. They themselves have delayed development and testing of solid-state guidance systems for ICBMs for so long that GBSD may go forward without it. Unless they hustle, land-based missiles will remain unable to disable or destroy their toughest assigned targets in a single salvo, according to military insiders and official briefings reviewed by The Daily Beast. Top-secret U.S. war plans call for launching just one warhead per target as a means of minimizing casualties and unintended consequences, defense sources said.
To get a sense of the scale, if just one Minuteman 3 warhead were to detonate in downtown Washington, more than 360,000 people would die and another 620,000 would be injured, according to nuclear weapons expert Alex Wellerstein. Additional untold numbers would be gravely sickened by radiation. Citing the potential for such a humanitarian disaster, James Miller, a former Defense policy chief, recently told the New York Times he supports more precision in nuclear arms. "Minimizing civilian casualties if deterrence fails is both a more credible and a more ethical approach," he said. Peacekeeper left the U.S. arsenal shortly after the Cold War ended and as nuclear tensions with Moscow seemed to be easing. Critics note that 10 years have passed without discernable damage to global nuclear stability, despite the U.S. ground-based arsenal's dip in accuracy. Some worry that for the United States to initiate a new effort today to boost ICBM precision could escalate tensions with Vladimir Putin.
Haney and his Strategic Command would not address specific questions about the future missile's capabilities. But asked about plans for GBSD at an Omaha press conference in August 2014, the four-star flag officer did say he expects the Air Force "to make sure that we have the requirements we need now and into the future." That may be easier said than done. Air Force ICBM program officials have said they want to stick with a guidance system more like Minuteman 3's. They could save money by meeting a lower damage probability than Haney wants, these officials argue.
But the ICBM program headquarters at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, also stands to lose jobs and clout if the advanced accuracy technology is adopted. Repair personnel based at Hill keep busy maintaining the old Minuteman 3 mechanical guidance units, which break down once every three years on average. By contrast, solid state uses fewer moving parts and can run for 20 years between breakdowns, according to Air Force Research Laboratory data.
"I'd imagine the program office guys want to do as little as they can" to advance solid state, said a former senior official with knowledge of nuclear issues. "[But] I think [using] the same guidance system will be a mistake." And then there's Boeing. The defense industrial powerhouse won a $466 million contract last June to continue its run as the Minuteman 3's single contractor for missile-guidance repair through 2021. Boeing performs the repairs at its Heath maintenance facility in central Ohio, but much of that work also would evaporate if the Air Force were to embrace solid state.
So the matter is shaping up as a debate over national security versus job stability. Haney is said to be privately fuming. Behind the scenes, he and his Strategic Command have demanded the Air Force settle for nothing less than meeting his secret war-plan needs, according to defense sources. He recently persuaded the defense secretary's staff to infuse roughly $65 million into the Air Force budget for developing the GBSD guidance system over the next five years, according to those familiar with as-yet unreleased spending details. That's a nearly fivefold increase over the service's earlier spending plans.
The admiral also has gotten the Air Force to include in a draft GBSD acquisition strategy a need for "accuracy exceeding that of the Peacekeeper system," according to sources familiar with the sensitive document. The new missile's guidance system additionally must be capable of operating "at least" 17 years without failures, with "improved maintainability" and "reduced system lifecycle cost." That wording would seem to set a high bar that only solid-state technologies could meet. But the Air Force has yet to finalize the document. The service denied repeated requests for interviews about the matter. Bruce Schmidt, a deputy director for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration at the Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, said in an email that it is "premature to comment" on whether the new missile would use solid state or some other technology for its guidance system. Maj. Melissa Milner, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the service wouldn't narrow down various technology options until after 2017. A final selection would be made in 2020 or later. She would not comment on the delays or their ramifications.
They’re the ultimate weapons of war. And they’re being directed by Cold War-era guidance systems—throwing off the Pentagon’s top-secret doomsday plans. It was Sept. 19, 2005, and the last MX Peacekeeper ballistic missile was being hoisted out of its underground vault in southeast Wyoming. Two hundred forty-two days into President George W. Bush's second term, one of the most formidable nuclear weapons in the nation's history was trucked off into retirement, following nearly two decades on 24/7 alert. At the time, a smattering of news headlines noted the quiet milestone.
But what few people realized then -- or even in the decade since -- is that the Peacekeeper's exit from the arsenal also marked the disappearance of what the White House regards as an essential facet of U.S. nuclear deterrence: A constant ability to hold virtually all key Russian political and military targets at risk. Should that worst-case scenario play out, Washington also wants to retain enough residual weapons to deter any opportunistic attack by Beijing. Even before the 10-warhead mega-missile retired, plans were hatched for the Air Force to retrofit MX-like accuracy into remaining land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, called ICBMs.
But that never happened. Somewhat amazingly, nearly nobody's noticed. After a series of fits and starts -- marked by bureaucratic infighting and budgetary machinations -- the Air Force has left its arsenal of roughly 450 Minuteman 3 missiles with a 1960s-era mechanical guidance system. As the name implies, the guidance system is a component that directs a ballistic missile towards its target. Minuteman 3's old missile-guidance technology is accurate enough for striking some potential enemy targets. But hundreds of the missiles would have little chance of damaging their assigned targets -- Russia's most valuable war-making assets -- as top-secret U.S. nuclear war plans demand, according to government documents and sources privy to closed-door meetings about military requirements.
Many of these aim points are considered "very-hard targets" -- like VIP shelters, command-and-control facilities, hardened missile silos and military storage bunkers -- buried deep beneath the earth's surface in reinforced-concrete shelters. The difficult-to-destroy Russian facilities would be among the White House's highest priority targets, and the first to be hit, in virtually any nuclear conflict, according to defense insiders. The objective: To swiftly handicap the Kremlin's ability to inflict any further damage on the United States or its allies. That's why U.S. military commanders have assigned the bulk of these targets to ICBMs. The land-based missiles can be launched within minutes of receiving a presidential order, unlike bomber aircraft (which went off alert in 1991) or submarine-based weapons (which may take hours or days to be ready for launch).
"We must demonstrate to potential foes, that if they start a war, we have the capability to win," Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in a Feb. 2 speech in Washington. "Because a force that can deter conflict must show that it can dominate a conflict." To many Americans, it might seem counterintuitive that even a single nuclear explosion would be anything short of catastrophic, no matter its accuracy. In fact, when a ballistic missile is lobbed against "soft" targets like buildings or people, its devastating nuclear payload would more than compensate for whatever it may lack in precision. But the vexing accuracy gap isn't about targeting innocent civilians or ending the world as we know it. If deterring war requires a capacity to limit the damage a nuclear-armed enemy could wreak, both a nuclear blast and pinpoint accuracy are believed required to disable or destroy the hardest targets, according to defense sources.
