The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Military News > Nuclear Weapons

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-15-2022, 03:14 PM
Boats's Avatar
Boats Boats is online now
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sauk Village, IL
Posts: 21,784
Exclamation Biden's Nuclear Spending Plans Just Got More Complicated

Biden's Nuclear Spending Plans Just Got More Complicated
By: Marcus Weisgerber - Global Busn. Editor 03-15-22
Re: https://www.defenseone.com/business/...icated/363195/

How much will Russia’s war on Ukraine change America's aging nuclear arsenal?

Anti-nuke activists have long suggested that America’s nuclear weapons are too costly as well as too dangerous. Now they’re finding common ground with military and security experts who say planned upgrades to the strategic arsenal would crowd out a host of other, more cost-effective, programs.

How much does it cost the United States to be a nuclear superpower? Is the cost actually prohibitive? And is any real change wanted or expected from the Biden administration?

The existing arsenal is aging. “Virtually every component of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is due for modernization,” wrote experts Todd Harrison and Evan Montgomery, at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, seven years ago. Now, with the Biden administration largely continuing its predecessors’ plans to upgrade or replace intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, ballistic-missile submarines, and long-range strategic bombers, the Pentagon is about to hit what has long been called the “bow wave,” military parlance for catching up to long-delayed costs that have been building up for years.

“Folks have talked over the years about the nuclear bow wave: It's here,” Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the Air Force chief of staff, said March 9 at a defense industry conference in Washington. “This is something that happens once a generation and it puts a squeeze on the Air Force as you look at fully funding nuclear capability. It does put a little squeeze on the conventional capability.”

The Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimate is that U.S. nuclear forces will cost $634 billion over the next 10 years. The Defense Department would spend about $405 billion on the delivery systems; the Energy Department, some $229 billion on the warheads. Over the next 30 years, the cost to maintain all of these new weapons could total $2 trillion, according to the Arms Control Association.

The Biden administration was expected to have released its first Nuclear Posture Review by now, however the timing remains unknown–and possibly on hold indefinitely. Nuclear community leaders in January said that a draft was already at or near President Joe Biden’s desk for consideration. Since that report first was written, the world has changed. Russian forces have invaded neighboring Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin has threatened to use Moscow’s nuclear weapons against NATO.

Before Putin’s invasion, the Arms Control Association predicted the posture review would “retain the existing policy, ensuring that debate would center around low-hanging fruit” such as a new sea-launched cruise missile or a low-yield submarine-launched Trident missile.

Now, some nuclear policy leaders, including Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., the top Republican on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, are using Russia’s war to call on the Biden administration to pivot away from previous arms-reduction efforts and “recommit to a strengthened nuclear deterrence posture”—meaning continue to increase spending to update the arsenal.

But it is difficult to discern how much the Pentagon is spending on nuclear weapons right now. Money is spread across several budget accounts, and some is classified work hidden from public view.

The Pentagon considers eight projects part of its nuclear modernization budget: new ICBMs, cruise missiles, updates to submarine-launched missiles, a new stealth bomber, new strategic submarines, updates to existing gravity bombs, modifications to the F-35 fighter jet that allow it to drop nuclear weapons, and updates to the existing Cold War nuclear command-and-control network. Since 2013, Congress has approved about $67 billion for those, according to Forecast International, a data analysis firm owned by Defense One’s parent company. In fiscal 2021, the funding totaled $13 billion, or about 1.8 percent of the Pentagon’s $704 billion budget.

Picture link: https://www.defenseone.com/media/cke...lear%20MW.jpeg

Understanding there are politics that accompany nuclear spending, Biden administration officials already had signaled they know modernization costs are sensitive and will be limited. “Recapitalizing the nuclear platforms and delivery systems and associated support systems will require significant investment over the next 20 years,” Biden administration officials wrote in their first budget proposal sent to Congress last year. “The amount expended to recapitalize the nuclear enterprise is not anticipated to exceed 7 percent of the Department’s budget during that period.”

Since 2013, through Democratic and Republican majorities and administrations, Congress has approved nearly $70 billion for what the Pentagon identified as its nuclear efforts. There’s uniform consensus that costs related to ICBMs, sub-launced missiles, cruise missiles, gravity bombs, and strategic submarines all count toward the nuclear total. But from there the debate begins. The true cost is likely much higher, as additional funds for nuclear weapons and delivery systems are classified or embedded within other projects. And tens of billions of dollars more fund the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains the military’s nuclear warheads and runs federal laboratories.

