Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Going a bit OT for a moment, here's an editorial from The Japan News/Yomiuri Shimbun: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000708129
 
Air Force Pushing For PDM-Style Sustainment Of Critical Missile Facilities

In a departure from its current method of maintaining 50-year-old ballistic missile launch and alert facilities, the Air Force is working to develop a type of programmed depot maintenance effort for those sites that would improve sustainment of the entire Minuteman III weapon system, according to a senior nuclear enterprise official
---------------------------------------------
Is this good or are some of these facilities in such dire circumstances that this is desperately needed?
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/11/general-in-charge-of-icbms-to-be-fired.html
 
When comparing the figures released in the most recent [http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/215000.htm][nuclear arms count under the New START], it's important to the note that the numbers of deployed nuclear weapons delivery systems and deployed and non-deployed launchers for the US are a bit misleading because the [http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/211454.htm][previous published count] listed 58 Peacekeeper launchers, 24 B-52Gs, and one B-2, even though the B-52G and Peacekeeper were retired long ago, and one of the 21 B-2s built crashed on takeoff from Anderson AFB in 2008. So if the October 2013 count lists 809 deployed strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and 1015 launchers, and we exclude the number of Peacekeeper launchers and B-52Gs and the one crashed B-2, then there would be a total of 785 deployed ICBMs, SLBMS, and heavy bombers, and there would be a total of 952 deployed and non-deployed launchers of strategic nuclear weapons. In sum, the US is a bit slow in trying to reach the limits allowed by the New START (700 deployed strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers, 1550 operationally deployed warheads), and Russia is already meeting most of the thresholds set out by New START (deployed delivery vehicles, and deployed and non-deployed launchers).
 
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/plans-use-nuclear-weapons-blow-incoming-asteroids/

I personally think this is a great idea. Not only does it allow continued research, developement and evaluation of new nuclear weapons concepts but to actually physically build bombs again and exercise the intellectual and industrial base of the nuclear enterprise. It would also spur development of new missile/rocket/guidance/warhead concepts to hoist the weapon into spece.

Probably, most importantly, it could attract new young scientists into the field of nuclear weapons design as what is a higher calling than 'saving the world'! :D
 
Navy Contributing To Air Force's Minuteman III Missile Follow-On AOA
Posted: Oct. 17, 2013
The Navy's strategic systems program office will contribute data to the Air Force's analysis of alternatives on the future of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile in an expansion of collaboration between the two services in the nuclear arena. As reported by Inside the Air Force, the service received approval from Pentagon leadership in September to launch a formal AOA for what the Air Force is calling its Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent. The Minuteman III is set to stay in operation until 2030, and the Air Force will consider continuing to sustain it beyond that point, upgrading various subsystems to close capability gaps, or developing an all-new replacement as part of the AOA. According to Brig. Gen. Daryl Hauck, the Air Force's program executive officer for strategic systems, the Navy will provide input as part of that study. To a much larger degree than in previous nuclear acquisition programs, the air and sea services are collaborating in locating common parts and processes that could help the two save money and improve sustainment processes.

"The teams continue to work together to identify additional opportunities for collaboration, and bring them to the attention of program leadership on a quarterly basis," Hauck said in an Oct. 9 email. "These teams are also feeding the Ground Based Strategic Deterrence (GBSD) analysis of alternatives. The level of collaboration we have achieved in the last year is without precedent." Because of differences in infrastructure, concepts of operations and existing architectures, it is highly unlikely that the two services would commit to developing a completely common missile to replace the Minuteman III on the Air Force side and the Trident II D5 that is operated on the Navy's nuclear submarines. But Hauck and others have said that subsystem- and component-level commonality could be very helpful to the services, and recent cooperation on a common fuze "has already identified using the same battery, radar, and path length modules, yielding significant cost avoidance by reducing duplication of non-recurring engineering and qualification testing costs."

Another near-term idea on that subsystem level is to have the two services use more common ingredients in the missile propellants that allow the Minuteman III and Trident to fly. As ITAF reported in the summer after discussions with ballistic missile contractor ATK, the Air Force and Navy use propellants with some unique properties that are classified differently, requiring the Navy's to be kept in a more isolated location than the Air Force's. But ATK said that technically, using the same set of ingredients the Navy uses today -- only in different quantities -- could produce a fuel that is higher-performance than the Air Force's today while falling into the same classification as the Navy's. Such a move would significantly strengthen the limited ballistic missile industrial base and most likely save the Pentagon money as well.

"As we contemplate propulsion system replacements, we are looking at the potential for using common ingredients in different ratios to meet hazard class and energy requirements in order to purchase raw ingredients in economic order quantities and share overhead of mixing facilities," Hauck said. The main participants in discussions of commonality are Hauck's office and the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, both located at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, as well as the Navy's strategic systems program, headed by Vice Adm. Terry Benedict. -- Gabe Starosta
----------------------------------------------------------------
I would go with a D5 diameter sized replacement with a longer first stage for global range from CONUS.
 
As I slowly and tearfully come around to defense budget realities I am thinking about different ship building projections and feel we might get more bang for the buck by replacing a couple of carrier battle groups for a comparable dollar amount of Virginia blocks V's. That might free up $30 to $40 billion which could translate into 15 or 20 more subs?
 
Not sure if this is something to be concerned about - it might have been an experimental shot from Kapustin Yar to Sary Shagan to test whatever payload it is against the missile defence installations there. If so, it would be probably wholly unremarkable for two reasons: test launches are exempt from INF restrictions IIRC and (Topol-E?) shots from Kapustin Yar the range at Sary Shagan should be a fairly regular occurrence, for ABM testing?
 
Quite the demonstration today. Full up “snap inspection” ordered by Mr. Putin himself. SS-18, SS-25, SS-N-23, SS-26, SS-21, S-300, S-400. Sounds like quite the VIP event if you had a ticket.

http://freebeacon.com/moscow-conducts-large-scale-nuclear-attack-drill/

"Russia conducts large scale nuclear attack drill"
Russian strategic forces carried out a large-scale surprise military drill on Wednesday, launching four nuclear missiles that were closely monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said.
The drill began around 9:00 am ET and included the test launch of two land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and two submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The test firings were unusual because of the number of missiles fired at one time, said officials who discussed some details of the drill on condition of anonymity.
 
jjnodice said:
Quite the demonstration today. Full up “snap inspection” ordered by Mr. Putin himself. SS-18, SS-25, SS-N-23, SS-26, SS-21, S-300, S-400. Sounds like quite the VIP event if you had a ticket.

http://freebeacon.com/moscow-conducts-large-scale-nuclear-attack-drill/

"Russia conducts large scale nuclear attack drill"
Russian strategic forces carried out a large-scale surprise military drill on Wednesday, launching four nuclear missiles that were closely monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said.
The drill began around 9:00 am ET and included the test launch of two land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and two submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The test firings were unusual because of the number of missiles fired at one time, said officials who discussed some details of the drill on condition of anonymity.
Click to expand...

Interesting. When was the last time they ran a test like this? What about for the US....any tests of this nature lately?

Is there a political message in this, or is it a purely technical evolution?
 
jjnodice said:
Quite the demonstration today. Full up “snap inspection” ordered by Mr. Putin himself. SS-18, SS-25, SS-N-23, SS-26, SS-21, S-300, S-400. Sounds like quite the VIP event if you had a ticket.

http://freebeacon.com/moscow-conducts-large-scale-nuclear-attack-drill/

"Russia conducts large scale nuclear attack drill"
Russian strategic forces carried out a large-scale surprise military drill on Wednesday, launching four nuclear missiles that were closely monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said.
The drill began around 9:00 am ET and included the test launch of two land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and two submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The test firings were unusual because of the number of missiles fired at one time, said officials who discussed some details of the drill on condition of anonymity.
Click to expand...

Surely the terminology is incorrect? I doubt these missiles were carrying nuclear warheads when they were launched, therefore they could not be "nuclear missiles"? More likely they were RV shaped ballast?
 
Just as a reminder : This thread is about "Nuclear Weapons NEWS". Comments, like those about the
payload of the Russia missiles fired recently are ok, to my opinion, as they may make thinks clearer.
Others, containing just sorrows about the general situation of nuclear deterrence, should be posted
in other threads, please.
 
Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.On Monday, leading media outlets including China Central TV, the People’s Daily, the Global Times, the PLA Daily, the China Youth Daily and the Guangmin Daily ran identical, top-headlined reports about the “awesomeness” of the People's Liberation Army navy’s strategic submarine force. ... The article features 30 photos and graphics detailing, among other things, damage projections for Seattle and Los Angeles after being hit by Chinese nuclear warheads and the deadly radiation that would spread all the way to Chicago.
“Because the Midwest states of the U.S. are sparsely populated, in order to increase the lethality, [our] nuclear attacks should mainly target the key cities on the West Coast of the United States, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego,” the Global Times said. ... “If we launch our DF 31A ICBMs over the North Pole, we can easily destroy a whole list of metropolises on the East Coast and the New England region of the U.S., including Annapolis, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Portland, Baltimore and Norfolk, whose population accounts for about one-eighth of America’s total residents,” the Global Times said​
Spectacular.
​
 

Attachments

  • 10312013_china-nuke-strike8201_s640x430.jpg
    10312013_china-nuke-strike8201_s640x430.jpg
    37.8 KB · Views: 610
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/us-needs-modernized-strategic-nuclear-forces?a=1&c=1171
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/6/inside-the-ring-north-korean-missiles-deemed-a-ser/
 
Navy Concerned about $500 Million Shortfall for Ballistic-Missile Subs

Nov. 7, 2013By Emelie Rutherford


Global Security Newswire

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert on Thursday testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said budget pressures make him very concerned about a funding shortfall for the SSBN(X) Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine effort (Win McNamee/Getty Images). WASHINGTON -- The Navy's top admiral on Thursday said he is very concerned about an imminent $500 million shortfall in funding for a large-scale program to develop and build new SSBN(X) Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert testified before a Senate panel that this shipbuilding effort and other investment programs top his concerns when he assesses challenges his sea service is facing operating under two tricky budgeting scenarios. The Navy does not have an actual budget approved for the fiscal year that started on Oct. 1 -- and instead is operating under a government-wide "continuing resolution" keeping its funding at last year's levels -- and also is facing a sharp reduction in planned funding because of the roughly $500 billion decade-long sequestration budget cuts that hit the Pentagon starting earlier this year. Greenert told the Senate Armed Services Committee about multiple funding quandaries -- including $1 billion in deferred costs such as contracts that the Navy must pay now as well as unfunded ship-maintenance availabilities and reduced sustainment of air wings.

"But the one that will affect us the most now will be investment," Greenert told committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). "What concerns me the most is our SSBN(X). Now, that is our top nuclear-strategic deterrent follow-on. And fact of the matter is, [because the Defense Department is operating] under a continuing resolution, and because we want to grow that program in [fiscal] '14, we're $500 million off in '14." The SSBN(X) is the Navy's replacement for its current SSBNs that have Trident D-5 nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. The service hopes to retire the 14 older vessels starting in 2027, and bring the first of 12 replacements online soon after to keep a desired number of deterrent nuclear warheads on patrol. The service requested $1.08 billion in research and development funding in fiscal 2014 to ramp up development work on the SSBN(X). A $500 million reduction would prevent a significant uptick in development work. The big-ticket submarine program has been a concern of both lawmakers and Pentagon officials, as it is set to consume a large portion of the Navy's shipbuilding budget in the coming years. The service in its fiscal 2013 budget delayed the procurement of the first two new submarines, from fiscal 2019 to fiscal 2021.

This past May the Navy estimated it will cost $12 billion, in 2013 dollars, to buy the first SSBN(X) in 2012. It pegged the cost of the additional 11 submarines to be roughly $5.4 billion, in fiscal 2010 dollars. Naval officials are working to reduce that $5.4 billion down to $4.9 billion, Congressional Research Service naval specialist Ronald O'Rourke notes in an Oct. 22 report. "Even with this cost-reduction effort, observers are concerned about the impact the Ohio replacement program will have on the Navy's ability to procure other types of ships at desired rates in the 2020s and early 2030s," O'Rourke writes.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/8/obama-has-head-handed-him-secret-iran-sanction-dea/
 
Air Force, Industry Review Draft LRSO Acquisition Strategy And Budget

Posted: Nov. 14, 2013

The Air Force is moving ahead with plans to modernize the nation's inventory of nuclear-armed, bomber-launched cruise missiles, briefing industry on tentative acquisition plans for a Long-Range Standoff weapon the service plans to launch as a formal procurement project as soon as next spring. On Oct. 31, the Air Force met with industry representatives as a final step in conducting market research with an eye toward awarding technology development contracts in May 2014, according to the Air Force.

The Pentagon proposed ratcheting up near-term development spending on the LRSO to more than $1 billion in the five-year spending plan accompanying its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal as part of an effort to field a replacement to the AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile in 2030 and bolster the airborne leg of the nuclear triad. On May 23, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the Air Force's plan to proceed with meeting the LRSO requirement with a new program. The "recommendation is classified," Maj. Eric Badger, an Air Force spokesman, told InsideDefense.com. The LRSO requirement will be met by one of the options the Air Force examined in an analysis of alternatives, including modernizing the ALCM and procuring a new system. The new system possibilities included a low-altitude, subsonic design as well as a high-altitude, supersonic weapon.

Last December, the Air Force invited Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman to conduct trade studies in support of its LRSO plans, lining up what could become a four-way competition to build a Long Range Standoff weapon. This week, company officials said little about the program; two explicitly confirmed attending the industry day. "Raytheon Missile Systems looks forward to working with the Air Force in its effort to develop this new important capability," said Tara Wood, a Raytheon spokeswoman. Craig Vanbebber, a Lockheed spokesman, said, "We did attend the LRSO industry day." Garrett Kasper, a Boeing spokesman, said, "We will continue to meet with the customer." Randy Belote, a Northrop Grumman spokesman, said only that the company participates in competitions in which it "can offer significant value and affordable solutions to the customer, and those that we feel we can win."

The Air Force plans to solicit technology development proposals in May, according to the industry day notice. "The LRSO program is on track to meet MS [milestone] A in Summer 2014," Badger said, referring to the point at which the Air Force would solicit bids for the technology development phase of the program.

The Air Force's FY-14 budget includes $5 million for LRSO with plans to ramp up spending to $40 million in FY-15, $204 million in FY-16, $349 million in FY-17, and $440 million in FY-18 -- for a total of more than $1 billion over the five-year period. The Air Force is commencing a service-life extension program to ensure the Boeing-built ALCM, which is based on a design first deployed in 1982, remains viable until 2030 -- an effort that includes attending to the propulsion system, guidance and flight control systems as well as components that arm the W80-1 nuclear warhead. The Air Force is also currently shrinking its nuclear cruise missile inventory to 528; it was previously larger than 1,100. LRSO is expected to incorporate one of three existing nuclear warhead designs -- either the B61-12, the W84, or the W80-1, according to Sandia National Laboratories which was commissioned by the Air Force and National Nuclear Security Administration to help assess which would best meet design requirements for an ALCM replacement. "We have worked closely with the LRSO Program Office to develop an acquisition strategy aligned with the Department of Energy's process for selecting and adapting an existing warhead," Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, told the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee on April 17.

Part of the Air Force argument for developing the LRSO is to preserve the current ability to launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles from ranges beyond the reach of an enemy's air defenses. Currently, the B-52 is the only bomber capable of carrying the ALCM. The LRSO analysis, endorsed by the JROC in May, considered a new weapon capable of also being launched from the B-2, and the next bomber -- the Long-Range Strike Bomber. The LRSO is part of the Air Force's program to modernize its long-range strike capabilities. Last month, Boeing and Lockheed announced plans to team on the competition for the big prize in this portfolio -- the Long-Range Strike Bomber, a classified effort. Northrop Grumman, builder of the B-2, is presumed to also be a contender but has not made any similar public announcement. The Air Force aims to produce a fleet of between 80 and 100 new bombers beginning in the mid-2020s. -- Jason Sherman
 
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/20/budget-cuts-undermine-21st-century-bomber-threaten-nuclear-triad/

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1347
 
http://freebeacon.com/reports-u-s-unfreezes-8-billion-in-iranian-assets/

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-nuclear-deal-loophole-may-allow-off-site-reactor-work-332975
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10472538/Iran-nuclear-deal-Saudi-Arabia-warns-it-will-strike-out-on-its-own.html
 
Russia Has Cheated on Nuclear Treaty, U.S. is Said to Admit in Closed Briefings

The Obama administration last year reportedly informed lawmakers in a classified session that Moscow was violating the pact (AFP/Getty Images). Senior Obama administration officials informed congressional lawmakers in a closed-door 2012 briefing that Russia was not abiding by a bilateral arms control accord that bans the fielding of intermediate-range missiles, the Daily Beast reported on Tuesday. The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty required both Russia and the United States to eliminate all of their nuclear and non-nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles with maximum flight distances between roughly 300 miles and 3,400 miles. Russia's testing of the SS-25 mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and of the new-model RS-26, optimized for penetrating missile defenses, may have raised the concerns about violating the accord's range restrictions, according to the website. However, the alleged focus of the cheating remains secret.

Last November during a classified session, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon and acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Moscow was in breach of the INF accord, according to the report, which cites two unnamed U.S. officials who were at the briefing. Then-Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) blasted the reported treaty transgressions: "If we're going to have treaties with people, we've got to adhere to them," he was said to have groused. "We're not going to pass another treaty in the U.S. Senate if our colleagues are sitting up here knowing somebody is cheating," said Kerry, now secretary of State, according to two officials with access to the classified record of the briefing.

Twelve Republican senators are backing }]an amendment to their chamber's fiscal 2014 [url=http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/markey-seeks-cost-options-maintaining-ballistic-missile-submarines/]national defense authorization bill that would require the State and Defense departments to brief Congress on compliance issues related to the INF pact. "The administration's been candid with Congress about a range of countries where we have ongoing treaty compliance issues ... and that includes concerns we have raised with Russia," an anonymous Obama official told the Daily Beast. "Determinations about non-compliance are made after a careful process, but Congress is in the loop." Senator James Risch (R-Idaho), who sponsored the amendment to the NDAA bill, is one of several senators reportedly blocking Gottemoeller from being confirmed to the position of undersecretary of State. Sources told the Daily Beast that Gottemoeller is also in the running to become the next U.S. envoy to Russia.
 
http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/

http://freebeacon.com/iran-north-korea-secretly-developing-new-long-range-rocket-booster-for-icbms/

http://freebeacon.com/iran-north-korea-missile-cooperation-undermines-recent-geneva-nuclear-deal/
 
http://washingtonexaminer.com/canadas-not-on-board-with-iran-deal/article/2539836


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/iran-nuclear-kerry-idUSL2N0J527X20131120
 
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/December%202013/1213edit.aspx
 
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/28/asia-pacific/iaea-says-nkorea-images-suggest-reactor-restart/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/north-korea-restarts-nuclear-reactor-warns-iaea-pyongyang
 
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/29/U-S-Released-Iranian-Scientist-As-Part-Of-Nuke-Talks-Before-Geneva-Agreement
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom