Military Review

Modernization and preservation of nuclear weapons will cost the US $ 1,2 trillion

36
Modernization and ensuring the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons will cost the United States $ 1,2 trillion over the next 30 years, reports TASS Post of the Congressional Budget Office.


Vice President Mike Pence at the US Air Force Base in North Dakota.

The report notes that “$ 772 billion will be spent on the operation, maintenance and upgrading of strategic means of delivering nuclear weapons - heavy bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and warheads, $ 25 billion - for tactical nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles, $ 445 billion - for a complex of laboratories and manufacturing enterprises that provide activities related to nuclear weapons, as well as for the maintenance of command posts , communications systems and early warning systems for missile attack.

Over the next 30 years, the US Department of Defense plans to replace all the available Ohio-class submarines equipped with Trident II missiles. They are now 14, and the “oldest” went into service in 1983.

In addition, the Pentagon intends to acquire a B-21 bomber, which is under development and will cost about $ 550 million. It is also planned to replace the Minuteman III ICBM, which were adopted almost 50 years ago.

The report's authors believe that the new submarines will require $ 313 billion, new missiles - $ 149 billion, bombers - $ 266 billion. Even 44 billion will cost the development of other weapons systems.

Analysts emphasize that if “not modernizing the existing strategic delivery systems and warheads”, but simply “updating their individual components and maintaining them in combat-ready condition”, then the total costs can be reduced by about 50%. However, the military rejected such an idea, insisting that "elements of the current nuclear triad will not be able to effectively implement the nuclear deterrence strategy already in 20 years."
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ando_bor
    ando_bor 1 November 2017 13: 57 New
    +3
    Yes, it seems they realized that they won’t be able to leave the otvetka.
    1. cniza
      cniza 1 November 2017 14: 08 New
      +1
      I don’t think it’s so they threaten with a fist - they say look how cool we are, what kind of money we spend.
      1. Reserve officer
        Reserve officer 1 November 2017 14: 14 New
        +5
        Urgently send to the United States to help the development of funds Serdyukov, Kudrin and Siluanov. Let them at least serve the Motherland.
        1. To be or not to be
          To be or not to be 1 November 2017 14: 31 New
          +1
          The share of China, which remains the leader among owners of American securities over the past few years, 1.06 -1,2 trillion dollars laughing
        2. cniza
          cniza 1 November 2017 14: 31 New
          0
          They have enough of their own there. lol
      2. Orel
        Orel 1 November 2017 14: 14 New
        +2
        Quote: cniza
        I don’t think it’s so they threaten with a fist - they say look how cool we are, what kind of money we spend.


        For money, measuring military power is a common mistake. Arms everywhere cost different money. We must consider the real units of military equipment that go to the troops. And in terms of the pace of militarization, Russia and China have long been ahead of all Western countries in almost all components except the fleet. Even for the purchase of aircraft for the Air Force, we have been ahead for quite some time. Therefore, do not measure the United States and other countries according to their military budgets. This does not give any real military assessments.
        1. cniza
          cniza 1 November 2017 14: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: Orel
          Therefore, do not measure the United States and other countries according to their military budgets. This does not give any real military assessments.


          We understand this, but they measure it in our own way ...
          1. Orel
            Orel 1 November 2017 14: 23 New
            +5
            Quote: cniza
            We understand this, but they measure it in our own way ...


            It is more difficult for them to maintain their military capabilities. It is extremely expensive. The standard of living is high, the costs, respectively, are all orders of magnitude higher. I think that if the United States took up only its own problems and began to redirect money to civilian spending, cutting the military budget, they would have made a tremendous economic and scientific breakthrough in 20-25 years. This, in principle, applies to the whole world. So much money is spent on hardware. If it were to spend science on people, then something that could be achieved. I think we’d already from Mars discussed some topics on the Astranet, instead of the Internet)))
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 1 November 2017 14: 42 New
              +1
              Military spending is only 17% of the US federal budget.
              Example.

              A large part of military spending is the cost of science.
              1. Orel
                Orel 1 November 2017 18: 06 New
                0
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Military spending is only 17% of the US federal budget.


                I apparently somehow lagged behind the statistics. I agree. These are fairly moderate expenses, in comparison with our 40, especially with classified budget items.
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 1 November 2017 15: 17 New
              +2
              "reducing the military budget, they would have made a colossal economic
              and scientific breakthrough in 20-25 years ////

              This is true, although they spend moderately enough on war — not more than 4,5% of their GDP.
              (in Israel - up to 7,5% for comparison, and science / R&D is not developing badly nonetheless)
              1. Orel
                Orel 1 November 2017 18: 10 New
                0
                Quote: voyaka uh
                This is true, although they spend moderately enough on war — not more than 4,5% of their GDP.


                I agree. Only every year such money around the world goes to things that are completely irrational from the point of view of development. ITER build - international experimental thermonuclear reactor. The whole world is building, despite the differences, the issue price is about 15 billion euros. Pennies in comparison with world military spending. ITER can open the industrial use of thermonuclear energy and the price of this revolutionary achievement is 15 billion euros. Even if later it will be more expensive in the development and implementation of technology, but still in comparison with what it takes to kill each other - a drop in the bucket. And how many grandiose projects could be implemented for these "military costs", if sent to science and space. This is only a dream of course, human nature does not allow us to forget about the murders of each other. Maybe someday we will outgrow it.
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 1 November 2017 18: 16 New
                  +1
                  Everything is true here. I would also add, humanity is still
                  powerless against many natural disasters and sudden changes
                  climate (in any direction). And this direction also does not interfere
                  invest more money. Because unpreparedness is more expensive.
      3. maxim947
        maxim947 1 November 2017 14: 17 New
        +1
        Something is not enough laid for such ambitious plans
      4. ando_bor
        ando_bor 1 November 2017 14: 29 New
        +1
        The whole strategy of America after the Cold War was based on an attempt to get away from a retaliatory strike, depriving Russia of nuclear weapons, for any - putting control of its power, destroying it, the attempt failed - we must resist.
      5. Fkjydjckfrgh
        Fkjydjckfrgh 2 November 2017 20: 09 New
        0
        No, it’s just that Trump will leave his post as a trillionaire. Not on the crops of the good, rational and eternal "babos chop"
  2. Buffet
    Buffet 1 November 2017 13: 58 New
    +1
    Everything is simple here. Do not want to feed your army, you will feed the Chinese or ours.
    1. Orel
      Orel 1 November 2017 14: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
      Everything is simple here. Do not want to feed your army, you will feed the Chinese or ours.


      No matter how we feed the Chinese. Over 10 years, the US population has grown by 30 million people, and China by 60 million people. How much the population of Russia has grown during this time is better not to even be interested ... This is the biggest problem for our future. China is nearby and it is overpopulated, and we are not far from empty Siberia. China is already openly proposing the development of Siberia by Chinese peasants. The deputy chairman of the CCP has already proposed this at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum. This year, moreover. And we all blame America and Europe, and if China takes offense at us, then what we will do is no one thinks.
      1. SOF
        SOF 1 November 2017 14: 41 New
        +1
        ... in China, too, idiots do not live and are well aware that not too much population density in the Far East is unlikely to play into their hands in case of conflict, but they will greatly untie the hands of our VKS, as well as the large population of China itself, which has grown by 60 million over the past 10 years.
        So, do not scare the great overpopulated neighbor - he wants to live like everyone else.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 November 2017 15: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: Orel
        No matter how we feed the Chinese.

        Tell me at least one war in which China triumphed.
      3. Fkjydjckfrgh
        Fkjydjckfrgh 2 November 2017 20: 33 New
        0
        Do you understand why Thatcher said that in the USSR the population is "cost-effective" within 50 million? Yes, because the minus is the average annual t, and to create acceptable living conditions you need to seriously, you know, spend money. And this is from the point of view of the Englishwoman. Now imagine in Siberia a Chinese peasant who heard something about snow there.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 2 November 2017 20: 48 New
          +7
          Quote: Fkjydjckfrgh
          Do you understand why Thatcher said that in the USSR the population is "cost-effective" within 50 million?

          You painted everything beautifully, of course ... only there is one plug! Thatcher didn't say that request
          1. Fkjydjckfrgh
            Fkjydjckfrgh 2 November 2017 21: 03 New
            0
            She said, did not say, the whole point is that in case of war, the Chinese in Siberia can not resist (everything will be destroyed). Only "peaceful expansion"
  3. NIKNN
    NIKNN 1 November 2017 13: 59 New
    +2
    Just a cut no longer rolls, now a planned cut. But all the same, the states keep the sun in good shape, which annoys slightly, although I doubt that they will climb, the gut is thin. Not in order to saw, in order to lose the acquired exorbitant labor ...
  4. Herculesic
    Herculesic 1 November 2017 14: 00 New
    0
    Honestly, I will not believe for anything that the new b21 bomber will cost only half a billion bucks, except that this is the price without engines, and avionics No. Or go to a series of aviation castrates, with greatly reduced functions and capabilities.
  5. Herculesic
    Herculesic 1 November 2017 14: 04 New
    0
    Now the Yankees' main question is how much of this amount will definitely be allocated for modernization and development, because even the United States does not have enough money catastrophically for anything! I suggest lol let them take ukroiny lol on parole McCain lol
  6. HEATHER
    HEATHER 1 November 2017 14: 13 New
    +2
    will cost the United States $ 1,2 trillion over the next 30 years, Nu-nu. No. Only warheads with a uranium charge are no longer in the subject. A dirty bomb. And with plutonium, you have to shamanize them every 5 years. Half-life, poke it with a stump. We did it, the Americans just realized, and not the fact that they will.
    1. corporal
      corporal 1 November 2017 14: 49 New
      0
      Quote: VERESK
      warheads with uranium charge are no longer in the subject. A dirty bomb

      And what difference does it make to them, how much radioactive d.ep.a.m. will fly over our territory?
      1. HEATHER
        HEATHER 1 November 2017 14: 58 New
        +2
        how much radioactive d.ep.a.m. will fly over our territory? Yes, and it doesn’t matter to us how much is above them. Just a little nuance. They are in the stage of modernization of old BGs. We have new and orders of magnitude more powerful. The problem they have in overcoming our missile defense, our missiles do not. Otherwise, already a long time ago, it would all have begun. Plus, our new, tested developments. With delivery systems. Sarmat showed himself perfectly on the second throwing already from the mine.
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 November 2017 15: 46 New
        +2
        Quote: Corporal
        And what difference does it make to them, how much radioactive d.ep.a.m. will fly over our territory?

        There is a difference, maybe after, they intend to develop and produce these lands with all that is rich in this land.
        1. corporal
          corporal 1 November 2017 16: 40 New
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          after, they intend to develop these lands

          laughing If anyone will develop these lands, it will be mutated cockroaches. Humanity will end.
  7. Simon
    Simon 1 November 2017 14: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: cniza
    I don’t think it’s so they threaten with a fist - they say look how cool we are, what kind of money we spend.

    So I think that they will still draw green. recourse laughing
  8. Berkut24
    Berkut24 1 November 2017 15: 18 New
    0
    What fly into the pipe? On show-offs and ambitions ...
  9. Lena Petrova
    Lena Petrova 1 November 2017 16: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Military spending is only 17% of the US federal budget.

    And this with a general deficit of about 666 (a good figure, beautiful!) Mld.
  10. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 1 November 2017 19: 23 New
    +1
    A little expensive of course ... But nothing, Russia will help, place another dozen other billions at 0.25% per annum with the prospect of losing everything. Russia itself doesn’t need to modernize anything, of course, and so “ahead of the rest”. "There is no money but you hold on ...".
  11. Old26
    Old26 1 November 2017 20: 35 New
    0
    Quote: maxim947
    Something is not enough laid for such ambitious plans

    IMHO is quite normal.
    “$ 772 billion will be spent on the operation, maintenance and modernization of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles - heavy bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and warheads, $ 25 billion - on tactical nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles, $ 445 billion - on a complex of laboratories and manufacturing enterprises, which provide activities related to nuclear weapons, as well as the maintenance of command posts, communication systems and early warning systems for missile attacks. "

    The same 772 billion - this is not to create new types of weapons, but to extend the life of existing systems.

    Quote: NIKNN
    Just a cut no longer rolls, now a planned cut. But all the same, the states keep the sun in good shape, which annoys slightly, although I doubt that they will climb, the gut is thin. Not in order to saw, in order to lose the acquired exorbitant labor ...

    But at the same time they are also doing business. Modernization of their strategic arsenal has been going on systematically for 15-20 years. They are going to modernize the same warheads not just once. Until 2030, the same W80 warheads will be upgraded from the current version of W80-0 through version W80-1 (until the end of 2018/19) to version W80-4

    Quote: VERESK
    They are in the stage of modernization of old BGs. We have new and orders of magnitude more powerful.

    Sure? We have closed plutonium storage reactors for about 10 years already. IMHO, just like they, we are chopping up our old BGs with new ones. Almost all of the “Poplars” have already been removed; their battle tanks can be completely upgraded and used on other missile systems.