Current Nuclear Weapons Development
- Thread starter bobbymike
- Start date
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
Launch Updates An operational test launch of an unarmed Minuteman III ICBM is set to occur on Wednesday at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., following a one-day delay due to a range safety instrumentation issue, according to a release from Vandy's 30th Space Wing. "Public safety is my first priority during all launch operations," said Col. Brent McArthur, 30th SW vice commander, in explaining the reschedule.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
The U.S. Air Force on Wednesday conducted a trial flight of its Minuteman 3 ICBM.
The missile took off at 6:27 a.m. local time from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, according to an Air Force press release. It flew thousands of miles before landing in the Pacific Ocean, the Associated Press reported.
The United States keeps 450 Minuteman 3 missiles in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. They serve as one leg of the U.S. nuclear triad of land-, air-and sea-based weapons. Flight tests are intended to assess "the effectiveness, readiness and accuracy of the weapon system," the release states. "The test also supports U.S. strategic deterrence efforts as outlined in the 2010 Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), by demonstrating the operational credibility of the Minuteman 3." The flight was delayed from April in an effort to avoid further raising tensions with North Korea, which at the time had threatened nuclear strikes against the United States, and then pushed back from Tuesday due to a technical glitch.
The missile took off at 6:27 a.m. local time from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, according to an Air Force press release. It flew thousands of miles before landing in the Pacific Ocean, the Associated Press reported.
The United States keeps 450 Minuteman 3 missiles in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. They serve as one leg of the U.S. nuclear triad of land-, air-and sea-based weapons. Flight tests are intended to assess "the effectiveness, readiness and accuracy of the weapon system," the release states. "The test also supports U.S. strategic deterrence efforts as outlined in the 2010 Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), by demonstrating the operational credibility of the Minuteman 3." The flight was delayed from April in an effort to avoid further raising tensions with North Korea, which at the time had threatened nuclear strikes against the United States, and then pushed back from Tuesday due to a technical glitch.
seruriermarshal
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 534
Seems like the Minuteman III have 6 warheads :
2013 May 22 13:27
Minuteman III Test Launch
Vandenberg AFB
Targets were in the Ronald Reagan Missile Test Area, Marshall Islands. Missile carried six dummy warheads. Most of the event, particularly midcourse and re-entry was within view of the STSS Demonstrator satellites USA 208
http://www.zarya.info/Calendar.php
2013 May 22 13:27
Minuteman III Test Launch
Vandenberg AFB
Targets were in the Ronald Reagan Missile Test Area, Marshall Islands. Missile carried six dummy warheads. Most of the event, particularly midcourse and re-entry was within view of the STSS Demonstrator satellites USA 208
http://www.zarya.info/Calendar.php
seruriermarshal
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 534
Or they tested a new Minuteman III with 6 warhead ?
seruriermarshal
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 534
sferrin said:
new classified RV ?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
Minuteman Missile Soars over Pacific in Operational Test BodyText Airmen on Wednesday launched an unarmed Minuteman III ICBM from Vandenberg AFB, Calif., over the Pacific Ocean in one of the periodic operational flight tests meant to ensure the performance and reliability of the Minuteman fleet. "The operational test launch mission is vital in ensuring a safe, secure, and effective ICBM force," said Col. Richard Pagliuco, 576th Flight Test Squadron commander, in Vandy's May 22 release. The missile lifted off at 6:27 a.m. local Pacific time, according to the release. The unarmed missile's single re-entry vehicle was expected to travel more than 4,000 miles until splashdown in the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Members of the 576th FTS worked with airmen of the 91st Missile Wing at Minot AFB, N.D., in executing this mission. The Defense Department and Energy Department "will use the data collected from the flight to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent," states the release. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------According to the Air Force Association although wishing it was a new RV type :'(
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
WASHINGTON -- House lawmakers took less than 10 minutes to wrap up a Wednesday discussion of a spending bill component containing several restrictions on the Obama administration's handling of nuclear arms and missile defense operations.
Members of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee still have not "agreed on everything," and the morning markup session "is just the beginning of this annual [budget] process," said panel Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.). Lawmakers would have two weeks to raise concerns about the preliminary language before it goes to the full committee on June 5 as part of the draft National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2014. The legislation authorizes defense spending levels for the budget year that begins on Oct. 1. Actual funding amounts are contained in separate appropriations legislation. The draft legislation would limit the president's ability to withdraw missile defenses from East Asia if the North Korean nuclear threat dissipates. The White House would have to confirm the elimination of all nuclear weapons in "each foreign country in East Asia that poses a threat to allies of the United States" before pulling any antimissile systems from the Pacific Rim, excluding Aegis missile defense warships.
"One threat, for example, the illegal nuclear weapons program of a rogue state, does not eliminate the reason the United States deploys missile defenses to a particular region," the document states. The Obama administration last year announced plans to augment existing U.S. antimissile deployments in East Asia, possibly by fielding additional sea-based interceptors and stationing a second X-band radar unit in southern Japan. A committee spokesman did not return a request for comment. However, panel member Representative Michael Turner (R-Ohio) has criticized Secretary of State John Kerry for suggesting the United States could withdraw certain missile defenses from the Pacific Rim if North Korea ended its nuclear arms operations. The lawmaker has cautioned against unilateral U.S. nuclear arms cutbacks in the face of Chinese and Russian arsenal modernization efforts. The draft does not reference GOP calls to build a ballistic missile interceptor installation on the U.S. East Coast to supplement a pair of existing sites in Alaska and California. "Controversial" proposals frequently "cross subcommittee jurisdictions, or require funding shifts [that] are deferred to full committee,” House Armed Services Committee spokesman Claude Chafin told Defense News, adding he was not specifically referring to the East Coast antimissile initiative.
Speaking at Wednesday's markup, Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said she would "most likely" submit a new proposal to prohibit the Pentagon from spending a final $380 million on a developmental antimissile system it does not plan to acquire. Congress placed language in a fiscal 2013 budget bill to prohibit further Pentagon funding of the Medium Extended Air Defense System, which the United States has developed with Germany and Italy. However, the Obama administration says that law was essentially superseded by a short-term measure to finance the federal government through September. Rogers, though, said he backed providing the MEADS funding "so that we will be able to own the technology and be able to mine it."
Separate language in the text would restrict President Obama's ability to provide Russia with certain data on U.S. missile defenses. Administration officials have indicated sharing such details is being considered as a possible means of addressing Moscow's concerns that U.S. antimissile apparatus could undermine Russian strategic defenses. The bill would also require the Pentagon and Energy Department to explore alternatives to refurbishing the nation's land-based and sea-based nuclear warheads with a single set of updates. A joint modernization strategy has "merit, [but] caution is required," the committee said, adding it is "concerned" about NNSA capacities to handle the "significant technical and programmatic risk" associated with a combined update of the W-78 warhead used on Minuteman 3 ICBMs and the W-88 warhead deployed on Trident 2 D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The language would require the Air Force to ensure the ICBMs remain capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads, referred to as Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles. The April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that "the United States will 'deMIRV' all deployed ICBMs, so that each Minuteman III ICBM has only one nuclear warhead," says a summary of the strategic forces portion of the bill."The committee believes that the capability to 'reMIRV' the nation's ICBMs must be retained to mitigate the risk of a widespread technical failure in another leg of the nuclear triad or changes in the geopolitical environment that requires a more robust U.S. nuclear force posture."
Subcommittee Ranking Member Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) noted the bill does not account for spending reductions mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act. "I remain concerned that the damaging effects of sequestration will extend into [fiscal year 2014]," he said in an e-mailed statement.
Members of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee still have not "agreed on everything," and the morning markup session "is just the beginning of this annual [budget] process," said panel Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.). Lawmakers would have two weeks to raise concerns about the preliminary language before it goes to the full committee on June 5 as part of the draft National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2014. The legislation authorizes defense spending levels for the budget year that begins on Oct. 1. Actual funding amounts are contained in separate appropriations legislation. The draft legislation would limit the president's ability to withdraw missile defenses from East Asia if the North Korean nuclear threat dissipates. The White House would have to confirm the elimination of all nuclear weapons in "each foreign country in East Asia that poses a threat to allies of the United States" before pulling any antimissile systems from the Pacific Rim, excluding Aegis missile defense warships.
