The United States intends to continue improving its nuclear potential.

37
The US administration will not abandon plans to improve nuclear weapons, despite criticism from Congress and the expert community, the newspaper said MIC with reference to the Deputy Minister of Energy of the United States, Frank Klotz, who is also the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSAB).



Last year, the White House developed a “three plus two” strategy, according to which, during the 25 years, the NNSAB would have to replace the Pentagon’s 7 types of nuclear weapons with the 5 new ones. According to the newspaper, in connection with this, “NNSAB intends to build several new facilities of the nuclear military complex, as well as to increase the amount of tritium content in nuclear warheads in order to increase their reliability and make them less likely to require maintenance.”

“This continues to be our strategy,” said Klotz. According to him, the United States "will ultimately have in its nuclear arsenal three different warheads that can be installed on two different types of missiles, both land-based and sea-based, as well as two types of warheads delivered by air."

“One of them is a free-fall bomb, and the other is (a warhead) mounted on a cruise missile,” the deputy minister said and stressed: “This continues to be our policy, and until such a policy changes, we will continue to concentrate efforts".

He explained that the “Double-76-1” warhead service life extension program for Trident missiles deployed on submarines “is deeply in production”. Now half the way has been covered, and it will be completed “somewhere in the 2019 fiscal year,” Klotz specified.

In turn, “the modernization of the Bi-61 nuclear bomb has not yet gone out of the design calculations phase,” he said. According to him, the result of the work should be "the replacement of the four existing variants of the bomb with one." “We hope that the first sample of the products will be ready for the 2020 fiscal year,” the deputy minister informed.

He also noted that "another nuclear bomb - the Bi-83 - continues to be monitored." “We will continue to carry out the work necessary to guarantee its safety and effectiveness while it is in service,” the NNSAB head said.

With regard to the most advanced warheads "Double-88" for sea-based missiles, for it developed a new mechanism for cocking the fuse and other components, said Frank Klotz.
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    37 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +5
      30 October 2014 12: 49
      It is foolish to develop a free-fall bomb when Russia launches S-400 systems. It looks more like a dough. Although bombing some sort of Zimbabwe will come down.
      1. +7
        30 October 2014 12: 55
        Mattresses can not free themselves from the realization that they are a particularly exclusive nation.
        1. 0
          30 October 2014 15: 15
          And europro does not reassure them, one hell is reinsured ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. +14
        30 October 2014 12: 57
        Quote: Enot_33
        It is foolish to develop a free-fall bomb when Russia launches C-400 complexes

        It is foolish to hope for 100% destruction by these complexes of bomb carriers bully
        1. +2
          30 October 2014 13: 01
          Modern high-glider glider bombs with 10 km of discharge fly horizontally to 100km. In this case, the carrier does not even need to enter the air defense strike zone. Now compare the cost of the missile complex C-400 (500) and, say, such a bomb weighing half a ton-ton, which without any balls is aimed at the target in real time from a satellite image.
          1. The Art of War
            +7
            30 October 2014 13: 05
            laughing from a satellite, if the satellite is still alive, and a small nuclear bomb has not been detonated in space from which all satellites are disconnected and fly to the bottom.
            1. +4
              30 October 2014 14: 19
              Satellites in space move in orbits. And when nuclear devices explode in space, they don't fly down. There is no shock wave in space. Military satellites are protected from the effects of radiation from a nuclear explosion. Only if there is an explosion next to the satellite. Therefore, satellites shoot down with "direct" hits from conventional missile defense systems. And for this you do not need a nuclear charge, there are enough conventional explosives with fragmentation fillers.
          2. The Art of War
            +2
            30 October 2014 13: 10
            Fly to 100 km, long ago air defense in range crossed the range of destruction per 100 km bully
          3. +2
            30 October 2014 13: 10
            Quote: Telakh
            Planning bombs with a high glider coefficient with 10 km of discharge fly up to 100 km horizontally. In this case, the carrier does not even need to enter the air defense strike zone.

            Tell me the range of destruction of aerodynamic targets with the C-400 complex.
            1. 0
              30 October 2014 13: 36
              Tell me the range of destruction of aerodynamic targets with the C-400 complex.

              Tell me the cost of the C-400 shot, the stock of the missile of the division, the flight time of the C-400 missile at a distance of 100km, the guidance conditions and the possibility of using active antennas in the conditions of the front and active electronic countermeasures and priority damage to radar systems.
              Firing from C-400 on cruise missiles / bombs, it's like a cannon on sparrows.
              And yes, since we are talking about a non-peaceful atom, it’s also in the conditions of an air atomic explosion that destroys most of the guidance systems.
              1. +2
                30 October 2014 13: 50
                Quote: Telakh
                Tell me the cost of a shot C-400

                Is it expensive? The damage done by the nuclear bomb is, of course, less, right?
                Quote: Telakh
                C-400 missile flight time at a distance of 100km

                Why would a rocket fly 100km to a bomb if it is possible to shoot down a carrier for 400km? Well, let it be over 200.
                Quote: Telakh
                guidance conditions and the possibility of using active antennas in frontal conditions and active electronic countermeasures and priority damage to radar systems.

                Tough conditions in a modern war, I agree. Only the carrier of this bomb will also not be able to view landscapes; he still needs to manage to fly up to these 100 km.
                1. 0
                  30 October 2014 21: 20
                  Why do you think that the S-400 will bring down the carrier for 200 kilometers? To do this, he will need additional target designation from the radar guidance. Who guarantees that at that moment they will be fully functional? Especially in the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons.
                  1. +1
                    30 October 2014 22: 36
                    Quote: clidon
                    Why do you think that the S-400 will bring down the carrier for 200 kilometers? To do this, he will need additional target designation from the radar guidance. Who guarantees that at that moment they will be fully functional? Especially in the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons.

                    Well, who said that two soldiers with a slingshot and a rocket will stand in the field?
                    The main characteristics of "Triumph"
                    Maximum speed of hit targets, km/s 4,8
                    Target detection range [target ESR not specified], km 600
                    Range of defeat of the aerodynamic target [not specified EPR targets], km
                    maximum 400
                    minimum 2
                    Target height, km
                    maximum 30
                    minimum 0,005

                    Tactical ballistic target destruction range, km
                    maximum 60
                    minimum 7

                    The number of simultaneously fired targets (the full composition of the SAM) 36
                    The number of simultaneously guided missiles (full complement of air defense systems) 72
                    1. 0
                      31 October 2014 18: 19
                      Of course, two soldiers will not stand, but you will not install the front line radar everywhere. And that radar, by the way, needs to be protected. The same S-400. So there should be one more radar "ahead". )
                      And by the numbers, of course, it is clear that the complex is far from striking, but you just need to clarify what goals. If this is a bomber at an altitude of 15 km, then of course 400 km sounds real, but what if the target is low flying and inconspicuous? This is not to mention such a thing as interference and (or) the use of nuclear weapons.
          4. +5
            30 October 2014 13: 12
            Quote: Telakh
            Modern high-glider glider bombs with 10 km of discharge fly horizontally to 100km. In this case, the carrier does not even need to enter the air defense strike zone. Now compare the cost of the missile complex C-400 (500) and, say, such a bomb weighing half a ton-ton, which without any balls is aimed at the target in real time from a satellite image.

            To destroy such bombs there are "Tunguska", etc.
            Plus, at what height do these shells have a range of 100 km? With 10 km. The carrier risks just not surviving until the battery is reset hi
            1. -1
              30 October 2014 21: 21
              This "Tunguska" must be in the target area, be serviceable and work. There is no ultimate weapon.
        2. +2
          30 October 2014 13: 11
          Strategic bomber EtO priority objective for air defense systems. The times of the Second World War when the British bombed Berlin with hundreds of planes in one flight were long gone. And even then the percentage of losses at the same time went through the roof.
        3. +2
          30 October 2014 13: 23
          In general, this meant the destruction of the carrier of freely falling bombs before it flew into the target zone.
          Even having knocked out a bomber 150-200 km from the target, one should not be particularly afraid of detonation of the charge, although who knows the mattress makers - by the time of arrival, the fuses will be removed remotely and a "dirty" bomb may result if it does not explode in the air.
          1. 0
            30 October 2014 21: 22
            What a dirty bomb?
        4. +1
          30 October 2014 13: 44
          Quote: domokl
          It is foolish to hope for 100% destruction by these complexes of bomb carriers
          Plus, the Yankees have thousands of CRs (we need a lot of S-400s, and we are ready to trade on the side, the same China, for example), and a "free bomb" can be developed for bombing from near-earth orbit (who knows what to be born from the American unmanned shuttle). Also, the development of ammunition, along with "atomic shells" from 152 mm, can complement tactical nuclear aviation weapons. For the Yankees, "improving nuclear potential" can also be aimed at obtaining ammunition with low residual radiation, which is what the aggressor country needs, in order to seize clean natural resources in a war with a preemptive strike, or ultimately blackmail in the pre-war period.
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. +4
        30 October 2014 13: 11
        It was foolish for the Yeltsin government to sell weapons-grade uranium to the United States, moreover, for a simovolic price. Then Gaidar fared well.
        1. +3
          30 October 2014 13: 24
          Quote: siberalt
          It was foolish for the Yeltsin government to sell weapons-grade uranium to the United States, moreover, for a simovolic price. Then Gaidar fared well.

          It was not stupidity. This was worked out by thirty pieces of silver, then ruling spiritual uro.dy. And now there are enough of their heirs in power. As for the fact that the United States intends to continue improving its nuclear potential, it will fix the humpbacked grave. All games of "diplomacy" and belief in "international institutions" are like playing cards between a child and a sharpie.
        2. -1
          30 October 2014 13: 42
          Quote: siberalt
          It was foolish for the Yeltsin government to sell weapons-grade uranium to the United States, moreover, for a simovolic price.

          Thanks to the weapons-grade uranium we sold, the Americans stole their uranium enrichment industry. Today, our country has the most modern centrifuges, which can not be said about America. It turns out that we planted them on our uranium, and now that we have fulfilled our obligations, the Americans are left without a new supply of uranium. They need to build new plants with enrichment centrifuges, and this is not a quick process.
      6. +4
        30 October 2014 13: 28
        Quote: Enot_33
        It is foolish to develop a free-fall bomb when Russia launches C-400 complexes


        The atomic free fall bomb is not directed against Russia; it is used to combat Ebola and others. laughing
      7. Gluxar_
        -2
        30 October 2014 13: 46
        Quote: Enot_33
        It is foolish to develop a free-fall bomb when Russia launches S-400 systems. It looks more like a dough. Although bombing some sort of Zimbabwe will come down.

        To bomb Zimbabwe? You can clearly believe in the fantastic economic growth in this country ...
        In general, the modernization of nuclear weapons directed against us is bad news. I hope there are people in the US who will slow down such "wrong spending". Better to buy another 50 F-35 ... or coastal zone ships ...
      8. 0
        30 October 2014 13: 46
        Yes, and let them develop drinks Someone must master Amer’s budgets Yes
        If anything, then we are these gentlemen fashionable bully the old fashioned way ... like Ilya Muromets soldier ... "Mace" angry ... yes, on the head of their unlucky wassat ... So that the desire to misbehave from now on completely repulsed belay
      9. Steel loli
        0
        30 October 2014 15: 34
        Is it stupid? In Russia, only 5% of the cities in which military industrial facilities are located are protected by air defense. So, if you bomb the remaining 95% with free fall bombs, then Moscow can sit under the protection of its S-400 for as long as necessary - the war has already been lost.
      10. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      30 October 2014 12: 53
      Do not consider it a pervert ... And they have such a sexy park chtol with such enlarged copies of pi ... sec? smile Those on the left in the photo are still at least somehow similar to missiles, but the central and right pictures ...
      And to hell missile rocket anchors? Or are they alluding to their SSBNs?
      1. +7
        30 October 2014 12: 58
        Well, for example, our Satan. Nuclear rocket is not a sports car for you to take care of beauty.
        1. +11
          30 October 2014 13: 02
          Quote: Enot_33
          . Nuclear rocket is not a sports car for you to take care of beauty

          And I like .. Beautiful such Satan good And environmentally friendly feel I mean, after hitting everything is clean feel
          1. +1
            30 October 2014 13: 33
            Quote: domokl
            Quote: Enot_33
            . Nuclear rocket is not a sports car for you to take care of beauty

            And I like .. Beautiful such Satan good And environmentally friendly feel I mean, after hitting everything is clean feel

            "Satan" in dill was mainly produced .. Not a bad rocket, but old already Now with the help of their small commercial satellites are launched into space .. and I think they will soon stop .. Ukraine has scored on their maintenance .. to the evil of Russia he he .. bully Well so it is for the better ...
          2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      30 October 2014 12: 54
      We are also improving our potential. To the delight of our friends and neighbors. lol
    4. +1
      30 October 2014 12: 55
      a bomb may blow against African countries, but against more or less developed countries it’s just stupid ... another cut of the military budget)))
    5. +3
      30 October 2014 12: 56
      I wonder what the author said about such a secret? That bombs continue to be created? That new bombs are better than old ones? M what?
      You have to be a complete idiot to sit on scrap metal, albeit with nuclear stuff, and hope that no one has already created an antidote for this bomb? And we are working ... That's why we calmly respond to Gav of all kinds of nes and eses soldier
    6. +1
      30 October 2014 12: 56
      The United States is constantly complaining about Russia either on the Strategic Missile Forces or on medium-range missiles. At the same time, they unilaterally withdraw from the treaty and continue to build up their arsenal. What remains to do Russia? Only strengthen their defenses, including through nuclear weapons.
    7. The Art of War
      0
      30 October 2014 12: 58
      am What kind of weapon improvement, I told you to mine shale gas and oil and dig deeper, so that it’s up to a layer of earth, so that the Yankees would rather go under water Yes
    8. +13
      30 October 2014 13: 00
      Patronage ready to take wink
    9. +1
      30 October 2014 13: 03
      despite criticism from Congress and the expert community


      It’s interesting, after all, for the reasoning and reasons for criticizing the modernization of nuclear weapons. Does Congress and experts believe that the US does not need to be modernized? So you can criticize the regional power ...
    10. The comment was deleted.
    11. 0
      30 October 2014 13: 09
      The article states that they want to receive 5 new YABCH.NO !!!
      Only a 4 cruise missile shell was shown, a tactical bomb, an 1 warhead for ICBMs and SLBMs
      Tell me, please, what is there for the 5 I warhead (bomb)?
      1. 0
        31 October 2014 18: 33
        ultimately, they will have three different warheads in their nuclear arsenal that can be mounted on two different types of missiles, both land and sea based, as well as two types of warheads delivered by air. ”

        That is, the "naval" upgraded W76-1, W-88 for the Trident-2 and the "land-based" W87 not mentioned in the article (earlier for the MX, now for the Minuteman-3) plus the B-61 tactical bomb and warhead for the cruise missiles (W-80) The W-83 bomb will gradually be put into reserve.
    12. dzau
      0
      30 October 2014 13: 13
      Where is the money, Zin? (from)
    13. The Art of War
      0
      30 October 2014 13: 16
      Press conference by Igor Strelkov Do not forget to glance for a while soldier
    14. +2
      30 October 2014 13: 29
      But Russia intends to revive the ПЖРК, then later they track it.
    15. igorche
      +4
      30 October 2014 13: 29
      I, of course, understand that the name "Voevoda" refers only to the R-36M2 missile, and Satan (R-36M and R-36M2) is a sonorous name, but it is also mattress. We do not call our planes Su-25 Frogfoots, but Tu-160 Blackjacks. So, in my opinion, Voevoda sounds more majestic and more Russian.
    16. Alexander
      0
      30 October 2014 13: 31
      Quote: Enot_33
      Well, for example, our Satan. Nuclear rocket is not a sports car for you to take care of beauty.


      what are you talking about, she’s beautiful!
    17. Alexander
      0
      30 October 2014 13: 32
      Quote: The Art of War
      Press conference by Igor Strelkov Do not forget to glance for a while soldier


      Why look at him? Dyed something?
      1. The Art of War
        0
        30 October 2014 14: 00
        Quote: The Art of War
        Press conference by Igor Strelkov Do not forget to glance at a soldier for a while, Do not forget to glance at a time for those who are not particularly attentive.
    18. 0
      30 October 2014 13: 39

      And we will answer with the Mace))) successful launch
    19. 0
      30 October 2014 13: 52
      Quote: Telakh
      Tell me the cost of a shot C-400,


      That is, you think - the battle will look like this:

      - Petrovich, an atomic bomb has been flying at us from 150 km!
      - Let them fly, it’s cheaper than our shot.
    20. 0
      30 October 2014 13: 54
      Quote: SRC P-15
      Quote: siberalt
      It was foolish for the Yeltsin government to sell weapons-grade uranium to the United States, moreover, for a simovolic price.

      Thanks to the weapons-grade uranium we sold, the Americans stole their uranium enrichment industry. Today, our country has the most modern centrifuges, which can not be said about America. It turns out that we planted them on our uranium, and now that we have fulfilled our obligations, the Americans are left without a new supply of uranium. They need to build new plants with enrichment centrifuges, and this is not a quick process.

      I’ll add a little, the process is also sooooo expensive, so like this
    21. Konst99
      +1
      30 October 2014 14: 03
      Quote: domokl
      Quote: Enot_33
      It is foolish to develop a free-fall bomb when Russia launches C-400 complexes

      It is foolish to hope for 100% destruction by these complexes of bomb carriers bully

      Are you laughing? a free fall bomb means the plane is directly over the object. In order for this bomb to be used, it is necessary to destroy all air defense and all aviation in the area of ​​use. Well, either their "invisibility" should start working.
      What kind of bombs if a rocket from our missile carrier flies 2500 km? A missile from our submarine flies 11 km. These bombs only bombard poops ...
    22. 0
      30 October 2014 14: 15
      The mess is eliminated? drug addicts officers removed from the control of nuclear weapons?
    23. Lyolik
      -1
      30 October 2014 14: 19
      "Dear" Americans, there is no need to "please" everyone in this way, if you have nowhere to do evil,
      then at least think, turn on your brains, think about the land on which you live, about your relatives.
      Enough already, calm down, do they need to improve the widgets.
      Improve your brains for peace, love, friendship, a traditional family.
      1. 0
        30 October 2014 14: 35
        The wedge is kicked out with a wedge, not with persuasion.
      2. 0
        31 October 2014 18: 35
        We have nuclear weapons both in the United States School of Internal Affairs and 7 other countries of the world. Nobody wants to unilaterally reduce nuclear weapons.
    24. Lyolik
      0
      30 October 2014 16: 02
      At first, diplomacy, diplomacy will not help, then wedge wedge.
    25. 0
      30 October 2014 16: 09
      Yes, they optimize the type of expenses. Reduce nomenclature. Indeed, why 4 bombs to have when you can have one. Although throwing such a bomb will be problematic. Especially in the deep rear. You can fly up to the border and launch it and rewind (at the very beginning of the conflict no one will shoot at airplanes near the borders of the Russian Federation). Although while it will fly, it will most likely be destroyed. Although how to understand that this is a nuclear bomb ??? And not just a healthy bomb. Of course, the means of countering nuclear weapons must be many times greater than the number of means of attack. Thousands of missile defense are needed to guarantee the defeat of hundreds of enemy missiles. But for small missiles such as cruise missiles, there are small missiles, and for ICBMs there are more countermeasures. Here it is necessary to measure the amount with the budget and R&D for new developments. In short, it’s not so easy to bring down all flying missiles. But the Americans cannot immediately pull everyone out, as the carriers are also much smaller than the missiles themselves. There is no panacea for this weapon. But I think that hopes should be placed on hypersonic rockets with once-through engines. They can compete with three-stage missiles in speed and range. So you give new developments !!!!
    26. 0
      30 October 2014 22: 04
      Free-falling bombs, this is a strike against a massive concentration of troops. Or the finishing off left after an ICBM and KR strike.
      1. 0
        31 October 2014 18: 21
        Tactical weapons for use against the accumulation of troops and defended (especially important objects).

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"