US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

oh really?
America’s nuclear weapons will cost $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years
10 hours ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. will need to spend $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years to modernize and maintain its nuclear weapons, according to a new government estimate.


The report, released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, said the $1.2 trillion in 2017 dollars includes $800 billion to operate and sustain existing forces, and $400 billion to modernize them, through 2046.

Among systems that will be updated in the next three decades are the Navy’s replacement for the Ohio-class nuclear submarine; the Air Force’s B-21, a new bomber design capable of both conventional and nuclear strike; the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, a replacement for the existing Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles; and the Long Range Stand-Off weapon, a new nuclear cruise missile.

Meanwhile, the National Nuclear Security Agency, a semiautonomous group within the Department of Energy, is spending significantly to modernize the various warheads used on the Pentagon’s delivery systems. And the Pentagon will also invest in the command-and-control structure required to support the so-called nuclear triad.

This is the first 30-year look at costs for the nuclear enterprise in three years. In February, the CBO released a 10-year estimate that put the cost of maintaining and updating the nuclear arsenal at $400 billion from 2017 to 2026.

The major cost centers in the report include:

  • $25 billion for the “operation, sustainment, and modernization of tactical nuclear delivery systems — the aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons over shorter ranges — and the weapons they carry.”
  • $445 billion for the “complex of laboratories and production facilities that support nuclear weapons activities and the command, control, communications, and early-warning systems that enable the safe and secure operation of nuclear forces.”
  • $772 for the “operation, sustainment, and modernization of strategic nuclear delivery systems and weapons — the long-range aircraft, missiles, and submarines that launch nuclear weapons; the nuclear weapons they carry; and the nuclear reactors that power the submarines.”
In terms of specific weapon system costs, the CBO estimates $313 billion for nuclear submarines, $149 billion for ICBMs, $266 billion for bombers and $44 billion for other systems. By department, costs break down to $890 billion for the Defense Department and $352 billion for the Department of Energy.

Notably, the report concluded that updating and supporting existing systems without modernizing them at all would bring costs down of the 30-year estimate by about 50 percent. However, the Pentagon has routinely rejected such an idea, under the belief that the existing weapons architecture will age out as an effective deterrent over the next two decades.

Nonproliferation advocates such as Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, quickly jumped on the CBO numbers as proof that the costs for nuclear weapons have simply grown beyond sustainability.

The $1.2 billion figure shows that that the “stark reality underlined by CBO is that unless the U.S. government finds a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the nuclear weapons spending plan inherited by the Trump administration will pose a crushing affordability problem,” Reif said in a statement.

The big question looming over the CBO’s report is whether the Trump administration will change America’s nuclear capabilities as a result of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, currently ongoing. If the administration decides to pursue new technologies or emphasize one leg of the triad over another, it could shift costs.

Percentage-wise, that $1.2 trillion figure amounts to only 6 percent of estimated total spending on national defense during that 30-year period, an argument that advocates of modernizing the nuclear force have pointed to when saying the trade-off is worth the money.

“On an annual basis, that percentage would vary substantially, rising from about 5.5 percent in 2017 to a peak of around 8 percent in the late 2020s and early 2030s before declining to about 4.5 percent in the 2040s,” the CBO authors wrote in their report.

The looming costs are particularly challenging for the Air Force, which has responsibility to fund the command-and-control work, as well as the new bomber, cruise missile and ICBM. Those costs begin to accumulate at the same time the service faces cost increases for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and KC-46A tanker, leading to what experts have called a “bow wave” of looming acquisition costs in the early to mid-2020s.

“If the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review by the administration does not scale-back current nuclear weapons spending plans ― or worse, accelerates or expands upon them ― expenditures on nuclear weapons will threaten other high priority national security programs,” Reif warned.
 
Oct 18, 2017
Oct 6, 2017

while
Fate of JSTARS recap to stay secret until FY19 budget release, says No. 2 Air Force civilian
10 hours ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
USAF still examining JSTARS recap cancellation
The US Air Force has missed a self-imposed late October deadline for deciding the fate of a threatened plan to recapitalise the Northrop Grumman E-8C JSTARS fleet.

The service has considered stepping away from a plan that would replace the E-8C JSTARS fleet with a new business jet and instead exploring alternative intelligence and surveillance platforms, a concept that could include using multiple systems to satisfy the ground surveillance and battle management role. USAF Secretary Heather Wilson is still gathering information on how data could be fused over several platforms and whether the technology to accomplish the JSTARS mission is ready.

It’s not the first time Wilson has pushed the decision to cancel the recapitalisation. In September, she indicated the service would decide by October, but moved that date during a 5 October speech in Washington.

“We should be able to make a rapid assessment and a decision so that we can explain to the Secretary of Defense...as well as the other branch of government, what we think is the best thing to do,” Wilson said.

The source selection process for the replacement programme is continuing as the USAF evaluates alternative options with a contract award expected this summer.

“We plan to continue to continue flying the current JSTARS fleet through fiscal year 2023,” a service spokeswoman says in an email statement. “Although we are exploring options, there are many steps still to be taken before any force structure proposals are included in the fiscal year 2019 budget.”

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are in conference, where they’ll work out the differences in their two fiscal year 2018 defence policy bills into one comprehensive piece of legislation. But the USAF might not release a decision until the service sends its FY 2019 budget to Congress this spring.
source is FlightGlobal
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
37 hour mission ! there are room for 3rd crew men place used to put a little bed and to " rest "

U.S. B-2 Bomber Exercises Are a Warning to North Korea

A recent pair of exercises involving the B-2 stealth bomber offers a pointed warning to Kim Jong-un and the leadership of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (DPRK for short. If conducting the exercise wasn't enough, U.S. Strategic Command directly referred to targeting the "DPRK leadership", in the clear, on a radio where it was monitored by military communications enthusiasts.

On the night of October 28, the B-2 bomber 88-0329, AKA Spirit of Missouri, took off from Whiteman Air Force Base and flew west over California and out into the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. It would return to Whiteman 37 hours later.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Spirit of Missouri flew to Andersen Air Force Base in the Northern Mariana islands, swapped crews with the engines running, and flew all the way back to Missouri
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

USAF B-2A.jpg
USAF B-2A - 2.jpg
 
I know I posted those exorbitant numbers already
Today at 7:29 AM
oh really?
America’s nuclear weapons will cost $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years
10 hours ago
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
CBO: Nuclear Arsenal Operation, Maintenance Will Cost $1.2 Trillion Over 30 Years
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The cost of the military’s total nuclear arsenal will amount to $1.2 trillion in 2017 dollars over the next 30 years, a staggering amount that takes into account the Air Force’s push to modernize and recapitalize its bomber fleet, cruise missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

While the number is large, it would be even more expensive if the US operated and maintained its current equipment instead of modernizing, according to a Congressional Budget Office
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
released Tuesday.

The review, which focused on the Obama administration’s plans to modernize the nuclear arsenal, details a rise from 2017’s cost of $29 billion to a high of $50 billion per year in the early 2030s.

The biggest chunk of the cost is the $772 billion price tag for operation, sustainment, and modernization of delivery systems and weapons—long-range aircraft, missiles, and submarines. About $445 billion is for laboratories and production facilities, as well as command, control, communications and early-warning systems, while $25 billion would be for operation, sustainment, and modernization of tactical delivery systems—aircraft carrying weapons over shorter ranges.

House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) requested the report in March, along with House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee ranking member Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.). Smith said the minority on his committee has been blocked by the Defense Department in its search for a “realistic estimate” of the long-term costs. Congress still doesn’t have an answer for how it will pay for the $1.2 trillion, and whether that funding will come out of other requirements, he said.

“If that comes out of our conventional forces that will be very, very, very problematic for us,” Smith said in a statement. “So rather than talk about the bow wave, there is future fiscal risk that the country, Congress, and future administrations and this administration must come to grips with.”

The report looked at possible, yet unlikely, ways to reduce the force structure and cost of the arsenal, such as delaying modernization programs, moving to a dyad instead of a triad, and reducing the number of weapons and delivery systems below New START limits.
this is just amazing
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
I know I posted those exorbitant numbers already
Today at 7:29 AM

CBO: Nuclear Arsenal Operation, Maintenance Will Cost $1.2 Trillion Over 30 Years
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

this is just amazing

That equal to an average spending of $40 billion ($1.2 Trillion / 30 years) per year just for nuke maintenance and operations. US military budget is like $600 billion per year.
 
Last edited:
That equal to an average spending of $40 billion ($1.2 Trillion / 30 years) per year just for nuke maintenance alone. US military budget is like $600 billion per year.
LOL bro I don't think maintenance would be as much as 40 bil a year:

"The biggest chunk of the cost is the $772 billion price tag for operation, sustainment, and modernization of delivery systems and weapons—long-range aircraft, missiles, and submarines. About $445 billion is for laboratories and production facilities, as well as command, control, communications and early-warning systems, while $25 billion would be for operation, sustainment, and modernization of tactical delivery systems—aircraft carrying weapons over shorter ranges." 7 minutes ago

looks like that 1.2t is for everything but still LOL!
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
LOL bro I don't think maintenance would be as much as 40 bil a year:

"The biggest chunk of the cost is the $772 billion price tag for operation, sustainment, and modernization of delivery systems and weapons—long-range aircraft, missiles, and submarines. About $445 billion is for laboratories and production facilities, as well as command, control, communications and early-warning systems, while $25 billion would be for operation, sustainment, and modernization of tactical delivery systems—aircraft carrying weapons over shorter ranges." 7 minutes ago

1.2t is for everything but still LOL!

Yes but $1.2 Trillion spreading over a 30 year period is nothing, because the US military budget is huge.
 
Yes but $1.2 Trillion spreading over a 30 year period is nothing, because the US military budget is huge.
oh the procurement and R&D are just smaller portions of the Pentagon spending bill:
bi_graphics_us-military-budget-2.png

(I know it's an older chart, from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

but OK, I should be more generous, 1.2t ain't that much LOL
 
Top