"One threat, for example, the illegal nuclear weapons program of a rogue state, does not eliminate the reason the United States deploys missile defenses to a particular region," the document states. The Obama administration last year announced plans to augment existing U.S. antimissile deployments in East Asia, possibly by fielding additional sea-based interceptors and stationing a second X-band radar unit in southern Japan. A committee spokesman did not return a request for comment. However, panel member Representative Michael Turner (R-Ohio) has criticized Secretary of State John Kerry for suggesting the United States could withdraw certain missile defenses from the Pacific Rim if North Korea ended its nuclear arms operations. The lawmaker has cautioned against unilateral U.S. nuclear arms cutbacks in the face of Chinese and Russian arsenal modernization efforts. The draft does not reference GOP calls to build a ballistic missile interceptor installation on the U.S. East Coast to supplement a pair of existing sites in Alaska and California. "Controversial" proposals frequently "cross subcommittee jurisdictions, or require funding shifts [that] are deferred to full committee,” House Armed Services Committee spokesman Claude Chafin told Defense News, adding he was not specifically referring to the East Coast antimissile initiative.
Speaking at Wednesday's markup, Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said she would "most likely" submit a new proposal to prohibit the Pentagon from spending a final $380 million on a developmental antimissile system it does not plan to acquire. Congress placed language in a fiscal 2013 budget bill to prohibit further Pentagon funding of the Medium Extended Air Defense System, which the United States has developed with Germany and Italy. However, the Obama administration says that law was essentially superseded by a short-term measure to finance the federal government through September. Rogers, though, said he backed providing the MEADS funding "so that we will be able to own the technology and be able to mine it."
Separate language in the text would restrict President Obama's ability to provide Russia with certain data on U.S. missile defenses. Administration officials have indicated sharing such details is being considered as a possible means of addressing Moscow's concerns that U.S. antimissile apparatus could undermine Russian strategic defenses. The bill would also require the Pentagon and Energy Department to explore alternatives to refurbishing the nation's land-based and sea-based nuclear warheads with a single set of updates. A joint modernization strategy has "merit, [but] caution is required," the committee said, adding it is "concerned" about NNSA capacities to handle the "significant technical and programmatic risk" associated with a combined update of the W-78 warhead used on Minuteman 3 ICBMs and the W-88 warhead deployed on Trident 2 D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The language would require the Air Force to ensure the ICBMs remain capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads, referred to as Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles. The April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that "the United States will 'deMIRV' all deployed ICBMs, so that each Minuteman III ICBM has only one nuclear warhead," says a summary of the strategic forces portion of the bill."The committee believes that the capability to 'reMIRV' the nation's ICBMs must be retained to mitigate the risk of a widespread technical failure in another leg of the nuclear triad or changes in the geopolitical environment that requires a more robust U.S. nuclear force posture."
Subcommittee Ranking Member Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) noted the bill does not account for spending reductions mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act. "I remain concerned that the damaging effects of sequestration will extend into [fiscal year 2014]," he said in an e-mailed statement.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
House Lawmakers Instruct Air Force To Retain Ability To 'ReMIRV' ICBMs
Members of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee want the Air Force to keep up the ability to launch several independently guided nuclear warheads from a single intercontinental ballistic missile, despite a Defense Department push toward "deMIRVing" the country's nuclear missile inventory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they are reading my emails ;D Also why I am a proponent of the MMIII replacement known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent being as least as but hopefully larger than MMIII. If you go down to a single warhead you're stuck there and have to build new missiles or a new miniature warhead to MIRV (that won't happen) it is much easier to leave room for more W-87's or W-78's but you could also have a very long range with an HTV-2, CAV or AMaRV
Members of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee want the Air Force to keep up the ability to launch several independently guided nuclear warheads from a single intercontinental ballistic missile, despite a Defense Department push toward "deMIRVing" the country's nuclear missile inventory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they are reading my emails ;D Also why I am a proponent of the MMIII replacement known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent being as least as but hopefully larger than MMIII. If you go down to a single warhead you're stuck there and have to build new missiles or a new miniature warhead to MIRV (that won't happen) it is much easier to leave room for more W-87's or W-78's but you could also have a very long range with an HTV-2, CAV or AMaRV
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. nuclear arsenal might be subject to cutbacks by a major budget review under way at the Defense Department, despite enjoying relative protection this year from largely across-the-board sequester spending reductions, a senior Defense official said on Thursday. “Every part of the program, including nuclear weapons, is being addressed,” the official said in an interview, referring to the ongoing Strategic Choices and Management Review led by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. The budget scrub is to advise Chuck Hagel, the defense secretary, by late this month on how best to apportion $500 billion in congressionally mandated funding reductions over the next decade. If President Obama can convince lawmakers to repeal the 2011 Budget Control Act, lesser but still-substantial cuts would likely be taken in 2014 and beyond. The senior official -- who requested anonymity in this article to address politically and diplomatically sensitive topics -- appeared to suggest, though, that the Pentagon intends to keep ballistic missile-armed submarines relatively safe from the cost-cutting ax. The big-ticket item coming down the pike for modernizing the Navy’s aging “boomer” submarines and their Trident D-5 ballistic missiles is the estimated $90 billion Ohio-class replacement vessel, also dubbed “SSBN(X).” “For SSBN(X), I don’t see viable alternatives to going forward with the program,” said the Defense leader, noting the Pentagon had already “made some significant adjustments” to program costs by delaying fielding of the first vessel by two years to 2031. “It’s the most important element -- it’s the central element -- of our triad.” That could leave the other two legs of the nuclear delivery arsenal -- Air Force bomber aircraft and ICBMs -- on the hot seat for reductions.
The service intends to field 80 to 100 new, conventionally armed Long-Range Strike bombers after 2020 that would later be certified for delivering nuclear weapons – though some pundits wonder if the new aircraft might remain conventional-only forever. The Air Force insists that the bomber must be made dual-capable to help retain flexibility and redundancy in U.S. atomic forces. However, service Secretary Michael Donley acknowledged early this year that sequestration could endanger the timing or details of plans for the new airplane. After 2030, the Air Force also plans to field a new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent to replace today’s 450 Minuteman 3 ICBMs. Here, too, the Pentagon is eyeing the potential for cutbacks, in the form of a life-extended or upgraded version of the Minuteman 3 rather than a new-design ballistic missile. For both the ICBM and bomber legs of the triad, “we’re looking at how do we sustain that capability and how do we do it at a reasonable cost, including both the delivery systems and the associated warheads and bombs,” the senior Defense official told Global Security Newswire. Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Donley said plans for the future ICBM could be at greater risk than for the next-generation bomber aircraft. “I think [the spending review] has a little bit more effect on the ICBM side of the force structure, because on the bomber side we already know that we’re going ahead with the Long-Range Strike,” he told reporters. By contrast, the service is just beginning to weigh how it might replace the Minuteman 3. Some defense analysts also see the Navy preparing its own “Plan B” for modernizing the nuclear-armed submarines. The service is developing new strike capacity for its Virginia-class fast attack submarines that could allow the boats to launch ballistic missiles. To date the focus appears to be solely on adding conventionally armed weapons to the submersibles. However, the “Virginia Payload Module” proposals to modify the current submarine design with a nearly 94-foot center section for ballistic-missile launch tubes appear strikingly similar to an alternative the Navy earlier dismissed for replacing the nuclear-armed Ohio-class submarines. Some analysts argue the Navy should transition its atomic missiles to a smaller vessel such as the attack submarines at a time when traditional Cold War nuclear threats are receding. The Navy, though, said several years ago that the “humpback” center compartment required for the Virginia-class submarines to carry Trident ballistic missiles would reduce the vessels’ speed, maneuverability and stealth.
No total program cost has been estimated for the proposed Virginia modification, but Navy budget documents show a price tag of nearly $800 million between 2013 and 2018 alone. In terms of the size of the nuclear force, some Republicans on Capitol Hill have warned Obama against taking unilateral reductions below levels agreed by the Washington and Moscow in the New START accord, which allows each side 1,550 fielded strategic warheads and 700 fielded delivery vehicles. They have also threatened to block implementation of the 2011 treaty if the administration does not make good on plans to modernize today’s nuclear warheads and delivery systems. The senior Defense official this week said the Pentagon’s budget review -- nicknamed the “Skimmer” in keeping with its acronym -- would not itself address the policy option of nuclear reductions below New START levels. However, the new assessment is being carried out in the “context” of “existing and pending policy guidance,” the official said in the Pentagon interview. “Pending” policy guidance would include a document currently sitting at the Oval Office for approval: The so-called “NPR Implementation Study,” which is believed to recommend changes to nuclear doctrine and targeting that could form the basis for a smaller nuclear arsenal numbering 1,100 or fewer warheads.
“The conclusions are with the president,” the senior official said of the implementing study, which was based on findings published in the Pentagon-led 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. “And when he says he has no more questions, and he signs, then we’re done.” Donley said Obama will make a significant determination in summer 2014 regarding exactly how the New START reductions will be taken. “The department and the nation’s way forward on this still is dependent on some national-level decisions that the president plans, as I understand, to make next year,” he said at the press briefing. The bomber, said the outgoing Air Force secretary, “is really independent, in some respects, from the nuclear decisions that are still pending,” because it also has a crucial conventional-attack role. Meanwhile, plans for a new-design replacement for nuclear-armed submarines appear here to stay. “As we look at the budgetary and fiscal environment that we’re going to have for the next decade-plus, the department’s going to have to make hard choices,” the senior Defense official said on Thursday. “Sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent is a critical mission. Sustaining the sea-based element … with the follow-on to Ohio-class is critical for that.” The official acknowledged there is “still a significant cost” to plans for developing and buying 12 SSBN(X) vessels, despite the planned two-year delay in introducing them into the fleet.
Can the nation afford to build ballistic missile capability into two different families of submarines -- the Virginia class and the Ohio-class replacement -- during a time of fiscal austerity? The senior official sounded slightly less committed when it came to the possible introduction of big conventionally tipped missiles for the Virginia attack submarines. “Preserving our capability as a nation to undertake non-nuclear strikes is also critically important, both for operational capabilities and indeed as we think about our strategy over time to sustain advantage” over possible adversaries, the official said. “Sustaining, if not increasing, our non-nuclear strike capacity even in a time of budgetary austerity is something that the Department needs to at least tee up … for this and future secretaries.” Donley said the ongoing review could result in dusting off some previously jettisoned defense procurement alternatives in the interest of curbing spending. “There are ways to address different aspects of the nuclear enterprise and how to modernize it and how much and on what schedule,” he said on Friday. “We have lots of options for that. There are many programs involved.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do I KNOW that the ICBM force is going to get the shaft.
The service intends to field 80 to 100 new, conventionally armed Long-Range Strike bombers after 2020 that would later be certified for delivering nuclear weapons – though some pundits wonder if the new aircraft might remain conventional-only forever. The Air Force insists that the bomber must be made dual-capable to help retain flexibility and redundancy in U.S. atomic forces. However, service Secretary Michael Donley acknowledged early this year that sequestration could endanger the timing or details of plans for the new airplane. After 2030, the Air Force also plans to field a new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent to replace today’s 450 Minuteman 3 ICBMs. Here, too, the Pentagon is eyeing the potential for cutbacks, in the form of a life-extended or upgraded version of the Minuteman 3 rather than a new-design ballistic missile. For both the ICBM and bomber legs of the triad, “we’re looking at how do we sustain that capability and how do we do it at a reasonable cost, including both the delivery systems and the associated warheads and bombs,” the senior Defense official told Global Security Newswire. Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Donley said plans for the future ICBM could be at greater risk than for the next-generation bomber aircraft. “I think [the spending review] has a little bit more effect on the ICBM side of the force structure, because on the bomber side we already know that we’re going ahead with the Long-Range Strike,” he told reporters. By contrast, the service is just beginning to weigh how it might replace the Minuteman 3. Some defense analysts also see the Navy preparing its own “Plan B” for modernizing the nuclear-armed submarines. The service is developing new strike capacity for its Virginia-class fast attack submarines that could allow the boats to launch ballistic missiles. To date the focus appears to be solely on adding conventionally armed weapons to the submersibles. However, the “Virginia Payload Module” proposals to modify the current submarine design with a nearly 94-foot center section for ballistic-missile launch tubes appear strikingly similar to an alternative the Navy earlier dismissed for replacing the nuclear-armed Ohio-class submarines. Some analysts argue the Navy should transition its atomic missiles to a smaller vessel such as the attack submarines at a time when traditional Cold War nuclear threats are receding. The Navy, though, said several years ago that the “humpback” center compartment required for the Virginia-class submarines to carry Trident ballistic missiles would reduce the vessels’ speed, maneuverability and stealth.
No total program cost has been estimated for the proposed Virginia modification, but Navy budget documents show a price tag of nearly $800 million between 2013 and 2018 alone. In terms of the size of the nuclear force, some Republicans on Capitol Hill have warned Obama against taking unilateral reductions below levels agreed by the Washington and Moscow in the New START accord, which allows each side 1,550 fielded strategic warheads and 700 fielded delivery vehicles. They have also threatened to block implementation of the 2011 treaty if the administration does not make good on plans to modernize today’s nuclear warheads and delivery systems. The senior Defense official this week said the Pentagon’s budget review -- nicknamed the “Skimmer” in keeping with its acronym -- would not itself address the policy option of nuclear reductions below New START levels. However, the new assessment is being carried out in the “context” of “existing and pending policy guidance,” the official said in the Pentagon interview. “Pending” policy guidance would include a document currently sitting at the Oval Office for approval: The so-called “NPR Implementation Study,” which is believed to recommend changes to nuclear doctrine and targeting that could form the basis for a smaller nuclear arsenal numbering 1,100 or fewer warheads.
“The conclusions are with the president,” the senior official said of the implementing study, which was based on findings published in the Pentagon-led 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. “And when he says he has no more questions, and he signs, then we’re done.” Donley said Obama will make a significant determination in summer 2014 regarding exactly how the New START reductions will be taken. “The department and the nation’s way forward on this still is dependent on some national-level decisions that the president plans, as I understand, to make next year,” he said at the press briefing. The bomber, said the outgoing Air Force secretary, “is really independent, in some respects, from the nuclear decisions that are still pending,” because it also has a crucial conventional-attack role. Meanwhile, plans for a new-design replacement for nuclear-armed submarines appear here to stay. “As we look at the budgetary and fiscal environment that we’re going to have for the next decade-plus, the department’s going to have to make hard choices,” the senior Defense official said on Thursday. “Sustaining a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent is a critical mission. Sustaining the sea-based element … with the follow-on to Ohio-class is critical for that.” The official acknowledged there is “still a significant cost” to plans for developing and buying 12 SSBN(X) vessels, despite the planned two-year delay in introducing them into the fleet.
Can the nation afford to build ballistic missile capability into two different families of submarines -- the Virginia class and the Ohio-class replacement -- during a time of fiscal austerity? The senior official sounded slightly less committed when it came to the possible introduction of big conventionally tipped missiles for the Virginia attack submarines. “Preserving our capability as a nation to undertake non-nuclear strikes is also critically important, both for operational capabilities and indeed as we think about our strategy over time to sustain advantage” over possible adversaries, the official said. “Sustaining, if not increasing, our non-nuclear strike capacity even in a time of budgetary austerity is something that the Department needs to at least tee up … for this and future secretaries.” Donley said the ongoing review could result in dusting off some previously jettisoned defense procurement alternatives in the interest of curbing spending. “There are ways to address different aspects of the nuclear enterprise and how to modernize it and how much and on what schedule,” he said on Friday. “We have lots of options for that. There are many programs involved.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do I KNOW that the ICBM force is going to get the shaft.
2IDSGT
Ah tale yew wut!
- Joined
- 27 November 2012
- Messages
- 365
- Reaction score
- 11
Whoever wrote ^^that^^ appears to be rather confused about the Virginia-Payload-Module (the tubes are nowhere near big enough to hold Tridents). Then again, there may be some willful obfuscation involved here as an effort to revive the appallingly-bad idea of Virginia-based Tridents. That said, there does remain the option of designing an entirely new small-SLBM capable of carrying 1-4 warheads (as opposed the the 12 that D-5 was designed for); in which case, it's a question of costs. Which is more? Developing a new missile (and possibly a new warhead) to fit the VPM? Or developing SSBN(X) to carry the missiles and warheads we already have?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
2IDSGT said:
I think they are talking about adding the CMC jointly developed by the US and UK rather than the VPM which was to possibly house the SLIRBM - http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/slirbm.htm
2IDSGT
Ah tale yew wut!
- Joined
- 27 November 2012
- Messages
- 365
- Reaction score
- 11
Can't get at that link right now, but I already know what CMC is and it has nothing to do with the VPM. The point I'm trying to make is that Trident and the Virginia-class make for a very poor match that was appropriately rejected by the USN. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped ignorant beancounters from continuing to push such a kludge; and I suspect the article's author of purposefully trying to confuse the issue enough for readers to get the idea that the USN is somehow trying to squelch innovative, cost-saving ideas. Fact is, there's no cheap/easy way to recapitalize our sea-based deterrent; it has to be done, and it has to be done well (not half-assed) either with new missiles or a new SSBN (I don't presume to know which would be cheaper).bobbymike said:
Personally, I'm for the SSBN(X) because using VPM-equipped Virginas with a new small-SLBM would require an impractical number of new boats to cover conventional and deterrence taskings, though it is entertaining to imagine the Russians/Chinese busting their asses to figure out which are carrying nukes.
There's yet another option: Design an entirely new missile and compartment optimized for the Virgina's hull-diameter and machinery. Of course, this would basically be a single-purpose SSBN, and probably wouldn't offer much (if any) cost savings over SSBN(X) (which at least reuses missiles we already have).
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
Russia Insists Next Round of Arms Control Talks be Multilateral May 28, 2013
Russia on Monday said it would not take part in a new round of arms control talks sought by the United States if they did not include other nuclear-armed nations, RIA Novosti reported. "We cannot endlessly negotiate with the United States the reduction and limitation of nuclear arms while some other countries are strengthening their nuclear and missile capabilities," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-insists-next-round-nuke-cuts-be-multilateral/
Gee Russia gets it!! Maybe we should try and find out what China is doing before reducing below New START levels not that we should have ever gone bleow START I IMHO
Russia on Monday said it would not take part in a new round of arms control talks sought by the United States if they did not include other nuclear-armed nations, RIA Novosti reported. "We cannot endlessly negotiate with the United States the reduction and limitation of nuclear arms while some other countries are strengthening their nuclear and missile capabilities," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-insists-next-round-nuke-cuts-be-multilateral/
Gee Russia gets it!! Maybe we should try and find out what China is doing before reducing below New START levels not that we should have ever gone bleow START I IMHO
2IDSGT
Ah tale yew wut!
- Joined
- 27 November 2012
- Messages
- 365
- Reaction score
- 11
God, I hope that doesn't happen. I don't think the people pushing that plan understand the dimensions involved. The D5 is a big missile, and the Ohios are big submarines designed to carry it efficiently.bobbymike said:
The image below gives an impression of what I'm talking about. From the top are Seawolf, Virginia, and Ohio classes (with assorted foreign boats below).
As you can see, trying to bodge a D5 compartment onto the Virginia class would result in something even worse than this God-awful hydrodynamic mess.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
2IDSGT said:God, I hope that doesn't happen. I don't think the people pushing that plan understand the dimensions involved. The D5 is a big missile, and the Ohios are big submarines designed to carry it efficiently.bobbymike said:
The image below gives an impression of what I'm talking about. From the top are Seawolf, Virginia, and Ohio classes (with assorted foreign boats below).
As you can see, trying to bodge a D5 compartment onto the Virginia class would result in something even worse than this God-awful hydrodynamic mess.
Thanks for the pics puts things into perspective. About 25 years ago I went to a Tuesday 11pm showing of Hunt for Red October when I left the theater with my friends other than one person sweeping the floor of the theater the front area was empty (it was 2am) here sitting in the glass cabinet that was not properly secured was about a 3 ft long perfect replica of the Red October.....................closest I came to stealing in my life. Probably ended up in someone's basement storage :'(
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
AF Global Strike Command Deterrence and Assurance briefing slides Minot Deterrence Conference - General James M. Kowalski
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/AFGSC-CommandBrief-May2013.pdf
Associated article Global Security Newswire
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/north-korea-and-china-pursuing-nuke-ready-cruise-missiles-air-force/
Interesting excerpts
Lewis characterized the Air Force nuclear command's branch's warnings as a "gimmick," and argued that any missile capable of carrying a 1,100-pound payload could be considered "nuclear capable." North Korean missile specialist Markus Schiller offered a similar take. "A missile doesn't care what you put on top of it as long as it is small and light enough, be it a hippo or a nuclear warhead," the aerospace engineer stated by e-mail. "The decisive thing is: It must go off when it should go off, and only then. And this is a task of the warhead, not the missile. Therefore, every missile is nuclear capable, depending on the available warhead." A South Korean television station last month described the North Korean KN-09 as a ballistic missile with an approximate range of 62 to 75 miles, Kristensen said in his analysis. The Air Force, though, described the system as a "coastal defense cruise missile";ballistic missiles follow an arc-shaped flight path that in some cases exits the atmosphere, whereas cruise missiles maintain a lower, more consistent trajectory.
Pyongyang could fire a coastal defense cruise missile at the South, but hitting a nearby U.S. aircraft carrier battle group would be the "most extreme" use of such a weapon, Kristensen said by telephone. The expert voiced doubt that North Korea would seek to expand its limited nuclear potential to embrace a "whole new type of mission." Observers have disputed North Korea's present technical capacity to create a nuclear device capable of fitting onto a ballistic missile, and Kristensen said making one small enough for a cruise missile would pose "even more" of a technical challenge. “We don’t know the size of this system, but they tend to be smaller than ballistic missiles," he said by telephone. One Air Force slide separately indicates North Korea has "fielded" its Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile, even though no trial launch of the weapon has taken place, Kristensen noted in his analysis. "In this case, 'fielded' apparently means it has appeared but not that it is operational or necessarily deployed with the armed forces," he wrote. The briefing materials assert North Korea intends to field its KN-08 ICBM within five years, though analysts widely accused Pyongyang of rolling out fake versions of the weapon in a 2012 military parade, he wrote.
Kristensen says the Air Force presentation "glosses over" key U.S. and British nuclear weapons modernization activities, and Lewis accused Kowalski of comparing "apples and oranges" in the briefing. "We have a bunch of systems that we could arm with nuclear weapons if we wanted to ... so you've got to count those," Lewis said, naming a hypersonic glider project as one example. He added that the presentation does not acknowledge high-profile U.S. efforts to refurbish B-61 nuclear gravity bombs and to build a new line of ballistic missile submarines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the quotes from the lifetime of "I have never seen a weapon system I like" Jeffrey Lewis & Hans Kristenson. No matter how old our systems are or what our adversaries are doing it has been the same arms control playbook as long as I can remember. And for good measure impugn the messenger, in this case, Kowalski. The presentation is a 'gimmick' or he 'glosses over', 'compares apples to oranges' and 'does not acknowledge', he clearly 'acknowledges' our future modernization 'plan' but IMHO the un-presented power point slides are 'Like we are ever going to build them'.
They have always said we are exaggerating the threat while downplaying our incredible awesome Cold War arsenal and modernization programs. I have literally been reading this meme for 30 years. No matter what the USSR or fast forward to China, North Korea, etc. are doing it is always nothing to see here the US is the real threat, LOOK hypersonic gliders!! 308 SS-18s, hundreds more SS-17s and 19s, meh LOOK 50 MXs! I remember the handwringing and hysterics over every annual update to 'Soviet Military Power' the Pentagon issued under Reagan, 'It's all lies don't pay attention' the US is building D5's and a few Perching IIs!!!
The real fear is that presentations like this not only shows the MASSIVE downsizing of nuclear forces (pg. 2) but that it also recognizes our complete lack of investment in Triad and nuclear infrastructure modernization since the end of the Cold War (see pg. 23 to 26) and that maybe just maybe it might get someone's attention in DC (probably not but here's hoping). Even the cost of all the 'projected' modernization equates to a miniscule amount of money in relation to GDP. We can 'afford' to modernize if we prioritize.
My prediction - Ploughshares Fund comes out with a 'study' disputing the 'cost' of our nukes in this slideshow and that we really spend a gazillion dollars.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/AFGSC-CommandBrief-May2013.pdf
Associated article Global Security Newswire
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/north-korea-and-china-pursuing-nuke-ready-cruise-missiles-air-force/
Interesting excerpts
Lewis characterized the Air Force nuclear command's branch's warnings as a "gimmick," and argued that any missile capable of carrying a 1,100-pound payload could be considered "nuclear capable." North Korean missile specialist Markus Schiller offered a similar take. "A missile doesn't care what you put on top of it as long as it is small and light enough, be it a hippo or a nuclear warhead," the aerospace engineer stated by e-mail. "The decisive thing is: It must go off when it should go off, and only then. And this is a task of the warhead, not the missile. Therefore, every missile is nuclear capable, depending on the available warhead." A South Korean television station last month described the North Korean KN-09 as a ballistic missile with an approximate range of 62 to 75 miles, Kristensen said in his analysis. The Air Force, though, described the system as a "coastal defense cruise missile";ballistic missiles follow an arc-shaped flight path that in some cases exits the atmosphere, whereas cruise missiles maintain a lower, more consistent trajectory.
Pyongyang could fire a coastal defense cruise missile at the South, but hitting a nearby U.S. aircraft carrier battle group would be the "most extreme" use of such a weapon, Kristensen said by telephone. The expert voiced doubt that North Korea would seek to expand its limited nuclear potential to embrace a "whole new type of mission." Observers have disputed North Korea's present technical capacity to create a nuclear device capable of fitting onto a ballistic missile, and Kristensen said making one small enough for a cruise missile would pose "even more" of a technical challenge. “We don’t know the size of this system, but they tend to be smaller than ballistic missiles," he said by telephone. One Air Force slide separately indicates North Korea has "fielded" its Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile, even though no trial launch of the weapon has taken place, Kristensen noted in his analysis. "In this case, 'fielded' apparently means it has appeared but not that it is operational or necessarily deployed with the armed forces," he wrote. The briefing materials assert North Korea intends to field its KN-08 ICBM within five years, though analysts widely accused Pyongyang of rolling out fake versions of the weapon in a 2012 military parade, he wrote.
Kristensen says the Air Force presentation "glosses over" key U.S. and British nuclear weapons modernization activities, and Lewis accused Kowalski of comparing "apples and oranges" in the briefing. "We have a bunch of systems that we could arm with nuclear weapons if we wanted to ... so you've got to count those," Lewis said, naming a hypersonic glider project as one example. He added that the presentation does not acknowledge high-profile U.S. efforts to refurbish B-61 nuclear gravity bombs and to build a new line of ballistic missile submarines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the quotes from the lifetime of "I have never seen a weapon system I like" Jeffrey Lewis & Hans Kristenson. No matter how old our systems are or what our adversaries are doing it has been the same arms control playbook as long as I can remember. And for good measure impugn the messenger, in this case, Kowalski. The presentation is a 'gimmick' or he 'glosses over', 'compares apples to oranges' and 'does not acknowledge', he clearly 'acknowledges' our future modernization 'plan' but IMHO the un-presented power point slides are 'Like we are ever going to build them'.
They have always said we are exaggerating the threat while downplaying our incredible awesome Cold War arsenal and modernization programs. I have literally been reading this meme for 30 years. No matter what the USSR or fast forward to China, North Korea, etc. are doing it is always nothing to see here the US is the real threat, LOOK hypersonic gliders!! 308 SS-18s, hundreds more SS-17s and 19s, meh LOOK 50 MXs! I remember the handwringing and hysterics over every annual update to 'Soviet Military Power' the Pentagon issued under Reagan, 'It's all lies don't pay attention' the US is building D5's and a few Perching IIs!!!
The real fear is that presentations like this not only shows the MASSIVE downsizing of nuclear forces (pg. 2) but that it also recognizes our complete lack of investment in Triad and nuclear infrastructure modernization since the end of the Cold War (see pg. 23 to 26) and that maybe just maybe it might get someone's attention in DC (probably not but here's hoping). Even the cost of all the 'projected' modernization equates to a miniscule amount of money in relation to GDP. We can 'afford' to modernize if we prioritize.
My prediction - Ploughshares Fund comes out with a 'study' disputing the 'cost' of our nukes in this slideshow and that we really spend a gazillion dollars.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
While US policy is pushing towards nuclear disarmament, the rest of the world is taking a different tack, said Barry Watts, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, on Thursday. While the United States and Soviet Union held the overwhelming majority of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, the concentration is not as dense today, as countries from Pakistan to North Korea to Iran are either declared nuclear powers or seeking to expand into the realm, he said during a presentation sponsored by AFA's Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies in Arlington, Va. Watts cited North Korea and Iran, in particular, as countries that learned lessons from the US invasion of Iraq—and see nuclear weapons as a protective measure against "conventional regime change," as he put it. Use of nuclear weapons in the event of a conventional war is not necessarily clearly defined by some countries, noted Watts. For example, Russian military doctrine has a very different view about limited nuclear use in a theater context and Pakistan appears to entertain similar thoughts. The danger is that the limited use of nuclear weapons could be seen as a "new normal" by some nations, he said during his May 30 talk. (See also Watts' April CSBA study Nuclear-Conventional Firebreaks and the Nuclear Taboo.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - Gee that's just swell (not that I didn't know that already)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - Gee that's just swell (not that I didn't know that already)
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,908
- Reaction score
- 10,413
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/01/us-russia-submarines-patrol-idUSBRE95007V20130601
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,304
- Reaction score
- 310
It would seem that he failed to notice slide 22, and that slide 5 is only covering systems over a 10 year span (from 5 years ago up to five years from now...i.e. not when a MMIII replacement or the NGB will appear). His only argument would be if the UK is actively pursuing nuclear upgrades that will appear within 5 years, or that have been fielded within the past five years.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
Three of the world's nuclear powers -- China, India and Pakistan -- have increased their arsenals over the past year, while the other five have cut their strength or kept it stable, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said Monday. China now has 250 nuclear warheads against 240 in 2012, while Pakistan has increased its warheads by about 10 to between 100 and 120 and India has also added roughly 10 for a total of 90 to 110, SIPRI said in its annual report.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/China_India_Pakistan_boost_nuclear_arsenals_study_999.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I just don't believe the China numbers. We did not know about the J-20 or the pictures of the UAS recently revealed and we are to believe they added only 10 warheads? Sure! There is a growing and massive nuclear infrastructure including hundreds of miles of tunnels, rail systems for train mounted ICBM's, new MIRV capable ICBMs (probably mounting a W88 knockoff whose plans were stolen during the Clinton presidency). I don't think we have a damn clue what the Chinese are doing AND we continue to exclude them from nuclear disarmament talks as we discuss possibly unilaterally reducing out arsenal to below 1000 deployed warheads and continuously delay or cancel any modernization of our own systems.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/China_India_Pakistan_boost_nuclear_arsenals_study_999.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I just don't believe the China numbers. We did not know about the J-20 or the pictures of the UAS recently revealed and we are to believe they added only 10 warheads? Sure! There is a growing and massive nuclear infrastructure including hundreds of miles of tunnels, rail systems for train mounted ICBM's, new MIRV capable ICBMs (probably mounting a W88 knockoff whose plans were stolen during the Clinton presidency). I don't think we have a damn clue what the Chinese are doing AND we continue to exclude them from nuclear disarmament talks as we discuss possibly unilaterally reducing out arsenal to below 1000 deployed warheads and continuously delay or cancel any modernization of our own systems.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,908
- Reaction score
- 10,413
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2013/06/05/USAF-seeks-new-ICBM-erector-vehicles/UPI-58811370459892/?rel=14211370534653
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
Russia Successfully Launches ICBM Prototype
A Thursday trial-firing of a Russian ICBM prototype successfully struck the programmed target in the specified amount of time, the Russian Defense Ministry announced. The test was conducted from a movable launch platform at the Kapustin Yar testing facility, which is located in the Astrakhan area, according to Russia Beyond the Headlines. The experimental solid-fueled ICBM is envisioned as taking the place of Russia's Yars and Topol-M missiles. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin praised the successful test and said the new intercontinental ballistic missile was a "missile defense killer," RIA Novosti reported.
"Neither current nor future American missile defense systems will be able to prevent that missile from hitting a target dead on," Rogozin asserted. Moscow is concerned that U.S. antimissile systems planned for fielding in Europe in the coming years could threaten nuclear stability on the continent and has repeatedly warned that it will pursue military measures to counteract the missile defense technology. The former Cold War rivals have held a number of talks on resolving their differences on missile defense but have yet to reach an accord. Russia's strategic missile forces will stage in excess of 200 drills in the coming summer months, RIA Novosti separately reported. The exercises will encompass "tactical drills at the division-regiment level as well as command post exercises at the army level," Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Yegorov said.
A Thursday trial-firing of a Russian ICBM prototype successfully struck the programmed target in the specified amount of time, the Russian Defense Ministry announced. The test was conducted from a movable launch platform at the Kapustin Yar testing facility, which is located in the Astrakhan area, according to Russia Beyond the Headlines. The experimental solid-fueled ICBM is envisioned as taking the place of Russia's Yars and Topol-M missiles. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin praised the successful test and said the new intercontinental ballistic missile was a "missile defense killer," RIA Novosti reported.
"Neither current nor future American missile defense systems will be able to prevent that missile from hitting a target dead on," Rogozin asserted. Moscow is concerned that U.S. antimissile systems planned for fielding in Europe in the coming years could threaten nuclear stability on the continent and has repeatedly warned that it will pursue military measures to counteract the missile defense technology. The former Cold War rivals have held a number of talks on resolving their differences on missile defense but have yet to reach an accord. Russia's strategic missile forces will stage in excess of 200 drills in the coming summer months, RIA Novosti separately reported. The exercises will encompass "tactical drills at the division-regiment level as well as command post exercises at the army level," Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Yegorov said.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130612/DEFREG02/306120019/Gen-Kehler-Lays-Out-Vision-STRATCOM?odyssey=mod_sectionstories
Key part;
Responding to a question from the audience, Kehler said he was “very concerned” about the future of the domestic industrial base for nuclear weapons as the US looks to draw down its arsenal.
-------------------------------------------------------
No I did not ask the question in this case but I've been asking it since at least 2000 or so when it was obvious US politicians had no desire nor the will to keep an active, modern and robust nuclear weapons warhead and delivery system infrastructure.
Key part;
Responding to a question from the audience, Kehler said he was “very concerned” about the future of the domestic industrial base for nuclear weapons as the US looks to draw down its arsenal.
-------------------------------------------------------
No I did not ask the question in this case but I've been asking it since at least 2000 or so when it was obvious US politicians had no desire nor the will to keep an active, modern and robust nuclear weapons warhead and delivery system infrastructure.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20130613/NEWS01/306130022/Daines-defends-ICBMs?nclick_check=1
Near the bottom says the defense bill contains funds for ICBM modernization and sustainment but not any more detail.
Near the bottom says the defense bill contains funds for ICBM modernization and sustainment but not any more detail.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
Top U.S. Nuclear Commander Eyes More Trident Subs, Not Less By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. combat commander for nuclear arms last week said he would like to see the Navy buy more than its planned complement of 12 new ballistic missile submarines, despite mounting indications that even that number might be unaffordable. The so-called SSBN(X) is set for initial fielding in 2031 and is to eventually replace all of today’s Ohio-class vessels, which carry nuclear-armed Trident D-5 missiles. Gen. Robert Kehler, who heads U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, Neb., said on Wednesday that despite Navy plans on the books to buy a dozen of the new-design submarines, each fitted with 16 ballistic missiles, no final decision on vessel quantity must be made in the near term. However, in a surprise twist, he added that from his perspective, even more than 12 SSBN(X) submersibles could be needed. “Do we have to make a decision today on how many we eventually buy, and as I would say selfishly, beyond 12?” the Air Force four-star general said at a breakfast event on Capitol Hill. “The answer is no, you don’t have to make a decision today.”
Kehler is not the first senior Defense official in recent days to talk up the idea of protecting from expected deep Pentagon budget cuts what is considered the nation’s most survivable leg of the nuclear triad -- sea-based warheads -- leaving atomic-armed bombers and ground-based ballistic missiles seemingly more vulnerable to the budget ax. His words come, though, as the naval service itself has questioned the effort’s affordability. Despite advocating for the new submarine effort, the Navy recently warned that it might lack sufficient funds to buy the vessels at an estimated total cost of $90 billion and, at the same time, meet its objective of retaining a 300-ship surface fleet. In a May cover letter to Congress accompanying Navy shipbuilding plans, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel flagged the cost concerns, saying that in the long term “there will be resourcing challenges … largely due to investment requirements associated with the SSBN(X) program.” Kehler, in testimony last month before a House panel, addressed lawmaker worries about an anticipated dip to just 10 operational ballistic missiles submarines for more than a decade -- mostly in the 2030s -- during the transition to 12 replacement vessels. “I think the ultimate number of submarines that we procure is still an open question,” the general told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee on May 9. “I think you have a lot of time here to decide how many submarines we eventually deploy.”
Some issue specialists warn that budget considerations could force either a smaller submarine fleet or a less ambitious ballistic-missile vessel design.
“As budgets tighten, speculation is growing that the Navy will not be able to afford” its current plans, Tom Collina of the Arms Control Association wrote in an analysis early this month. He cited recent comments by Representative Randy Forbes (R-Va.) that the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan is “an exercise in wishful thinking” and by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who called service blueprint “a fantasy.” Kehler last week suggested that while the program of record may be to buy 12 submarines – and that this number appeared about right for planning purposes – evolving threats and military needs could alter that figure. However, he did not overtly account for a revision downward. “Once we are replacing Ohio … then I believe the nation will have a number of decision points, at which the nation can decide if we need to purchase more than 12,” the strategic commander said. “What that number looks like and why -- whether that’s reacting to a future world situation, whether that’s reacting to other decisions that might be made along the way -- that is not a decision you have to make immediately,” he told the event audience. “Nor do I believe that we should think upfront that 12 is all we would ever purchase.” On Sunday, Collina -- who directs research at his organization -- cast skepticism on the general’s forecast.
“Given the downward trend for both defense dollars and the U.S. nuclear arsenal, I would doubt that 12 SSBN(X) subs will ever be built, and certainly no more than that unless you believe budgets and the arsenal will increase dramatically,” he told Global Security Newswire. “There is no need to have more than 10 subs in the 2030s, since the requirement is for 10 operational subs, and at that point they will all be operational. It’s only later, when some subs are in overhaul, that you would need 12 total. But that is a long way off.” Collina’s guess is that “if the Navy is forced to choose, it would rather have a 300-boat fleet than 12 SSBN(X)s,” he said. “If the president reduces the requirement for nuclear weapons in general, and subs in particular, then the Navy would be off the hook.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this seems to be good news, the commitment to the sea based leg of the Triad, I have the feeling General Kehler might believe the writing is on the wall to eliminate the ICBM force.
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. combat commander for nuclear arms last week said he would like to see the Navy buy more than its planned complement of 12 new ballistic missile submarines, despite mounting indications that even that number might be unaffordable. The so-called SSBN(X) is set for initial fielding in 2031 and is to eventually replace all of today’s Ohio-class vessels, which carry nuclear-armed Trident D-5 missiles. Gen. Robert Kehler, who heads U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, Neb., said on Wednesday that despite Navy plans on the books to buy a dozen of the new-design submarines, each fitted with 16 ballistic missiles, no final decision on vessel quantity must be made in the near term. However, in a surprise twist, he added that from his perspective, even more than 12 SSBN(X) submersibles could be needed. “Do we have to make a decision today on how many we eventually buy, and as I would say selfishly, beyond 12?” the Air Force four-star general said at a breakfast event on Capitol Hill. “The answer is no, you don’t have to make a decision today.”
Kehler is not the first senior Defense official in recent days to talk up the idea of protecting from expected deep Pentagon budget cuts what is considered the nation’s most survivable leg of the nuclear triad -- sea-based warheads -- leaving atomic-armed bombers and ground-based ballistic missiles seemingly more vulnerable to the budget ax. His words come, though, as the naval service itself has questioned the effort’s affordability. Despite advocating for the new submarine effort, the Navy recently warned that it might lack sufficient funds to buy the vessels at an estimated total cost of $90 billion and, at the same time, meet its objective of retaining a 300-ship surface fleet. In a May cover letter to Congress accompanying Navy shipbuilding plans, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel flagged the cost concerns, saying that in the long term “there will be resourcing challenges … largely due to investment requirements associated with the SSBN(X) program.” Kehler, in testimony last month before a House panel, addressed lawmaker worries about an anticipated dip to just 10 operational ballistic missiles submarines for more than a decade -- mostly in the 2030s -- during the transition to 12 replacement vessels. “I think the ultimate number of submarines that we procure is still an open question,” the general told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee on May 9. “I think you have a lot of time here to decide how many submarines we eventually deploy.”
Some issue specialists warn that budget considerations could force either a smaller submarine fleet or a less ambitious ballistic-missile vessel design.
“As budgets tighten, speculation is growing that the Navy will not be able to afford” its current plans, Tom Collina of the Arms Control Association wrote in an analysis early this month. He cited recent comments by Representative Randy Forbes (R-Va.) that the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan is “an exercise in wishful thinking” and by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who called service blueprint “a fantasy.” Kehler last week suggested that while the program of record may be to buy 12 submarines – and that this number appeared about right for planning purposes – evolving threats and military needs could alter that figure. However, he did not overtly account for a revision downward. “Once we are replacing Ohio … then I believe the nation will have a number of decision points, at which the nation can decide if we need to purchase more than 12,” the strategic commander said. “What that number looks like and why -- whether that’s reacting to a future world situation, whether that’s reacting to other decisions that might be made along the way -- that is not a decision you have to make immediately,” he told the event audience. “Nor do I believe that we should think upfront that 12 is all we would ever purchase.” On Sunday, Collina -- who directs research at his organization -- cast skepticism on the general’s forecast.
“Given the downward trend for both defense dollars and the U.S. nuclear arsenal, I would doubt that 12 SSBN(X) subs will ever be built, and certainly no more than that unless you believe budgets and the arsenal will increase dramatically,” he told Global Security Newswire. “There is no need to have more than 10 subs in the 2030s, since the requirement is for 10 operational subs, and at that point they will all be operational. It’s only later, when some subs are in overhaul, that you would need 12 total. But that is a long way off.” Collina’s guess is that “if the Navy is forced to choose, it would rather have a 300-boat fleet than 12 SSBN(X)s,” he said. “If the president reduces the requirement for nuclear weapons in general, and subs in particular, then the Navy would be off the hook.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this seems to be good news, the commitment to the sea based leg of the Triad, I have the feeling General Kehler might believe the writing is on the wall to eliminate the ICBM force.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
Obama to propose deeper cuts to nuclear arsenal;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578554010643116452.html?mod=fox_australian&utm_source=feedly
Here is how the arms controllers lie;
..............""Our intent is to seek negotiated cuts with Russia so we can continue to move beyond the Cold War nuclear posture," the senior administration official said. "But it's too early to tell since we haven't even started discussions with the Russians on what it will look like......."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So not having designed, built or tested a warhead for 22 years, not having designed or built a new SLBM, ICBM or bomber for 20 years, reducing from 13,000 deployed strategic warheads to 1550 under New START, the almost total elimination and removal of tactical nukes from around the world AND THEY STILL use the term Cold War.
This is deception and obfuscation pure and simple. There was a poll that came out months ago that when they actually took the time to explain to the poll respondent how much we have cut an overwhelming number of people said we have either cut far enough or too far.
So who is 'still living in a Cold War mindset'? Where our only enemy is Russia with no regard for China's completely unknown nuclear programs and the massive amount of nuclear proliferation since the end of the Cold War.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324520904578554010643116452.html?mod=fox_australian&utm_source=feedly
Here is how the arms controllers lie;
..............""Our intent is to seek negotiated cuts with Russia so we can continue to move beyond the Cold War nuclear posture," the senior administration official said. "But it's too early to tell since we haven't even started discussions with the Russians on what it will look like......."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So not having designed, built or tested a warhead for 22 years, not having designed or built a new SLBM, ICBM or bomber for 20 years, reducing from 13,000 deployed strategic warheads to 1550 under New START, the almost total elimination and removal of tactical nukes from around the world AND THEY STILL use the term Cold War.
This is deception and obfuscation pure and simple. There was a poll that came out months ago that when they actually took the time to explain to the poll respondent how much we have cut an overwhelming number of people said we have either cut far enough or too far.
So who is 'still living in a Cold War mindset'? Where our only enemy is Russia with no regard for China's completely unknown nuclear programs and the massive amount of nuclear proliferation since the end of the Cold War.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
Russia Next Year to Begin Making Model for New Heavy ICBM
June 19, 2013
A Russian Defense Ministry source on Tuesday said the government beginning next year would start building a working model for its next-generation heavy ICBM, RIA Novosti reported. The blueprints for the new liquid-fueled missile were authorized last year, the unidentified source said. Russia hopes no later than 2018 to begin manufacturing the strategic weapon, which is to supplant the 1960s-era Voyevoda ICBM. The designs call for an improved weight balance between the payload and missile body that is intended to enable the carrying of more powerful nuclear explosive devices such as multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles equipped with decoys.
The Russian strategic missile forces no later than 2020 will be outfitted with a sophisticated technology that will enable them to steer ICBMs past U.S. antimissile systems, RIA Novosti separately reported. The United States anticipates around 2018 deploying sophisticated missile interceptors in Europe that will be able to target medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles for the stated purpose of countering the Iranian threat. The Russian targeting technology can be integrated with Yars and Topol-M missiles as well as the future replacement to the Voyevoda missile, an anonymous ministry source said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it there are articles like this right after a 'The US Wants to Disarm" story. It is like they don't care what we do
June 19, 2013
A Russian Defense Ministry source on Tuesday said the government beginning next year would start building a working model for its next-generation heavy ICBM, RIA Novosti reported. The blueprints for the new liquid-fueled missile were authorized last year, the unidentified source said. Russia hopes no later than 2018 to begin manufacturing the strategic weapon, which is to supplant the 1960s-era Voyevoda ICBM. The designs call for an improved weight balance between the payload and missile body that is intended to enable the carrying of more powerful nuclear explosive devices such as multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles equipped with decoys.
The Russian strategic missile forces no later than 2020 will be outfitted with a sophisticated technology that will enable them to steer ICBMs past U.S. antimissile systems, RIA Novosti separately reported. The United States anticipates around 2018 deploying sophisticated missile interceptors in Europe that will be able to target medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles for the stated purpose of countering the Iranian threat. The Russian targeting technology can be integrated with Yars and Topol-M missiles as well as the future replacement to the Voyevoda missile, an anonymous ministry source said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it there are articles like this right after a 'The US Wants to Disarm" story. It is like they don't care what we do
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
OBAMA PROPOSES NUCLEAR CUTS
President Obama used his speech in Berlin yesterday to call for reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal by as much as a third, which would bring the U.S. nuclear stockpile down to about 1,000 warheads. Saying that “so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe,” Obama announced plans for a 2016 conference in the United States on improving measures to secure nuclear materials and proposed a treaty to end the production of fissile material.
Russia Reacts Coolly. From the Los Angeles Times: “Russian officials responded coolly Wednesday to President Obama’s call for further reductions to the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. ‘We cannot allow the balance of the strategic deterrence system to be broken, or the effectiveness of our nuclear forces to be diminished,’ President Vladimir Putin said at a defense industry meeting in St. Petersburg… Russian officials, however, suggested that bilateral negotiations between the United States and Russia on the subject were themselves a relic of the past. ‘Now, this problem is wider and naturally the circle of parties to be possibly contacted on the issue has increased too,’ Putin’s aide, Sergei Ushakov, told the RIA-Novosti news agency. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, could barely hide his irritation when asked about Obama’s proposal. Russia cannot ‘indefinitely and bilaterally talk with the United States about cuts and restrictions on nuclear weapons in a situation where a whole number of other countries are expanding their nuclear and missile potentials.’” http://lat.ms/14Lu9pj
Republicans, Some Democrats Criticize Proposal. Republicans predictably blasted President Obama’s proposal to cut the nuclear arsenal. Sen. Kelly Ayotte called the plan “misguided and dangerous,” while Rep. Michael Turner said the move was “only to appease a foreign audience.” Sen. Bob Corker said that he had been assured by Secretary of State John Kerry that any further reductions beyond the New START level would be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. That said, Corker argued that the president needs to fulfill the nuclear modernization promised in New START before proceeding to any additional reductions in the nuclear arsenal. SASC Ranking Member Sen. Jim Inhofe echoed Corker saying the promise of nuclear modernization “unfulfilled. HASC Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon cited about Russian violations of the treaty, which he said President Obama has ignored.
Some Democrats came out against the proposal. Montana’s Max Baucus and Jon Tester were joined by North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp in criticizing nuclear reductions. Both states are home to ICBM sites. Further nuclear reductions could lead to installations being closed in a potential BRAC round. Democratic opposition was likely one reason that SASC Chairman Carl Levin said the treaty would be a “bit of an uphill climb.”
President Obama used his speech in Berlin yesterday to call for reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal by as much as a third, which would bring the U.S. nuclear stockpile down to about 1,000 warheads. Saying that “so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe,” Obama announced plans for a 2016 conference in the United States on improving measures to secure nuclear materials and proposed a treaty to end the production of fissile material.
Russia Reacts Coolly. From the Los Angeles Times: “Russian officials responded coolly Wednesday to President Obama’s call for further reductions to the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. ‘We cannot allow the balance of the strategic deterrence system to be broken, or the effectiveness of our nuclear forces to be diminished,’ President Vladimir Putin said at a defense industry meeting in St. Petersburg… Russian officials, however, suggested that bilateral negotiations between the United States and Russia on the subject were themselves a relic of the past. ‘Now, this problem is wider and naturally the circle of parties to be possibly contacted on the issue has increased too,’ Putin’s aide, Sergei Ushakov, told the RIA-Novosti news agency. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, could barely hide his irritation when asked about Obama’s proposal. Russia cannot ‘indefinitely and bilaterally talk with the United States about cuts and restrictions on nuclear weapons in a situation where a whole number of other countries are expanding their nuclear and missile potentials.’” http://lat.ms/14Lu9pj
Republicans, Some Democrats Criticize Proposal. Republicans predictably blasted President Obama’s proposal to cut the nuclear arsenal. Sen. Kelly Ayotte called the plan “misguided and dangerous,” while Rep. Michael Turner said the move was “only to appease a foreign audience.” Sen. Bob Corker said that he had been assured by Secretary of State John Kerry that any further reductions beyond the New START level would be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. That said, Corker argued that the president needs to fulfill the nuclear modernization promised in New START before proceeding to any additional reductions in the nuclear arsenal. SASC Ranking Member Sen. Jim Inhofe echoed Corker saying the promise of nuclear modernization “unfulfilled. HASC Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon cited about Russian violations of the treaty, which he said President Obama has ignored.
Some Democrats came out against the proposal. Montana’s Max Baucus and Jon Tester were joined by North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp in criticizing nuclear reductions. Both states are home to ICBM sites. Further nuclear reductions could lead to installations being closed in a potential BRAC round. Democratic opposition was likely one reason that SASC Chairman Carl Levin said the treaty would be a “bit of an uphill climb.”
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,159
- Reaction score
- 6,026
INVESTMENTS IN NUCLEAR TRIAD TO CONTINUE
From Defense News: “The US military will continue to make investments to sustain its nuclear weapons and delivery platforms, even as Washington looks to enter talks with Moscow about reducing deployed strategic warheads by one-third, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Wednesday. The Pentagon will maintain its so-called ‘triad’ of bombers, ballistic missile submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles, Hagel said during a speech in Omaha, Neb… Also on Wednesday, the Pentagon released an updated report on the US nuclear employment strategy, the first update to the document in more than a decade and only the third revision since the end of the Cold War. In the nine-page report, DoD said the threat of global nuclear war ‘has become remote,’ however, ‘the risk of a nuclear attack has increased.’…As for the US nuclear stockpile, DoD ‘should maintain legacy weapons to hedge against the failure of weapons undergoing life-extension only until confidence in each life-extension program is attained,’ the report said.” http://bit.ly/15mhMx2
------------------------------------------------------------------
See bolded item - so the risk has increased from the very countries that we are not negotiating with and yet the Obama administration proposes deeper nuclear cuts. The US has massively disarmed, not built any new weapons and the world became more dangerous? The entire 'World will follow us' doctrine seems to be collapsing before our very eyes. Of course I can't wait for the Kellogg - Briand Pact to kick in then Peace on Earth brothers and sisters ???
From Defense News: “The US military will continue to make investments to sustain its nuclear weapons and delivery platforms, even as Washington looks to enter talks with Moscow about reducing deployed strategic warheads by one-third, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Wednesday. The Pentagon will maintain its so-called ‘triad’ of bombers, ballistic missile submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles, Hagel said during a speech in Omaha, Neb… Also on Wednesday, the Pentagon released an updated report on the US nuclear employment strategy, the first update to the document in more than a decade and only the third revision since the end of the Cold War. In the nine-page report, DoD said the threat of global nuclear war ‘has become remote,’ however, ‘the risk of a nuclear attack has increased.’…As for the US nuclear stockpile, DoD ‘should maintain legacy weapons to hedge against the failure of weapons undergoing life-extension only until confidence in each life-extension program is attained,’ the report said.” http://bit.ly/15mhMx2
------------------------------------------------------------------
See bolded item - so the risk has increased from the very countries that we are not negotiating with and yet the Obama administration proposes deeper nuclear cuts. The US has massively disarmed, not built any new weapons and the world became more dangerous? The entire 'World will follow us' doctrine seems to be collapsing before our very eyes. Of course I can't wait for the Kellogg - Briand Pact to kick in then Peace on Earth brothers and sisters ???
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,329
- Reaction score
- 9,057
China has backed Obama on nuclear weapons cuts (of course). Also they say Russia and the US should bear the brunt of reductions. How predictable. No doubt Zero will tout this as evidence of Utopia being just around the corner. IMO the fact that China thinks it's a good idea should be a red flag that it's not.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,908
- Reaction score
- 10,413
Rattling the sabre, but given the state of said sabre....
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/continuous-bomber-presence-keeps-the-b-52-visible-in-the-western-pacific/
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/continuous-bomber-presence-keeps-the-b-52-visible-in-the-western-pacific/
