Key Targeting Tech for Future U.S. Nuclear Missile Has Gone Unfunded

The move may delay Minuteman 3 replacement effort or fail to meet warfighter accuracy standards.

Elaine Grossman, Nextgov
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Elaine Grossman, Nextgov
Aug. 19, 2014, 11:05 a.m.

OMAHA, Neb. — A lapse in fund­ing is po­ten­tially delay­ing by two years the de­vel­op­ment of a new U.S. nuc­le­ar mis­sile, ac­cord­ing to budget doc­u­ments provided to Con­gress and in­ter­views with de­fense sources.

The little-no­ticed spend­ing gap of $28 mil­lion — a min­is­cule frac­tion of the De­fense De­part­ment’s an­nu­al $500 bil­lion budget — is for de­vel­op­ing and test­ing new sol­id-state com­pon­ents seen as es­sen­tial for guid­ing the fu­ture Ground-Based Stra­tegic De­terrent mis­siles to their tar­gets.

The Air Force in­tends to be­gin re­pla­cing today’s 450 Minute­man 3 in­ter­con­tin­ent­al bal­list­ic mis­siles by 2030 with up to 420 of the so-called GBSD weapon sys­tems.

Some mil­it­ary in­siders at­trib­ute to Air Force in­fight­ing the di­ver­sion of the $28 mil­lion to oth­er uses in fisc­al 2014 — and a ser­vice fail­ure to re­quest any such funds in fisc­al 2015 — that would have provided Air Force Re­search Labor­at­ory-built hard­ware to three de­fense con­tract­ors for their fur­ther de­vel­op­ment.

Lack­ing the lab’s gov­ern­ment-fur­nished equip­ment — which con­tract­ors Boe­ing, Gen­er­al Dy­nam­ics and Lock­heed Mar­tin have each re­ques­ted — none of the three firms is ex­pec­ted to in­vest its own funds to mil­it­ar­ize com­mer­cial off-the-shelf sol­id-state guid­ance tech­no­logy used widely today in air­craft and mis­sile sys­tems.

Dur­ing a ma­jor Air Force study ef­fort of what the new GBSD mis­sile should be — with op­tions ran­ging from a simple Minute­man 3 look-alike to a brand new design — the ser­vice settled on what it has called a “hy­brid” concept. This re­com­mend­a­tion emer­ging from the “ana­lys­is of al­tern­at­ives” — be­gun last year and com­pleted in early Ju­ly — has been tent­at­ively ap­proved in re­cent meet­ings with De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel’s of­fice, Nex­t­gov has learned.

A Mo­bile Op­tion

The hy­brid plan for the Minute­man 3 re­place­ment would in­volve us­ing some of today’s mis­sile fea­tures — its ba­sic design, com­mu­nic­a­tions sys­tems and ex­ist­ing launch silos — while re­pla­cing aging rock­et mo­tors and tar­get­ing-guid­ance sys­tems.

While the Air Force awaits form­al, writ­ten con­firm­a­tion that its hy­brid op­tion can pro­ceed, this mis­sile design also would main­tain a pos­sib­il­ity for the GBSD weapons to be made mo­bile. The op­tion­al fea­ture could al­low the mis­siles to be re­moved from their silos and dis­persed by rail or truck if a nuc­le­ar at­tack against the United States ap­peared im­min­ent, in­creas­ing their abil­ity to sur­vive, of­fi­cials said.

Sev­er­al spoke on con­di­tion of not be­ing named to of­fer candor in ad­dress­ing sens­it­ive nuc­le­ar-arms mat­ters.

Yet one as­pect of the high-level thumbs-up — dir­ec­tion that the GBSD sys­tem should fea­ture an up­tick in ac­cur­acy com­pared to any of today’s U.S. nuc­le­ar sys­tems — already ap­pears to have jumped the rails.

In­clu­sion of the sol­id-state guid­ance sys­tem in the Minute­man 3 re­place­ment would al­low the United States to hit some of the toughest-to-des­troy en­emy tar­gets by us­ing just a single war­head rather than a bar­rage. This is a top-level but rarely dis­cussed U.S. nuc­le­ar-weapons ob­ject­ive, sup­por­ted by both Demo­crat­ic and Re­pub­lic­an ad­min­is­tra­tions, dat­ing back to a Re­agan-era in­terest in pre­ci­sion tar­get­ing as a sub­sti­tute for car­pet bomb­ing — a trend that has emerged more pub­licly in con­ven­tion­al warfight­ing.

Today, in the event of a nuc­le­ar con­flict, a U.S. pres­id­ent may want to go after heav­ily re­in­forced un­der­ground Rus­si­an mil­it­ary-com­mand cen­ters — an ex­ample of high-pri­or­ity fa­cil­it­ies said to be on the Pentagon’s top-secret tar­get list. In such a case, warfight­ers here at the Omaha-based U.S. Stra­tegic Com­mand would have to lob mul­tiple Minute­man 3 land-based mis­siles or Navy Tri­dent D-5 sub­mar­ine-based mis­siles to en­sure the tar­get’s dis­abling or de­struc­tion.

Speak­ing to re­port­ers last week at a com­mand-sponsored sym­posi­um on nuc­le­ar de­terrence (the mil­it­ary art of pre­vent­ing the most un­desir­able vi­ol­ence from oc­cur­ring) Adm. Cecil Haney avoided dis­cuss­ing any spe­cif­ic cap­ab­il­it­ies needed for the new Ground-Based De­terrent Sys­tem.

As head of U.S. Stra­tegic Com­mand — the top of­ficer who would carry out any White House or­der to launch a nuc­le­ar weapon — Haney did say how “ab­so­lutely” im­port­ant it is that the GBSD mis­sile meets his own warfight­er re­quire­ments, and noted that simply sus­tain­ing today’s Minute­man 3 cap­ab­il­it­ies in­to the fu­ture would not be suf­fi­cient.

The Air Force ana­lys­is of al­tern­at­ives was “to make sure that we have the re­quire­ments we need now and in­to the fu­ture,” he said. Aug­ment­ing the oth­er two legs of the U.S. nuc­le­ar tri­ad — bomber air­craft and sub­mar­ines — the ground-based mis­sile ar­sen­al “really has an im­pact as­so­ci­ated with our de­terrence cal­cu­lus and cap­ab­il­it­ies,” he ad­ded.

Yet, some of­fi­cials at the Air Force Sys­tems Dir­ect­or­ate based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, have sug­ges­ted as a pos­sible al­tern­at­ive to the more ac­cur­ate sol­id state guid­ance sys­tem re­quired to meet long­stand­ing warfight­er tar­get­ing re­quire­ments the use in­stead of today’s Minute­man mech­an­ic­al guid­ance com­pon­ents in the fu­ture GBSD sys­tem.

Units based at Hill per­form main­ten­ance and re­pair on today’s Minute­man 3 guid­ance units, giv­ing of­fi­cials there what some see as a pa­ro­chi­al stake re­gard­ing which tech­no­logy is se­lec­ted for the fu­ture ICBM re­place­ment mis­siles and their com­pon­ents, in­clud­ing the guid­ance sys­tems.

Mixed Mes­sages

Com­pared to the mech­an­ic­al guid­ance in­stru­ments found in today’s Minute­man 3 mis­siles, sol­id state of­fers longev­ity, mean­ing these sys­tems would not have to be re­paired any­where near as of­ten, Air Force brief­ings sug­gest. Today’s Minute­man 3 guid­ance sys­tems break down roughly every three years, where­as sol­id state units are ex­pec­ted to last ap­prox­im­ately 20 years without re­quir­ing re­pair or re­place­ment, ac­cord­ing to De­fense De­part­ment data.

Air Force of­fi­cials and doc­u­ments also sug­gest that be­cause sol­id state in­er­tial meas­ure­ment units are ubi­quit­ous in com­mer­cial avi­ation and a num­ber of the Pentagon’s con­ven­tion­ally armed mis­sile sys­tems, they of­fer sig­ni­fic­ant cost ad­vant­ages from the get-go. Even after be­ing mil­it­ar­ized for use on a nuc­le­ar mis­sile, the sol­id state tech­no­logy de­veloped by the Air Force re­search lab is es­tim­ated at $800,000 apiece, com­pared to a $2.5 mil­lion unit cost for old-gen­er­a­tion mech­an­ic­al guid­ance sys­tems used by today’s Minute­man 3.

“Hill Air Force Base ought to be very con­cerned about the cost pro­file of … re­pla­cing the Minute­man 3,” said Jef­frey Lewis, a nuc­le­ar-arms ex­pert at the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies in Monterey, Cal­if. “Any­thing they do that drives that cost up or delays the abil­ity to start those pro­grams I think im­per­ils the whole ICBM force. There will come a point at which people will [say], ‘This is really ex­pens­ive and it’s go­ing to take a long time. Maybe we should just not do it and spend the money on the bomber in­stead.’”

In­dustry of­fi­cials are re­ceiv­ing mixed mes­sages from the Air Force about which dir­ec­tion it will take with the GBSD guid­ance sys­tem: pro­ceed­ing with the stalled ef­fort to be­gin sled test­ing in 2016 (had fund­ing con­tin­ued un­in­ter­rup­ted that test­ing would have be­gun last year), versus at­tempt­ing to in­clude the older Minute­man 3 tar­get­ing tech­no­logy in its hy­brid re­place­ment.

Those at­tend­ing a Ju­ly 16 brief­ing by the ICBM Sys­tem Dir­ect­or­ate at Hill Air Force Base on the res­ults of the Air Force ana­lys­is of al­tern­at­ives were told an in­crease in ac­cur­acy would, in fact, be needed in the new GBSD sys­tem. To at least some in the busi­ness com­munity, that seemed to im­ply that the sol­id state tech­no­logy largely de­fun­ded in fisc­al 2014 and 2015 would be key.

The Air Force de­clined a re­port­er’s re­quest for in­form­a­tion presen­ted at the “in­dustry day” event. Al­though pro­spect­ive de­fense con­tract­ors saw both secret and non-secret slides about how the Air Force an­ti­cip­ates pro­ceed­ing with the Minute­man 3 re­place­ment ef­fort, “an un­clas­si­fied ver­sion of the writ­ten brief­ing does not ex­ist for re­lease,” Lt. Col. Jared Yar­ring­ton, who heads Air Force Glob­al Strike Com­mand’s ICBM Re­quire­ments Di­vi­sion, told Nex­t­gov in a writ­ten re­sponse to ques­tions.

Des­pite the ser­vice’s dis­cus­sions of the ana­lys­is res­ults with in­dustry rep­res­ent­at­ives last month, Yar­ring­ton said that pending form­al ap­prov­al of the doc­u­ment by Hagel’s of­fice, “all ma­ter­i­als are pre-de­cision­al and not re­leas­able at this time.”

What We're Following See More »
TWO MONTHS AFTER REFUSING AT CONVENTION
Cruz to Back Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST
WHO TO BELIEVE?
Two Polls for Clinton, One for Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST

With three days until the first debate, the polls are coming fast and furious. The latest round:

  • An Associated Press/Gfk poll of registered voters found very few voters committed, with Clin­ton lead­ing Trump, 37% to 29%, and Gary John­son at 7%.
  • A Mc­Clatchy-Mar­ist poll gave Clin­ton a six-point edge, 45% to 39%, in a four-way bal­lot test. Johnson pulls 10% support, with Jill Stein at 4%.
  • Rasmussen, which has drawn criticism for continually showing Donald Trump doing much better than he does in other polls, is at it again. A new survey gives Trump a five-point lead, 44%-39%.
NO SURPRISE
Trump Eschewing Briefing Materials in Debate Prep
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

In contrast to Hillary Clinton's meticulous debate practice sessions, Donald Trump "is largely shun­ning tra­di­tion­al de­bate pre­par­a­tions, but has been watch­ing video of…Clin­ton’s best and worst de­bate mo­ments, look­ing for her vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies.” Trump “has paid only curs­ory at­ten­tion to brief­ing ma­ter­i­als. He has re­fused to use lecterns in mock de­bate ses­sions des­pite the ur­ging of his ad­visers. He prefers spit­balling ideas with his team rather than hon­ing them in­to crisp, two-minute an­swers.”

Source:
TRUMP NO HABLA ESPANOL
Trump Makes No Outreach to Spanish Speakers
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "is on the precipice of becoming the only major-party presidential candidate this century not to reach out to millions of American voters whose dominant, first or just preferred language is Spanish. Trump has not only failed to buy any Spanish-language television or radio ads, he so far has avoided even offering a translation of his website into Spanish, breaking with two decades of bipartisan tradition."

Source:
$1.16 MILLION
Clintons Buy the House Next Door in Chappaqua
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Bill and Hillary Clinton have purchased the home next door to their primary residence in tony Chappaqua, New York, for $1.16 million. "By purchasing the new home, the Clinton's now own the entire cul-de-sac at the end of the road in the leafy New York suburb. The purchase makes it easier for the United States Secret Service to protect the former president and possible future commander in chief."

Source:
×