By the fall, the US Congress is to pass a new defense budget for the next fiscal year. This document is required to provide for spending on all major areas, including the maintenance and operation of strategic nuclear forces. For several years now, the military and lawmakers have been arguing about the modernization of strategic nuclear forces, and once again ideas and solutions of varying degrees of courage are being proposed. With their help, it is planned to obtain the optimal ratio of efficiency and costs.
The current situation
Currently, the United States possesses highly developed strategic nuclear forces. In terms of quantity and quality, only Russian forces can match the American forces; other nuclear powers are still catching up. The development of the US strategic nuclear forces is limited to a certain extent by the complexity and high cost of projects. In addition, Washington has to abide by the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III).
The alleged appearance of the future bomber B-21 Raider. US Air Force drawing
According to official data from the State Department, as of March 1, 2019, the US strategic nuclear forces had 800 deployed carriers of nuclear weapons, of which 656 were deployed. The number of deployed warheads, calculated under the terms of START III, was 1,365 units. Thus, the declared state of the strategic nuclear forces meets the requirements of the Treaty, although it leaves some margin for increasing the number of charges and their carriers.
According to the IISS The Military Balance 2018, 400 LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBMs are on duty in the US Strategic Nuclear Forces. The air component of the nuclear triad includes 90 aircraft: 70 B-52H missile bombers and 20 B-2A bombers. In the oceans, 14 Ohio-class nuclear submarines with 24 launchers of UGM-133A Trident D-5 missiles on each can be on duty.
The existing aircraft and missiles are capable of carrying several nuclear warheads, which makes it possible to adjust the state of the strategic nuclear forces to meet current requirements. Depending on the situation, it is possible to change the number of warheads and one or another component of the triad.
The current basis of long-range aviation is the B-52H and its armament. Photo by US Air Force
Over the past several years, in the United States, at various levels, there have been statements about the need for a full-scale modernization of the strategic nuclear forces. The current programs envisaged by the latest military budgets make it possible to maintain the required technical state of the forces, but are unable to ensure their restructuring and cardinal renewal. At the same time, it is envisaged to develop new bombers and nuclear-powered submarines carrying nuclear missiles. According to recent reports, a more serious renewal of the strategic nuclear forces may begin only by the mid-twenties - but on condition that the Pentagon and Congress find the necessary capabilities.
Expression of concern
In the first months of this year, American lawmakers managed to hold a number of events, during which the development of strategic nuclear forces was discussed. A variety of statements were made, primarily in support of the future renewal of forces. Various arguments are presented in favor of this point of view, including those related to potential adversaries in the person of Russia and China.
During recent meetings, Chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee Jim Inhof has repeatedly reminded about the development of the Chinese and Russian strategic nuclear forces. Against this background, the United States is postponing the upgrade of its weapons, which could lead to negative consequences. Legislators propose to develop and implement a new development program in the shortest possible time.
On February 28, at a hearing on nuclear policy, J. Inhof spoke about his intention to create a new draft law-program for the development of strategic nuclear forces. He proposes to gather the best experts from military structures and civilian organizations who will help form all the necessary plans.
Warhead W80 for air-launched cruise missiles. US Department of Defense Photo
On March 5, the Senate Committee again discussed SNF issues, this time the head of the Strategic Command, General John Hayten, participated in the meeting. The commander described the nuclear triad as an essential element of national defense. In addition, he pointed out that the characteristic capabilities of each of the components of the strategic nuclear forces allow the command to respond to any threat.
According to the general, the proposed modernization of nuclear forces is the minimum necessary effort to defend the country. J. Hayten called the strategic potential of China and Russia the most serious threat.
Latest statements
Against the background of the preparation of the draft law on the military budget, disputes over strategic nuclear forces have resumed. Congressmen are trying not only to ensure the preservation of the desired combat capability, but also to achieve significant savings. A curious controversy on this topic took place on March 6 during a hearing with the participation of outside experts.
House of Representatives Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith of the GOP recalled the Congressional Budget Office assessments. This structure has calculated that the modernization of the country's nuclear power and nuclear forces will cost 1.2 trillion dollars. A. Smith fully supports the proposed programs, but considers it necessary to optimize costs. Deterrence of potential adversaries is possible at a lower cost.
During the same hearing, an interesting opinion was expressed by a nuclear safety expert at Princeton University and a former SAC officer Bruce Blair. According to his calculations, the United States does not need a full-fledged nuclear triad with all the components to maintain an adequate deterrent potential. Such tasks can be solved by only five Ohio-class nuclear submarines carrying 120 Trident ballistic missiles.
LSA USS Wyoming (SSBN-742) project Ohio. Photo by US Navy
Also B. Blair suggests ways to improve the strategic nuclear forces. In his opinion, it is necessary to pay special attention to eliminating vulnerabilities in communication systems and military nuclear infrastructure management. He recalled that in the current nuclear strategy, the president is given about 5 minutes to make a decision on a strike. There is a risk of data corruption, which the head of state will have to rely on when making a decision.
Blair's statements were criticized by the representative of the Democratic Party Elaine Luria, a former naval officer who worked with nuclear weapons. In her opinion, legislators should support the program for the development of strategic nuclear forces. In addition, E. Luria considers it dangerous when outsiders offer congressmen to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons stockpiles. She does not believe that other countries will follow this example and will willingly begin to reduce their strategic arsenals.
In the course of recent events, A. Smith once again recalled his proposals in the field of strategies and the development of strategic nuclear forces. Thus, in order to change the face of the nuclear forces and reduce the costs of their maintenance, it is proposed to adopt a policy of refusal of the first strike. Also A. Smith continues to criticize the program for the creation of the LRSO cruise missile and the special warhead W76-2. The congressman considers the development of these two products to be impractical and wasteful. By closing two programs, Washington could redirect funding to more useful and relevant projects.
Materiel question
The available data reveal some details of the current work and plans of the command in relation to the materiel. The Pentagon is taking certain measures aimed at updating the strategic nuclear forces, but not all new programs are of a large scale and do not attract special attention from the public and legislators. Other developments, in turn, receive more attention.
Launch of the Trident-D5 rocket. Photo by US Navy
Currently, the United States is working on several projects for the modernization of nuclear and thermonuclear charges intended for use in strategic nuclear forces. Some updated products may fall into arsenals in the near future, while the delivery of others has been postponed for several years. It should be noted that due to limited financial resources and due to the lack of serious incentives of a military-political nature, the United States still gives preference to updating existing warheads. Development of the last new project, W91, was stopped in the early nineties.
Work continues on the upgraded W76-2 warhead intended for the Trident D5 SLBM. This project proposes the revision of the W76-1 serial product using modern equipment, extending the service life and increasing safety. The charge power is reduced from the original 100 kt to 5-7 kt. Earlier it was reported that in January 2019, Pantex will have to manufacture the first serial W76-2 units. The initial operational readiness stage will be reached in the last quarter of this year. Product upgrades for the new project will continue until fiscal 2024.
The carriers of the new W76-2 warheads will remain the existing Trident-D5 missiles. The latter will be operated on Ohio-class submarines, but in the future a new ship will be created for them. In the early thirties, it is planned to enter the lead nuclear submarine of the new Columbia project into the US Navy. On board this ship will be placed 16 silo launchers for existing or future missiles. According to current plans, by the middle of the century, the fleet will include 12 Columbia, which will replace all currently existing Ohio.
Several projects are being developed at once in the interests of the air component of the nuclear triad. First of all, a promising bomber-bomber Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider is being created. Such equipment would have to replace the existing B-1B and B-52H aircraft in the Air Force; in the future, it is possible to replace the newer B-2A. In total, it is planned to build a hundred B-21s. According to various sources, the Raider bomber will be able to carry a wide range of nuclear and conventional weapons - both missiles and guided bombs.
Alleged appearance of the Columbia-class submarine. US Navy drawing
Including for the B-21, a promising cruise missile LRSO (Long Range Stand-Off Weapon) is being created. So far, this project is in its early stages and has not even reached the test of prototypes. In parallel, work is underway to create a warhead for the LRSO.
Together with other equipment, such a rocket will be able to carry the W80-4 warhead. This product is based on the W80 serial warhead previously developed for the AGM-86 ALCM and AGM-129 ACM air-launched cruise missiles. A warhead 800 mm long and 300 mm in diameter and weighing 130 kg has an explosion power of 5 to 130 kt. The W80-4 project provides for the replacement of part of the warhead equipment using modern components, as well as the adaptation of the existing structure to the requirements of the LRSO missile.
The ground component of the strategic nuclear forces is now equipped only with the LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM. These missiles were created back in the sixties and are still in service today. In the nineties and two thousand years, the Minuteman missiles underwent modernization with the replacement of engines and part of the equipment. Warheads W78 were also serviced. ICBM LGM-30G is planned to remain in the army until the thirties. A replacement for them is not yet being developed, but a similar project may start in the foreseeable future.
Disputes about the future
As you can see, the US nuclear triad has all the necessary means and poses a serious threat to a potential adversary. There are quite powerful and effective weapons and equipment undergoing timely repairs and upgrades. In terms of both quantity and quality, the American strategic nuclear forces are among the best in the world.
Launch of the LGM-130G Minuteman III rocket. Photo by US Air Force
However, it is not difficult to notice the specific state of the material part of the US strategic nuclear forces and the characteristic features of its development programs. In service are submarines with an age of several decades and equally old aircraft. Land-based ICBMs, apart from the upgrade program, are even older. The development of fundamentally new warheads has long been discontinued, and all new projects of this kind provide only for the updating of individual components and the adaptation of charges to current requirements.
However, the sea and air components of the triad will undergo a certain update in the future. For them, new models of equipment and weapons are being developed - which cannot be said about the land component. It is quite possible that the creation of new ground-based ICBMs is planned, but it is still attributed to the distant future.
Thus, we can say that the Pentagon does not have a unified and comprehensive program for the modernization of strategic nuclear forces, simultaneously covering all areas and providing for a full-scale update of key components. Over the past decades, the issue of creating and adopting such a program has been repeatedly raised, but so far the matter has not gone further than talk. Individual projects in various spheres are accepted for implementation, but all of them are not implemented within the framework of a single program.
The reasons for the lack of such a program are obvious. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that such a program would cost taxpayers $ 1.2 trillion. These expenditures can be distributed among several annual budgets, but in this case, the total amount of required funding remains too large. The cost of a hypothetical program, the desire to save money and constant disputes on the political field for many years in a row do not give a real opportunity to launch a full-scale modernization of the strategic nuclear forces.
Combat equipment "Minuteman" - breeding stage Mk 12 with warheads W78. US Department of Defense Photo
In such conditions, the military department has to update the strategic nuclear forces within the framework of individual projects that require less spending. This troop renewal is easier to incorporate into the draft military budget and then execute. In general, this approach copes with the assigned tasks and allows the strategic nuclear forces to be systematically modernized. However, he does not guarantee the absence of claims. For example, the current project for the modernization of warheads W76-2 has been criticized for several years. Some congressmen do not see the point in redesigning the existing warhead with a reduction in its power.
Forecast for the future
Apparently, the full-scale program of renewing the strategic nuclear forces, which has been talked about for so long at all levels, will not be adopted in the foreseeable future for well-known reasons. The Pentagon, in turn, will continue to update the existing materiel and create new models as part of individual programs and projects. Thanks to this, the strategic nuclear forces will still receive improved weapons and modern equipment.
It is to be expected that certain features of the current situation will persist in the future. So, since the beginning of the nineties, the United States has not created new nuclear warheads, and it is unlikely that the development of such projects will start in the near future. In the short and medium term, the strategic nuclear forces will continue to operate the old Minuteman missiles, and so far only long-range aviation and the Navy can count on a serious upgrade of materiel.
At present, the United States possesses large and well-developed strategic nuclear forces capable of solving all the assigned tasks. However, weapons and equipment become obsolete morally and physically, which requires timely replacement. The current activities of the Ministry of Defense and related organizations make it possible to timely update the equipment of the troops, but not in all areas and not in the desired volumes. In the distant future, this can lead to very unpleasant consequences in the form of lagging behind a potential adversary. In recent statements, officials have repeatedly referred to the threat from Russia and China. And in the future it will become clear whether such a threat could influence the course of discussions, the adoption of new programs and the real development of the strategic nuclear forces.