Air Force briefing slides reviewed by The Daily Beast characterize the Minuteman 3 as being 50 percent less accurate than MX was. That could mean the difference between disabling a very hard target and leaving it untouched. "We are no longer able to cover the targets that Peacekeeper covered, ever since Peacekeeper went away," said one former ICBM operations commander at the squadron and wing levels. "The math is really simple."
This source and others interviewed for this article asked to remain anonymous. Several said they were concerned the delicate matter would get resolved only after being publicly aired. Ironically, Carter and the nation's commander in chief, President Obama, may be unaware that the U.S. arsenal cannot actually accomplish what's enshrined in the nuclear-contingency blueprints they've approved, according to defense sources. The promise of greater accuracy for the land-based missiles reportedly helped lay the groundwork for reductions in the 2011 New START agreement between Washington and Moscow, and many have assumed the precision now exists.
It's conceivable, strangely enough, that the Kremlin has already taken stock of the U.S. targeting deficiency. Considerable data about the capabilities of U.S. Air Force and Navy ballistic missiles can be found in open sources and online. It turns out, though, that at least one very important American has noticed the lapse. Adm. Cecil Haney -- a four-star Navy officer who heads U.S. Strategic Command, based in Omaha, Neb. -- says Air Force ICBMs must do a better job at preventing big nuclear rivals from threatening the United States and its allies, according to defense sources and government documents. He and his Pentagon desk-warrior allies appear to be trying to get the matter resolved internally, without resorting to White House intervention.
Solid-state guidance technologies, commercially available today, could lend ICBMs the accuracy Haney insists he needs. Advocates also bill these advanced electronics -- routinely installed in commercial aircraft and conventional missile systems -- as less than a third of the cost of their mechanic predecessors, safer to operate and easier to maintain. Some investment would be needed to "militarize" solid-state parts to withstand a ballistic missile's hypersonic flight and nuclear-blast radiation, but much of this development work has already been done.
The so-called Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, or "GBSD," missile is to begin replacing Minuteman 3s by 2030. Yet, the next 14 years still may not be enough time to make ballistic missiles accurate enough to meet Haney's expectations for hard-target damage, some Air Force officials contend. They themselves have delayed development and testing of solid-state guidance systems for ICBMs for so long that GBSD may go forward without it. Unless they hustle, land-based missiles will remain unable to disable or destroy their toughest assigned targets in a single salvo, according to military insiders and official briefings reviewed by The Daily Beast. Top-secret U.S. war plans call for launching just one warhead per target as a means of minimizing casualties and unintended consequences, defense sources said.
To get a sense of the scale, if just one Minuteman 3 warhead were to detonate in downtown Washington, more than 360,000 people would die and another 620,000 would be injured, according to nuclear weapons expert Alex Wellerstein. Additional untold numbers would be gravely sickened by radiation. Citing the potential for such a humanitarian disaster, James Miller, a former Defense policy chief, recently told the New York Times he supports more precision in nuclear arms. "Minimizing civilian casualties if deterrence fails is both a more credible and a more ethical approach," he said. Peacekeeper left the U.S. arsenal shortly after the Cold War ended and as nuclear tensions with Moscow seemed to be easing. Critics note that 10 years have passed without discernable damage to global nuclear stability, despite the U.S. ground-based arsenal's dip in accuracy. Some worry that for the United States to initiate a new effort today to boost ICBM precision could escalate tensions with Vladimir Putin.
Haney and his Strategic Command would not address specific questions about the future missile's capabilities. But asked about plans for GBSD at an Omaha press conference in August 2014, the four-star flag officer did say he expects the Air Force "to make sure that we have the requirements we need now and into the future." That may be easier said than done. Air Force ICBM program officials have said they want to stick with a guidance system more like Minuteman 3's. They could save money by meeting a lower damage probability than Haney wants, these officials argue.
But the ICBM program headquarters at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, also stands to lose jobs and clout if the advanced accuracy technology is adopted. Repair personnel based at Hill keep busy maintaining the old Minuteman 3 mechanical guidance units, which break down once every three years on average. By contrast, solid state uses fewer moving parts and can run for 20 years between breakdowns, according to Air Force Research Laboratory data.
"I'd imagine the program office guys want to do as little as they can" to advance solid state, said a former senior official with knowledge of nuclear issues. "[But] I think [using] the same guidance system will be a mistake." And then there's Boeing. The defense industrial powerhouse won a $466 million contract last June to continue its run as the Minuteman 3's single contractor for missile-guidance repair through 2021. Boeing performs the repairs at its Heath maintenance facility in central Ohio, but much of that work also would evaporate if the Air Force were to embrace solid state.
So the matter is shaping up as a debate over national security versus job stability. Haney is said to be privately fuming. Behind the scenes, he and his Strategic Command have demanded the Air Force settle for nothing less than meeting his secret war-plan needs, according to defense sources. He recently persuaded the defense secretary's staff to infuse roughly $65 million into the Air Force budget for developing the GBSD guidance system over the next five years, according to those familiar with as-yet unreleased spending details. That's a nearly fivefold increase over the service's earlier spending plans.
The admiral also has gotten the Air Force to include in a draft GBSD acquisition strategy a need for "accuracy exceeding that of the Peacekeeper system," according to sources familiar with the sensitive document. The new missile's guidance system additionally must be capable of operating "at least" 17 years without failures, with "improved maintainability" and "reduced system lifecycle cost." That wording would seem to set a high bar that only solid-state technologies could meet. But the Air Force has yet to finalize the document. The service denied repeated requests for interviews about the matter. Bruce Schmidt, a deputy director for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration at the Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, said in an email that it is "premature to comment" on whether the new missile would use solid state or some other technology for its guidance system. Maj. Melissa Milner, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the service wouldn't narrow down various technology options until after 2017. A final selection would be made in 2020 or later. She would not comment on the delays or their ramifications.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pending-iranian-space-launch-contrary-to-u-n-nuclear-resolution/
seruriermarshal
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 536
MINOT TESTS MINUTEMAN III MISSILE WITH LAUNCH FROM VANDENBERG
Published February 21, 2016
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. --
A team of Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen from the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, and the 625th Strategic Operations Squadron at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, aboard the Airborne Launch Control System, launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with a test reentry vehicle at 11:34 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Feb. 20, from Vandenberg AFB, California.
The ICBM's reentry vehicle, which contained a telemetry package used for operational testing, traveled approximately 4,200 miles to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the ICBM weapon system, providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. All MMIII test launches are supported by a team from the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB.
