Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Share

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  max steel on Mon May 25, 2015 9:05 pm

    Queries :-

    1) What advantage does US obtain in placing its interceptors on Guam ? Since nukes will be flying over the north how interceptors in pacific will work or is it to protect australia and new zealand butts?

    2) US has a geopolitical advantage by having a vassal ( or ally ) Canada over its head . How effective is NORAD or any other us integrated air defense against Russian nukes ?

    3)Muricans have the advantage as they can try to intercept them above Canada's airspace . On the other hand Russia doesn't posses such advantage . They have to place their interceptors( both ground and naval ) in Artic in order to shoot down yankee nukes . Moreover in Artic russian strategic defensive interceptors can come under US attack either from their subs hiding under ice caps or a fleet of bombers . whereas russia can't sabotage NORAD defenses or it can ?

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  Russian Patriot on Mon May 25, 2015 9:52 pm

    max steel wrote:Queries :-

    1) What advantage does US obtain in placing its interceptors on Guam ? Since nukes will be flying over the north how interceptors in pacific will work or is it to protect australia and new zealand butts?

    2) US has a geopolitical advantage by having a vassal ( or ally ) Canada over its head . How effective is NORAD or any other us integrated air defense against Russian nukes ?

    3)Muricans have the advantage as they can try to intercept them above Canada's airspace .  On the other hand Russia doesn't posses such advantage . They have to place their  interceptors( both ground and naval ) in Artic in order to shoot down yankee nukes . Moreover in Artic russian strategic defensive interceptors can come under US attack either from their subs hiding under ice caps or a fleet of bombers . whereas russia can't sabotage NORAD defenses or it can ?

    NORAD is not  so effective  as it missed  some  bombers numerous times.

    Guam basically defends Hawaii and Marshall Islands plus Diego Garcia in case China starts massive expansion.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 26, 2015 12:04 pm

    1) What advantage does US obtain in placing its interceptors on Guam ? Since nukes will be flying over the north how interceptors in pacific will work or is it to protect australia and new zealand butts?

    A forward air base they will never be denied permission to use is something very valuable to them.... and it has nothing to do with them protecting anyone else... they only protect themselves.

    2) US has a geopolitical advantage by having a vassal ( or ally ) Canada over its head . How effective is NORAD or any other us integrated air defense against Russian nukes ?

    NORAD will tell them what is coming but wont be that useful in stopping much.

    3)Muricans have the advantage as they can try to intercept them above Canada's airspace . On the other hand Russia doesn't posses such advantage . They have to place their interceptors( both ground and naval ) in Artic in order to shoot down yankee nukes . Moreover in Artic russian strategic defensive interceptors can come under US attack either from their subs hiding under ice caps or a fleet of bombers . whereas russia can't sabotage NORAD defenses or it can ?

    What if Russia launches a nuclear attack over the south pole?

    An energyia rocket could get 150 tons into earth orbit... a tactical nuke with a heat shield can be man portable, so we are talking about 20kgs or less... launch it into an orbital flight path over the south pole at a speed and trajectory so they deorbit over the US... such light individual payloads means only a small rocket of perhaps 5kgs could be used to deorbit the warheads all over the US... so 150 tons of 25kg warheads that start to scatter over the south pole... so we are talking about 6000 nuclear explosions from one launch before one ICBM has even been launched...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  max steel on Thu May 28, 2015 9:35 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]


    What if Russia launches a nuclear attack over the south pole?

    An energyia rocket could get 150 tons into earth orbit... a tactical nuke with a heat shield can be man portable, so we are talking about 20kgs or less... launch it into an orbital flight path over the south pole at a speed and trajectory so they deorbit over the US... such light individual payloads means only a small rocket of perhaps 5kgs could be used to deorbit the warheads all over the US... so 150 tons of 25kg warheads that start to scatter over the south pole... so we are talking about 6000 nuclear explosions from one launch before one ICBM has even been launched...


    Willn't they intercept such energyia rocket before it reaches usa airspace ? since flying over south pole will take more time than over north pole ? Isn't it ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 29, 2015 12:35 pm

    Willn't they intercept such energyia rocket before it reaches usa airspace ? since flying over south pole will take more time than over north pole ? Isn't it ?

    they have no continuous way of tracking a rocket launched from Russia that goes over the south pole and approaches the US from the south...

    At orbital speed instead of 30 minutes over the north pole, the south pole route would be more of a complete orbit... so we are talking about 90 minutes, but as the US has no tracking capacity to its south the extra hour would make no difference.

    It would detect the launch and the next thing it would know is large numbers of nuclear detonations all over the US...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:58 pm

    US Air Force Orders New Tail Kits for B61 Nuclear Gravity Bombs - Boeing


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:59 pm

    Latest Upgrades to Keep US Trident Ballistic Missiles Operational by 2042

    The US Navy has carried out two new successful firings of its submarine-launched Trident II D-5 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles to test upgrades that will keep them operational until 2042, defense contractor Lockheed Martin said in a news release.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The three-stage ballistic missile has a range of 4,000 nautical miles and can carry multiple independently targeted reentry warheads.

    "These two missile flights formally qualify the new flight control and interlocks electronics packages for deployment in 2017," the release, issued on Tuesday, said.

    Lockheed Martin noted that the modernized avionics subsystems, which control key missile functions during flight, "enable missile life extension through 2042."

    The missiles were test-fired on November 7 and November 9 in the Pacific Ocean from an Ohio nuclear-powered submarine, the release noted.

    "Lockheed Martin is incorporating modernized electronics technology to cost effectively prolong the service life of the D5 missile design on current and next-generation submarine platforms," the release added.

    The Trident II D5 missile is deployed aboard 14 US Navy Ohio-class and four British Vanguard-class submarines and was first test-fired in 1989.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151111/1029900765/trident-ballistic-missiles.html#ixzz3rNqSEZ1F


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:38 pm

    US Air Force Successfully Tests New Nuclear Gravity Bomb

    The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and United States Air Force (USAF) have completed the third development flight test of a non-nuclear version of the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb at Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, NNSA said in a press release posted on its website. It performed successfully in a realistic guided flight environment.

