Why Trump Is Wrong On U.S. Nuclear Modernization

RSS

Donald Trump made a sweeping claim during Sunday night’s explosive presidential debate that America's nuclear weapons capability has fallen far behind Russia’s. But the facts don’t back up his assessment.

Donald Trump made a sweeping claim during Sunday night’s explosive presidential debate that America's nuclear weapons capability has fallen far behind Russia’s. But the facts don’t back up his assessment.

“Our nuclear program has fallen way behind. And [Russia has] gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good,” Trump said during his second debate with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Russia is new in terms of nuclear. We are old. We are tired. We are exhausted in terms of nuclear.”

This is just not true. The U.S. is actually in the midst of modernizing all three legs of its nuclear triad: the U.S. Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), armed with Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM); the U.S. Air Force’s Cold-War era B-52 strategic bombers that carry the nuclear-tipped air-launched cruise missile (ALCM); and the Air Force’s silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Though Trump’s claim that the U.S. “has fallen way behind” in terms of nuclear modernization doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, he is correct that Russia is farther along in its upgrade program than the U.S. However, that is simply because the U.S. and Russia have different cycles of modernization for their nuclear arsenals, and those cycles don’t happen in the same time period, according to Hans Kristensen, director of the Federal of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project.

The U.S. last modernized its nuclear triad in the late 1980s, so there is no need to replace the arsenal until the 2020s or 2030s, Kristensen said. By contrast, Russia’s warheads and delivery systems aren’t designed to last as long. 

“This just shows that he misunderstands the issue, because it’s not about what you are building when, it’s about are the ones that you have ready to be used or credible?” said Kristensen. “I don’t think there’s anyone in the U.S. military who would say sure, let’s swap.” 

Most recently, the Air Force kicked off two multibillion-dollar competitions to upgrade the nuclear arsenal, issuing requests for proposals in July for the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), a replacement for the aging AGM-86B ALCMs, and the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), the replacement for the 1960s-era Minuteman III ICBMs. LRSO will be the primary standoff weapon for Northrop Grumman’s next-generation B-21 and existing B-2 stealth bombers, and is expected to be fielded by 2030. Meanwhile, GBSD will replace some 450 Minuteman IIIs around the country, and could cost as much as $85 billion.

Meanwhile, the Air Force plans to buy about 100 B-21 “Raider” stealth bombers, which will be capable of dropping both conventional and nuclear bombs, to replace the legacy B-52 and B-1 fleets. After an October 2015 contract award to Northrop for the engineering, manufacturing and development phase, the B-21 program was held up for several months while the Government Accountability Office assessed a bid protest brought by losing team Boeing-Lockheed Martin. But since GAO overruled the protest earlier this year, the program has stayed on track for a 2025 initial operational capability (IOC) date. One caveat: it is not clear when the B-21 will become nuclear-capable, as the Air Force plans to get conventional capability working first.

The Navy’s $97 billion Ohio-replacement SSBN(X) effort to build a new class of 12 new Columbia-class SSBNs is the farthest along of all the Pentagon’s nuclear modernization efforts, with advanced procurement slated to begin in 2017. Top service officials are fiercely guarding the costly modernization effort from budget cuts and sequestration, pushing for a standalone fund, called the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, to fund SSBN(X) outside the service’s dedicated shipbuilding account.  The Navy expects to buy the first Columbia-class submarine in fiscal 2021 at a price of about $14.5 billion, including $5.7 billion in detailed design and nonrecurring engineering costs for the entire class, and estimates boats 2 through 12 will cost $5.2 billion each.

Simultaneously, the National Nuclear Security Administration is continuing rejuvenation of the precision-guided B61-12 tactical nuclear bomb, which along with LRSO will eventually arm the B-21. The first refurbished unit is expected by fiscal 2020.

Meanwhile, Moscow is certainly making new nuclear delivery systems a national priority, with a new ballistic-missile submarine class and missile in production, as well as continued deliveries of a modern, silo-based and road mobile ICBM.

Russia’s effort to recapitalize its Soviet-era ICBMs with new SS-27 missiles is more than halfway done, and scheduled for completion in 2022, according to a recent report by Kristensen and Robert Norris. Some of these new missiles, which come in two versions, are already in production, Aviation Week reported in 2013: the single-warhead Topol-M was deployed in silos in the late 1990s and as a road-mobile ICBM in 2006. Meanwhile, the RS-24 Yars, a modified Topol-M that can carry multiple, independently targetable warheads, was declared operational in mid-2011 in its silo-launched version, and will be road-mobile as well.  Yars is reportedly capable of carrying four or six warheads.

Moscow is also working on a new heavyweight ICBM called RS-28 Sarmat that is capable of carrying up to ten warheads, Kristensen told Aviation Week. Sarmat is scheduled to begin some test launches this year or next, and will likely be fielded at the turn of the decade. Where U.S. ICBMs are traditionally single-warhead (although some are capable of carrying up to three), Russia has invested in multiple-warhead ICBMs in part to offset a deficit of missile launchers compared to the U.S., Kristenson explained. 

Meanwhile, Russia is also arming its bomber fleet of Tu-160 Blackjacks and Tu-95MS Bears with a new cruise missile, the Kc-102, and plans a new fleet of next-generation PAK DA bombers which are expected to be blended wing-body, stealthy, subsonic aircraft. PAK DA, built by manufacturer Tupolev, has been in development for several years, with a first flight planned for 2019 and delivery to the Russian Air Force around 2023. However, PAK DA has reportedly been delayed.

However, there are signs that PAK DA has been delayed, Kristensen said.  The most significant indication that Moscow is having issues with PAK DA is that Russia recently decided to re-open production of the Blackjack.

“That seems to indicate that they are not switching to the new bomber as early as people have expected,” he said. 

Finally, Russia’s new Project 955a Borey-class fleet of eight total SSBNs, armed with the six-warhead RSM-56 Bulava SLBM, should be ready by 2020. 

Discuss this Blog Entry 79

on Oct 10, 2016

You can't expect a particularly rigorous or truthful analysis on nuclear weapons from the publication that endorsed New START which the Russians are now (predictably) violating.

The modernized US strategic deterrent is at least a decade away from IOC. If being a decade behind isn't "way behind" then what is?

And of course, the article glosses over the fact that Hillary wants to *cancel* LRSO.

On the tactical front, the US is way behind and a few hundred repackaged glide bombs with tailkits won't offset the huge Russian advantage.

on Oct 10, 2016

God that's scary. So we should keep worrying about a couple guys bragging about their game to each other on bus 12 years ago then right? Yuck.

on Oct 11, 2016

It's almost as if you didn't even read the article or do any research and just decided to comment regardless. Kind of like Trump.

on Oct 10, 2016

No doubt we want to keep up and frankly be ahead in the nuclear weapons dept., but my biggest concern is more on the side of being able to destroy incoming missiles. Russia is more capable of destroying ours, than we are theirs. S-500. That makes me sick to my stomach. Does anyone think we have something that isn't "known" that is in operation and able to destroy ICBM's primarily enroute via Russia? I wonder, not that anyone really "knows", but because of the escalating tensions between us, and the constant poking from our side to theirs. (Ahhheemm Hillary and her blame game, Kerry and his crime words and our actions in syria) I just have to wonder if they are wearing their usual poker faces, if they're really that confident, or they know something we don't about our defense systems.

on Oct 10, 2016

It would be impossible to keep an anti-ICBM program secret.

on Oct 11, 2016

We're poking them? Are you kidding me? You sound like a Putin sympathizer. I bet it's Hillary's fault he invaded the Crimea too, right? Oh, wait, he just annexed it and they wanted it anyway because they're really Russian. Now what other 20th century leader annexed a country and said they wanted it because they were really his countrymen? Hmmm.

on Oct 10, 2016

Lara,
Have you consider writing an article about " why Hillary is right on US nuclear modernization" it could be more reveling of her intentions about our military readiness.

on Oct 11, 2016

Having watched the debate, and read the transcript, it's clear that the writer is a left-leaning, pro-Clinton plant that is putting words in Trumps mouth and trying to fool the readers, right from the beginning. That's not what Trump said. Following that deliberate deception, how can you be "in the midst" of modernizing all three legs of the triad? The B21 bombers (still on the drawing board) will never reach that mythical number of 100, and as admitted in the article, there is no timeline as to when they would even be nuclear capable. Indeed, the very nuclear weapon slated for those bombers would be CANCELLED by Clinton. The rest of the article merely continues the writer's blinkered vision.

Can Aviation Week at least have the decency to label its political propaganda articles as such?

on Oct 11, 2016

Reading your comment, it's clear you're a right-wing neocon that thinks anything not Fox News is liberal propaganda and Trump is good for our country.

on Oct 10, 2016

I hadn't realized how Spring Chicken Fresh all those 40+ year old weapons were! Yes . . . they have all gone through upgrades, and are still effective today...BUT...New technology is in order, and we have been kicking this can down the road too long. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living on the Barge in the Middle of that River in Egypt.

on Oct 10, 2016

"Donald Trump made a sweeping claim during last night’s explosive presidential debate that America's nuclear weapons capability has fallen far behind Russia’s. But the facts don’t back up his assessment."
- by Lara Seligman in Ares

Do not try to confuse people with facts.

They have their opinions and reality will not intrude.

on Oct 11, 2016

Nope. People seem to despise facts that don't fit their bias.

on Oct 10, 2016

The Democrat POTUS candidate has stated some crazy stuff in this area also like saying she'd likely cancel the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), as a replacement for the aging AGM-86B ALCMs.

This would neuter the entire US land-based bomber fleet due to the prevalence of advanced SAM systems by Russia and China.

As others have said when will AWST point out that point from the donkey side of the spectrum?

What's Clinton's perspective on the Trident sub and land-based missile replacement programs?

All the "free-stuff" being proposed by candidate Clinton will cost a TON of $$. Another reality check?

on Oct 10, 2016

When can we get a "why clinton is wrong to cancel LRSO" article. That won't be the only program she'll be trying to cancel, I'd bet money on it. Zero discussion from this publication on the dangers to our military deterrent with a Clinton as president again.

on Oct 11, 2016

Is anyone arguing that the current US arsenal currently act as a deterrent? What about in 20 to 30 years if no modernisation occurs?

How many nukes need to get through a defensive system before it no longer matter how many were taken down before impact?

Even a small scale war with nukes - say 15 to 20 hitting targets - in a few major countries would be more than enough to cripple the global economy and poison large areas of crop production and water supply for who knows how long.

The USA has major issues with social mobility being low, crippling student loan debts hobbling economic growth, prisons full inmates charged with non violent drug possession crimes, decrepit infrastructure with a lot of bridges near the end f their life spans due to lack of maintenance funding, and people in this forum seem to think spending close to $100B for 12 subs, let me repeat $100B for fracking 12 subs is socially beneficial for the USA. Sheesh.

Australia ain't much better, since we're spending close to $50B on 12 conventional subs from France, and still helping to prob up the joke fighter jet program called JSF35.

on Oct 11, 2016

The voice of reason. The West should be developing anti ballistic missile defences and dismantling the nuclear arsenal at the earliest opportunity.

on Oct 11, 2016

In theory, you're right. IN reality, it is impracticable if not impossible. While Israel proved with Iron Dome that rockets can be hit by rockets, and can be up to 90% effective, it still leaves 10% that will get through with the best anti-missile defense systems. And without a credible nuclear deterrent, wars between big powers become possible again. And there are other factor such as costs and such, but nukes are what keep big wars from happening. We have lots of small wars going on today, as in Syria, but they pale in significance compared to another WWII. The only way to keep WWIII from happening is to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent as well as building up a credible ABM system as well.We need both to avoid another major war.

on Oct 11, 2016

There is no such thing as "a small scale war with nukes", and "15 to 20 hitting targets" means few million causalities at least. In today's environment, with many nuclear countries including Pakistan, Russia, China, North Korea and more, some of which has either unstable or insane governments, any "small scale war with nukes" is going to escalate into a nuclear world war. "First strike" is unlikely to work (you can never be sure you hit all their missiles) and the only sensible use of nuclear force is as a deterrent - therefor second strike force (mostly nuclear missile subs) is the better choice.

on Oct 11, 2016

So instead of reinvigorating our deterrent capabilities, you'd like us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new bridges and other infrastructure and just leave the door open and unguarded so that Russia and/or China can just walk in and take over the newly refurbished country.
Stay down-under Sydboy, and leave the adults to do their job of protecting our country and people.

on Oct 11, 2016

The Chinese won't invade 'murica...

Specifically to avoid having to deal with the numerous idiots (like "The Donald") that reside there.

A further sampling of the 'murican idiots can be found on this thread.

[BTW: I think Clinton is a sleazy, lying snake that I would not let into my home. But I'd trust her not to nuke half the planet in a bout of rage. That other idiot... I wouldn't. The fact that the US electorate has left themselves in a position where they have to choose between these two is an extremely poor reflection on those that voted for them in the primaries. Gullible sheep who have allowed themselves to be led onto these slippery slopes.]

on Oct 11, 2016

Did you read your comment before hitting the submit button Darth? You say she's a liar and then say that you trust the liar?
I fully agree that she has lied, and I wouldn't trust her for that very reason. Read her Wall Street speeches advocating free and open borders.

on Oct 11, 2016

When you have to pick between the rational liar and the crazy liar...

on Oct 11, 2016

"I think Clinton is a sleazy, lying snake that I would not let into my home. But I'd trust her not to nuke half the planet in a bout of rage. That other idiot... I wouldn't. "
EXACTLY! She IS garbage, and we know she'll stick it to us for the benefit of her corporate owners. She will not, likely, destroy modern civilization. Trump? Maybe yes, maybe no.
Your choice, America: A crappy leader or what's behind Door #2.

on Oct 11, 2016

Obama just spent 10 trillion in 8 years. I don't see great roads, stronger military, or really anything. Like a drunk night on the town, just a hangover (if you are lucky).

on Oct 11, 2016

Sydboy,

The US just flushed $10 trillion more down the drain during the last 8 years with no tangible improvement in infrastructure here, and a declining military. But US colleges charge outlandish prices to students and the kids dig themselves into debt. What you call non-violent drug crimes destroy the lives of tens of thousands of people each year, but the current POTUS likes to pardon the very perps that sell the crap to people.

Put another "doobie" on your barby and deal with your own personal problems.

on Oct 11, 2016

I wouldn't trust Trump to know anything about what capability the US armed forces have or are in process of. Only the gullible believe him to know more than the Generals, more than the current Government. Trump has never planned or done ANYTHING. In fact he's relied on good project managers to deliver all his achievements. AND he's taken his good suppliers to the cleaners by paying less than the contracted price. Only the gullible are going to vote for a Trump administration because that is going to result in chaotic Government. You might not like who or what you have now, but you'll be in dismay if you elect Trump!

on Oct 11, 2016

That's just the point - Mr. Trump is smart enough to know when and where he should hire knowledgeable people for his team.

on Oct 11, 2016

A lot of the generals agree with Trump,mans a good leader surrounds himself with people that know than he does. Trump has come up with a great number of ideas and plans, and he delegates people to carry out those plans. That's good business. That's good government.

on Oct 11, 2016

Trump is never wrong. He is always proven right in time.

on Oct 11, 2016

In his private parallel universe, perhaps...

on Oct 11, 2016

Why should Trump be Right On U.S. Nuclear Modernization? Has he ever been right about anything?

on Oct 11, 2016

Yes, he has. One example: that Clinton lied.

on Oct 11, 2016

I wonder how the countries without nuclear weapons can sleep every night? (yes is sarcasm in case you don't get it...)

on Oct 11, 2016

They sleep just fine, knowing that our nuclear umbrella covers them as well.

on Oct 11, 2016

Oh yeah...amazing what some people can believe...

on Oct 11, 2016

It sounds like Aviation Week is getting into the political arena with the article by Lara Seligman, who obviously does not like Mr. Trump and is pushing the other candidate. Did she read her own article? Here are some quotes from her article and she shows Mr. Trump has validity in his claims. Dear Aviation Week, please have your senior editors read and correct future “technical” articles – and stay out of the political arena. Thank you.

“The U.S. is actually in the midst of modernizing all three legs”

“he is correct that Russia is farther along in its upgrade program”

“Most recently, the Air Force kicked off two multibillion-dollar competitions to upgrade the nuclear arsenal”

“Air Force plans to buy about 100 B-21 “Raider” stealth bombers”

“it is not clear when the B-21 will become nuclear-capableit is not clear when the B-21 will become nuclear-capable”

“Columbia-class SSBNs is the farthest along”

“the National Nuclear Security Administration is continuing rejuvenationof the precision-guided B61-12 tactical nuclear bomb”

on Oct 11, 2016

Thank you! I noticed the same hypocricy in the article. Supported by her own words, the Russians are DOING, the US is talking about it.... And history clearly demonstates the gap between talk and action.

on Oct 11, 2016

Trump said "nuclear program"; Seligman quoted him as saying "nuclear capability". The Clinton campaign camp (which obviously includes the writer of this article) follow Hillary's lead and just straight out lie to the readers.

on Oct 11, 2016

Agreed. It's disappointing to see Aviation Week going political here. You don't need to like him but morphing his words, yes those from one not close to the details, nor should he be, and denying his larger point is quite unwise. This is an unclass setting but rest assured, or maybe don't rest so assured, our nuclear deterrent force absolutely needs revitalization, upgrading, and replacement in some cases. Rather than denying this fact for political purposes, AvWeek should try and use the opportunity to have a more serious discussions about a very serious condition. Even in the article, the writer claims the "systems" (don't) need upgrading in the 2020s. Hello, it's 2016!

on Oct 11, 2016

Trump is insane period.

on Oct 11, 2016

Go ahead, vote for Hillary. Let your kids deal with the future damage

on Oct 11, 2016

At least they are fairly sure to be alive to deal with the future damage.

I can easily envisage The Donald starting WWIII.

on Oct 11, 2016

Its a problem for our children, if there is a continuation of the policies of the past 8 years. I'll take the guy with the warts who acts like an executive, has good generals to listen to for advice and wishes to work on the economy, taxes and terrorism. He also supports the military and does not seek to upend the Supreme court with 'life experienced" progressive jurists. The Democrats operate the military like pawns on the chessboard, disregard general officers advice, force retirement on generals who have problems with policy and insists on social experimentation with military 'diversity'. Just look at the middle east, the state of the military, Senator Klaghorn (John Kerry), Russian activity, ....oh well, you get my drift.................

on Oct 11, 2016

Did you really just say Trump acts like an executive and has good Generals to listen to? Far from having a few warts, Trump acts like a buffoon and claimed on the campaign trail that he knows more than all the Generals and is" great at war." These are things that Trump said so don't give me the, "what he meant was" spin. I do not like Hillary but I am not fearful of her being in office. I am fearful of Trump holding any office. My only greater fear is how many people are willingly following him no matter what he says or does. There must be lead in the water.

on Oct 11, 2016

From this article:

"The U.S. is actually in the midst of modernizing all three legs of its nuclear triad"

Clearly if we are "in the midst of", then we need nuke modernization, and the brass realizes it, and therefore Trump is correct.

Yet another Aviation Week Liberal troll writer

on Oct 11, 2016

"Trump is insane period"...insanely rich, insanely successful, and most importantly: he's not a career politician. Look: yet another sophomoric attack from the nutty left media! Watch Hillary be prosecuted if Donald is elected. She gave most of our uranium mining to Putan, so why not put her in charge of our nukes? Good idea!

on Oct 11, 2016

So successful.... that he'd have made more money if he'd parked his dad's money in the bank rather than burn it on his own "investments".

on Oct 11, 2016

Third World strongmen jail their political opponents after being "elected" to office. Is this what you really want America to become? As for HRC "[giving] most of our uranium mining to Putan (sic.)", better check your facts.

on Oct 11, 2016

Yet another fool that thinks rich=smart. Lots of idiots fall backa$$wards into money. Trump started with millions from his dad. He won't release his taxes because then he'd have to show his true net worth and it would reveal that more than half of it is his own self valuation of his brand. A brand that most other companies have pulled themselves away from. This is a guy who can't even stop himself from sending out ridiculous tweets at 3am because he feels slighted and you want his finger on the button?

on Oct 11, 2016

1. Worry about strategic terrorist nukes; oops, strike the word strategic. Terrorist defense means raise the budget of NSA.
2. Also, we can’t help to rebuild the Middle East economy with bullets still flying, so those people need to establish a high priority on political stability and law and order.
3. Civil wars are extremely destructive, so sometimes a split is needed to get peace. Two governments, (maybe even three) for the same region may be needed. Ireland is a good recent example.

Please or Register to post comments.

What's Ares?

Aviation Week's defense blog

A Century of Aviation Week

Aviation Week & Space Technology is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. In a series of blogs, our editors highlight editorial content from the magazine's long and rich history.

 

Aug 26, 2016
blog

When Aviation Week Was Accused of Treason -- The Back Story Revealed 7

A 1957 revelation that the U.S. was tracking Soviet missile launches from a secret radar in Turkey has its roots in sleuthing of students from Kettering Grammar School in the UK....More
Aug 23, 2016
blog

When Aviation Week Was Accused Of Treason 23

Aviation Week editors routinely get blowback when they write about sensitive topics, and the best example of that may be an October 1957 story that revealed the U.S. had been tracking Russian missile launches from advanced long-range radar units in Turkey....More
Blog Archive
Penton Corporate

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×