"The flight test program demonstrates one part of the operational capability if the ICBM weapon system,” said Col. Craig Ramsey, 576th FLTS commander. “When coupled with the other facets of our test program, we get a complete picture of the weapon system's reliability. But perhaps most importantly, this visible message of national security serves to assure our partners and dissuade potential aggressors."
Minot AFB is one of three missile bases with crew members standing alert 24 hours a day, year-round, overseeing the nation’s ICBM alert forces.
"It has been an amazing experience for the operations and maintenance members of Team Minot to partner with the professionals from the 576th FLTS, 30th SW and 625th STOS,” said Maj. Keith Schneider, 91st MW Task Force Director of Operations. “Everyone involved has worked hard and dedicated themselves to the mission.”
The ICBM community, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and U.S. Strategic Command uses data collected from test launches for continuing force development evaluation. The ICBM test launch program demonstrates the operational credibility of the Minuteman III and ensures the United States’ ability to maintain a strong, credible nuclear deterrent as a key element of U.S. national security and the security of U.S. allies and partners.
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/2612/Article/670080/minot-tests-minuteman-iii-missile-with-launch-from-vandenberg.aspx
Published February 21, 2016
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. --
A team of Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen from the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, and the 625th Strategic Operations Squadron at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, aboard the Airborne Launch Control System, launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with a test reentry vehicle at 11:34 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Feb. 20, from Vandenberg AFB, California.
The ICBM's reentry vehicle, which contained a telemetry package used for operational testing, traveled approximately 4,200 miles to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the ICBM weapon system, providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. All MMIII test launches are supported by a team from the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB.
"The flight test program demonstrates one part of the operational capability if the ICBM weapon system,” said Col. Craig Ramsey, 576th FLTS commander. “When coupled with the other facets of our test program, we get a complete picture of the weapon system's reliability. But perhaps most importantly, this visible message of national security serves to assure our partners and dissuade potential aggressors."
Minot AFB is one of three missile bases with crew members standing alert 24 hours a day, year-round, overseeing the nation’s ICBM alert forces.
"It has been an amazing experience for the operations and maintenance members of Team Minot to partner with the professionals from the 576th FLTS, 30th SW and 625th STOS,” said Maj. Keith Schneider, 91st MW Task Force Director of Operations. “Everyone involved has worked hard and dedicated themselves to the mission.”
The ICBM community, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and U.S. Strategic Command uses data collected from test launches for continuing force development evaluation. The ICBM test launch program demonstrates the operational credibility of the Minuteman III and ensures the United States’ ability to maintain a strong, credible nuclear deterrent as a key element of U.S. national security and the security of U.S. allies and partners.
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/2612/Article/670080/minot-tests-minuteman-iii-missile-with-launch-from-vandenberg.aspx
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
Air Force to start Long-Range Standoff Weapon production by 2026
February 23, 2016
The chief of Air Force Global Strike Command reaffirmed the service's commitment to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon after announcing plans to begin production of the Air-Launched Cruise Missile replacement in 2026 and reach initial operational capability by 2030.
Gen. Robin Rand announced the weapon's time line during a Feb. 9 Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing. The IOC and production dates had not been previously available publicly, including in fiscal year 2017 budget justification documents.
The Air Force maintains it is on track for the IOC date, despite a shift in the program's acquisition time line and a funding decrease in the service's proposed FY-17 budget. In that proposal, the Air Force delayed the program's milestone A review from the first quarter of FY-16 to the second quarter, arguing the move would allow the service "a realistic manpower and facilities ramp-up," Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Melissa Milner wrote in a Feb. 12 email to Inside the Air Force. The service also pushed the technology, maturation and risk-reduction phase from the first quarter of FY-16 into the third quarter of FY-17, according to budget documents.
The program's budget also took a hit due to a delay in executing the TMRR phase. Congress removed $20.5 million in FY-16 tied to supporting events in that phase and removed $38.1 million for the specific TMRR contract, budget documents state.
Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, told reporters during a Feb. 12 roundtable that the LRSO was funded to the service's estimated cost, which changes from year to year.
"The acquisition decision cycle does not always line up with the budget decision cycle," he said. "So new service cost positions are driven to meet an acquisition [Defense Acquisition Board] that are inconvenient in a budget environment where you already got a budget built and now it goes up or down and you have to make changes."
Despite the decrease, the Air Force says its IOC date has not changed. The service also solidified its commitment to the program in its proposed budget with a major funding request beginning in FY-18. The Air Force expects to ask for $419 million in FY-18 and $649 million in FY-19, according to budget documents.
"In this increasingly contested environment that we will be operating in, we need LRSO," Rand said. "The Air Force is committed to this. It is in our 2017 budget, and it is funded fairly strongly for the [Future Years Defense Program]."
The Long-Range Standoff Weapon would replace the nuclear-armed AGM-86B ALCM. The weapon would be deployed through the 2060s and the Air Force has plans to procure between 1,000 and 1,110 LRSOs, about double the size of the existing ALCM fleet, according to a fact sheet published by the Arms Control Association last May.
The weapon system will be able to penetrate and survive advanced integrated Air Defense Systems from a significant range, according to the Defense Department's FY-17 budget request. The continued funding also confirms that the Air Force has no plans to set aside the new nuclear-armed missile concept, despite calls from some Democrats in Congress to scrap the program. Last December, eight Senate Democrats issued a letter to President Obama urging him to terminate the LRSO plan, arguing the missile could destabilize relations with other nuclear-armed states. 174914
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Capabilities Robert Scher pushed back against that criticism from arms control groups during the Feb. 9 Senate hearing.
"I think the LRSO is a continuation of an existing weapon," he said. "So I would argue that it is not inherently destabilizing, as it is a weapon that already has existed."
February 23, 2016
The chief of Air Force Global Strike Command reaffirmed the service's commitment to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon after announcing plans to begin production of the Air-Launched Cruise Missile replacement in 2026 and reach initial operational capability by 2030.
Gen. Robin Rand announced the weapon's time line during a Feb. 9 Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing. The IOC and production dates had not been previously available publicly, including in fiscal year 2017 budget justification documents.
The Air Force maintains it is on track for the IOC date, despite a shift in the program's acquisition time line and a funding decrease in the service's proposed FY-17 budget. In that proposal, the Air Force delayed the program's milestone A review from the first quarter of FY-16 to the second quarter, arguing the move would allow the service "a realistic manpower and facilities ramp-up," Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Melissa Milner wrote in a Feb. 12 email to Inside the Air Force. The service also pushed the technology, maturation and risk-reduction phase from the first quarter of FY-16 into the third quarter of FY-17, according to budget documents.
The program's budget also took a hit due to a delay in executing the TMRR phase. Congress removed $20.5 million in FY-16 tied to supporting events in that phase and removed $38.1 million for the specific TMRR contract, budget documents state.
Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, told reporters during a Feb. 12 roundtable that the LRSO was funded to the service's estimated cost, which changes from year to year.
"The acquisition decision cycle does not always line up with the budget decision cycle," he said. "So new service cost positions are driven to meet an acquisition [Defense Acquisition Board] that are inconvenient in a budget environment where you already got a budget built and now it goes up or down and you have to make changes."
Despite the decrease, the Air Force says its IOC date has not changed. The service also solidified its commitment to the program in its proposed budget with a major funding request beginning in FY-18. The Air Force expects to ask for $419 million in FY-18 and $649 million in FY-19, according to budget documents.
"In this increasingly contested environment that we will be operating in, we need LRSO," Rand said. "The Air Force is committed to this. It is in our 2017 budget, and it is funded fairly strongly for the [Future Years Defense Program]."
The Long-Range Standoff Weapon would replace the nuclear-armed AGM-86B ALCM. The weapon would be deployed through the 2060s and the Air Force has plans to procure between 1,000 and 1,110 LRSOs, about double the size of the existing ALCM fleet, according to a fact sheet published by the Arms Control Association last May.
The weapon system will be able to penetrate and survive advanced integrated Air Defense Systems from a significant range, according to the Defense Department's FY-17 budget request. The continued funding also confirms that the Air Force has no plans to set aside the new nuclear-armed missile concept, despite calls from some Democrats in Congress to scrap the program. Last December, eight Senate Democrats issued a letter to President Obama urging him to terminate the LRSO plan, arguing the missile could destabilize relations with other nuclear-armed states. 174914
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans and Capabilities Robert Scher pushed back against that criticism from arms control groups during the Feb. 9 Senate hearing.
"I think the LRSO is a continuation of an existing weapon," he said. "So I would argue that it is not inherently destabilizing, as it is a weapon that already has existed."
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-nuclear-idUSKCN0VZ02R
seruriermarshal
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 536
MINOT TESTS MINUTEMAN III MISSILE WITH LAUNCH FROM VANDENBERG
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. – A team of Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen from the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with a test reentry vehicle Feb. 25 at 11:01 p.m. Pacific Standard Time from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
The ICBM's reentry vehicle, which contained a telemetry package used for operational testing, traveled approximately 4,200 miles to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the ICBM weapon system, providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.
“These ICBM professionals always make this look so simple, when it's anything but easy! This culminates months of effort that began in the missile fields of North Dakota where they removed this hardware from its alert mission, cataloged every piece and part, and shipped it to California for this event,” Col. Craig Ramsey, 576th Flight Test Squadron commander, said. “This never happens without the tireless efforts of personnel from the 91st Missile Wing and the 576th Flight Test Squadron.”
Minot AFB is one of three missile bases with crew members standing alert 24 hours a day, year-round, overseeing the nation’s ICBM alert forces.
“The opportunity for a Task Force to execute multiple launches in a week doesn’t happen very often, and this has provided a tremendous amount of experience for our team,” said Lt. Col. Brandon Schraeder, 91 MW Task Force Commander. “ Ultimately, these launches are the nation’s most visible demonstration of the ICBM capability.”
The ICBM community, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and U.S. Strategic Command uses data collected from test launches for continuing force development evaluation. The ICBM test launch program demonstrates the operational credibility of the Minuteman III and ensures the United States’ ability to maintain a strong, credible nuclear deterrent as a key element of U.S. national security and the security of U.S. allies and partners.
----------
The following is a news release from Vandenberg AFB:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From: 30th Space Wing Public Affairs, www.vandenberg.af.mil
MINUTEMAN III LAUNCHES FROM VANDENBERG
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - An unarmed Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile was launched during an operational test
at 11:01 p.m. PST here Thursday, Feb. 25, 2016.
Col. J. Christopher Moss, 30th Space Wing commander, was the launch decision
authority.
"This is the second ICBM launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in the past 5
days and while it may seem routine, a tremendous amount of effort is
required to safely assess the current performance and validate the security
of the Nation's fielded ICBM force," said Moss. "Our teams are made of
dedicated Airmen who make a difference for the Air Force and the nation and
I am proud to be a part of this team."
----------
The following is an additional news release from Vandenberg AFB:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From: 30th Space Wing Public Affairs, www.vandenberg.af.mil
MINUTEMAN III LAUNCHES FROM VANDENBERG - VIDEO
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - An unarmed Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile was launched during an operational test
at 11:01 p.m. PST here Thursday, Feb. 25, 2016.
To view the 30th Space Wing Public Affairs media video launch highlights
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. – A team of Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen from the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with a test reentry vehicle Feb. 25 at 11:01 p.m. Pacific Standard Time from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
The ICBM's reentry vehicle, which contained a telemetry package used for operational testing, traveled approximately 4,200 miles to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the ICBM weapon system, providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.
“These ICBM professionals always make this look so simple, when it's anything but easy! This culminates months of effort that began in the missile fields of North Dakota where they removed this hardware from its alert mission, cataloged every piece and part, and shipped it to California for this event,” Col. Craig Ramsey, 576th Flight Test Squadron commander, said. “This never happens without the tireless efforts of personnel from the 91st Missile Wing and the 576th Flight Test Squadron.”
Minot AFB is one of three missile bases with crew members standing alert 24 hours a day, year-round, overseeing the nation’s ICBM alert forces.
“The opportunity for a Task Force to execute multiple launches in a week doesn’t happen very often, and this has provided a tremendous amount of experience for our team,” said Lt. Col. Brandon Schraeder, 91 MW Task Force Commander. “ Ultimately, these launches are the nation’s most visible demonstration of the ICBM capability.”
The ICBM community, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and U.S. Strategic Command uses data collected from test launches for continuing force development evaluation. The ICBM test launch program demonstrates the operational credibility of the Minuteman III and ensures the United States’ ability to maintain a strong, credible nuclear deterrent as a key element of U.S. national security and the security of U.S. allies and partners.
----------
The following is a news release from Vandenberg AFB:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From: 30th Space Wing Public Affairs, www.vandenberg.af.mil
MINUTEMAN III LAUNCHES FROM VANDENBERG
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - An unarmed Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile was launched during an operational test
at 11:01 p.m. PST here Thursday, Feb. 25, 2016.
Col. J. Christopher Moss, 30th Space Wing commander, was the launch decision
authority.
"This is the second ICBM launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in the past 5
days and while it may seem routine, a tremendous amount of effort is
required to safely assess the current performance and validate the security
of the Nation's fielded ICBM force," said Moss. "Our teams are made of
dedicated Airmen who make a difference for the Air Force and the nation and
I am proud to be a part of this team."
----------
The following is an additional news release from Vandenberg AFB:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From: 30th Space Wing Public Affairs, www.vandenberg.af.mil
MINUTEMAN III LAUNCHES FROM VANDENBERG - VIDEO
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - An unarmed Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile was launched during an operational test
at 11:01 p.m. PST here Thursday, Feb. 25, 2016.
To view the 30th Space Wing Public Affairs media video launch highlights
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
Air Force On Track For GBSD Milestone A Decision This Year
By Exchange Monitor
Pat Host Defense Daily 2/19/2016 The Air Force is on track for a Milestone A decision this year in its Ground Based Strategic Deterrence (GBSD) program, according to a key officer. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein said Thursday
By Exchange Monitor
Pat Host Defense Daily 2/19/2016 The Air Force is on track for a Milestone A decision this year in its Ground Based Strategic Deterrence (GBSD) program, according to a key officer. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein said Thursday
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
http://insidedefense.com/insider/insider-daily-digest-85
"Reed: National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund should pay for entire nuclear enterprise
An influential senator who sits on both the defense authorization and appropriations committees wants like to expand the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to include the Pentagon's entire nuclear enterprise."
"Reed: National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund should pay for entire nuclear enterprise
An influential senator who sits on both the defense authorization and appropriations committees wants like to expand the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to include the Pentagon's entire nuclear enterprise."
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
STRATCOM: U.S. Not in a Nuclear Arms Race
March 2016
By Allyson Versprille
Contrary to what some observers have claimed, the United States is not in a nuclear arms race with Russia, said Adm. Cecil Haney, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command.
Despite destabilizing acts by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his signing of a new national security strategy containing anti-Western sentiment, the United States continues to make strides to achieve goals set forth in the “Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,” or New START Treaty, Haney said.
The treaty is a nuclear arms reduction agreement between the United States and Russia. It was invoked in February 2011 and the countries must meet the agreed upon limits by February 2018.
“The United States has reduced its stockpile by 85 percent relative to its Cold War peak,” Haney said during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We are retaining and modernizing only those systems needed to sustain a stable and effective deterrent capability.”
Given continued funding and authority, the nation is on track to achieve New START limits of 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems by 2018, he said. “That is not what I would define as an arms race.”
To date, the U.S. Air Force has eliminated all non-operational intercontinental ballistic missile silos and is in the process of placing 50 ICBMs into non-deployed status, he noted. Additionally, all intercontinental missiles have been “deMIRVed,” which means reducing the number of warheads on each missile to one. MIRV stands for multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle.
The Air Force has also eliminated its non-operational B-52 G-series heavy bombers and is transitioning 42 B-52 H-series to conventional-only bomber missions, Haney said.
At the same time, the Navy is converting four launch tubes on each of its Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines to non-nuclear roles, which will remove 56 launch tubes from accountability under the treaty, he said.
“The benefit of New START is that it engenders stability by maintaining rough equivalency in size and capability and, more importantly, transparency via inspections,” Haney said. “Furthermore, it helps assure our non-nuclear allies [that] they do not require their own nuclear deterrent capabilities.”
However, while this reduction is taking place, the United States needs to ensure its warheads are “safe, secure, effective and ready” in order to convince adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran that “they cannot escalate their way out of a failed conflict,” Haney stressed.
To achieve that end, the nation must invest in modernizing and sustaining all three legs of the nuclear triad — bombers, missiles and nuclear submarines, he said. “Our intercontinental ballistic missiles, our B-52 bombers and [our] Ohio-class submarines were designed and fielded in the ‘60s, the ‘70s and the ‘80s,” he said. Those nuclear delivery systems will need to be replaced in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe, he noted. “We are out of time. Sustainment is a must. Recapitalization is a requirement.”
Effective and ready nuclear deterrents are increasingly important in today’s complex strategic environment, Haney said.
Russia has declared — and at times demonstrated — its ability to escalate, “conducting destabilizing actions associated with Syria, Ukraine and Crimea while also violating the INF Treaty — Intermediate[-Range] Nuclear Forces Treaty — and other international accords and norms,” he said.
At the same time, “China continues to make significant military investments in their nuclear and conventional capabilities,” he said. The country is reengineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads. It recently conducted its sixth successful test of a hypersonic glide vehicle, and last September the nation showcased several missiles, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, to demonstrate its advancements, Haney said.
The United States also has to worry about continued threats from North Korea, he said. “Under Kim Jong-un, North Korea continues to heighten tensions by coupling provocative statements and actions with advancements in strategic capabilities, claims of miniaturized warheads, and more recently, claims of a successful hydrogen bomb test and developments in road-mobile and submarine-launched ballistic missile technologies.”
Iran continues to pose challenges despite recent diplomatic successes. The United States must continue to keep a vigilant eye on Iran, and monitor the country’s involvement in the Middle East and any shifts in its nuclear weapon ambitions, Haney said.
March 2016
By Allyson Versprille
Contrary to what some observers have claimed, the United States is not in a nuclear arms race with Russia, said Adm. Cecil Haney, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command.
Despite destabilizing acts by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his signing of a new national security strategy containing anti-Western sentiment, the United States continues to make strides to achieve goals set forth in the “Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,” or New START Treaty, Haney said.
The treaty is a nuclear arms reduction agreement between the United States and Russia. It was invoked in February 2011 and the countries must meet the agreed upon limits by February 2018.
“The United States has reduced its stockpile by 85 percent relative to its Cold War peak,” Haney said during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We are retaining and modernizing only those systems needed to sustain a stable and effective deterrent capability.”
Given continued funding and authority, the nation is on track to achieve New START limits of 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems by 2018, he said. “That is not what I would define as an arms race.”
To date, the U.S. Air Force has eliminated all non-operational intercontinental ballistic missile silos and is in the process of placing 50 ICBMs into non-deployed status, he noted. Additionally, all intercontinental missiles have been “deMIRVed,” which means reducing the number of warheads on each missile to one. MIRV stands for multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle.
The Air Force has also eliminated its non-operational B-52 G-series heavy bombers and is transitioning 42 B-52 H-series to conventional-only bomber missions, Haney said.
At the same time, the Navy is converting four launch tubes on each of its Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines to non-nuclear roles, which will remove 56 launch tubes from accountability under the treaty, he said.
“The benefit of New START is that it engenders stability by maintaining rough equivalency in size and capability and, more importantly, transparency via inspections,” Haney said. “Furthermore, it helps assure our non-nuclear allies [that] they do not require their own nuclear deterrent capabilities.”
However, while this reduction is taking place, the United States needs to ensure its warheads are “safe, secure, effective and ready” in order to convince adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran that “they cannot escalate their way out of a failed conflict,” Haney stressed.
To achieve that end, the nation must invest in modernizing and sustaining all three legs of the nuclear triad — bombers, missiles and nuclear submarines, he said. “Our intercontinental ballistic missiles, our B-52 bombers and [our] Ohio-class submarines were designed and fielded in the ‘60s, the ‘70s and the ‘80s,” he said. Those nuclear delivery systems will need to be replaced in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe, he noted. “We are out of time. Sustainment is a must. Recapitalization is a requirement.”
Effective and ready nuclear deterrents are increasingly important in today’s complex strategic environment, Haney said.
Russia has declared — and at times demonstrated — its ability to escalate, “conducting destabilizing actions associated with Syria, Ukraine and Crimea while also violating the INF Treaty — Intermediate[-Range] Nuclear Forces Treaty — and other international accords and norms,” he said.
At the same time, “China continues to make significant military investments in their nuclear and conventional capabilities,” he said. The country is reengineering its long-range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads. It recently conducted its sixth successful test of a hypersonic glide vehicle, and last September the nation showcased several missiles, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, to demonstrate its advancements, Haney said.
The United States also has to worry about continued threats from North Korea, he said. “Under Kim Jong-un, North Korea continues to heighten tensions by coupling provocative statements and actions with advancements in strategic capabilities, claims of miniaturized warheads, and more recently, claims of a successful hydrogen bomb test and developments in road-mobile and submarine-launched ballistic missile technologies.”
Iran continues to pose challenges despite recent diplomatic successes. The United States must continue to keep a vigilant eye on Iran, and monitor the country’s involvement in the Middle East and any shifts in its nuclear weapon ambitions, Haney said.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35723070
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-kim-idUSKCN0W52PP
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/03/04/0140215/kim-to-n-korean-military-be-ready-to-use-nuclear-weapons-at-any-time
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-kim-idUSKCN0W52PP
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/03/04/0140215/kim-to-n-korean-military-be-ready-to-use-nuclear-weapons-at-any-time
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
Funding the Nuclear Bow Wave
—Jennifer Hlad3/8/2016
The Department of Defense looked at its nuclear strategic portfolio and quickly realized that “unless the department was willing to divest the submarine leg of the triad—which we’re not—there’s no way to pay for [nuclear] modernization within the budget,” said Jamie Morin, the director of cost assessment and program evaluation, on Monday. The Fiscal 2017 Future Years Defense Program, or five-year plan for defense spending, shows an uptick in funding for 2021, the target procurement date for the first of the Navy’s Ohio-class submarine replacements, as well as a year that will require significant investment in the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent and the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber programs. But that is only the beginning of the nuclear “bow wave,” which Morin characterized as a doubling of nuclear spending—“on the order of $12 to $18 billion” each year above what the Pentagon has spent on the nuclear enterprise over the past decade. While there are some trades to be made within the defense budget, DOD Comptroller Mike McCord said, ramping up the spending is “really a larger national question of how much are we willing to pay for defense when you get to that era.”
—Jennifer Hlad3/8/2016
The Department of Defense looked at its nuclear strategic portfolio and quickly realized that “unless the department was willing to divest the submarine leg of the triad—which we’re not—there’s no way to pay for [nuclear] modernization within the budget,” said Jamie Morin, the director of cost assessment and program evaluation, on Monday. The Fiscal 2017 Future Years Defense Program, or five-year plan for defense spending, shows an uptick in funding for 2021, the target procurement date for the first of the Navy’s Ohio-class submarine replacements, as well as a year that will require significant investment in the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent and the B-21 Long-Range Strike Bomber programs. But that is only the beginning of the nuclear “bow wave,” which Morin characterized as a doubling of nuclear spending—“on the order of $12 to $18 billion” each year above what the Pentagon has spent on the nuclear enterprise over the past decade. While there are some trades to be made within the defense budget, DOD Comptroller Mike McCord said, ramping up the spending is “really a larger national question of how much are we willing to pay for defense when you get to that era.”
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2016-03/10/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-miniaturised
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-10-06-42-16
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-irgc-idUSKCN0WC0K0
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-irgc-idUSKCN0WC0K0
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-submarine-france-idUSKCN0WC23T
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
Nuclear Fusion in the Air, Sea
—Brian Everstine3/14/2016
A combined effort between the Air Force and Navy to develop a joint fusing firing circuit for intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles will save the Air Force about $600 million in unique development costs. Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, the Navy’s director of Strategic Systems Programs, said the joint fuse, with a target initial operational capability of 2019, is designed for both the Navy’s Trident missiles and the Air Force’s Minuteman III missiles. The Navy is the director of the development, but is working closely with the Air Force in “a perfect example of services doing something we’ve never done before,” Benedict said March 11 at an AFA, National Defense Industry Association, and Reserve Officer Association-sponsored symposium in Silverdale, Wash. Developing new programs together is “a way to maintain the [triad’s viability] in the future,” Benedict said. As the Air Force develops its next-generation Ground Based Strategic Deterrent to replace the Minuteman III, the Navy is looking to take those developments and implement them for the next Navy system, Benedict said. The Defense Department should not look specifically at developing just an Air Force system or a Navy system, but instead it should “deliver to this nation a triad of capability,” he said.
Perception Matters
—Brian Everstine3/14/2016
The US must continue to publicly deploy and exercise all three legs of the triad because perception of the US strategic deterrent matters as much as its actual health, the head of US Strategic Command said. STRATCOM commander Adm. Cecil Haney, speaking March 11 at an Air Force Association, National Defense Industry Association, and Reserve Officer Association-sponsored symposium in Silverdale, Wash., said allies and adversaries “recognize readiness,” and that includes moves such as last week’s deployment of B-2 bombers to the Pacific, along with practice launching the Air Force’s Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and the Navy’s Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. “Strategic capabilities must be, and are, routinely demonstrated,” Haney said.
