Russia Tested its Burevestnik Their Nuclear Powered Cruise Missile, on January 29, 2019

Russia conducted a partially successful test of its developmental nuclear-powered cruise missile, the Burevestnik, on January 29, 2019, according to U.S. government sources with knowledge of Russia’s weapons programs who spoke to the The Diplomat. The test took place at Russia’s Kapustin Yar missile test range and is the thirteenth to date involving the missile.

The test marks the first involving the Burevestnik in nearly one year. The missile had not been tested since February 2018. According to one source, U.S. intelligence assesses that Russia’s development efforts on the missile continues. The United States intelligence community internally calls the missile the KY30 or the SSC-X-9 SKYFALL.

link.

Russians Unveil 9M729 GLCM in Attempt to Save INF Treaty

Russia showed foreign military attaches on Wednesday a new cruise missile that the United States says breaches a landmark arms control pact, billing it as an exercise in transparency it hoped would persuade Washington to stay in the treaty.

link.

more info.

Even more.

The US demanded Russia destroy the missiles and their launchers.  Russia refused.  NATO backed the US.  The US will quit the treaty.

Dutch Government Confirms Russia Violating INF Treaty

The Dutch government has information that Russia developed a prohibited cruise missile, according to a letter written by Ministers Stef Blok of Foreign Affairs and Ank Bijleveld of Defense. It involves a SSC-8 missile that has a range of over 500 kilometers, which violates the INF treaty, NOS reports.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987 between the United States and Russia. It put an end to the Cold War. The treaty forbids the development of missiles with a range of more than 500 kilometers.

"The Netherlands can independently confirm that Russia has developed and is currently introducing a ground-based cruise weapon", the two Ministers wrote to the Tweede Kamer, the lower house of Dutch parliament. This is based on "intelligence".

link.

US Threatening to Leave INF Treaty, Russia Hypocritically Angry

President Donald Trump said Washington would withdraw from a landmark Cold War-era treaty that eliminated nuclear missiles from Europe because Russia was violating the pact, triggering a warning of retaliatory measures from Moscow.

link.

2nd link.

3rd link.

4th link.

5th link.

Pakistan has Tested a Nuclear Capable Submarine Launched Cruise Missile

Pakistan announced Thursday that it had successfully conducted another test-firing of a nuclear-capable, submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM), which has a range of 450 kilometers.

The indigenously developed Babur missile was fired from an underwater platform and “engaged its target with precise accuracy,” a military statement said.

The rocket is capable of delivering “various types of payloads” and provides Pakistan a “credible” second-strike capability.

Military spokesman Major-General Asif Ghafoor, while referring to the country’s archrival India, said the development of Babur was a response to “provocative nuclear strategies and posture being pursued in the neighborhood.” He also released some footage of the testing.

Pakistan said its nuclear and missile development programs are India-specific and have effectively deterred the bigger neighbor, with its larger military power, from imposing another war on the country.

link.

Yes, Virginia. It Does Appear Vlad the Irradiator Built a Project Pluto Cruise Missile

Last week Vladimir Putin, a frequently shirtless equestrian ghoul who also happens to run the Country Formerly Known As The Soviet Union, gave a long, mildly unhinged state-of-Russia speech that made reference to a number of new Russian weapons systems, including an anti-Mar-A-Lago missile system and a nuclear-powered cruise missile. This nuclear-powered missile is interesting because it appears to be a copy of something America thought was too batshit back in the 1960s.

...

Putin claims that they had a successful test of the nuclear-powered missile in 2017, and they are ready to begin manufacture of the missile. This image from the video seems to show that test in progress, with the missile itself on the inset of the video feed from a chase plane:

link.

Did Russia Actually Build Project Pluto?!

Putin also spoke of a small nuclear-powered engine that could be fitted to what he said were low-flying, highly maneuverable cruise missiles, giving them a practically unlimited range.

The new engine meant Russia was able to make a new type of weapon - nuclear missiles powered by nuclear rather than conventional fuel.

“Nothing like it in the world exists,” Putin told the audience. “At some point it will probably appear (elsewhere) but by that time our guys will have devised something else.”

link.

This sounds like Project Pluto.

Gawd, let's hope that it's not.  However, given where Russia's tech is at, something that was feasible in the 1950s/60s would be right up their alley.

Update:  A source from the five sided building states the Russian version of Project Pluto is real and powered by a unshielded nuclear reactor.  There was supposedly a crash in the Arctic by a prototype not too long ago and the project is still in development rather than ready for deployment.

Russia is Frustrating the US With INF Treaty Violation

Russia continues to rattle the United States with its alleged breach of a 1987 bilateral agreement aimed at eliminating medium-range ground-based missiles, according to a senior State Department official.

“We have made it very clear to our Russian colleagues that our patience is not indefinite,” said Frank Rose, the State Department’s top diplomat for arms control, compliance and verification. “We will work closely with our allies to ensure that Russia does not gain any benefit from its violation.”

Translation — this is bad. But unless Moscow actually deploys the prohibited missile, don’t expect a dramatic U.S. response anytime soon.

link.

US Air Force Presses Ahead With Nuclear Weapon Systems

The Air Force moved ahead with two critical nuclear modernization programs on Friday, releasing requests for proposals for its intercontinental ballistic missile replacement and a nuclear cruise missile.

The Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), which replaces the 1960s-era Minutemen III ICBM, and the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon, which will supersede the AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile, are seen by the service as pivotal for maintaining the nuclear triad and an effective strategic deterrent.

However, both programs have come under fire by lawmakers and analysts who assert that the the weapons are too costly, duplicative or even that they could add to global instability.

link.

2nd link.

3rd link.

The replacement nuclear bomb has received the go ahead to start production engineering.

New Nuclear Cruise Missiles are Supported by Former Defense Officials

The U.S. and Russia can easily tell the difference between a conventionally armed cruise missile en route to a target and a nuclear armed one, former senior defense officials told a Senate panel on Wednesday.

John Hamre, deputy secretary of defense during President Bill Clinton’s second term, and Franklin Miller, a special assistant on defense policy and arms control to President George W. Bush and a member of the National Security Council, told a Senate subcommittee that using a cruise missile for a conventional strike would not spur an adversary to go nuclear.

“The launch of a conventional weapon and the launch of a nuclear weapon occur in context,” Miller said. “So the launch of [U.S.] cruise missiles against Iraq or indeed the launch of Russian cruise missile against Syria did not raise any questions of nuclear use.”

link.

2nd link.

USAF's Long Range Stand-Off Crusie Missile is a GO

A US Air Force (USAF) programme to develop and field a new nuclear-capable Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) cruise missile has undergone a Pentagon review and appears poised to proceed to development soon.

Pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall "is looking at what the acquisition strategy is, and is having a discussion right now - is there a cheaper way to do it?" Lieutenant General Jack Weinstein, USAF deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, told a handful of reporters during a recent meeting. He said the remaining discussions are meant to ensure the acquisition strategy is as cost-effective as possible and "there was no question during the last meeting that we're going to do an LRSO".

link.

China Alarmed by Idea of Giving Japan Tomahawk Missiles

Chinese researchers have rebutted an oped piece on USNI News that suggests supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Japan. Chinese experts said that the AGM-109 would pose a threat to other countries in East Asia.

link.

No, Really, the Long Range Standoff Cruise Missile is Necessary

Kingston Reif says nothing new in his recent article at War on the Rocks, in which he argues that the United States should not invest in a new air-launched nuclear cruise missile. We’ve heard this all before from the disarmament community’s view. Unfortunately, Reif distorts the realities surrounding the military’s development of a necessary capability for nuclear deterrence. In Reif’s article, advocates for a robust nuclear deterrent are reduced to rabid planners who “make a hoarder seem frugal” with their nuclear funding demands, supporters of a weapon system rather than defense professionals within the Pentagon’s acquisition program. We are dismissed as “devotees” of the missile, as if we were worshipers of a South Pacific cargo cult and not serious defense analysts.

link.

Russian Navy Upgrading Akula Class Attack Subs to use Kalibr (Sizzler) Antiship missiles

The upgrade of Russia's Project 971 Bars ('Akula')-class nuclear-powered attack submarines will arm them with Kalibr 3M-54 (SS-N-27A 'Sizzler') anti-ship missiles, Viktor Kochemazov, chief of the Russian Navy Training Department, told the RSN radio channel on 21 March. "Now, the upgrade of the Project 971 submarines provides for equipping them with the Kalibr system," he said.

The weapon "proved itself" during trials, according to Kochemazov. "Its use by the Rostov-on-Don diesel-electric submarine showed that the system is facing bright vistas in terms of further development," he said.

link.

Raytheon's KTech Contracted to Convert 2 Cruise Missiles Into EMP Weapons for Demo

Raytheon’s acquisition of directed energy firm Ktech in 2011 is paying dividends following the US Defense Department’s award of a $4.8 million contract to repackage two air-launched cruise missiles as high-power microwave weapons.

Ktech produced the pulsing electronics kit that Boeing proved could knock out banks of computers in an October 2012 flight demonstration, overseen by the US Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL).

The award to Raytheon is the first significant movement on the so-called Counter-electronics High-power microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) since that 2012 demonstration. The announcement is a blow to Boeing, which no longer leads the effort.

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.

Russia Claims to Have Tested a Hypersonic Cruise Missile, the Mach 6 Zircon

First trials of a sea-based Zircon hypersonic cruise missile have begun, a top defense industry source told RIA Novosti. The secretive missile is said to be capable of flying five to six times the speed of sound. It is launched from a 5G submarine.

“Zircon hypersonic missiles are already there, and testing from a ground-based launching site has begun,” a senior defense industry source told RIA Novosti on Thursday.

The new, highly secretive missile would be able to fly five to six times faster than the speed of sound, the source added.

Zircon missiles would be mounted on the newest fifth-generation nuclear-powered Husky-class submarines.

Features of the new hypersonic missile are not found in public sources. Earlier in February, it was revealed that the Russian Navy’s nuclear-powered guided-missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great) would also be armed with hypersonic cruise missiles by 2022.

A military source told TASS the cruiser will be refitted with the brand new multirole 3S-14 vertical launch systems, which house three types of anti-ship missiles, including Zircon, Onyx and Kalibr.

Zircon will probably replace P-800 Onyx and Kalibr NK missiles. Both have supersonic anti-ship capabilities, while Kalibr can cover long-range distances of up to 4,000 kilometers and carry a 500kg warhead. The combat-proven cruise missile was seen in action last year, when it was deployed against Islamic State’s (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) defenses in Syria.

link.

Long Range Stand-off Missile RFP Expected in May/June

US defence prime contractors vying for the contract to build the nuclear-capable Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) missile that will replace the US Air Force's (USAF's) AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) expect the service to issue a final request for proposal (RfP) in May or June, a Lockheed Martin official said on 15 March.

"We've already had two or three [draft RfPs] and expect a final [one] in May or June and an award next year," Frank St John, vice-president of Lockheed Martin's Tactical Missiles business, told IHS Jane's during a briefing at a company-sponsored media day.

Four prime contractors - Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin - are bidding for two Technical Maturation Risk Reduction contracts, according to St John.

He added that he expects each company to offer a unique technology solution. "Getting four prime contractors to work on something common is challenging, so I wouldn't be surprised if people went in different directions in the end," he said.

Lockheed Martin will draw heavily on lessons from its AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) for its LRSO offering, he noted. However, the weapon will be an entirely new design not based on any legacy system.

"The requirements are such that nothing we have would fit that bill," St John said. "But I will say that a lot of the lessons that we've learned over the years on JASSM - in terms of survivability, in terms of aircraft integration, mission planning, and the like - are all things that are brought to bear in that competition."

link.

America's Hypersonic Missile Revolution is Nigh

Long before hitching a ride to the moon aboard Apollo 11, then US Air Force test pilot Neil Armstrong was zipping around in a rocket-powered North American X-15, which to this day remains the fastest manned, winged aircraft ever built. That flight record of Mach 6.72 or 7,274km/h was set by pilot William “Pete” Knight in 1967.

Now, some 59 years later, America still hasn’t fully realised the promise that experimental flight vehicle held for military operations.

Despite many breakthroughs in fields of hypersonic propulsion and high-temperature materials, the air force doesn’t imagine an affordable and operationally relevant surveillance and strike aircraft coming online until the late 2030s.

The storied Lockheed Martin SR-71 Blackbird flew at Mach 3.2, or three times the speed of sound, which is now short of what the air force says it needs to outpace modern interceptors.

Instead, the air branch is pushing hypersonic missiles, powered by the type of air-breathing scramjet engine that propelled the and rocket-boosted Boeing X-51 WaveRider in 2013. Engineless boost-glide hypersonic weapon concepts are also being considered.

link.

US Air Force Aiming for Hypersonic Missiles by 2020

Hypersonic missiles could be here faster than you know it.

By 2020, the Air Force is likely to have operational prototypes ready for a program of record and testing to develop an operational unit, said Maj. Gen. Thomas Masiello, the commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory.

By the 2030s, the technology could have expanded beyond delivering warheads at speeds faster than sound to also include hypersonic intelligence and reconnaissance flights, he said.

link.