How Russia Will Deploy its Avangard Hypersonic Boost Glide Weapon

Russia will apparently use surplus UR-100UTTKh — NATO: SS-19 Stiletto — and the RS-28 Sarmat liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missiles as the launch vehicle for its Avangard hypersonic boost-glide weapon.

The new weapons will initially be deployed onboard UR-100UTTKn missiles that were returned from Ukraine after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Once the Sarmat is ready for operations, the Avangard will be deployed on that 200-ton missile also.

link.

Most of Putin's new weapons actually date back to at least the Soviet Union's response to Reagan's SDI.  The exception appears to be the Russian Project Pluto.

Russia Tested the SARMAT ICBM

Sources in the military or defense industry tell Russian press that the first ejection test of the Sarmat missile did take place in Plesetsk. Normally, MK is not the most reliable source, but this time the information appears to be correct - sources on the other side also say that the test did happen.

The MK report leaves the impression that the test took place in the last few days of this year, but the test apparently took place in early December. Which is interesting - a few days ago Rogozin had a chance to comment on the progress of the Sarmat program and he refused to say anything. In any event, the program is clearly behind the schedule and my take is that the chances of Sarmat being deployed in 2020 are extremely slim.

One detail in the MK report caught eye of a few observers - the missile reportedly flew "several tens of kilometers" before landing "within the test site." This is a bit too far for an ejection test. It's quite possible that the reporter mixed up meters and kilometers. Or the launch involved a limited test of the first stage engines. A mix-up seems a safer bet, but a test of the engines is possible as well.

link.

Is Russia's SARMAT Heavy ICBM Program in Trouble?

The Sarmat program that is expected to produce a new "heavy" ICBM, appears to have hit some kind of a bump. Of course, it's hard to know it for certain--these things don't get a lot of coverage--but there are a few signs that may suggest that the program is in some kind of trouble.

link.

The USAF Does *NOT* Want to Replace the Minuteman ICBMs with Road Mobile Nukes

The US Air Force (USAF) is pushing ahead with its Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) programme to replace the ageing Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) fleet, and a top service official said a road-mobile option is not currently being considered despite some insinuations otherwise.

link.

Rumors of the Death of the new Russian Railroad Nuclear Missiles are Premature

The Barguzin rail-mobile ICBM project just doesn't want to die. After a report about the program being cut (which I consider quite reliable) we have seen a number of stories that suggest that some work continues - first, an industry source was quoted as saying that "some elements of the system" are being built, and now Yuri Solomonov of MITT is saying that the first "pop-up" tests of the missile will take place in the fourth quarter of 2016.

link.

US Air Force Wants to Recycle old Peacekeeper Missiles for Satellite Launches

The head of Air Force Space Command said U.S. launch companies should be able to buy rocket motors from decommissioned intercontinental ballistic missiles to power commercial launches, but at a price that would not put the rest of the commercial small launch industry at a disadvantage.

Current U.S. policy says that launch companies cannot use the rocket motors to launch commercial satellites and can only use them for national security missions in certain instances.

“From a taxpayer perspective, wouldn’t it be better to get some value out of them rather than destroy it?” Gen. John Hyten, the head of Air Force Space Command, said during a press briefing April 14 at the 32nd Space Symposium here. “From an Air Force perspective, there’s a sweet spot there because those ICBMs actually have value.”

link.

Russia's Barguzin rail-mobile ICBM program has been axed

Reports about an upcoming demise of the Barguzin rail-mobile ICBM program turned out to be true - the missile fell victim to the recent budget cuts.

link.

US Nuclear Forces are Risking Obsolesce

I had originally planned to rewrite this piece.  However, time constraints have worked against me and so here it is.

There's plenty of hand wringing over the US upgrading and replacing its nuclear weapons. The talk is the US will start a new arms race. This is under the assumption the US will be causing others to upgrade and replace their current weapons. This is untrue, but not for the reason the critics think. If the situation was static, the US the country doing the upgrades first, then they would be right. Rather the Chinese and the Russians have /already/ started their replacement of nuclear weapons, delivery systems and carriers for the same.

Russia just laid down its *7TH* new nuclear missile submarine. The Chinese just tested a rail mounted (as in railroad) nuclear missile in a railroad car intended to look like any other. China and Russia are working on new nuclear bombers. Russia has developed an unmanned sub/nuclear torpedo with a dirty bomb. The Russians and Chines have developed new cruise and ballistic nuclear missiles. etc. etc. The list goes on.

Its hard to see the supposition the US is causing the nuclear arms race when we have barely even started the replacement of old systems: the B-21 program has just been selected. The Ohio Replacement Sub is just barely starting tech demos. The Long Range Stand Off weapon and Minuteman replacements are just attempting to get into the budget; nevermind, even done anything other than papers on the subject. This is reactionary, not causative: they started /after/ the other two rival nuclear powers have long since started upgrading and developing their new nuclear capabilities.

It could be argued the missile defense installations, ABMs in Alaska and Aegis Ashore in Europe, could be driving the Russians and Chinese to do their upgrades. At first blush, this seems somewhat reasonable. However, the overwhelming capability of the Russian arsenal, even if 75% failed on launch, would still easily overwhelm the missile defenses in place. The only real defense would be against launches well short of a total war: if a nation wanted to fire off a handful of nuclear missiles, then the defense would work. If it fired off over 100, then we're screwed and there's no way, economically, to stop an all out attack by even old nuclear weapons: 250 nuclear weapons going off over targets all over the US would sink the country, no two ways about it. People would survive, even the country might survive, but we're done as far as being able to wage a war or be a threat to well, anyone other than Papua New Guinea. So, claiming US ABM efforts are driving the nuclear weapons race seem to fall flat as that it only eliminates a 'limited nuclear war,' something most think was a fantasy anyways.

The whole premise of nuclear weapons is as a deterrence and if that deterrence is not credible, then the whole point goes away. The point, from the nuclear powers POV, is to prevent any major attacks on the homeland because the consequences are so great. In some sense, ironically, nuclear weapons may be the biggest peacemaker the last century: the cycle of devastating wars in Europe between rival powers was ended and, indeed, prevented just as it was about to go global from doing so.

This begs the question why "experts" are arguing for NOT replacing the old nuclear capabilities. Its not really because we would cause an arms race. That race is already happening, whether or not we are participating. Nuclear weapons have prevented major wars despite, or potentially even because, of their devastating effect if used. There are only two reasons that come to mind. Either someone is morally opposed to the potential devastation caused by those weapons, understandable, if a bit misguided or the advocate lacks an understanding of how the world has changed in the last 25 years. The former will argue for the the dismantling of the nuclear arsenal no matter what. The latter hold to the position the US is in an unassailable position as the overwhelming superpower, a so-called hyperpower. That last is semi correct, but...and there's always a 'but.'

The 'but' is three fold. The world changes and the US is now faced with nations rising, even converging on the US; the US has a rapidly aging arsenal; and technology has marched on.

China is rapidly closing in on becoming the number one economy in the world. Russia is no longer utterly economically devastated by the break up of the Soviet Union and while crippled somewhat by sanctions and oil prices, has elected to invest heavily in its own arsenal with a far better economy than it had during the dark days, from their POV, of the 1990s.

Secondly, entropy wins all wars. Even with maintaining the current US arsenal, many parts of it are, well, virtually ancient. The B-52s, for example, went into production in *1955* and the the newest of them was built in 1962. Yes, our backbone bomber is minimally 53 years old. Even with spare parts, these aircraft will wear out. The Minuteman III despite its upgrades dates to the 1970s. The Ohio class submarines were introduced in 1981 (older than some congress members). All of these will wear out. Their spare parts may not, in some cases, even exist or even be able to be manufactured at all: the Minuteman missiles use a physically gimballed inertial navigation system for example and lets not talk about the guidance systems... Something the rest of the world moved on from 20 years ago. Or more. Again, entropy really does win all wars.

Related to the fact the equipment is so old, technology has marched on. As many technologies easily surpass what was incorporated in the original weapons and allow for others to develop their own, novel capabilities: technology is not strictly American, especially in the world where we have peer and near peer economies can afford to develop their own. It is not inconceivable Russia or China, especially China, may come up with a method to detect our Ohio class submarines while at sea, removing their deterrence. This enters into the unknown unknowns of human creativity and the longer a problem exists - the US nuclear arsenal and its capabilities and limitations - then the more likely a solution will be found fostered by new technological capabilities.

In the end, it makes little sense to NOT replace what the US has for a nuclear arsenal. The 'destabilization' caused by an arms race has already happened: the Chinese and Russians are rapidly developing and deploying their own new weapons. The Russians and Chinese have become very assertive, pushing back against the international order: Russia occupied and changed the borders of another country in Europe. The Chines are laying claim to virtually the entirety of the South China Sea. These are not the acts of friendly nations. The so-called 'Strategic Holiday' has ended: Fukuyama was emphatically wrong. To neglect a tool, weapons capabilities that have kept the US homeland secure for 70 years is worse than short sighted.

Chinese Test Railroad DF-41 ICBM

U.S. intelligence agencies recently monitored a Chinese test of a new rail car-based long-range missile capable of hitting targets throughout the United States.

The canister ejection test of a DF-41 missile from a rail-mobile launcher was detected on Dec. 5 in western China, said defense officials familiar with reports of the test.

Few details were available on the DF-41 launcher ejection test.

link.

China Continuing to Improve its Nuclear Weapons Capabilities

China has advanced its nuclear deterrent capabilities by sending a Type 094 ('Jin'-class) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) out on its first deterrent patrol and by conducting a fifth reported test of its mobile, solid-fuel, multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV)-capable DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), according to US officials.

link.

US Air Force's Replacement ICBM Details to Emerge Soon

The US Air Force's (USAF's) plans for replacing the Boeing LGM-30G Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) are being formed now, and the solution could have some commonality with future US Navy (USN) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) programme - previously known as Minuteman IV - is now undergoing an analysis of alternatives to determine specific attributes, Admiral Cecil Haney, head of US Strategic Command, told reporters during a 22 October breakfast meeting.

link.

more info here.

American Nuclear Weapons Update: Nukes for F-35C and Commonality Sought for US Navy SLBM and USAF ICBM Replacements

A US think tank has proposed installing nuclear weapons on the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter for deployment aboard aircraft carriers as a hedge against Russia and China.

Clark Murdock of the Center for Strategic and International Studies floated the idea of a return to carrier-based nuclear weapons in a new report published on 22 June.

The US government has committed to outfitting only the land-based F-35A with nuclear weapons as a “dual-capable aircraft,” namely the Boeing B61-12 thermonuclear guided bomb.

According to Murdock though, the F-35C should also receive nuclear weapons in the future as a “visible manifestation” of the United States’ commitment to protecting its allies.

link.

As the Air Force train pulls out of the station, the Navy’s running alongside asking to be pulled aboard. Both services will need to replace aging nuclear missiles sometime ca. 2030. They could save money by coordinating their modernization programs — but the Air Force is on a tighter schedule and the window of opportunity is starting to close.

“Commonality [is] a topic that I’ve been pretty aggressively shopping around town to anyone who will listen to me,” said Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, the Navy’s director of Strategic Systems Programs. But while the Navy’s not officially launched an effort to replace its Trident submarined-launched ballistic missile, the Air Force’s Minuteman ICBM replacement, the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, already issued a Request For Information back in January. “Because of the urgency of the GBSD effort,” Benedict said, “we need to begin this assessment now.”

“There’s absolute consensus at the leadership level to begin that work,” Benedict said at Peter Huessy breakfast hosted by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute. “I think the direction to formally proceed on that work is imminent.”

In the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon’s top buyer, Undersecretary Frank Kendall himself, is conducting a Strategic Posture Review that addresses the commonality question. Benedict has also spoken to the Air Force’s top buyer, Assistant Sec. Bill LaPlante, and to the service’s program executive officer for weapons, Maj. Gen. Scott Jansson. Strategic Command chief Adm. Cecil Haney even got Benedict to address a meeting of “basically every flag officer in the United States Air Force associated with ICBMs.”

“It’s hard to argue with [commonality]: I mean, who doesn’t want to save money?” Benedict said. “But, rightfully, they have a requirement that they have to meet to replace the Minuteman III, and so there are concerns that this does not distract them or derail them from meeting that requirement, and I respect that.”

The Air Force and the Navy also need their missiles to do different things. At the most basic level, launching from a silo underground is very different from launching from a submarine underwater. A component that works for both may not be optimal for either.

link.

Yes, Virginia: We Really DO Need to Modernize the Entirety of the Nuclear Triad

Nuclear modernization will receive at least $1.2 billion more this year than last year’s $23.5 billion if the president’s Defense Department budget request is approved. Modernization funding for nuclear weapons and their delivery systems comprise 4 percent of the defense budget and 0.6 percent of the Federal budget. These include : the Ohio-class submarine replacement program (ORP); a new long range bomber (LRSB); and a follow-on air launched cruise missiles (ALCM), as well as the ground-based strategic deterrent (currently the Minuteman missile system.)

Critics says that’s too much. They want to eliminate four of the ORPs while retiring four of the current submarines early and delaying by four years the procurement of the first new sub; delay buying the LRSB; cancel the ALCM and modernization of the ground-based cut upwards to allegedly save $75 billion over the next decade.

Are these reductions workable? Would they contribute to improving and enhancing our strategic deterrent, especially in terms of questions of stability and the future adequacy of our deterrent?

link.

Rethinking the American Land Based Portion of the Nuclear Triad? or not?

The United States Air Force needs to replace the Minuteman III ICBM fleet at the three nuclear missile bases in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. Critics decry the cost of a proposed replacement, thought to be in the range of several hundred billion dollars. Their main argument against replacing ICBMs is not the cost of replacing the Minuteman III. The critics say we just don’t need them. They are, they say, a “Cold War relic.”

The fact that nuclear peer Russia and near-peer China are modernizing their ICBM forces is often lost on those critics. While the reasons why are debatable, Russia’s recent aggression on a variety of fronts has left many Russia apologists dumbfounded. Russia isn’t just modernizing its ICBMs. At a frequency unprecedented since the Cold War, Russian nuclear-capable bombers are penetrating the American Air Defense Identification Zone’s (ADIZ) in both the continental United States and around Guam. Russia, unlike the US, is investing heavily to modernize their nuclear triad — delivery vehicles and weapons. The Russians seem intent on relying on their nuclear force to counter American conventional military superiority.

China likewise is improving its nuclear forces. The DF-41— a multiple reentry vehicle ICBM — was recently tested successfully. They are also working on improving their nuclear submarine capability, placing new submarine-launched ballistic missiles on Jin class nuclear submarines. To deter such capabilities America requires a secure and reliable nuclear deterrent for decades to come.

link.

US to Change Significant Changes to how it Funds Nuclear Weapons Triad?

It isn’t official but Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work hinted today that the United States will undertake a fundamental reordering of its national security budget by paying for new nuclear submarines, new nuclear bombers and new ICBMs in new accounts set aside just for them.

“This is something we have discussed in the department,” Work told reporters during a briefing on the Pentagon’s response to the string of major scandals involving the Air Force and Navy nuclear forces. This year it was drugs and cheating for the Air Force; the Navy had cheating too. Before that, the Air Force lost track of some nuclear weapons in 2007 and mistakenly flew them across the United States. And, of course, there were the nuclear fuses and other parts mistakenly sent to Taiwan in 2006 that we didn’t notice for a while.

“We think this is going to be a president’s budget ’17 discussion,” Work said. The decision will be driven in part, he seemed to imply, by whether sequestration comes back into effect next year. “f you go to sequestration level cuts, you will not be able to make what we believe are the prudent investments that you would have to do to make sure we have a safe, secure and effective deterrent. We are going to have to address that forthrightly.”

One of the attractions of creating these new accounts is that they would not be part of the regular budget division between the services so the military could not take money from the nuclear force to pay for conventional weapons, as has happened in the past.

Those new accounts, which Work said would not be officially decided until the 2017 budget, would appear to effectively take budget authority for these national nuclear assets away from the Navy and Air Force so that funding for them would not eat up the money for the conventional weapons that they buy. Among the billion dollar questions this raises is, would the services still be able to control the money, or would it become joint money or Office of Secretary of Defense money controlled by those officials.

link.

China Acknowledges the DF-41: a New ICBM With MIRVs

China has acknowledged the existence of a new intercontinental ballistic missile said to be capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads as far as the United States, state-run media reported.

A government environmental monitoring centre in Shaanxi said on its website a military facility in the province was developing Dongfeng-41 (DF-41) missiles, the Global Times reported.

The DF-41 is designed to have a range of 12,000 kilometres (7,500 miles), according to a report by Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems, putting it among the world's longest-range missiles.

It is "possibly capable of carrying multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles", the US Defence Department said in a report in June, referring to a payload of several nuclear warheads.

China's military is highly secretive, and the Global Times said it had not previously acknowledged the existence of the DF-41.

link.

Russia is Developing a *LOT* of Nuclear Weapons

Russia is making new nuclear delivery systems a national priority, with a new ballistic-missile submarine class and missile in production; continued deliveries of a modern, road-mobile ICBM; and reports of a new silo-based heavyweight weapon.

The nation is arming its bomber fleet with a new cruise missile and plans a new bomber (as does the U.S.), while tactical nuclear weapons are still considered an option for major combined-arms theater-scale wars.

Western experts across the hawk-to-dove spectrum tend to agree that Russia's motivation is a perception of conventional-force weakness relative to the U.S., NATO and China, which in turn stems from the Russian economy's inability to support rapid modernization of air, land and naval forces. However, some go further than this and argue that the Russian emphasis on nuclear weapons is destabilizing and could lead to the breaking of some nuclear weapon treaties.

link.

Status of the Russian Nuclear Arsenal via Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Blog

After the release of the last START data exchange in 2009 it has become rather difficult to get a good breakdown of the numbers of deployed launchers and warheads - the aggregate New START numbers leave too much room for uncertainty. Still, it's been a while wince the last update, so it is time a new attempt to make sense of the New START numbers.

According to the most recent data exchange, as of 1 September 2013 Russia had 1400 warheads associated with 473 deployed launchers. It is 19 launchers and 80 warheads less than in March 2013 - quite a significant drop. It's hard to get the structure of the strategic forces working back from these two numbers, so I'll try to start with what we know about deployed systems and then see if the numbers match (although I know that they don't).

link.

Sarmat Heavy ICBM to be Ready Between 2018 to 2020

Russia expects that the new "heavy" ICBM will be ready for deployment in 2018-2020, according to Sergei Karakayev, the commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces.

link.

How Many Functioning ICBMs Does Russia Have?

Russia has "about 400 launchers with ICBM" in its combat force. This sounds like a nice round number, but it's unlikely to be correct - the number of deployed ICBMs is probably closer to 300 than to 400.

link.