Note: Sorry for the lite blogging as of late.  Expect it to pick up over the next couple of weeks.

Asked if the final cost [of the UPF] will be somewhere between $4.2 billion and $6.5 billion, [John] Howanitz [B&W Y-12's senior vice president for transformation and projects] replied: 'That's the question of the day. If you ask me today, I will tell you that based on the information we have acquired, the pricing we have on hand, I'm very confident that this is a good estimate. But I'm not at 90 percent design. …Will it go down? I don't know. Will it go up? I don't know. But, if someone were to say, can someone come in and validate this, I would welcome anyone to come in and look at our product — in fact, the government has — and we have a good product."

Via Frank Munger, January 18, 2010

NNSA is developing 10 new technologies for use in the UPF and is using a systematic approach—Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)—to gauge the extent to which technologies have been demonstrated to work as intended....However, NNSA does not expect all 10 new technologies to achieve the level of maturity called for by best practices before making critical decisions….In addition, DOE’s guidance for establishing optimal TRLs prior to beginning construction is not consistent with best practices or with our previous recommendations. As a result, 6 of 10 technologies NNSA is developing are not expected to reach optimum TRLs consistent with best practices by the time UPF construction begins. If critical technologies fail to work as intended, NNSA may need to revert to existing or alternate technologies, possibly resulting in changes to design plans and space requirements that could delay the project and increase costs.

GAO Report on the UPF, November 2010

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, modernization, quote of the day (all tags)

On June 24, former George W. Bush administration officials Robert Joseph and Eric Edelman will testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the New START treaty.  Joseph and Edelman are considered to be strong skeptics of the agreement.

While they have yet to oppose the treaty, Joseph and Edelman published a piece in the National Review last month that recycles most of the well-worn objections to the treaty.  These criticisms have been forcefully addressed in previous hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee on New START.  Below is a point-by-point rebuttal (in italics) to their article.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Congress, missile defense, modernization (all tags)

Last Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held it's sixth hearing on the New START treaty with former National Security Advisers Lt. General Brent Scowcroft and Stephen Hadley.

One of the most interesting and important moments of the hearing came near the end:

SEN. KERRY:

...

And finally, just on the 10-year plan, again, the administration -- the president has requested $7 billion for fiscal year 2011 for stockpile sustainment and infrastructure investments. That's a 10 percent increase over last year and they have laid out the path for their $80 billion of investment. I've talked to Senator Kyl. We're working with Senator Inouye and others to guarantee that money will be available. I assume, if it is, you're satisfied that we're serious about moving forward with the modernization program.

General Scowcroft and -- are you comfortable on the modernization?

GEN. SCOWCROFT: Yes, I am. I am comfortable, and I -- you know, I didn't use the term "modernization" in my comments. I said safe, reliable assurance. Modernization for the sake of modernization, in light of the comments that Senator Lugar has made about the overall defense budget, is a separate question. Some things need to be modernized in order to be safe, secure and reliable. Other things don't need to be. And I would not put modernization itself as a key to what we need to -- we need to do.

SEN. KERRY: That is a very --

GEN. SCOWCROFT: We need to be -- we need to be assured that the system will work the way we want it to work.

SEN. KERRY: That is a very important distinction, and I -- I really appreciate your drawing that because I think it's vital to the debate. [emphasis mine].

As Sen. Kerry suggests, this is a critical point that often seems lost on those who argue that the United States is the only established nuclear power that is not modernizing its nuclear arsenal or that we need "an appropriate modernization plan to bring our aging nuclear weapons complex, our warheads, and our delivery systems up to 21st century standards."  As I noted in a piece for the Bulletin last year, "What matters far more than the age of warheads and other equipment is whether a country has a reliable, credible deterrent."  By this standard we've done pretty darn well, and the Obama administration has signaled its commitment to continue to ensure that our weapons work the way we want them to work, as Scowcroft puts it.

A key issue, of course, is which type of activities fall into which category.  I think we can be pretty certain that the RRW fell within or very near the "modernization for the sake of modernization" end of the spectrum.  What about the proposed scope of the B61-12 and W78 LEPs or the CMRR-NF and UPF construction projects as outlined in the Obama administrations FY 2011 budget request? These would seem to be important questions to be asking.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, modernization (all tags)

During the recent UK election campaign Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg made his opposition to like-for-like Trident replacement plans clear, mainly on the basis of the high costs and record breaking budget deficit.   Forming a key element of the newly elected Coalition Government with Conservative David Cameron, Clegg is now in an excellent position to highlight other problems associated with Trident modernization plans before they are irreversibly acted on.

One problem not highlighted in the leadership campaign is the ‘dependence’ of the Trident system on the support of the US.   Indeed, having presented Trident modernization in the 2006 White Paper as meeting the requirement of a ‘UK nuclear force [that] remains fully operationally independent’, suggestions that it is anything short of this call into question the very rationale for renewing it on this basis.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, trident, submarines, modernization, d-5 (all tags)

It seems to be all the rage lately so I figured I'd join the fray.  At a March 5 hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development on NNSA's FY 2011 budget request, ranking member Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) asked NNSA administrator Tom D'Agostino to compare the investments the Russians and Chinese are making in their nuclear warheads and delivery systems with U.S. efforts to maintain its deterrent.

Batterrrr up!:

MR. D'AGOSTINO: In a general sense what's happening is up until this budget request, what we have been doing is just maintaining and not letting anything break and taking care of the stockpile without underground testing.

What we haven't been doing is investing for the future and providing a sustainability on that front. Other nations have said publicly, frankly, that they are going to move forward in a visible way and increase their investments and have done so.

Details I can provide in a classified setting, but in general we have not been keeping up, and this budget request is the president's signal that he cares about nuclear nonproliferation because of the increase there and the charge to secure material in four years, but he also knows that you cannot reduce the size of the stockpile without maintaining the stockpile and maintaining it in a way that's going to have some longevity and sustainability, because these things are not going away in his lifetime, as he has said, and then it is our job, ultimately, to make sure that they are taken care of in the best possible way and particularly to deal with the threats that we believe we have from a safety and security standpoint that we know we can address.[emphasis mine].

Look I get it that the administration wants to convey the impression that it's really serious about nuclear deterrence, our complex and experts were largely ignored before this budget, some of the buildings at our laboratories and production facilities are really old, etc.  I even agree that some of their arguments have merit.

But that's no excuse to run roughshod over the facts, which are these:

1) Even before the FY 2011 budget, the U.S. has successfully maintained an arsenal that is not only safe, secure, and reliable, but is also more lethal on a per-weapon basis today than it was during the Cold War.

2) Even before the FY 2011 budget, our confidence in the reliability of our nuclear warheads has been steadily growing.

Describing our post-Cold War efforts to maintain the arsenal as "not letting anything break" or "not keeping up" doesn't even begin to tell the whole story paints a misleading picture of what we've actually been doing and are doing and deserves some further clarification from D'Agostino.  

Unfortunately Di-Fi wasn't around to call T-D'ag out on it.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, modernization (all tags)

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee today released three excellent policy reports on nuclear weapons issues:

1. The Follow-on START Agreement: Responding to False Claims (3/3/10)

2. A New START Treaty Is Critical to U.S. National Security (3/3/10)

3. The President's Budget Makes Vital Investments for Maintaining Our Robust Nuclear Stockpile, Minimizing Proliferation Risks, and Halting the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

Read 'em while they're hot!

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, modernization (all tags)

While many people were rightly upset over a  recent piece in The Cable by Josh Rogin entitled "'New START" dead on arrival?" they may have overlooked some very important words by Arizona Senator John Kyl.

Kyl is the bête noire of those promoting a new nuclear reductions treaty and a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

He has sent a series of missives along with many of his colleagues raising issues such as nuclear weapons modernization and missile defense. He has also delivered a number of speeches on the same topics.

As the British would say, he is constantly throwing a spanner into the works (i.e., monkey wrenches).  

But check out what Sen. Kyl said in the Rogin story:

"Unless it is accompanied by a [nuclear] modernization program that satisfies the requirements of the secretary of defense, it would be very difficult for the Senate to support the new START treaty."

If that is his gold standard, then he will get his wish -- perhaps the gold, silver and bronze...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, modernization, Joe Biden (all tags)

The Wall Street Journal has begun 2010 a lot like it ended 2009: By attempting to undermine the Obama administration’s pursuit of a new nuclear reductions agreement with Russia.

2010’s first offering focuses on the December 15 letter sent by 40 Republican Senators (and Sen. Joe Lieberman) to President Obama claiming that “the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 requires that the submission of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) follow-on agreement to the Senate be accompanied by a plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent.”

As I noted in a pre-holiday interview with DailyKos’ Plutonium Page, the Republican Senate letter grossly distorts the Defense Authorization Act.  The bill requires a plan to enhance the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile, modernize the nuclear weapons complex, and maintain the delivery vehicles (i.e. bombers, subs, and missiles).  However, it says nothing about modernizing the “nuclear deterrent” or building new nuclear warheads. Nothing at all, except to those whose aim is to mislead.

Both the Senate letter and the Journal claim that the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States links nuclear force reductions and modernization.  In the words of the Journal: “The bipartisan report noted, among other things, that the U.S. needs new warheads and nuclear research facilities.”  This too is misleading.  The bipartisan report cited by the Journal said no such thing...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, modernization, Wall Street Journal (all tags)