“There are a lot of subjective assumptions that have to go into any cost estimate like this,” said Harrison, now director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS.

Take the Air Force’s new stealth bomber, the B-21. Eventually, the aircraft will be able to carry nuclear weapons, but like its predecessor, the iconic bat-winged B-2, it will also carry conventional, or non-nuclear, weapons. How much of the $90 billion to develop and buy 100 B-21s should count as nuclear costs?

The United States also maintains many other so-called “dual-capable” warplanes, including the F-35 stealth fighter, and F-16 and F-15 fighters. The Pentagon is factoring the costs of certifying the F-35 to drop gravity bombs into its nuclear spending projections, but not the total cost of the program to develop and buid F-35s, which has origins as far back as the 1980s

The same accounting problem applies to command-and-control systems, structures, and personnel. Should those costs count?

In 2019, the Air Force began requesting money for a special “nuclear command and control” budget account. Those funds cover the costs of special satellites, computers, and special networks needed to order a nuclear strike.

Then there’s missile defense, a network of early-warning radars and satellites that help guard the United States from nuclear, and non-nuclear weapons. For that total expense, the CBO counts the B-21 bomber, new jet engines for the Cold War-era B-52s, the security helicopters to protect missile fields in Alaska and California, and the early-warning satellites. It doesn’t count the early-warning radars, though.

Like all military projects, once money ends up in the federal budget, it’s difficult to remove. Each weapons project gains a constituency for the jobs they produce across congressional districts. Defense spending experts often say the best time to kill a Pentagon weapons program is before it begins. They apply the same adage to nuclear modernization on the whole.

“The biggest chance that the arms control community had to reduce nuclear weapons [and] nuclear delivery vehicles was in the Obama administration,” Harrison said. “Ultimately, President Obama didn't do it because he thought it was a higher priority to get New START ratified by the Senate and that was the deal he made with the devil.”

In other words, instead of beginning to rid the world of nuclear weapons as hoped, the Obama administration committed to recapitalizing the nuclear triad in exchange for getting Senate Republicans to support the arms treaty with Russia.

“To get New START ratified, he had to commit [to] and he actually followed through on recapitalizing all the legs of the nuclear triad,” Harrison said. “Once that deal was made and those recap programs were put into motion, the inertia has been too great to trim it back. Now that we've gotten this far into a lot of these programs, they're actually aren't good options.”

Take for instance the Cold War-era Minuteman III ICBM, which is supposed to be replaced by the Ground Based Strategic Deterrence missile, known as GBSD, both built by Northrop Grumman. In 2017, Harrison offered options for replacing the Minuteman III. But the range of options have changed already.

“There actually aren’t good options, you know, for any anything other than the program of record at this point, because we've expended so much of our supply of Minuteman III missiles through the test program that we have to have a replacement missile, because we're using up all the missile bodies,” he said, in recent interview with Defense One. Re-coreing the missiles is not a good option anymore. It would have been five years ago [or] 10 years ago, but not now.”

The Federation for American Scientists, as recently as last year, disagreed and said options do remain, such as buying fewer GBSD missiles, updating the current Minuteman III, or eliminating the ICBM leg of the triad.

“In fact, the Pentagon began to explore the possibility of significantly reducing the ICBM force throughout the New START force adjustment process, before ultimately deciding not to pursue them, in part due to pressure from the Senate ICBM Coalition,” the report states. That coalition has five Republicans and one Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, home of Malmstrom Air Force Base, an ICBM base.

The new nuclear sea-launched cruise missile, called SLCM-N, could certainly be the one project cut, as could the low-yield submarine-launched missile. The Navy has already moved to stop funding the the sea-launched cruise missilet. Cutting the project would save about $10 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office estimate.

“Abandoning development of this new nuclear weapon should be an easy choice,” Monica Montgomery and Kingston Reif wrote in Defense One last year. Reif is now the deputy assistant secretary of defense for threat reduction and arms control at the Pentagon. But, again, that was written long before Russia invaded Ukraine.

Nuclear arms reductions beyond those projects is unlikely, especially given Putin’s threats of nuclear war, said Jack Weinstein, a Boston University professor and a retired lieutenant general who spent the majority of his career in the Air Force’s nuclear community.

“The question on the need to modernize the nuclear triad surrounds one basic question, what is normal Russian behavior? The Russian Federation of 1995 or 2022? The Russia of 1995 was an aberration,” Weinstein said. “While nuclear isn’t the panacea to peace, a strong, modernized nuclear Triad is essential to U.S. national security.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an earlier post of interest: Posted 03-11-22
Defense Business Brief: Arms donations revelations; Russia’s SAMs; $100M hypersonic bet; and more
Re: https://www.defenseone.com/business/...d-more/363081/

Defense Business Brief: Arms donations revelations; Russia’s SAMs; $100M hypersonic bet; and more

As Russian tanks grind their way across Ukraine, NATO and EU members are responding to Ukrainian officials’ pleas by sending arms—and the public is getting unusual glimpses into the difficulties of coordinating such transfers.

The most visible has been the failed attempt to provide Ukraine with MiG-29 fighter jets, something an EU official brought into the public view just days into the conflict. Ultimately, President Biden killed the deal, Politico reported, fearing Russia might view the move as escalatory.

The U.S. and NATO have instead preferred to rush anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, which the Ukrainians have used to destroy hundreds of Russian armored vehicles, tanks, and aircraft. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the U.S. is trying to get Ukraine Soviet-era S-300 interceptors that are owned by NATO members Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Greece.

There’s a certain irony here: some of the weapons that are being or may be sent to Ukraine are Russian-made. And of course, the Ukrainian military has long used Soviet weapons inherited from the country’s days as part of the Soviet Union.

Since 2018, the U.S. State Department has been giving cash to newer NATO allies that give up their Soviet weapons and buy American ones. Now that might actually happen faster with the Russia weapons heading to Ukraine.

For years, U.S. officials have warned about the sophistication and accuracy of Russian-made surface-to-air missiles. The S-400 and even newer S-500 interceptors have been a major factor in the U.S. military’s development of stealthy fighters, bombers, and cruise missiles. So it struck me as odd that non-stealth Ukrainian fighter jets have reportedly been flying missions amid Russian air defenses.

This week at the McAleese and Associates Defense Programs conference, I asked Gen. Mark Kelly, who leads the U.S. Air Force’s Air Combat Command, for his assessment of Russia’s missiles. You can see what he said here. Also, here’s more on why the U.S. is not considering sending Patriot interceptors to Ukraine.

As just mentioned, Jim McAleese’s annual conference was back, and in person, and per usual, it did not disappoint, particularly on the networking front. (It was the last conference I attended before the world shut down in March 2020 amid the coronavirus pandemic. Last year, it was held virtually.) The three service secretaries and five of the Joint Chiefs were there this year, plus a bunch of other notables. Spotted in the crowd: Patrick Shanahan, Richard Spencer, Jamie Morin, Patrick Murphy, and Dave Van Buren.

Hypersonic aircraft startup Hermeus has raised $100 million in its Series B funding round, the Georgia-based company announced this week. The funding round was led by venture capitalist Sam Altman; Peter Thiel’s Founder's Fund; and In-Q-Tel, the U.S. intelligence community’s venture capital arm. “This capital will be used to complete development of Hermeus' first aircraft Quarterhorse, begin flight services operations, and accelerate development of its next aircraft Darkhorse – an uncrewed aircraft capable of sustained hypersonic flight,” the company said. More background on Hermeus, here and here.

Lastly, the Project on Government Oversight has obtained and posted the full version of the Pentagon testing office’s annual report. It’s here. The office previously released a watered-down version of the report that removed details of the problems encountered by military weapons. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has called for the Pentagon to release the full report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal note: Let's face it Russia - China & North Korea will in
the very near future most likely join up and launch into the
US and NATO sites - hence the world ends. Bunker's won't
save them and the world will be sterlized by contamination.
And we call ourselves Human's - who ever finds our planet
in the future - will they finally did it to themselves.
-
Let's move on the contamination makes this world unliveable.
-
__________________
Boats

O Almighty Lord God, who neither slumberest nor sleepest; Protect and assist, we beseech thee, all those who at home or abroad, by land, by sea, or in the air, are serving this country, that they, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore in all perils; and being filled with wisdom and girded with strength, may do their duty to thy honour and glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.