Revive the Airborne Laser?
Kingston Reif | May 16, 2012 |
0 By Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.)
In its mark-up of the Defense Authorization bill for Fiscal 2013, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee lauded the prior accomplishments of the Airborne Laser Test Bed program. It then went further by directing the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report by 31 July 2012 on the costs that would be involved in returning the Airborne Laser aircraft to an operational readiness status to continue technology development and testing, and to be ready to deploy in an operational contingency, if needed, to respond to rapidly developing threats from North Korea.
This Airborne Laser program, instituted in 1996, envisioned mounting a chemical laser in a modified Boeing 747-400F aircraft to destroy enemy missiles in their boost phase before they could deploy their nuclear weapons and countermeasures. After spending about $5.2 billion on the program over 16 years, the Missile Defense Agency announced its termination in February 2012, and advised that the modified aircraft would be mothballed and retired to the aircraft bone yard in Arizona. Lt. General Patrick O’Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, noted that a new generation of smaller and far more powerful unmanned solid-state lasers, capable of operating at higher altitudes, would be developed over the decade in the hope of creating an operationally effective anti-missile laser program.
A basic problem with the Airborne Laser is that the effective range of the weapon is limited by the attenuation of the beam as it passes through the atmosphere. During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on 13 May 2009, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that “the reality is that you would need a laser something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the chemical laser in the plane … to be able to get any distance from the launch site to fire. So right now, the ABL would have to orbit inside the borders of Iran in order to be able to shoot down that missile in the boost phase.” The conclusion regarding its lack of effectiveness was not limited to the Iran case. The Secretary advised in conclusion that “nobody in uniform that I know … believes that this is a workable concept.”
Nor are current prospects for the Airborne Laser any brighter in combatting missiles launched from North Korea as well as Iran. In a letter dated as recently as 30 April 2012 to the chair and ranking member of the same Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee that is advocating revival of the Airborne Laser, the co-chairs of the “National Academy of Sciences National Research Council Committee on an Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives” stated that “the defense cannot be based close enough to the threat during the boost-phase to kill it, even with the most optimistic assumptions about technical performance.”
Why, given the consistently negative evaluations, would the House Subcommittee want to revive this discredited weapons system? Hopefully, common sense will prevail, especially in this period of fiscal stringency, and we will allow the Airborne Laser 747 aircraft to rest in peace in the aircraft bone yard.
"The Politics of Reduction"
Kingston Reif | May 15, 2012 | 0 In my May Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists column I explore the history of post-Cold War GOP efforts to constrain Democratic presidents from making reductions to the size of the US nuclear arsenal and how such efforts harm US national security. Here's the intro: One of the perks of being a Republican president in the United States is the freedom to make drastic changes to US nuclear posture while Democratic presidents are forced to travel a much tougher road, often in the pursuit of far less ambitious goals. This pattern has been ongoing since the end of the Cold War and sadly continues unabated today. On May 9, the House Armed Services Committee wrote the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and Republican leaders used their majority to pass legislative provisions that will restrict and perhaps even block the Pentagon's ability to implement the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and prevent the president and senior military leaders from making future changes to the size and structure of the US nuclear arsenal. According to Republican Strategic Force Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner, "It’s not even clear that the unilateral reductions to U.S. nuclear forces required by the New START are in the interest of our national security. ... The president’s most recent budget, however, abandons the nuclear modernization funding he promised. This can only be described as bait and switch. The Senate has been deceived."
This overblown bluster, however, ignores a few basic realities: Spending on nuclear weapons has increased dramatically under President Obama, constraints on New START would restrict the military from fielding the most capable force possible, fewer weapons won't obviate deterrence, and preventing future nuclear force reductions would lock in an excessively large nuclear arsenal ill-suited to the current terrorist threat and to the current economic environment.
Nukes on a Blog, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Column, Congress, nuclear weapons budget, nuclear guidance review (all tags)
Paging all Golfers: 6th Annual DC Atomic Open Golf Tournament
Kingston Reif | May 11, 2012 | 0 We're taking a break from our regularly scheduled nuke programming for a public service announcement regarding a great opportunity to dust off your Driver and make some birdies for charity. Below are the event details:
The 6th Annual DC Atomic Open Golf Tournament
Monday, June 11th (1:00pm Registration, 2:00 PM shotgun start)
Reston National Golf Course
11875 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, Virginia
(703) 620-9333
$80 Entry Fee
Anyone connected with the nuclear world, as well as their friends and family, are eligible to join this fun event. Pro-nukes to no-nukes are welcome. The event will be a scramble captain’s choice, and players at all skill levels are encouraged to participate.
NoH will definitely be putting a team together and we hope to see some of you in attendance! If you're interested, let us know and we'll send you the registration form.
(all tags)
Don’t Bring Back CMRR
Nickolas Roth | May 11, 2012 | 0 House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner wants to force the United States to invest in a multi-billion dollar nuclear weapons research facility that it does not need, the $6+ billion Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The primary purpose of the CMRR-NF is to increase the capacity of the United States to produce the plutonium cores for nuclear weapons. During House Armed Services Committee’s May 9 markup of the defense bill, Turner successfully introduced two amendments that would take construction of the CMRR-NF out of the hands of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which says it can’t afford the facility and does not need it now, and require the Defense Department to build and pay for it. The amendments would also prevent NNSA or the Pentagon from considering less expensive plutonium sustainment strategies that do not include construction of the CMRR...
House Armed Services Committee Gone Wild -- Again
Kingston Reif | May 10, 2012 | 0 Yesterday the House Armed Services Committee marked up the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Head over to the mothership for our initial summary. If you thought last year’s version of the bill was bad, this year’s iteration includes a number of proposed funding proposals and policy provisions on nuclear weapons and missile defense that are even more extreme.
Click here, here, and here for our earlier previews of the bill. Nukes on a Blog, NDAA, nuclear weapons budget, Congress, nuclear guidance review (all tags)
"N. Korea Launches Rocket, Kills U.S. Deal" in Arms Control Today May 2012
Duyeon Kim | May 09, 2012 | 0 
N. Korea's Unha-3 rocket (PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/Getty Images)
I recently wrote for the May edition of Arms Control Today about North Korea's rocket launch. Click here for the full piece.
Some highlights:
-"The launch, in effect, shattered a Feb. 29 deal made with the United States on halting all missile and nuclear activities."
-"Two days after the launch, Pyongyang rolled out what appeared to be new missiles in its military parade celebrating the 100th birthday of Kim Il Sung, the regime’s late founder. Some news reports initially speculated they were mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)... [but] specialists on North Korean missiles, however, have dismissed them as mock-ups. Attention quickly shifted to the vehicles carrying the missiles, amid suspicions that they came from China, North Korea’s main patron.” (Click Read More)
Nukes on a Blog, North Korea, rocket, nuclear test, Unha-3 (all tags)
The Heritage Foundation’s Missile Defense Fantasies
Matthew Fargo | May 09, 2012 | 0 Check out my latest article responding to an op-ed by Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner on missile defense. Here's the into:
Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner’s op-ed in the Washington Times on April 23 muddled the history of ballistic missile defense when he blamed President Barack Obama for the inability of the United States to field anything more than a nascent missile defense system. The United States has been developing missile defense systems for almost sixty years without success. Without irony, his solution to persistent cost overruns and schedule delays would be to increase the missile defense budget by nearly 40%, adding an additional three billion dollars a year to an already astronomical price tag. Furthermore, Dr. Feulner approves of the United States’ abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that contributed to strategic stability for forty years by trying to argue that missile defense, if it actually worked, would improve relations between the United States and Russia despite repeated threats from Russian military officials regarding the future of missile defenses in Europe...
HASC Chairman McKeon releases version of FY 13 NDAA - Includes $100 million for CMRR-NF
Kingston Reif | May 07, 2012 | 0 
HASC Chairman Buck McKeon
Today House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon released his version of the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Click here for the Chairman's mark, which includes detailed funding tables for national defense (function 050) spending.
The Chairman's mark will serve as the basis for the full Committee markup on Wednesday, May 9. It will be supplemented by the subcommittee marks and whatever amendments are adopted to the individual marks and the Chairman's mark.
The Chairman's mark provides $554 billion for national defense (function 050). This is an increase of approximately $4 billion above the President's request and $8 billion above the Budget Control Act's FY 2013 cap on 050 spending. While Republicans decry the national debt and denounce unnecessary spending, HASC is proposing to add hundreds of millions of dollars to defense programs the Pentagon says it doesn’t want.
Some highlights from the Chairman's mark re: nuclear weapons funding include:
-The mark authorizes $7.9 billion for NNSA weapons activities, an increase of $323 million above the FY 2013 requested level and the Senate and House Appropriations Committee approved levels. The purpose of the increase is to ensure that nuclear weapons spending keeps pace with the funding levels outlined in the Section 1251 report, which outlines the 10-year, $88 billion funding plan for NNSA weapons activities proposed by the administration in the context of the Senate's debate on the New START treaty.
-The mark authorizes $100 million for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) at Los Alamos. The administration's budget request did not contain any funding for CMRR-NF due to its decision to delay construction of the facility for at least five years.
The five-year deferral of the CMRR will not compromise NNSA’s ability to maintain the stockpile as essential plutonium missions can be performed by the existing complex.
Referring to the delay to the CMRR, NNSA Administrator Tom D’Agostino testified to Congress in April that: “And the good news by all of this, frankly, is there are a number of options, a number of different paths that we can proceed. We are not hampered by saying the nation has to have a capability right now to make 50 or 80 pits per year in order to take care of the stockpile. That's great news for the country because we are not forced into making rash decisions on significant investments in a very short period of time. So we have time to evaluate this area.”
Both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees supported the five-year delay to the facility in their marks of the FY 2013 Energy and Water bill in April. They are in agreement that NNSA can’t afford to build CMRR right now, an alternative to maintaining pit manufacturing and pit sustainment exists, and NNSA must demonstrate better project management when embarking on multibillion dollar construction projects.
It remains to be seen whether Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) will seek to further increase funding for CMRR in Committee on Wednesday, as the 1251 report included $300 million in projected funding for CMRR in FY 2013.
-The mark authorizes a $374 million increase above the requested level for Advanced Submarine System Development, the Pentagon research and development account that includes the program element which funds the Ohio-class replacement program. The Committee also authorized an additional $97 million above the request for the Ohio-class replacement reactor development program within the NNSA Naval Reactors account. As we suspected, HASC appears bent on reversing the administration's proposed two-year delay to the Ohio-class replacement program.
-Finally, the mark authorizes $2.46 billion for NNSA's defense nuclear nonproliferation account, the same as the administration's request. The mark fully funds the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program. Recall that both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees increased funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Suffice it to say that HASC is prioritizing spending on weapons programs above spending on material security programs.
Stay tuned this space for full coverage of the HASC mark on Wednesday and reaction in the days afterward as the bill heads to the House floor next week.
Nukes on a Blog, Congress, nuclear weapons budget, NDAA (all tags)
Quote of the Day: The gift that keeps on not giving edition
Kingston Reif | May 05, 2012 | 0 The landmark civil nuclear agreement that the two countries signed in 2008 was supposed to lead to tens of billions of dollars in business for U.S. companies that build nuclear power plants. But it has not yielded anything except a disagreement over who would be liable in the event of a nuclear accident.
The nuclear deal was seen as the cornerstone of the broader strategic partnership between the two nations. Both countries are wary of China’s growing influence, have fallen victim to Islamist extremism emanating from Pakistan and share a commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan.
But at the same time, each pursues its own independent strategic agenda. India’s unwillingness to join international sanctions against Iran — which New Delhi sees as an important oil supplier — and its reluctance to intervene in other countries’ internal affairs — in Libya and Syria,?for example — are among the many wrinkles in the relationship.
India’s decision in January to buy 126 fighter jets from France’s Rafale for $11 billion instead of its American competitors was a major disappointment in Washington, though high hopes persist for business between the world’s largest weapons buyer and many of the world’s largest defense contractors, based in the United States.
Trade between the two countries is growing fast and reached $100 billion in 2011, but it is dwarfed by trade with China and remains a fraction of what most people see as its long-term potential. Indian concerns about U.S. agricultural policies that subsidize farmers and restrict imports are matched by American concerns about market access and jobs being outsourced to India.
Simon Denyer, "Promise of U.S.-India economic partnership remains unfulfilled", Washington Post, May 3, 2012.
Glad reporters are noticing - we've been banging this drum for a while!
Nukes on a Blog, U.S.-India deal, quote of the day (all tags)
Quote of the Day: East Coast Missile Defense Site Not Needed Edition
Kingston Reif | May 02, 2012 | 0 SEN. LEVIN: And there have been suggestions by some in Congress that we should deploy a ground based interceptor or interceptors on the East Coast of the United States, to defend the homeland against a possible future long range Iranian missile threat. Now, you're the combatant commander who establishes the requirements for homeland missile defense capability. Is there a requirement for deploying an East Coast GBI site? And are you seeking to deploy such a site on the East Coast?
Army General Charles Jacoby Jr., (Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command): Chairman, today's threats do not require an East Coast missile field and we do not have plans to do so.
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2013 and the Future Years Defense Program, March 13, 2012.
Recall that House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) included a requirement in his mark of the defense bill that the Missile Defense Agency develop a plan for the deployment of missile defense site on the East Coast of the United States to be operational not later than the end of 2015.
Nukes on a Blog, missile defense, quote of the day (all tags)