—Brian Everstine3/14/2016
A combined effort between the Air Force and Navy to develop a joint fusing firing circuit for intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles will save the Air Force about $600 million in unique development costs. Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, the Navy’s director of Strategic Systems Programs, said the joint fuse, with a target initial operational capability of 2019, is designed for both the Navy’s Trident missiles and the Air Force’s Minuteman III missiles. The Navy is the director of the development, but is working closely with the Air Force in “a perfect example of services doing something we’ve never done before,” Benedict said March 11 at an AFA, National Defense Industry Association, and Reserve Officer Association-sponsored symposium in Silverdale, Wash. Developing new programs together is “a way to maintain the [triad’s viability] in the future,” Benedict said. As the Air Force develops its next-generation Ground Based Strategic Deterrent to replace the Minuteman III, the Navy is looking to take those developments and implement them for the next Navy system, Benedict said. The Defense Department should not look specifically at developing just an Air Force system or a Navy system, but instead it should “deliver to this nation a triad of capability,” he said.
Perception Matters
—Brian Everstine3/14/2016
The US must continue to publicly deploy and exercise all three legs of the triad because perception of the US strategic deterrent matters as much as its actual health, the head of US Strategic Command said. STRATCOM commander Adm. Cecil Haney, speaking March 11 at an Air Force Association, National Defense Industry Association, and Reserve Officer Association-sponsored symposium in Silverdale, Wash., said allies and adversaries “recognize readiness,” and that includes moves such as last week’s deployment of B-2 bombers to the Pacific, along with practice launching the Air Force’s Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and the Navy’s Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. “Strategic capabilities must be, and are, routinely demonstrated,” Haney said.
UN Sec Council has published a detailed Panel of experts report on North Korean WMD developments including the submarine launched ballistic missile. https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/en/sanctions/1718/panel_experts/reports The KN-11 missile is now known as the “북극성-1” (Pukgeukseong-1)
Page 22 of the report has a really cool illustration
B)
Page 22 of the report has a really cool illustration
B)
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
ORIGINAL CAPTION: Pictured is the test conducted to simulate the atmospheric re-entry of a ballistic missile. Kim Jong-Un has ordered another nuclear warhead test despite warnings from the South it will only lead to his 'self-destruction'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3492907/Kim-Jong-orders-imminent-nuclear-warhead-test-South-warns-North-Korean-tyrant-s-ambition-lead-self-destruction.html
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
Huntington Ingalls CEO 'really happy' with progress of Ohio Replacement Program
March 17, 2016
The Huntington Ingalls chief executive said this week he's pleased with the current status of the Ohio Replacement Program.
"The Navy has found a way to get the program started, and the work that needs to be done now is being done now to keep the program on track," Mike Petters told Inside Defense during an interview at the company's Washington, DC, office. "So I'm pretty happy with that so far."
However, he said the proposed fiscal year 2017 budget doesn't solve the long-term issue of how to pay for the program.
"With the prospect of sequester still hanging on out there . . . you’re going to have to fight this fight on ORP every year -- even though there are decisions you can make now that would say, 'We know we want to buy 10 of these ships, we know there are ways to do that as efficiently as possible,'" Petters said. "Why do we create inefficiency by moving from one environment to the next and trying to muddle through? That just adds cost to the program, and it’s a big program, it’s an important program, it’s a priority. It needs efficiency."
He said that given the funding environment, the Navy and industry are in a "fairly reasonable place."
"I don't think that the proposed budget for 2017 solves the funding shortfall over the next 10 years," Petters added. "It just gives you some insight into [the fact that] you're going to do the things you need to do in '17, probably going to be able to do the things you need to do in '18 [and] there's a commitment to do all of those other things, but we haven't solved the funding challenge yet."
More broadly, Petters said he remains concerned about sequestration and hopes the presidential election serves as an opportunity to "recognize the folly of sequestration."
"It was ill-advised [when it was put in place], and the external dynamics have only made it more challenging," he said. "I think that as we kind of come through this national pause, if you will, and reset, that we will look around and we will recognize . . . we've got to find a way to get back to our regular order and regular process for allocating resources."
Petters was critical of the reliance on budget deals, arguing they simply don't provide enough stability and certainty.
"In my view, as long as you are only months away from going back into a sequestered environment, you can't have a legitimate conversation about allocation of resources because you're not actually sure which environment you're planning for from a fiscal standpoint," he said. "That causes hard decisions that need to be made to be postponed or important decisions that need to be made can be postponed because of the uncertainty in the outyears."
Also during the interview, Petters defended Huntington Ingalls' move into the oil and gas market, a strategy for which he's taken criticism given the decline in the price of oil. In 2014, HII bought UniversalPegasus International, which provides engineering and project management services to the energy industry.
Petters said this week that UPI's workforce is between half and two-thirds the size it used to be. "We've made significant cuts, we've renegotiated leases," he said. "We've restructured a lot of that business, but the market is still incredibly challenging."
Even so, he said it would eventually benefit the Navy and Huntington Ingalls to diversify.
"Our company can benefit from having more customers than just the Navy, [and] I think the Navy can benefit from us having more customers than just them," Petters said. "I also think some of those customers can benefit from the things that we've learned how to do for the Navy."
He said there isn't much work available in the oil and gas market right now.
"But the work that's being bid right now -- we're winning more than our share of it," Petters added. "It just doesn't start up until end of this year or into next year before we start to see the impact of that. And so, as most of the folks who live in the space all the time say, this is just one of those times you have to hang on."
March 17, 2016
The Huntington Ingalls chief executive said this week he's pleased with the current status of the Ohio Replacement Program.
"The Navy has found a way to get the program started, and the work that needs to be done now is being done now to keep the program on track," Mike Petters told Inside Defense during an interview at the company's Washington, DC, office. "So I'm pretty happy with that so far."
However, he said the proposed fiscal year 2017 budget doesn't solve the long-term issue of how to pay for the program.
"With the prospect of sequester still hanging on out there . . . you’re going to have to fight this fight on ORP every year -- even though there are decisions you can make now that would say, 'We know we want to buy 10 of these ships, we know there are ways to do that as efficiently as possible,'" Petters said. "Why do we create inefficiency by moving from one environment to the next and trying to muddle through? That just adds cost to the program, and it’s a big program, it’s an important program, it’s a priority. It needs efficiency."
He said that given the funding environment, the Navy and industry are in a "fairly reasonable place."
"I don't think that the proposed budget for 2017 solves the funding shortfall over the next 10 years," Petters added. "It just gives you some insight into [the fact that] you're going to do the things you need to do in '17, probably going to be able to do the things you need to do in '18 [and] there's a commitment to do all of those other things, but we haven't solved the funding challenge yet."
More broadly, Petters said he remains concerned about sequestration and hopes the presidential election serves as an opportunity to "recognize the folly of sequestration."
"It was ill-advised [when it was put in place], and the external dynamics have only made it more challenging," he said. "I think that as we kind of come through this national pause, if you will, and reset, that we will look around and we will recognize . . . we've got to find a way to get back to our regular order and regular process for allocating resources."
