add to facebook
Making JSF Nuke-Capable Will Cost $339 Million
Travis | Apr 20, 2010 |
0 
I need a new home!
InsideDefense.com (subscription only) reports that it will cost $339 million to make the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) capable of carrying nuclear weapons, according to U.S. Air Force officials.
Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey continue to host an estimated 200 B61-3 and -4 gravity bombs for delivery by various U.S. and NATO aircraft, including the “dual-capable” F-16 fighter-bomber that the JSF is slated to replace. Like the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) before it, the 2010 NPR punted on the question of U.S. tacnukes in Europe, concluding that “Any changes in NATO’s nuclear posture should only be taken after a thorough review within – and decision by – the Alliance.”
Yet the $339 million price tag to wire-up the B61 and JSF does not represent the full cost of maintaining nuclear-capable U.S. aircraft in Europe. As Malcolm Chalmers wrote recently:
The US is obliged to maintain a special infrastructure for the purpose [of maintaining nuclear-capable aircraft in Europe], together with the posting of around 1,500 of its service personnel (250 in each of six [US Munitions Support Squadrons] bases) in expensive foreign security postings. Ongoing threats from terrorism further add to the risks against which these bases must guard themselves.
Because of these costs, the U.S. military has long questioned the usefulness of continuing to deploy U.S. tacnukes in Europe. Chalmers noted:
As early as the 1970s, there was a fierce internal Pentagon dispute as to whether the increased weight and complexity required to wire the USAF’s F-16s for the nuclear role, together with the training required to provide a useable capability, justified the costs in reduced conventional capability.
Those questions have not disappeared. As one senior leader of USEUCOM put it to the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DOD Nuclear Weapons Management, “We pay a king’s ransom for these things [nuclear weapons in Europe] and…they have no military value.” The Task Force of course disagreed with this assessment, arguing that such an attitude ignores the political and psychological value that tacnukes possess as a concrete U.S. commitment to NATO security.
But are tacnukes really the best way to address squishy concerns like politics and psychology, particularly when the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal already provides a credible “over the horizon” deterrent? Not every problem needs to have a (redundant) military solution, after all, particularly when enormous budgetary pressures confront the U.S. military in the years ahead. If the Soviets probably aren’t coming through the Fulda Gap anytime soon, then maybe it’s time to do something totally unprecedented in U.S. defense planning—make a tough choice!—and reallocate resources toward the most serious and most likely threats confronting the United States in the 21st century.
Anyway, here are the key excerpts from the InsideDefense.com article…
Air Force officials estimate it would cost $339 million to make the service's Joint Strike Fighter variant capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but the schedule for requesting the money from Congress and performing the requisite modification work is still in flux, following the program's shakeup earlier this year, according to an air service spokesman.
[snip]
Air Force officials plan to begin work on JSF's nuclear capability during the program's “follow-on development phase,” service spokesman Maj. Richard Johnson wrote in response to questions from InsideDefense.com. The phase is expected to begin sometime after 2015, according to a new program time line set out recently by Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter in the face of significant cost overruns and schedule slips.
[snip]
Meanwhile, officials have given some consideration to the fighter's nuclear mission all along, according to Johnson. “[T]he JSF program office and the primary contractor, Lockheed Martin, have already taken the necessary steps to ensure the F-35 was properly engineered and designed to enable nuclear capability, with the internal hardware and avionics already included in the early phases of production and delivery,” Johnson wrote.
[snip]
Specific characteristics of the nuclear-capable JSF variant are secret, as is the eventual number of the planes defense officials believe they need. “Although the exact number of nuclear-capable F-35 is a classified requirement, the [Air Force] intends to purchase 1,763 of the conventional take-off and landing variant F-35As,” Johnson wrote.
[snip]
The B-61 life-extension program aims to ensure the weapon can “communicate” with its carrier aircraft, NNSA spokesman Michael Padilla wrote in an e-mail to InsideDefense.com. This means the weapon's analog controls must be modified so they are compatible with the digital interfaces in modern aircraft, he said. The bomb will continue to work with existing aircraft, he added.
The first refurbished B-61 is set to come out by 2017. The entire life-extension program is slated to end by fiscal year 2021. The bombs will have a new service life of 30 years. NNSA officials have planned a study for fiscal year 2011 to determine what the program would cost and how it should be approached, according to Padilla. “At the end of this phase . . . we will have an estimate for the total program cost,” he wrote.
UPDATE 7PM: I just saw this April 8 comment by JCS Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright:
QUESTIONER: Yeah, let me follow up with a tactical nuclear weapons question. And I think General Cartwright's the one I want to ask.
Obviously, our forward-deployed systems in Europe are -- it's a political-military issue. And I understand that the NPR did not want to prejudice the discussions underway at NATO.
But if I can just separate the military for a moment, is there a military mission performed by these aircraft-delivered weapons that cannot be performed by either U.S. strategic forces or U.S. conventional forces?
CARTWRIGHT: No. (Scattered laughter.)
QUESTIONER: Thank you.
That's that.
Nukes on a Blog, Posture Review, FY 2011 Budget Request, B61, Air Force, tactical nuclear weapons, Extended Deterrence, F-35 (all tags)
|
Making JSF Nuke-Capable Will Cost $339 Million | 0 Comments | Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account by clicking right here. It's quick and free.