    The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and United States Air Force (USAF) have completed the third development flight test of a non-nuclear version of the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb at Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, NNSA said in a press release posted on its website. It performed successfully in a realistic guided flight environment.

    This test is the last of three development flight tests for the B61-12 Life Extension Program (LEP).

    The B61-12 test asset was released by a USAF F-15E Strike Eagle and it “demonstrated successful performance in a realistic guided flight environment”, the statement said.

    Initial indications revealed that “all scheduled activities occurred successfully and that telemetry, tracking and video data were properly collected”.

    The development flight test asset contained representative non-nuclear components but no highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which is consistent with test treaty obligations, NNSA stressed.

    Although the tail-kit assembly guided the test unit, the B61-12 nuclear weapon will have no more capabilities than the legacy B61 nuclear weapons and is not GPS-guided.

    The B61-12 is expected to replace earlier B61 models, including the B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, and B61-10. Development engineering of the B61-12 LEP began in February 2012 as a joint USAF-NNSA program.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20151117/1030237655/us-nuclear-bomb-test.html#ixzz3rkfjcUry


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:13 am

    US Nuclear Force Structure in Europe Depends on B61 Bomb Upgrade

    The overall US nuclear force structure would be jeopardized if plans to field the upgraded B61 nuclear gravity bomb to bases in Europe falls through, former Department of Defense official Franklin Miller told Sputnik.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik), Leandra Bernstein — After the Cold War, the US withdrew the vast majority of its forward-deployed nuclear forces out of Europe, but left the B61 gravity bomb. The decades-old bomb, which currently runs on vacuum tube technology, is undergoing a modernization, or life-extension.

    "It calls the whole [nuclear] force structure into question, because it is based on aircraft delivering bombs. So they have to go forward," Miller said on Friday of the impact if plans to replace B61 nuclear gravity bombs fielded in Europe with updated B61-12 ones did not move forward.

    Miller, who was an arms control official and special assistant to President George W. Bush, explained that he does not anticipate any disruptions to the bomb’s life extension program.

    "I think it is going forward and the alliance supports the modernization of the bombs," he stated.

    By the mid-2020s, the B61-12 is expected to replace the current 180 B61s stockpiled in Europe, which would be flown out of bases in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Turkey and the Netherlands.

    In November 2015, the United States conducted its first flight test of an inert B61-12 bomb. Russia called the test irresponsible and an openly provocative act.
    Share on Google+

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160123/1033585239/b61-nuclear-force.html#ixzz3y1tkF3WE


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:13 am

    Opposition to US Nuclear Missiles Upgrade 'Harmful' to Deterrence Goals

    Defense experts who are calling on the United States to abandon its plans to modernize the long-range stand-off (LRSO) nuclear cruise missiles hurt US deterrence aims, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Commander Cecil Haney stated on Friday.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — In October, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former State Department nonproliferation specialist Andy Weber called for the United States to cancel plans to develop and field the LRSO, which sought to overwhelm potential adversaries air defenses.

    "I do not see the LRSO as destabilizing, quite the contrary… That kind of discussion, I think, is more harmful to where we need to remain focused as a country," Haney said to recent discussions calling for the United States to stop its planned LRSO modernization.

    Haney argued that the US nuclear deterrent cannot be "a one trick pony" and depends on the air, land and sea legs of the nuclear triad.

    "While we continue to use our B-52 [strategic bomber] platform, and you look at advancement of adversary capability in Anti-Access Area Denial, there is no option here," Haney said of the LRSO weapons.

    The fielding of nuclear cruise missiles has regularly been criticized because of the virtual impossibility of discerning between a conventional and nuclear cruise missile.

    In 1987, the concerns over such miscalculations led, in part, to the US-Russian Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which banned the development, testing and fielding of ground-launched nuclear cruise missiles.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160122/1033579696/us-nuclear-missile-upgrade.html#ixzz3y1twrufP


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:33 am

    United States nuclear forces, 2016

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145901


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:57 pm

    It is expected the nuclear arms race between Russia and the US

    Elena Chernenko, Mikhail Korostik, Ivan Safronov, see "Pushing the plutonium core," published in today's issue of "Kommersant" newspaper reported that the Pentagon's new draft budget for 2017 has caused a storm of controversy in the United States. The document was criticized by many prominent figures of the Democratic Party, former high ranking officials of the White House, Pentagon and State Department security experts. The objections relate primarily to large-scale plans of the country's nuclear arsenal modernization. Critics say the proposed plans to upgrade nuclear forces are too costly and contrary to the assertions of President Barack Obama that the United States will seek the elimination of nuclear weapons. In turn, the Russian Foreign Ministry "Kommersant" stated that Washington's plans concern and Moscow. Interviewees "Y", experts have warned of a new coil of the nuclear arms race between the US and Russia.

    The American critics promulgated in February, the Pentagon's draft budget for 2017 two basic claims. Firstly, they consider the proposed plans for the modernization of nuclear forces in the country too expensive. According to preliminary calculations, for this purpose is planned to spend from $ 700 billion to $ 1 trillion over the next 25-30 years. And secondly, the published plans, according to critics, are contrary to the famous Prague speech President Barack Obama in 2009, in which it declared its commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons. "I clearly and with conviction affirm America's commitment to peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I understand that this goal will not be reached quickly. But we have to stop to pay attention to the voices who tell us that the world can not change. we must state firmly: "Yes, we can", "- said the head of the White house.

    The draft of the Pentagon budget for 2017 transmitted by the White House to Congress, provides for substantial sums on modernization of all three components of the nuclear triad - strategic aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear missile submarines.

    As one of the main threats to US national security in a document called the "Russian aggression in eastern Europe." "We counteract the aggressive actions of Russia by investing in a number of programs. The draft budget for 2017 will allow us to improve and expand air defense system, develop new unmanned systems, to start work on a new strategic bomber and a new cruise missile air-launched long-range as well as upgrade our nuclear arsenal, "- the document says.

    The White House, in particular, insists on the separation:

    - $ 25.7 million at giving the new F-35A fighter-bombers technical possibility of carrying nuclear weapons;

    - $ 95.6 million in the continued development of new cruise missiles (CR) for nuclear equipment;

    - $ 113.9 million for the continuation of a strategic containment land-based system designed to come to replace the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) Minuteman III;

    - $ 137.9 million for the development of the guidance system of the new unified B61-12 nuclear bomb;

    - $ 1.36 billion in the work on the new generation strategic bomber (B-21), which is to replace the B-52 and B-2;

    - $ 1.86 billion for the replacement of missile nuclear submarines such as Ohio;

    - $ 9.2 billion for the secure storage and maintenance of nuclear weapons, including a program to extend the life of a number of nuclear warheads.


    According to the military, while nuclear weapons exist, it is necessary to improve - it will keep its importance as a deterrent to opponents and ensure its safe storage, reliability and efficiency. Total for the modernization of the US nuclear arsenal in 2017 is planned to allocate about $ 16 billion. In the future, these costs should increase substantially. So, the final cost of a new strategic bomber kept secret (the contract for its development in October received Northrop Grumman Corporation), but US experts estimate it at more than $ 100 billion. And if in 2017 on the continued development of the new CD in the nuclear equipment is planned spend a little less than $ 100 million, then by 2021-mu in the appropriate program will be allocated more than $ 4.5 billion a year.

    On the verge of a new race


    According to an expert on nuclear weapons Federation of American Scientists, Hans Christensen, "at the heart of plans to modernize the nuclear arsenal is really striving to ensure its reliability and efficiency." "But there are two important factors associated with the modernization of the stage, which is carried out today and the United States, and Russian First, it takes place in the new deterioration of political relations between the two countries, when both sides are increasingly officially called each other adversaries. - the expert explained, "Kommersant" .- although the depth of the crisis and the scale of the modernization of inferior military preparations of the cold war, what is happening shows that the characteristic of the bipolar world relationship of rivalry between the two powers are returned to world politics. "

    Secondly, he said, US and Russian modernization - it is not just a way to extend the life of nuclear weapons from its current capacity, but also a tool to improve it. "At a time when both countries are building up their nuclear capability, inevitable further damage confidence and the feeling that the threat is growing, and therefore need to be prepared for the worst scenarios," - said Hans Kristensen.

    Many American experts urge the US president to review the plans to modernize the country's nuclear arsenal. Ellen Tauscher, occupied in 2009-2012 as Senior Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said in an interview with The New York Times, that many of her colleagues started to work with the expectations of a speedy reduction in the arsenal, but now frustrated. "We spend billions of dollars on maintaining the status quo, which does not make us safer," - said the former diplomat.

    "Now we are on the edge of the abyss - perhaps I should say: on the verge of a new nuclear arms race," - said, commenting on the plans of the White House, former US Defense Secretary William Perry. According to him, "this arms race will be at least as expensive as in the days of the Cold War."

    William Perry urged the US government to abandon plans to deploy strategic deterrence system of land-based, noting that the IDB is "destabilizing" weapons because they can be run on the basis of false information and thus lead to unintended nuclear war. In a joint paper with Andrew Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense and former director of the interagency Nuclear Weapons Council, William Perry opposed the creation of a new CD in nuclear warheads. According to experts, this type of arms is also a danger, because the enemy is not possible to know whether a nuclear warhead or a conventional warhead missile carries, and therefore there is a risk of unintended escalation. "Some say that the new KR airborne, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, need to have US Presidents had the opportunity to conduct" limited "nuclear war with Russia or China. This is a dangerous way of thinking in the spirit of the Cold War. Such a" tactical "use of nuclear weapons was would be a fatal mistake, "- warn William Perry and Andrew Weber.

    At the Pentagon, with this interpretation, however, disagree. According to Deputy Minister of Defense for Strategy, Planning and military capabilities Robert Scher, fears of a new missile exaggerated as a new weapon will replace the existing one. "These plans are in any case can not be destabilizing, because it is a weapon that has been around for a long time", - he said.

    However, most complaints heard in the address of the new atomic bombs B61-12. Its third and final test (without payload) was held in October last year at a military training ground in Tonopah, Nevada. B61-12 differs from previous versions B61, in particular with a tail rudder and improved guidance system, which greatly increases the accuracy of the lesion. B61-12 will be able to carry a warhead of variable capacity (up to 50 kilotons). The first samples of the new bombs allegedly entered service in 2020. B61-12 will replace four existing ones modified: B61-3, B61-4, B61-7 and B61-10. US officials estimate the cost of the modernization of B61 to $ 8.1 billion by 2024.

    Last fall, it became known about the US plans to place 20 B61-12 bombs in Germany at Büchel Air Base (see. "B" of 24 September 2015), in the future, such bombs might appear in Turkey and Italy (already have US nuclear weapons in these countries ). At the same time before the Ukrainian crisis seriously discussed the question of the complete withdrawal of US tactical nuclear weapons from those countries, but now we are not talking about it.

    According to an expert on nuclear weapons Federation of American Scientists, Hans Christensen, B61-12 be able to fully replace the current modification of the free-fall bombs in the US arsenal and placed on the aircraft as a strategic and tactical aircraft (F-15E, F-16, F-35A , Tornado, B-2, B-21). "But contrary to what officials say the United States, B61-12 program - is not just extending the life of existing bombs modifications and a significant improvement of military bomb will have a new managed part of the tail, which will increase the accuracy of its targeting and the effectiveness of defeat purposes. primarily underground - he explained "Kommersant" .- this is the first controlled nuclear bomb in the US arsenal Now there are none this way, B61-12 -.. it is a new weapon. "

    Meanwhile, in the Review of US nuclear policy is said by 2010: "The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads, and the life extension program will use only nuclear components based on previous testing of designs and will not support new military missions or provide for establishment of new military capabilities ". However, this kind of doctrine periodically undergo revision.

    However, experts have expressed, and other concerns in connection with the development of B61-12. "The nuclear bomb is usually a very large area of ​​damage if we increase its accuracy, we can use a charge less power This allows the cause more damage to a specific purpose and less -.. Its vicinity At first glance, this is good, -., Said," Kommersant "Head of the Department defense policy studies named Harold Brown of the Center for strategic and international studies, a former deputy head of the uS Joint chiefs of Staff James Kartrayt.- But if we make it so small and precise, not arise if we desire to take advantage of it? She did not cause so much collateral damage. " Gen. Cartwright said that he was "brought up in a different culture": "I think that any use of nuclear weapons - is out of the ordinary event, which will have consequences not only for the destruction of the object, but also for geopolitical situation as a whole."

    However, the current US administration officials insist that there are no risks of a new bomb is not responsible. In particular, the US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, in an interview to "Interfax" and "Kommersant" said that the modernization of US tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, will not increase the military potential of these weapons. "Military capability B61-12 will not increase, but will be equivalent to the military potential of the old types of B61 Number of US weapons deployed in Europe, and will not increase, but rather, on the contrary In the United States will be able to significantly reduce the number of bombs in its nuclear arsenal.." - she emphasized (see. "Kommersant" dated February 5).

    The same was said later the deputy head of the Pentagon Arthur Hopkins, noting that "the reduction in the number of bombs and its modifications" in the US arsenal would make the most of this kind of weapons, "the efficacy and safety."

    Sedatives arguments do not work

    Russia is also actively engaged in the modernization of its nuclear arsenal (see. Certificate). At the same time Moscow is very concerned about Washington's corresponding program. "Modernization, in principle, acceptable, however, attention is drawn to the fact that the current US administration it has acquired unprecedented scope In the previous owners of the White House nothing of the kind observed, -.. Said" Y "director of arms proliferation and control on the Russian Foreign Ministry Department for Michael Ulyanov.- Almost simultaneously update all the key elements of the US nuclear triad creates new media:. strategic bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles and new nuclear weapons for their addition to the upgraded nuclear bombs, the Pentagon plans to include nuclear and a new CD.. in this there is a clear decoupling between the public declarations of the US commitment to the speedy construction of a nuclear-free world, on the one hand, and the actual policies in this area, on the other. "

    Of particular concern in Moscow are the plans for the development of bombs B61-12. According to Mikhail Ulyanov, "reassuring arguments" American officials that the new bomb, having increased accuracy will be less devastating, "raise serious doubts". "In reality, the situation is not so benevolently analysis of the characteristics of the new bombs suggests that their formulation adopted can significantly lower the threshold of using nuclear weapons, -. Said on.- Instead deterrence such weapons potentially become the" battlefield weapons "as it was during the cold war. "

    According to Mikhail Ulyanov in Moscow with suspicion the statement by former US Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller that the presence of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of lower power will reduce civilian casualties if used. "He even called it a" reliable and ethical "approach sounds pretty cynical, since in terms of normal language means that US experts close to the US administration, according to the application of new bombs more likely and more acceptable, -. Says Russian diplomat.- Therein lie the main risks related to the fact that Washington is trying to introduce a routine upgrade. In any case, the "temptation" involvement of such weapons under certain circumstances, may increase substantially. "

    Mikhail Ulyanov added that the practice of consulting with the deployment in Europe of US bombs violates the first two articles of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). "According to them, the nuclear powers pledged not to transfer, directly or indirectly, nuclear weapons to non-nuclear States. A recent pledged not to accept such weapons again, either directly or indirectly. These prohibitions are completely ignored in the" joint nuclear missions "of NATO, in which pilots from non-nuclear member states of the alliance will develop skills circulation and use of nuclear weapons ", - says the source" b ".

    "The dangers for Russia there is no"

    Interviewees "Kommersant" Russian experts, however, urged not to dramatize the situation. "Exaggerate the significance of these bombs, which is still being developed, it is not necessary It's like a nuclear weapon -. Just so no one will be used, - told" Kommersant "head of the Center for International Security IMEMO, chairman of the program" The problems of non-proliferation, "the Moscow Carnegie Center Alex Arbatov.- in addition, the 20 bombs that the Americans will station in Europe are not comparable with the IDB, which replenish Russia's nuclear forces. in terms of this incomparable potential. "

    Chief research fellow of Sciences, expert program "Non-Proliferation" Carnegie Center Vladimir Dvorkin is also convinced that the modernization of the US nuclear arsenal "no danger to Russia is not." "Neither Russia nor the United States will not exceed the thresholds established by the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, - he told" Kommersant ".- A weapon, including nuclear, should be modernized He also expires operation period. which creates problems of nuclear safety. " According to experts, an increased temptation to use a new kind of bombs can not speak, because in any case, the decision to use nuclear weapons to take political leadership of the country, which will weigh the pros and cons.

    According to experts, to remove mutual concerns both in terms of modernization of nuclear arsenals of the two countries, and particularly on the issue of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) could be negotiated between Moscow and Washington. Mutual "probing" for the last topic already underway: the United States offered to launch comprehensive negotiations on the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons, but Russia is lagging behind in the general-purpose forces, and would consider the tactical weapons as a counterbalance, as a precondition for the start of the relevant consultations insisted on the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Europe . But the US did not go to it, referring to the fact that they have obligations to the European allies.

    According to Alexei Arbatov, if Russia and the US will overcome this period of confrontation and making progress on the further reduction of strategic weapons and on missile defense, the tactical nuclear weapons also has a chance to become "a legitimate subject for negotiations."

    Former US Senator, who is now the executive director of the fund "Initiative to reduce the nuclear threat," Nunn told "Kommersant" that the US and Russia would be worth to agree on the destruction of all tactical nuclear weapons.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1784538.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:11 pm

    How Secure Are the American Nuclear Arsenals ?

    Unfortunately, one must admit that the security of America’s nuclear arsenal today remains a truly troublesome matter. This means that not only US citizens, but the people of the world remain hostages of Washington’s reckless policies. It’s sad but true that a whole region can be subjected to chaos and destruction at the will of US interests, as it has been repeatedly done in the Middle East and other areas of the world. What’s even worse, as Washington continues accumulating weapon stockpiles and nuclear warheads, one day we may wake up to witness the whole world being plunged in nuclear winter due to inadequate control over nuclear weapons.

    Such grim predictions can be justified by the recently uncovered scandal involving systematic drug use among US military personnel stationed at Warren Airbase in Wyoming, which provides storage for American nuclear weapons. Recently the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) Robin Rand, was forced to admit that there were habitual drug abuse among the officers of the 90th Missile Wing and Twentieth Air Force of the AFGSC. Those suspected of drug abuse have already been discharged at least for the period of the investigation.

    As you may know, the Warren Airbase has been entrusted with the responsibility to launch nuclear strikes against any possible menace to US security at will. Therefore, Rand was very much on point when he noted that “trained professionals” were entrusted with a grave responsibility that they were supposed to undertake with honor. At least now we can decide whether or not we can sleep peacefully, while such people hold the fate of the world in their hands.

    It must be emphasized that this was not the first time US strategic forces were accused of using drugs. Back in 2011, a massive scandal erupted when over fifty American sailors were caught using synthetic drugs on a regular basis. A total of 46 people were discharged from service on the USS Carl Vinson, which is also armed with nuclear weapons.

    Time and time again certain American soldiers have shown criminal negligence while handling nuclear weapons. In 2013, there came a report that guards didn’t seal the doors of a nuclear bunker at a US military base, and a year later, soldiers damaged a Minuteman III nuclear warhead in Colorado during a routine check. There’s a handful of other incidences regarding inadequate security measures that US authorities have put in place, while having no fear whatsoever that a nuclear disaster may follow shortly afterwards.

    It is curious that the case of the mishandled Minuteman III nuclear warhead was committed by the 320th Missile Squadron that is a part of the above mentioned 90th Missile Wing. As for General Robin Rand, he hesitated to report this incident for over six months in direct violation of instructions he was given only to label this case top secret afterwards to conceal the details from the public.

    The lack of discipline and the low morale of the soldiers at Warren Airbase in Wyoming has been extensively covered by a number of Western media sources since 2014, but to this date, the US military has taken no steps to address the issue. So why should anyone be surprised by the fact that officers across America have grown accustomed to abusing drugs when they’re confident of the fact that their superiors are reluctant to hold them fully accountable?.

    Therefore, instead of escalating tensions with North Korea, while running the risk of triggering a nuclear conflict, the White House would be better off instilling some sense among its own armed forces. It must able to provide the international community with evidence that it will not become the instigator of a nuclear war, intentionally, or inadvertently.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:29 pm

    They are in american hands, how secure can they be?

    Everything they touch goes full disaster.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  max steel on Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:20 pm

    Russian Nukes Are Better Than America's

    U.S.-Russia relations (as well as Russia’s relations with NATO) have reached a dangerously low point over the last two years—by far their lowest point since the Cold War. As a result, the issue of nuclear weapons has again come to the fore. It has repeatedly been stated, in extremely serious declarations, that both parties are rehearsing nuclear strikes against each other. For example, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently released his annual report, which claims Russia’s air force conducted a training mission in 2013 that was actually a “simulated nuclear attack” on Sweden. The report also revealed that this mission involved Tu-22М3 Backfire long-range supersonic bombers, under cover of Su-27 fighters. Meanwhile, NATO member Turkey is just a few steps from war with Russia, which does not make the situation any simpler.

    In this context it is instructive to evaluate the state of nuclear forces in both the United States and Russia. How is this situation affecting the strategic balance, and dissuading the parties from starting a conflict? And what are the prospects for these two superpowers’ development of nuclear forces?

    Both Parties Are Committed to the New Start Treaty

    The New Start Treaty, signed on April 8, 2010, by Presidents Obama and Medvedev, reduces each country’s number of nuclear warheads to 1,550. The number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and heavy strategic bombers is limited to seven hundred. According to data published by the U.S. Department of State on April 1, both parties are at or near the stated figures. The United States possesses 741 deployed launchers equipped with 1,481 nuclear warheads, while Russia possesses 521 launchers equipped with 1,735 nuclear warheads. The difference is insignificant, and does not affect the strategic balance. Russia has fewer launchers at the moment, but this disparity is due to the fact that ICBMs that carry MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) have a wider range of application—one ICBM can carry up to ten warheads.

    U.S. Land-Based ICBMs Are Stuck in the 1970s

    The only land-based ICBM in service with the United Stated is the LGM-30G Minuteman III. Each missile carries one W87 warhead with a capacity of up to three hundred kilotons (though it can carry up to three warheads). The last missile was produced back in 1978, meaning that the “youngest” is thirty-eight years old. The missiles have been upgraded many times, and are intended to be used until 2030.

    The United States’ new ICBM system, the GBSD (Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent), appears to be at a stalemate in the discussion phase. The U.S. Air Force is requesting $62.3 billion for the development and the production of new missiles, and hopes to receive $113.9 million in 2017. However, the White House does not support this request. In fact, many are opposed to this idea. The actual development was moved up a year, and the prospects may depend on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.


    It is worth noting that the U.S. government is going to spend an astonishing amount of money on nuclear weapons: around $348 billion by 2024, $26 billion of which is intended for ICBMs. And $26 billion is not enough for the GBSD. Actual costs may be higher, given that it has been a long time since the United States produced new land-based ICBMs. The latest missile, the LGM118A Peacekeeper, was deployed in 1986, but all fifty of them were removed from combat duty on a unilateral basis by 2005—and it is safe to say that the LGM118A Peacekeeper was an improvement in comparison with the Minuteman III, because the Peacekeeper could carry up to ten warheads. Despite the failure of the Start II Treaty, which banned the use of MIRVs, the United States gave up MIRVs on its own. Its credibility was lost because of the high price, and the scandal in which it was revealed that the missiles were lacking AIRS guidance systems for almost four years (1984–88). On top of that, the missile manufacturer tried to hide the delay in delivery—all while the Cold War was about to come to an end.


    Russian  ICBMs: Emerging Missile Defense Technologies

    Russia possesses a wide range of land-based ICBMs at the moment, including mobile launcher vehicles. In 2015, the Strategic Missile Troops of the Russian Federation (RVSN RF) acquired twenty-four new RS-24 Yars units (NATO reporting name: SS-27 Mod 2), in both silo-based and mobile versions. This missile can carry up three or four independently targetable warheads capable of penetrating missile-defense systems. It is safe to assume that that the volume of delivery in 2016 will be at least equal to the 2015 level. Russia will be able to replace the Topol missile (essentially equivalent to the Minuteman III)Question by 2020 , with the newest missiles, which are specifically designed to penetrate enemy missile-defense systems.

    Russia also possesses heavy land-based, liquid-fuelled ICBMs. The R-36M2 Voevoda (NATO reporting name: SS-18 Mod 5, Satan), which has been in service since 1988, is very well known. It can carry up to ten warheads with a capacity of up to 750 kilotons each. This year the test will be conducted on the RS-28 (also referred to as “Sarmat”), the newest development intended to replace the Satan in 2020 and fully equipped to defeat missile defense systems. First of all, it is expected that the missile will have the ability to place the warhead in a suborbital trajectory (shorter than the circular orbit that is off-limits under the international agreement) and strike from literally anywhere, even from the South Pole. It forces the suspected enemy to build an integrated missile-defense system, which is extremely expensive, even for the United States. Moreover, the warheads will enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speed and move along a larger trajectory, maneuvering at a speed of 7 to 7.5 kilometers per second. Time of pre-launch preparation of the missile will be kept to a minimum: less than one minute after receiving the order.

    Russia also has the mysterious RS-26 Rubezh. Not much information is available, but apparently it is a modification of the PS-24 Yars, with the ability to strike at intercontinental and medium range. Its minimum firing range is reportedly two thousand kilometers, which is enough to defeat the American missile-defense system in Europe. The United States opposes it, on the grounds that deploying the RS-26 is a violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. But this claim does not stand up to criticism: the RS-26’s maximum firing range exceeds six thousand kilometers, which means that it is in fact an ICBM, not an IRBM.

    Given the evidence, the United States lags far behind Russia in the development of land-based ICBMs. The United States has one, to be fair very outmoded, ICBM: the Minuteman III, capable of carrying only one warhead, and the prospects of developing a replacement are very indistinct. In Russia, the situation could not be more different. Land-based ICBMs are being renewed on a regular basis—in fact, the process of developing new missiles never really ends. Each new ICBM is designed to penetrate missile-defense systems, which makes the EuroPRO project and Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (the U.S. antiballistic system for intercepting incoming warheads) ineffective against Russia in the foreseeable future.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 03, 2016 9:12 pm

    Boeing to upgrade missile guidance systems on Minuteman III land-based nuclear rockets

    Missile guidance experts at the Boeing Co. will continue upgrading the guidance systems on U.S. Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) under terms of an $8.1 million U.S. Air Force contract modification announced Monday.

    Officials of the Air Force Nuclear Weapon Center's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Systems Directorate at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, are asking the Boeing Directed Energy & Strategic Systems segment in Layton, Utah, to upgrade the communications equipment interface unit (CEIU) in the Minuteman III ICBM guidance system.

    The order asks Boeing to provide engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) for the nuclear missile's CEIU. EMD means full-scale development.
    Boeing engineers will provide updates to the Minuteman III's legacy CEIU to a more robust software language and change the communication protocol from telephony to internet protocol to address security concerns.

    This project is called Performance Assessment Data System Communications Equipment Interface Unit (PADS CEIU), which is an interface unit using an analog signal over the telephone line using a standard commercial off-the- shelf (COTS) modem.

    This system is essential, Air Force officials say, because it is the only way to identify high hour pendulous integrating gyroscopic accelerometers (PIGA) and provide data that eliminates unnecessary missile guidance set (MGS) removals.

    Last February Boeing won a $15.6 million contract modification to continue upgrading and maintaining guidance systems on the U.S. Minuteman III nuclear missile fleet.

    The orders from Monday and last February are modifications of a $51.2 million contract awarded to Boeing in January 2015 to provide sustaining engineering and program management support for the ICBM guidance subsystem.

    The primary focus of the original contract was to ensure any modifications or changes to the guidance system would maintain and improve system-level performance of the Minuteman III ICBM.

    Each Minuteman III missile is 60 feet tall, 5.5 feet in diameter, and powered by three solid rocket motors that can launch the 80,000-pound missile to altitudes of 700 miles to deliver nuclear warheads as far away as 6,500 miles. Each missile contains as many as three independently targeted warheads in separate reentry vehicles.

    The U.S. maintains Minuteman III missiles at 450 missile sites in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. The missiles themselves are in underground silos and are ready for launch on very short notice.

    The Minuteman III originally was equipped with a Rockwell Autonetics D37D flight computer, but as of 2008 had been upgraded as part of the Minuteman-III Guidance Replacement Program (GRP). Boeing acquired Rockwell Autonetics in 1996, and the Boeing Integrated Defense Systems segment in Heath, Ohio, was in charge of the GRP initiative.

    Boeing experts installed the NS-50 missile guidance computer (MGC) based on a 16-bit high-speed microprocessor, which helps the missile correct positional errors and generate steering signals.

    Minuteman III computer programs are stored on a magnetic tape cartridge. The computer also controls the alignment of the inertial measurement unit, and performs test and monitoring of the missile's guidance and control system. Other parts of the Minuteman-III's latest guidance system include the Gyro Stabilized Platform (GSP), Digital Control Unit (DCU), Missile Guidance Set Control (MGSC), and the Amplifier Assembly.

    Boeing provides sustaining engineering, modifications, and upgrades for the U.S. Minuteman III ICBM fleet, which is manned 24/7 by U.S. Air Force officers. Boeing is responsible for guidance, flight controls, secure codes and ground subsystems, as well as designing, testing, modernizing, and repairing Minuteman III ICBM systems and components.

    On the Minuteman III ICBM support contract announced Monday, Boeing will do the work in Layton, Utah, and should be finished by June 2018.



    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:03 pm

    KEY TARGETING TECH FOR FUTURE U.S. NUCLEAR ICBM HAS GONE UNFUNDED

    A lapse in funding is potentially delaying by two years the development of a new U.S. nuclear missile, according to budget documents provided to Congress and interviews with defense sources.

    The little-noticed spending gap of $28 million -- a minuscule fraction of the Defense Department's annual $500 billion budget -- is for developing and testing new solid-state components seen as essential for guiding the future Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent missiles to their targets.

    The Air Force intends to begin replacing today's 450 Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2030 with up to 420 of the so-called GBSD weapon systems.

    Some military insiders attribute to Air Force infighting the diversion of the $28 million to other uses in fiscal 2014 -- and a service failure to request any such funds in fiscal 2015 -- that would have provided Air Force Research Laboratory-built hardware to three defense contractors for their further development.

    Lacking the lab's government-furnished equipment -- which contractors Boeing, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have each requested -- none of the three firms is expected to invest its own funds to militarize commercial off-the-shelf solid-state guidance technology used widely today in aircraft and missile systems.

    During a major Air Force study effort of what the new GBSD missile should be -- with options ranging from a simple Minuteman 3 look-alike to a brand new design -- the service settled on what it has called a "hybrid" concept. This recommendation emerging from the "analysis of alternatives" -- begun last year and completed in early July -- has been tentatively approved in recent meetings with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's office.

    A Mobile Option

    The hybrid plan for the Minuteman 3 replacement would involve using some of today's missile features -- its basic design, communications systems and existing launch silos -- while replacing aging rocket motors and targeting-guidance systems.

    While the Air Force awaits formal, written confirmation that its hybrid option can proceed, this missile design also would maintain a possibility for the GBSD weapons to be made mobile. The optional feature could allow the missiles to be removed from their silos and dispersed by rail or truck if a nuclear attack against the United States appeared imminent, increasing their ability to survive, officials said.

    Several spoke on condition of not being named to offer candor in addressing sensitive nuclear-arms matters.

    Yet one aspect of the high-level thumbs-up -- direction that the GBSD system should feature an uptick in accuracy compared to any of today's U.S. nuclear systems -- already appears to have jumped the rails.

    Inclusion of the solid-state guidance system in the Minuteman 3 replacement would allow the United States to hit some of the toughest-to-destroy enemy targets by using just a single warhead rather than a barrage. This is a top-level but rarely discussed U.S. nuclear-weapons objective, supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations, dating back to a Reagan-era interest in precision targeting as a substitute for carpet bombing -- a trend that has emerged more publicly in conventional warfighting.

    Today, in the event of a nuclear conflict, a U.S. president may want to go after heavily reinforced underground Russian military-command centers -- an example of high-priority facilities said to be on the Pentagon's top-secret target list. In such a case, warfighters here at the Omaha-based U.S. Strategic Command would have to lob multiple Minuteman 3 land-based missiles or Navy Trident D-5 submarine-based missiles to ensure the target's disabling or destruction.

    Speaking to reporters last week at a command-sponsored symposium on nuclear deterrence (the military art of preventing the most undesirable violence from occurring) Adm. Cecil Haney avoided discussing any specific capabilities needed for the new Ground-Based Deterrent System.

    As head of U.S. Strategic Command -- the top officer who would carry out any White House order to launch a nuclear weapon -- Haney did say how "absolutely" important it is that the GBSD missile meets his own warfighter requirements, and noted that simply sustaining today's Minuteman 3 capabilities into the future would not be sufficient.

    The Air Force analysis of alternatives was "to make sure that we have the requirements we need now and into the future," he said. Augmenting the other two legs of the U.S. nuclear triad -- bomber aircraft and submarines -- the ground-based missile arsenal "really has an impact associated with our deterrence calculus and capabilities," he added.

    Yet, some officials at the Air Force Systems Directorate based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, have suggested as a possible alternative to the more accurate solid state guidance system required to meet longstanding warfighter targeting requirements the use instead of today's Minuteman mechanical guidance components in the future GBSD system.

    Units based at Hill perform maintenance and repair on today's Minuteman 3 guidance units, giving officials there what some see as a parochial stake regarding which technology is selected for the future ICBM replacement missiles and their components, including the guidance systems.

    Mixed Messages


    Compared to the mechanical guidance instruments found in today's Minuteman 3 missiles, solid state offers longevity, meaning these systems would not have to be repaired anywhere near as often, Air Force briefings suggest. Today's Minuteman 3 guidance systems break down roughly every three years, whereas solid state units are expected to last approximately 20 years without requiring repair or replacement, according to Defense Department data.

    Air Force officials and documents also suggest that because solid state inertial measurement units are ubiquitous in commercial aviation and a number of the Pentagon's conventionally armed missile systems, they offer significant cost advantages from the get-go. Even after being militarized for use on a nuclear missile, the solid state technology developed by the Air Force research lab is estimated at $800,000 apiece, compared to a $2.5 million unit cost for old-generation mechanical guidance systems used by today's Minuteman 3.

    "Hill Air Force Base ought to be very concerned about the cost profile of . . . replacing the Minuteman 3," said Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear-arms expert at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. "Anything they do that drives that cost up or delays the ability to start those programs I think imperils the whole ICBM force. There will come a point at which people will [say], 'This is really expensive and it's going to take a long time. Maybe we should just not do it and spend the money on the bomber instead.'"

    Industry officials are receiving mixed messages from the Air Force about which direction it will take with the GBSD guidance system: proceeding with the stalled effort to begin sled testing in 2016 (had funding continued uninterrupted that testing would have begun last year), versus attempting to include the older Minuteman 3 targeting technology in its hybrid replacement.

    Those attending a July 16 briefing by the ICBM System Directorate at Hill Air Force Base on the results of the Air Force analysis of alternatives were told an increase in accuracy would, in fact, be needed in the new GBSD system. To at least some in the business community, that seemed to imply that the solid state technology largely defunded in fiscal 2014 and 2015 would be key.

    The Air Force declined a reporter's request for information presented at the "industry day" event. Although prospective defense contractors saw both secret and non-secret slides about how the Air Force anticipates proceeding with the Minuteman 3 replacement effort, "an unclassified version of the written briefing does not exist for release," Lt. Col. Jared Yarrington, who heads Air Force Global Strike Command's ICBM Requirements Division, told Nextgov in a written response to questions.

    Despite the service's discussions of the analysis results with industry representatives last month, Yarrington said that pending formal approval of the document by Hagel's office, "all materials are pre-decisional and not releasable at this time."

    Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)which is scheduled to replace the Minuteman III in 2028–2035 some debate about how “new” the GBSD will be compared with the Minuteman III, but the Air Force specified in early January 2015 that the entire “missile stack” (rockets, fuel, guidance, and control system) will be replaced, similar to what was done during the Minuteman III life extension during the past decade-and-a-half. The GBSD payload section “will use the existing Mk12A and Mk21 Reentry Vehicles (RV) in the single and multiple RV configurations” . Air Force planners to consider whether to mix the existing silo-based basing with road-mobile,train deployment, although doing so would significantly increase the cost of the GBSD.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:28 pm

    Leading US nuclear-powered submarine of the new generation will be called Columbia



    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2043531.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:51 am

    Surprise! America’s New Nuclear Missile Will Cost Way More Than Projected

    The US government doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to making accurate cost predictions.

    When the F-35 Joint Strike fighter program was first proposed, officials predicted that it would cost taxpayers roughly $200 billion. Over one decade later, the cost has ballooned past $1 trillion, making the fighter the most expensive weapon ever built. Despite the high price tag, the aircraft has faced a number of critical setbacks.

    As the US Air Force (USAF) seeks to develop a new nuclear-armed missile, the program is showing similar signs of substantial cost overruns.

    Last year, the USAF estimated that it would cost $62.3 billion to replace its aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile. A memo from Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, now places that number closer to $85 billion, a 36 percent increase. "There is significant uncertainty about program costs," Kendall wrote, according to Bloomberg, "[because] the historical data is limited and there has been a long gap since the last [such program]."

    https://sputniknews.com/military/20160908/1045073072/usaf-nuclear-icbm.html
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-06/new-nuclear-armed-missile-seen-costing-u-s-85-billion-up-36

    Just out of curiosity, how much did it cost Russia to develop the more recent Topol and Bulava missiles?

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:06 am

    Air Force Makes Pitch for New ICBM, Nuclear Cruise Missile

    The nation’s nuclear deterrent triad isn’t what it used to be, the Air Force said Tuesday in a pitch for the nation to take on the huge costs of modernization.

    The Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in silos throughout the northwest are based on 1960s technology upgraded once in the 1980s and are “working well beyond their service lives,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein.

    The Minuteman missiles should be replaced by new missiles, dubbed the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent by the Air Force, said Weinstein, deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.

    As part of a panel of nuclear experts at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference 2016 in National Harbor, Maryland, Weinstein also argued for a nuclear cruise missile to be called the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) as a replacement for the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM).

    “I think the LRSO is the most critical piece of the modernization effort” for its ability to be launched from all bombers in the U.S. fleet — the B-52, B-1, B-2 and the future B-21, christened the “Raider” at the AFA on Monday, Weinstein said.

    Weinstein said he was leaving the discussion of costs to another day, but said the Air Force had no choice but to press ahead as Russia and China upgrade their own nuclear arms and North Korea seeks to develop a warhead to fit on a long-range missile capable of hitting the U.S.

    However, the estimated cost of the LRSO is $20 billion, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent is put at upward of $60 billion, and various projections for the B-21 put the cost in the neighborhood of $100 billion. At the same time, the Navy is pressing for replacements for its Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines at a cost of upward of $80 billion.

    Ronald Lehman, chairman of the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, backed Weinstein on the need for the LRSO and Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Without them, “the unthinkable may become thinkable in the minds of some adversaries,” Lehman said.

    To underscore the need for nuclear modernization, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter next week will go to Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota — home to the B-52H Stratofortress bombers of the 5th Bomb Wing and the Minuteman ICBMs of the 91st Missile Wing.

    On Sept. 27 and 28, Carter will be in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to thank personnel at Kirtland Air Force Base for their work to ensure the readiness of the nuclear force, the Defense Department said in a release. The base is home to critical operational, testing, storage and development units.

    http://www.defensetech.org/2016/09/20/air-force-makes-pitch-for-new-icbm-nuclear-cruise-missile/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Oct 21, 2016 8:45 am

    America’s Updated B61 Nukes to Cost Taxpayers Over $9 Billion

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610201046562353-b61-upgrade-cost-estimates/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:54 pm

    The American program for the creation of a new intercontinental ballistic missile.

    US Air Force began its consideration of applications from Northrop, Boeing and Lockheed to develop replacement for Minuteman-III, an intercontinental ballistic missile silo-based.



    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2275400.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: U.S.A. Nuclear Forces: News and Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:52 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:52 am