Petters was critical of the reliance on budget deals, arguing they simply don't provide enough stability and certainty.
"In my view, as long as you are only months away from going back into a sequestered environment, you can't have a legitimate conversation about allocation of resources because you're not actually sure which environment you're planning for from a fiscal standpoint," he said. "That causes hard decisions that need to be made to be postponed or important decisions that need to be made can be postponed because of the uncertainty in the outyears."
Also during the interview, Petters defended Huntington Ingalls' move into the oil and gas market, a strategy for which he's taken criticism given the decline in the price of oil. In 2014, HII bought UniversalPegasus International, which provides engineering and project management services to the energy industry.
Petters said this week that UPI's workforce is between half and two-thirds the size it used to be. "We've made significant cuts, we've renegotiated leases," he said. "We've restructured a lot of that business, but the market is still incredibly challenging."
Even so, he said it would eventually benefit the Navy and Huntington Ingalls to diversify.
"Our company can benefit from having more customers than just the Navy, [and] I think the Navy can benefit from us having more customers than just them," Petters said. "I also think some of those customers can benefit from the things that we've learned how to do for the Navy."
He said there isn't much work available in the oil and gas market right now.
"But the work that's being bid right now -- we're winning more than our share of it," Petters added. "It just doesn't start up until end of this year or into next year before we start to see the impact of that. And so, as most of the folks who live in the space all the time say, this is just one of those times you have to hang on."
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://news.yahoo.com/risk-nuclear-war-europe-growing-warns-russian-ex-102018666.html;_ylt=AwrC1ChQTO1WAzAA5W7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201603190027
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201603190027
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,975
- Reaction score
- 10,470
http://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-nuclear-test-ready-tests-monitor-011231234.html
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,123
- Reaction score
- 2,239
Industry expects LRSO RfP in months
US defence prime contractors vying for the contract to build the nuclear-capable Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) missile that will replace the US Air Force's (USAF's) AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) expect the service to issue a final request for proposal (RfP) in May or June, a Lockheed Martin official said on 15 March.
"We've already had two or three [draft RfPs] and expect a final [one] in May or June and an award next year," Frank St John, vice-president of Lockheed Martin's Tactical Missiles business, told IHS Jane's during a briefing at a company-sponsored media day.
Four prime contractors - Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin - are bidding for two Technical Maturation Risk Reduction contracts, according to St John.
He added that he expects each company to offer a unique technology solution. "Getting four prime contractors to work on something common is challenging, so I wouldn't be surprised if people went in different directions in the end," he said.
Lockheed Martin will draw heavily on lessons from its AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) for its LRSO offering, he noted. However, the weapon will be an entirely new design not based on any legacy system.
"The requirements are such that nothing we have would fit that bill," St John said. "But I will say that a lot of the lessons that we've learned over the years on JASSM - in terms of survivability, in terms of aircraft integration, mission planning, and the like - are all things that are brought to bear in that competition."
The company's Tactical Missiles and Fire Control business is developing the air vehicle, the mission planning, and the platform integration for its LRSO offering while Lockheed Martin Space Systems conducts payload integration, avionics development, and systems engineering. St John declined to elaborate on the details of the propulsion system.
In December 2012, the Pentagon announced plans to issue separate contracts to Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman for the technology development (TD) phase of the LRSO programme. A request for information released just ahead of that announcement contained no details about whether the USAF was seeking a subsonic, a supersonic, or even a hypersonic weapon. Only a small amount of information about what the service is seeking in an LRSO missile has since entered the public domain.
Senior USAF officials have called the LRSO a stealthy cruise missile and have said the weapon's range would be longer than the 500 n mile (c.900 km) range of the JASSM-ER and closer to the ALCM's range of between 1,200 km and 2,500 km.
The warhead for the nuclear-tipped LRSO is also unknown. The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the USAF have asked Sandia National Laboratories and the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to examine three existing nuclear warheads for possible use in the LRSO missile: the B61-12 (a nuclear bomb intended to replace four current but ageing B61 variants), the W84 (originally used on the now-retired BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile), and the W80 (currently used on the nuclear-armed version of the AGM-86).
US defence prime contractors vying for the contract to build the nuclear-capable Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) missile that will replace the US Air Force's (USAF's) AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) expect the service to issue a final request for proposal (RfP) in May or June, a Lockheed Martin official said on 15 March.
"We've already had two or three [draft RfPs] and expect a final [one] in May or June and an award next year," Frank St John, vice-president of Lockheed Martin's Tactical Missiles business, told IHS Jane's during a briefing at a company-sponsored media day.
Four prime contractors - Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin - are bidding for two Technical Maturation Risk Reduction contracts, according to St John.
He added that he expects each company to offer a unique technology solution. "Getting four prime contractors to work on something common is challenging, so I wouldn't be surprised if people went in different directions in the end," he said.
Lockheed Martin will draw heavily on lessons from its AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) for its LRSO offering, he noted. However, the weapon will be an entirely new design not based on any legacy system.
"The requirements are such that nothing we have would fit that bill," St John said. "But I will say that a lot of the lessons that we've learned over the years on JASSM - in terms of survivability, in terms of aircraft integration, mission planning, and the like - are all things that are brought to bear in that competition."
The company's Tactical Missiles and Fire Control business is developing the air vehicle, the mission planning, and the platform integration for its LRSO offering while Lockheed Martin Space Systems conducts payload integration, avionics development, and systems engineering. St John declined to elaborate on the details of the propulsion system.
In December 2012, the Pentagon announced plans to issue separate contracts to Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman for the technology development (TD) phase of the LRSO programme. A request for information released just ahead of that announcement contained no details about whether the USAF was seeking a subsonic, a supersonic, or even a hypersonic weapon. Only a small amount of information about what the service is seeking in an LRSO missile has since entered the public domain.
Senior USAF officials have called the LRSO a stealthy cruise missile and have said the weapon's range would be longer than the 500 n mile (c.900 km) range of the JASSM-ER and closer to the ALCM's range of between 1,200 km and 2,500 km.
The warhead for the nuclear-tipped LRSO is also unknown. The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the USAF have asked Sandia National Laboratories and the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to examine three existing nuclear warheads for possible use in the LRSO missile: the B61-12 (a nuclear bomb intended to replace four current but ageing B61 variants), the W84 (originally used on the now-retired BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile), and the W80 (currently used on the nuclear-armed version of the AGM-86).
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,170
- Reaction score
- 6,056
It is FORBIDDEN in the NDAA for funds allocated to the national laboratories to be used to research, develop, test and build ANY new warhead design. Also from a 2014 Los Alamos Lab National Security Science articlesferrin said:
