Current Nuclear Weapons Development

U.S. Accuses Contractor of Giving Nuke Secrets to Chinese Paramour

A civilian contractor for U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii was taken into custody on Friday on suspicion of providing his Chinese lover with classified military information pertaining to nuclear weapons and missile detection capabilities, Reuters reported.

One-time U.S. Army officer Benjamin Bishop faces federal charges of knowingly providing sensitive military information to an individual without the clearance to receive the data and of illegally possessing classified military documents. Bishop, 59, could be sentenced to up to two decades in prison if convicted.

The Justice Department said Bishop first encountered the Chinese woman at a 2012 international defense forum in Hawaii. From last May through December, he is accused of repeatedly providing the 27-year-old woman with restricted defense information. The information covered U.S. plans to field long-range nuclear weapons, technologies capable of identifying short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, and long-range radar units planned for deployment in the Asia-Pacific.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My first response was from the last paragraph 'information covered U.S. plans to field long-range nuclear weapons' was "We have such plans???"

Shouldn't there be a handbook that outlines;

1) If you are over 40, have a top secret clearance at a weapons lab and are approached by a woman 20 or more years younger than you CHANCES ARE SHE IS A SPY!!!
 
In Nuclear Crisis, Navy Would Use Aging Network (DefenseNews)

Talking to submarines isn't the only communications improvement that's dead in the water for the Navy.

In a nuclear crisis, emergency action messages from the president would travel to subs and Air Force bombers over a network with known problems regarding information assurance.

The network is collectively known as the Nuclear Command, Control and Communications Hybrid Solution — “hybrid” because it includes computers and antennas belonging to both the Air Force and Navy.

For the Navy, that means the Fixed Submarine Broadcast System sites that deliver emergency action messages to subs, plus a network element called Nova. The Air Force uses its own equipment and software to get emergency action messages to its nuclear-armed bombers.

Work on a ground-up replacement to be called the NC3 Long Term Solution were canceled during deliberations over the 2013 Pentagon budget request.

The Air Force needed its portion of the money for a higher priority, according to a February 2012 budget justification document.
Click to expand...
 
Grey Havoc said:
In Nuclear Crisis, Navy Would Use Aging Network (DefenseNews)

Talking to submarines isn't the only communications improvement that's dead in the water for the Navy.

In a nuclear crisis, emergency action messages from the president would travel to subs and Air Force bombers over a network with known problems regarding information assurance.

The network is collectively known as the Nuclear Command, Control and Communications Hybrid Solution — “hybrid” because it includes computers and antennas belonging to both the Air Force and Navy.

For the Navy, that means the Fixed Submarine Broadcast System sites that deliver emergency action messages to subs, plus a network element called Nova. The Air Force uses its own equipment and software to get emergency action messages to its nuclear-armed bombers.

Work on a ground-up replacement to be called the NC3 Long Term Solution were canceled during deliberations over the 2013 Pentagon budget request.

The Air Force needed its portion of the money for a higher priority, according to a February 2012 budget justification document.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Nice thing about some of the older systems is that the Chinese don't know how to hack them.
 
Very true, but the old systems will only last as long as they are properly maintained, which, under the current administration.... :(

In other news:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/china-pakistan-reach-secret-reactor-deal-pakistan/

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/obama-nuclear-drawdown/2013/03/21/id/495699
 
When I see sources like Newsmax, Breitbart and the Washington Times, I automatically question anything they're saying. Those sources do not have good track records for accurate and non-sensationalized reporting.
 
TomS said:
When I see sources like Newsmax, Breitbart and the Washington Times, I automatically question anything they're saying. Those sources do not have good track records for accurate and non-sensationalized reporting.
Click to expand...


As I do with any media source. Frank Gaffney is 100% anti-further disarmament and arguably could be called an alarmist on such issues. But even a brief review of this thread would indicate that nothing he is saying is outlandish. We have gone 20+ years without a test, we do have a decaying nuclear infrastructure.

I have lost count of how many times I have read in the New York Times or Washington Post, supposed objective news sources, that we have to downsize our "Cold War arsenal" NEVER once telling the reader we have reduced from 13,000 strategic warheads to 1550 under New Start. They all have their biases and agendas.

If you want another sourse see Dana Priest's Washington Post series that, while more pro-disarmament, also discusses the aging nuclear weapons industrial base.
 
Read the last line of the article; there are other supercomputers still being used for the stockpile stewardship role.
 
TomS said:
Read the last line of the article; there are other supercomputers still being used for the stockpile stewardship role.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't really address the concern. More than once we've been bit hard by an "oops" and that was when we actually tested them. I suspect what will happen will be "oops, they don't work and we don't know how to fix them anymore".
 
From today, LANL "Roadrunner" replacement has been running since 2010 did the reporter in the first story even ask the basic question, "What if anything is replaceing it?"

Its replacement, the Cielo, has been used by the weapons research lab since 2010. While Roadrunner cost $121m (£79m) to develop, Cielo cost $54m (£35m) and is a faster operator, according to the lab.
 
From Air Force Magazine (April 2013)
 

Attachments

  • 0413arsenal.pdf
    240.1 KB · Views: 12
As the Air Force and Navy continue to consider the feasibility of a joint life-extension program for two of their nuclear warheads, officials say the challenge of a joint effort lies in determining the most effective level of commonality to pursue. In August 2010, the Air Force, working with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), initiated a concept study of the possibility of a life-extension program (LEP) for its W78 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) warhead. The service -- with the goal of finding commonality, streamlining some processes and generating cost savings -- invited the Navy to participate with its W88 submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead, which is approximately 10 years newer than the W78. In June 2012, the program, now referred to as W78/88-1 LEP, was approved for further research, including an analysis of alternatives and a feasibility study, both of which are ongoing. The effort is led by a joint Defense Department/NNSA Project Officers Group, which is chaired by the Air Force and co-chaired by the Navy. Col. C.J. Johnson, director of the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center’s nuclear capabilities directorate, told in a March 26 email that the program is moving ahead on schedule with the current challenge of finding the right balance of commonality between the two warheads so as not to increase the complexity of the LEP. “Managing expectations about commonality and aligning schedules and resources are two significant challenges for the program,” Johnson said. “There is a perception that maximizing commonality will reduce costs, but that is not evident in the program.” The Navy and Air Force programs have similarities, but their missions require some unique characteristics. Introducing too much commonality makes the effort to meet mission requirements for both systems more complicated -- and complexity, Johnson said, contributes to higher program costs. “There is a proper balance of commonality and complexity that minimizes costs while achieving threshold performance requirements,” Johnson said. Another challenge, according to Johnson, is in aligning Air Force, Navy and NNSA schedules and resources. Because each of the organizations is operating with limited and competing time and resources, Johnson said, it is tricky and requires “constant focus” to make sure the parties are moving forward at a steady rate. Further complicating the program time line is the difference in age -- and in the aging process -- between the two missiles, which drives the need for life extension. The Navy’s W88 was produced about 10 years after the W78 and, according to Johnson, the Navy incorporated some design changes that cause it to age more slowly than the Air Force’s warhead. Once the ongoing studies are complete, the program will move into a phase of design definition and cost study, which precedes it becoming a program of record. According to now-retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Chambers, who spoke to ITAF on Feb. 26, the service would like to have an LEP in place by the mid-2020s, which would allow it to “marry up” with a follow-on ICBM. “That’s why we need it then, but warhead life extensions are largely driven by our annual surveillance of those warheads and how they are aging,” Chambers said. “Ours is aging a little differently than the Navy’s, but every year, that’s reassessed.​
​
​
​
 
bobbymike said:
As the Air Force and Navy continue to consider the feasibility of a joint life-extension program for two of their nuclear warheads, officials say the challenge of a joint effort lies in determining the most effective level of commonality to pursue. In August 2010, the Air Force, working with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), initiated a concept study of the possibility of a life-extension program (LEP) for its W78 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) warhead. The service -- with the goal of finding commonality, streamlining some processes and generating cost savings -- invited the Navy to participate with its W88 submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead, which is approximately 10 years newer than the W78. In June 2012, the program, now referred to as W78/88-1 LEP, was approved for further research, including an analysis of alternatives and a feasibility study, both of which are ongoing. The effort is led by a joint Defense Department/NNSA Project Officers Group, which is chaired by the Air Force and co-chaired by the Navy. Col. C.J. Johnson, director of the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center’s nuclear capabilities directorate, told in a March 26 email that the program is moving ahead on schedule with the current challenge of finding the right balance of commonality between the two warheads so as not to increase the complexity of the LEP. “Managing expectations about commonality and aligning schedules and resources are two significant challenges for the program,” Johnson said. “There is a perception that maximizing commonality will reduce costs, but that is not evident in the program.” The Navy and Air Force programs have similarities, but their missions require some unique characteristics. Introducing too much commonality makes the effort to meet mission requirements for both systems more complicated -- and complexity, Johnson said, contributes to higher program costs. “There is a proper balance of commonality and complexity that minimizes costs while achieving threshold performance requirements,” Johnson said. Another challenge, according to Johnson, is in aligning Air Force, Navy and NNSA schedules and resources. Because each of the organizations is operating with limited and competing time and resources, Johnson said, it is tricky and requires “constant focus” to make sure the parties are moving forward at a steady rate. Further complicating the program time line is the difference in age -- and in the aging process -- between the two missiles, which drives the need for life extension. The Navy’s W88 was produced about 10 years after the W78 and, according to Johnson, the Navy incorporated some design changes that cause it to age more slowly than the Air Force’s warhead. Once the ongoing studies are complete, the program will move into a phase of design definition and cost study, which precedes it becoming a program of record. According to now-retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Chambers, who spoke to ITAF on Feb. 26, the service would like to have an LEP in place by the mid-2020s, which would allow it to “marry up” with a follow-on ICBM. “That’s why we need it then, but warhead life extensions are largely driven by our annual surveillance of those warheads and how they are aging,” Chambers said. “Ours is aging a little differently than the Navy’s, but every year, that’s reassessed.
Click to expand...

Given the USAF already uses then Mk21/W87 why not just study it and the W88 and retire the W78? ???
 
A bit of good news for once: http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?127-The-USN-s-future&p=36301&viewfull=1#post36301
 
sferrin said:
Not sure what news on a piece of electronic warfare gear has to do with nuclear weapons. ???
Click to expand...

The link takes me to an item about the successful testing of COBRA JUDY replacement (maybe scroll down a bit?), so it's relevant in that it's a monitoring system for foreign ballistic missile and space launch capabilities.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Not sure what news on a piece of electronic warfare gear has to do with nuclear weapons. ???
Click to expand...

The link takes me to an item about the successful testing of COBRA JUDY replacement (maybe scroll down a bit?), so it's relevant in that it's a monitoring system for foreign ballistic missile and space launch capabilities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, saw that. Didn't seem anymore relevant to nuclear weapons.
 
U.S. Continues Nuclear Arms Reductions


The United States has continued to reduce its counts of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems as it moves to meet the limits set by the New START treaty with Russia, State Department figures released on Wednesday show.


As of March 1, the Defense Department had 1,654 warheads fielded on 792 active ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers. That is down from 1,722 deployed warheads and 806 delivery vehicles counted on Sept. 1 of last year.


The treaty requires Russia and the United States by 2018 to field no more than 1,550 strategic warheads on 700 missiles or bombers, with another 100 delivery vehicles allowed in reserve. Russia is already below its cap levels. At the beginning of March it had 1,480 deployed warheads and 492 ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers in service. The Obama administration has said it hopes to pursue further nuclear arsenal cuts with Russia that would also cover nonstrategic and reserve weapons. The White House is reported to have received a Pentagon report that found the United States could maintain a viable deterrent with between 1,000 and 1,100 long-range warheads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
JROC Set To Review Air Force Proposal For Nuclear-Tipped Cruise Missile The Air Force has finished its proposal for a new nuclear-armed, bomber-launched cruise missile, submitting its analysis of alternatives for a Long-Range Standoff Weapon to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and preparing to ask the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to validate the findings next month -------------------------------- If the W80 is being retired new warhead?
 
A new ALCM would be the ideal deterrent for the new century vs all the new 2nd-tier nuke powers in the world. No giant IR plumes to accidentally set off a global exchange.
 
bobbymike said:
JROC Set To Review Air Force Proposal For Nuclear-Tipped Cruise Missile The Air Force has finished its proposal for a new nuclear-armed, bomber-launched cruise missile, submitting its analysis of alternatives for a Long-Range Standoff Weapon to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and preparing to ask the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to validate the findings next month -------------------------------- If the W80 is being retired new warhead?
Click to expand...

JASSM - NUKE ?
 
seruriermarshal said:
JASSM - NUKE ?
Click to expand...
My thought exactly for years, especially since a nuclear JASSM wouldn't technically fall under New-START.
 
2IDSGT said:
seruriermarshal said:
JASSM - NUKE ?
Click to expand...
My thought exactly for years, especially since a nuclear JASSM wouldn't technically fall under New-START.
Click to expand...

Also a no-brainer in that we seem to be incapable of making anything new.
 
2IDSGT said:
A new ALCM would be the ideal deterrent for the new century vs all the new 2nd-tier nuke powers in the world. No giant IR plumes to accidentally set off a global exchange.
Click to expand...

No IR plume at launch quite a big one when it reaches its destination ;D

Any speculation that it would need a newly designed warhead or do we have enough W80's?
 
bobbymike said:
2IDSGT said:
A new ALCM would be the ideal deterrent for the new century vs all the new 2nd-tier nuke powers in the world. No giant IR plumes to accidentally set off a global exchange.
Click to expand...
No IR plume at launch quite a big one when it reaches its destination ;D

Any speculation that it would need a newly designed warhead or do we have enough W80's?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the IR plume at the end would be the ultimate fait-accompli though, allowing us to retaliate against a nuclear pissant without having to pre-inform one of the sugardaddies.

As for the warheads, I believe we have something on the order of hundreds worth of inactive W80s/W84s in the stockpile (over 900 according to my 6 year-old source). http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html
 
U.S. Postpones ICBM Test to Avoid Exacerbating Tensions With N. Korea April 8, 2013

The U.S. Defense Department elected to postpone a planned user trial of an ICBM in order to avoid exacerbating already high tensions with North Korea, an anonymous high-ranking defense insider informed the Associated Press on Saturday. The test-firing of the Minuteman 3 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California has been pushed back from April to May. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Friday made the call to delay the project, which was not a part of ongoing U.S.-South Korean armed forces exercises taking place on the Korean Peninsula.

The defense source said the test was not delayed due to any mechanical issues with the silo-based Minuteman 3, which comprises the land-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad. The delay was "absolutely not" a response to North Korea's recent spate of threats, including warnings of nuclear strikes against South Korea and the United States, The Hill quoted a senior White House official as saying on Sunday. "The onus is on North Korea to take the step back," Dan Pfeiffer, senior adviser to President Obama, told "Fox News Sunday."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - So North Korea is deterring us???!!!! What?
 
2IDSGT said:
bobbymike said:
So North Korea is deterring us???!!!! What?
Click to expand...
I believe the term we're looking for here is "chickenshit." :mad:
Click to expand...
Or more likely "We want it to be absolutly certain that THEY jumped... Just before we kicked their ass..."

Randy
 
bobbymike said:
Bolding mine - So North Korea is deterring us???!!!! What?
Click to expand...

They have been deterring "us" for years, that is why they have been all but openly allowed to urinate all over most arms control and non-proliferation initiatives and are now probably just a matter of years away from a uranium nuke and missile combination capable of striking SK and Japan and are pursing the technology for an intercontinental version of the same. Their great trick is they occasionally manage to extract some food or oil aid out of "us" on the way.

The lesson from North Korea seems to be that if you act crazy enough for long enough the Great Satan will let you build your nukes; hopefully this latest series of childish sabre rattling and demonstrable progress in their nuclear and missile programmes will finally convince even the most bleeding hearted that North Korea really is a crazy dictatorship bent on nuclear weapons- with all the obvious questions that raises about non-proliferation policy.
 
Seems to be an assumption that they are not just crazy but suicidal as well. I wonder why that is assumed?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom