Wednesday, February 8, 2023
  • About us
    • Write for us
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms of use
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS Feeds
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us
DefenceTalk
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports
No Result
View All Result
DefenceTalk
No Result
View All Result

Bomber Contract Highlights Unrealistic Nuclear Modernization Strategy, Say Experts

by Arms Control Association
October 29, 2015
in Air Force News
3 min read
0
Global Strike command reaches full operational capability
14
VIEWS

Today Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced the U.S. Air Force’s decision to award the contract for the new, nuclear-armed, long-range penetrating strike bomber (or B3) program, which would cost in excess of $100 billion to design and build 80-100 of the planes.

The bomber buy is just one part of the Pentagon’s plan to spend at least $348 billion to maintain and rebuild the nuclear arsenal and refurbish the nuclear weapons complex over the next decade, according to a 2015 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report.
“Given the B52H and B2A bombers are expected to remain in service through 2040 and 2060, respectively, there is no need to rush forward with the new strategic bomber, especially when it will compete with other high priority Air Force and Pentagon nuclear and conventional priorities,” said Kingston Reif, director of disarmament and threat reduction policy with the Arms Control Association.

Current plans to rebuild all three legs of the existing nuclear “triad” and their associated warheads, including 12 new ballistic missile submarines, up to 100 new long-range, nuclear-capable bombers, 642 new land-based ballistic missiles, and 1000 new, nuclear-capable long-range standoff cruise missiles.

“We believe the administration’s redundant, all-of-the-above approach to rebuilding all of the major U.S. nuclear weapons delivery systems at levels beyond realistic deterrence requirements is unsustainable and will deplete resources from higher national security priorities,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.

The Air Force wants a total 1,000 of the new nuclear-armed cruise missiles for use by all three bombers—the B52H, the B2A and the B3—at a development cost of some $20-30 billion.

“The Pentagon has failed to provide a compelling reason why it needs both a new penetrating bomber and a standoff missile to meet the nuclear deterrence requirements of the United States and our allies,” said Reif of the Arms Control Association.

“The requirement that the air-leg of the U.S. triad have two means to assure mass destruction against the most advanced air-defenses constitutes excessive redundancy. Other weapons, such as submarine-launched ballistic missiles, can penetrate air defenses with high confidence,” Reif added.

In an Oct. 15 op-ed in The Washington Post, William Perry, President Bill Clinton’s defense secretary, and Andrew Weber, President Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, called on President Obama to cancel the nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missiles program.

Perry and Weber described nuclear-armed cruise missiles as “a uniquely destabilizing type of nuclear weapon.” The development of a new version “would not diminish the formidable U.S. nuclear deterrent in the least” and “could lay the foundation for a global ban on these dangerous weapons.”

“Proponents of the new nuclear air-launched cruise missile say that it provides the president with flexible options in the event of a crisis and the ability to ‘control escalation’ in a conflict with another nuclear-armed state. In other words, the missiles would come in handy for nuclear war-fighting,” Reif said.

“The thinking behind the new cruise missile is inconsistent with the stated goal of President Obama to reduce the role and number and salience of nuclear weapons in U.S. military strategy,” Kimball charged.

“Future nuclear force planning needs to take into account the fact that the President’s 2013 nuclear weapons employment guidance allows for a one-third reduction below New START levels, but even if the United States maintains New START warhead levels, it can do so at significantly lower cost,” Kimball said.

“Despite warnings from senior officials that the current modernization plans are unaffordable, Secretary Carter and President Barack Obama have failed to make common-sense adjustments. They can and should trim back, and in some cases, forgo redundant and costly systems, such as a new nuclear-armed cruise missile, and save taxpayer dollars,” Kimball added.

Tags: B-3bomberscontractmodernization
Previous Post

Enhanced Technology Will Allow Scalable Effects During Operations

Next Post

America’s next superbomber to be shrouded in secret for years

Related Posts

USAF F-16 fleet undergoing largest modification work in history

Poland not in talks to send F-16s to Ukraine

February 1, 2023

Poland is not in talks to send F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, a deputy defence minister said Tuesday, a day...

India approves purchase of 33 Russian fighter jets

Two Indian military jets crash, one pilot killed

January 30, 2023

Two Indian Air Force fighter jets crashed Saturday, killing one pilot and injuring two others, in an apparent mid-air collision...

Next Post
U.S. Air Force B-2

America's next superbomber to be shrouded in secret for years

Latest Defense News

Air Defense Systems, Long-Range Fires Capability to be Sent to Ukraine

Air Defense Systems, Long-Range Fires Capability to be Sent to Ukraine

February 4, 2023
Beijing accuses NATO of exaggerating ‘China threat theory’

Majority of Finns want to join NATO before Sweden: poll

February 3, 2023
China, US defence ministers to hold talks in Singapore

Pentagon tracking Chinese spy balloon over US

February 3, 2023
Eurofighter Touts Typhoon Capabilities to Poland At Air Show

UK court examines legality of resuming Saudi arms sales

February 1, 2023
If US DoD Wants #ArtificialIntelligence In Its Future, It Must Start Now

AI voice tool ‘misused’ as deepfakes flood web forum

February 1, 2023
Japan defence ministry seeks $50 billion budget

NATO chief hails Japan plans to expand defence spending

February 1, 2023

Defense Forum Discussions

  • Indian Navy Discussions and Updates
  • Australian Army Discussions and Updates
  • Exceptionally Large Autonomous Attack Submarines
  • Russia and the West
  • Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
  • The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
  • NZDF General discussion thread
  • What are you reading at the moment?
  • US Army News and updates general discussion
  • Republic of Singapore Air Force Discussions
DefenceTalk

© 2003-2020 DefenceTalk.com

Navigate Site

  • Defence Forum
  • Military Photos
  • RSS Feeds
  • About us
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports

© 2003-2020 DefenceTalk.com