cruise missiles nuclear submarine

More From Forbes

U.s. navy funds new submarine-launched nuclear cruise missile biden called ‘a bad idea’ (updated - acting navy secretary wants to defund).

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Budget documents reveal the U.S. Navy is developing a new nuclear-armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile, known as SLCM-N. President Biden described the missile as “ a bad idea ” when campaigning in 2019. Though an obvious candidate for cancelation, the SLCM-N program is going ahead.

The need for a new sea-launched cruise missile has been under consideration for some time, with the possibility mentioned in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review . An un-named Navy functionary told Defense News in February 2020 that it was on their wish list, but the publication of the new R&D budget makes it official: “Project 3467: This project will design, develop, produce and deploy a Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile.”

A submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missile with a conventional warhead. Carrying the nuclear ... [+] version would reduce the number of missiles available for conventional strikes

Conventionally armed BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles are the mainstay of the Navy’s arsenal for attacking land targets. With their long range and high precision, they are useful for taking on highly defended targets, and a salvo of cruise missiles will typically be fired to suppress defenses ahead of a strike by manned aircraft. On occasion, as in the 2018 strikes on Syria , they are used as a low-cost, low-risk alternative to airstrikes.

While not specified, the nuclear cruise missile would be a relatively low-yield weapon compared to the submarine-launched Trident ballistic missiles.

Both surface ships and submarines carry cruise missiles, and previous statements have been carefully ambiguous about which vessels would carry the nuclear version. However, one line in the new R&D budget submission mentions a requirement to “Assess the Virginia Class launch and control facilities to determine the extent of and evaluate for future upgrades.” This indicates that the nineteen nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines will be launch platforms, in addition to any others selected.

The latest version of the submarine has the new Virginia Payload Module ; in addition to the basic 12 cruise missile launch tubes, the VPM caries and launches up to 28 additional cruise missiles.

Wells Fargo Championship 2024 Golf Betting Preview Odds And PGA Picks

The minnesota timberwolves are suffocating everyone defensively, new fbi warning as hackers strike email senders must do this 1 thing.

Existing conventional cruise missiles have a range of 800-1500 miles depending on the size of the warhead. The nuclear warhead – details yet to be determined – may be somewhat lighter than the conventional payloads, giving longer range. The navy did previously have a nuclear version, the original TLAM-N (“Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear) which was quietly retired some years ago . The SLCM-N is in a sense reinventing the wheel.

The 12 vertical-launch Tomahawk missile tubes of the USS Oklahoma City (SSN-723).

Putting nuclear cruise missile on Virginia-class would be a quick and easy way of ramping up strategic capability. Currently, the only nuclear-armed subs are the fourteen Ohio-class ballistic missile subs , so SLCM-N on Virginia-class would more than double that at a stroke.

But there are downsides.

“Putting nuclear-armed missiles back on the conventional surface or attack submarine fleets of the Navy is a real cause for concern,” says Monica Montgomery, a research analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “Doing so would erode the higher-priority conventional missions of the Navy by reducing the number of conventional missiles each boat could carry and increase the possibility of conflict escalation through miscalculation by blurring the line between conventional and nuclear cruise missiles on these vessels.”

Montgomery calls the message sent by the SLCM-N develpment “both surprising and troubling,” seeing it as potentially destabilizing, and says the Trump-era proposal should not have gone ahead under the new administration.

“The SLCM-N was truly low-hanging fruit ripe for cancellation in this year’s budget,” says Montgomery.

There is still time for the administration to change its mind in the next Nuclear Posture Review later this year, according to Kingston Reif , Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association

“Reversing the Trump administration's plan to pursue a nuclear SLCM should be an easy choice,” Reif says.

Reif describes the SLCM-N as “a costly hedge on a hedge” – an extra backup for an already extensive and growing nuclear arsenal – making it a pointless extravagance.

Reif also notes that the nuclear capability will come at the expense of urgently needed conventional weapons.

“Arming such vessels with nuclear cruise missiles would also reduce the number of conventional missiles each boat could carry, at a time when Pentagon leaders argue that strengthening conventional deterrence is their top priority in the Asia-Pacific,” says Reif.

Biden himself noted that fielding low-yield weapons as alternatives to more powerful ballistic missiles would make the U.S. “more inclined to use them” and increase the risk of a nuclear war.

The SLCM-N project is starting small, just $15.2 million in this year’s budget compared to the billions for other nuclear programs. But if the analysts are right, the U.S. Navy is buying trouble rather than new capability.

UPDATE : On June 8th, USNI News reported that acting U.S. Navy Secretary Thomas Harker directed the service to defund nuclear the SLCM-N in fiscal 2023, citing a leaked memo. It seems that there are people inside the Navy who question the value of a nuclear cruise missile too.

A memo of revised guidance indicated the SLCM-N will be cut

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Arab-Israeli Relations
• Proliferation
• Palestinians
• Gulf States

Regions & Countries

• Middle East
• North Africa
• Arab & Islamic Politics
• Democracy & Reform
• Energy & Economics
• Great Power Competition
• Gulf & Energy Policy
• Military & Security
• Peace Process
• U.S. Policy
• Policy Analysis
• PolicyWatch 3732

U.S. Deploys Cruise Missile Submarine to Strengthen Deterrence Against Iran

Farzin Nadimi, a Senior Fellow with The Washington Institute, is a Washington-based analyst specializing in the security and defense affairs of Iran and the Persian Gulf region.

Amid rising tensions with Tehran and its proxies, the United States is sending a message by openly deploying one of its few guided missile submarines to the region.

Typically, U.S. submarine deployments are not announced in advance, especially when the vessels are entering a potentially hot zone of operation that may require them to rely on stealth, their main operational advantage. Yet conventionally armed guided missile submarines are an exception—their presence is occasionally made known as a show of deterrence. This seemed to be the main purpose when U.S. Naval Forces Central Command announced on April 8 that the USS Florida (SSGN-728) had been deployed to the Middle East “to help ensure regional maritime security and stability.” The Florida is one of only four guided missile/special forces submarines in U.S. Navy service—vessels that are usually tasked with top-priority clandestine missions.

Increased U.S.-Iran-Israel Clashes

On March 23, a U.S.-manned forward base near Hasaka, Syria, was attacked by an explosive drone launched by Iraqi Shia militias affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Among other casualties, an American contractor was killed in the attack—an outcome that crossed Washington’s red lines and triggered multiple U.S. airstrikes inside Syria. Yet those strikes were only partially successful in deterring Iran and its proxies—a salvo of rockets was soon fired at another U.S. compound in Syria, raising concerns about further escalation.

These clashes coincided with a series of Israeli standoff precision airstrikes against IRGC and Hezbollah targets in Syria beginning on March 30. The resultant deaths of two IRGC officers and other operatives prompted Tehran to issue promises of revenge. On April 2, a drone of reportedly Iranian origin tried to penetrate northern Israel from Syria but was shot down. The next day, Israel downed a Hamas Shahab drone as it tried to enter from the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, rising tensions in the West Bank led to multiple rocket strikes against Israel, some launched by Palestinian factions in south Lebanon and others from Gaza and Syria. In response, Israel conducted bombing raids targeting the launch sites. The risk of escalation is significant given ongoing tensions at the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Sharif and Iran’s declared “Qods (Jerusalem) Day,” which falls today, the last Friday of Ramadan. In this environment, the United States and its partners can benefit from the USS Florida’s deterrent effect and robust intelligence collection capabilities—and, if necessary, from its additional firepower.

Signaling with Submarines

According to media reports quoting U.S. defense officials, suspicious Iranian drone activities in the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, and Red Sea spurred the U.S. Navy and United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) to issue warnings of potential shipping attacks on April 5-6. The warnings were especially geared toward Israeli cargo ships and tankers, which were reportedly asked to navigate away from Iranian waters with their transponders turned off. Since February 2021, the IRGC has attacked Israeli-linked commercial vessels in the Gulf of Oman or Arabian Sea at least seven times, using suicide drones and/or limpet mines to damage the ships and, in one case, kill crewmembers.

It has been a while since the U.S. Navy acknowledged the deployment of a submarine to the region. On December 21, 2020, the USS Georgia —another SSGN, the designation used for nuclear-powered guided missile submarines— transited the Strait of Hormuz while surfacing alongside two U.S. missile cruisers. That deployment came during another period of high tensions marked by two developments: the imminent first anniversary of the U.S. strike that killed IRGC Qods Force commander Qasem Soleimani, and the November assassination of top Iranian nuclear official Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, allegedly by Israel. At the time, the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group was also deployed to the northern Arabian Sea to support troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another high-profile deployment came on October 19, 2022, when U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Michael Kurilla was given a tour of the ballistic missile submarine USS West Virginia in the Arabian Sea. These vessels are considered key tools of strategic deterrence and part of the U.S. nuclear triad, and they do not often patrol in the Middle East. The move was interpreted as a message to Russian president Vladimir Putin (who had recently threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine) and Iran (which had been supplying Moscow with suicide drones for use in Ukraine, and possibly short-range ballistic missiles as well).

How Could an SSGN Be Used Against Iran?

The Navy’s four converted Ohio -class SSGNs are usually tasked with highly secretive intelligence gathering and conventional strike missions. They are armed with up to 154 vertically launched precision-guided TLAM-E Tomahawk cruise missiles (UGM-109E Block IV) with a range of up to 1,600 km and a 454 kg warhead. This version of the Tomahawk is capable of loitering in flight and has a two-way satellite datalink that can receive updated mission data for retargeting, course corrections, and damage assessment. This ability is especially useful for targeting air defense systems and mobile ballistic missile launchers.

The 1,600 km range could enable an SSGN submerged at a safe distance in the Arabian Sea to clandestinely launch cruise missiles at targets deep inside Iran, using any ingress point along its 784 km coastline with the Gulf of Oman and most of its 1,600 km land borders with Pakistan and Afghanistan. This puts all of the regime’s military sites, military industrial facilities, and other targets in the south and east within striking range, as well as some of its main nuclear sites. Although the TLAM-E does not have significant hard-target penetration capabilities, its multi-effect programmable warhead still allows for some degree of “bunker busting,” especially when several missiles hit a single point sequentially.

With a vessel like the USS Florida in theater, Iran’s monitoring capabilities and cruise missile defenses along these vast and remote borders could be stretched quite thin (for a more detailed discussion of the regime’s air defense, including graphics, see PolicyWatch 3626 ). In January 2021, false reports of penetration by American cruise missiles from several directions reportedly caused confusion within Iran’s military command following its strike against al-Asad Air Base in Iraq—so much so that an IRGC TOR-M1 short-range air defense system shot down a Ukrainian civilian airliner near Tehran.

Converted Ohio -class submarines are also equipped with a thirty-ton dry deck shelter. This gives them the ability to deliver and recover SEAL commando teams on clandestine missions using submersibles or small boats.

These capabilities, coupled with robust intelligence gathering and task force command-level secure communications, give SSGNs carrier-like abilities when a carrier is not available. SSGNs also offer logistical advantages compared to a carrier strike group, such as quicker deployment and concealment of their whereabouts—though as noted above, the Pentagon will sometimes publicize a submarine deployment to achieve the same deterrent effects as a carrier presence.

In the current case, the Florida was apparently forward-deployed to the Middle East because the Russia-focused mission of the George H. W. Bush Carrier Strike Group in the East Mediterranean has been extended. Although the carrier group can still project airpower into Syria from the Mediterranean, cruise missiles launched by the Florida would offer a much better alternative against potential targets in both Iran and eastern/southern Syria, which could be struck from standoff range in the Arabian Sea or Gulf of Oman. Low-flying Tomahawks are difficult to detect and counter, especially if launched from submerged SSGNs.

Interestingly, Tehran is eyeing a stealthy submarine launch capability of its own. Since at least 2019, the Iranian national navy has been developing and testing a canister-based system for launching Nasr antiship missiles from submarine torpedo tubes; these missiles now have a reported range of around 100 km. Iranian submarines still lack slant or vertical launch systems for long-range cruise missiles, but the regime is likely working on this capability.

Despite making overtures to American partners in the Gulf, Iran is still committed to pushing the United States out of the region and posing a clear and present danger to its forces in Syria and elsewhere. It has also been developing “anti-carrier” capabilities in the form of antiship homing ballistic missiles with a claimed range of up to 2,000 km.

In this environment, the U.S. Navy’s flexible and stealthy guided missile submarines are an excellent alternative to carrier deployments when needed, providing a way to enhance deterrence against Tehran and its proxies by maintaining a persistent clandestine presence—and delivering occasional public reminders of U.S. firepower. Notably, all four SSGNs are slated for retirement between 2026 and 2028, with no replacement in sight. Until then, however, the prospect of 154 Tomahawks causing massive damage inside Iran could send a powerful message, since the regime is obviously much more sensitive to potential strikes on its home territory versus far away in Syria.

Farzin Nadimi is an associate fellow with The Washington Institute, specializing in security and defense in Iran and the Gulf region.

Recommended

• Michael Knights
• Amir al-Kaabi
• Hamdi Malik

• Mohammed Hussein

• Soner Cagaptay

Regions & Countries

Stay up to date.

North Korea tests submarine-launched cruise missiles, KCNA says

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Jack Kim; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne, Lisa Shumaker, Leslie Adler and Diane Craft

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

US warns Israel that Rafah invasion will jeopardise weapons supply as assault continues

U.S. President Joe Biden vowed publicly for the first time to withhold weapons from Israel if its forces make a major invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza while negotiations in Cairo on a ceasefire plan for the enclave were set to continue on Thursday.

Air Vanuatu said on Thursday it had cancelled international flights for the rest of the week, as the Pacific Island nation's government considered placing its national carrier into voluntary administration.

• Books & Press
• Proceedings
• Naval History

Suggestions

Trending topics, nuclear sea-launched cruise missile has ‘zero value,’ latest nuclear posture review finds.

THE PENTAGON — The Defense Department officially abandoned the effort to pursue a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile, according to the Nuclear Posture Review unveiled today.

The SLCM-N initiative, which received support from the Joint Chiefs and U.S. Strategic Command, was found to be of “zero value” in the most recent U.S. nuclear weapons review, a senior defense official told reporters in a Thursday briefing.

“Everyone’s voice has been heard. As it applies to the current situation – Russia [and] Ukraine – [it] has zero value because even at the full funding value it would not arrive until 2035,” the senior defense official said. “Our deterrence posture is firm. Russia’s been deterred from attacking NATO. We continue to focus on Russia and China. I think as it stands right now, there is no need to develop SLCM.”

While the Fiscal Year 2023 budget proposal canceled the SLCM(N) program, the unclassified version of the Nuclear Posture Review released Thursday explained detailed the Biden administration’s rationale for abandoning the program. The idea of a sea-launched nuclear cruise missile was introduced in the 2018 NPR to provide a low-yield warhead option as a response to the use of an adversary’s tactical nuclear weapon. In addition, the U.S. developed the low-yield W76-2 warhead for its ballistic nuclear missile submarine fleet.

“The 2018 NPR introduced SLCM-N and the W76-2 to supplement the existing nuclear program of record in order to strengthen deterrence of limited nuclear use in a regional conflict,” reads the report. “We reassessed the rationale for these capabilities and concluded that the W76-2 currently provides an important means to deter limited nuclear use.”

The first reported use of the W76-2 was aboard USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) on a deterrent patrol beginning in 2019.

Republican lawmakers questioned the Pentagon’s plans to cancel the SLCM-N program following a USNI News report last year on a Navy budget document that called for eliminating the program.

“Our inventory of nuclear weapons is significant. We determined as we looked at our inventory that we don’t need that capability,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters on Thursday.

The Defense Department released the NPR on Thursday along with the 2022 National Defense Strategy that is the Pentagon’s contribution to the National Security Strategy and an update to the 2018 NDS .

In the series of strategy documents released Thursday, the Pentagon emphasized its focus on the People’s Republic of China as the so-called “pacing threat.”

The 2022 NDS, which builds upon the 2018 NDS released under the Trump administration, cites China’s increased aggression in the Indo-Pacific region and its military modernization efforts.

“The PRC’s increasingly provocative rhetoric and coercive activity towards Taiwan are destabilizing, risk miscalculation, and threaten the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait. This is part of a broader pattern of destabilizing and coercive PRC behavior that stretches across the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and along the Line of Actual Control,” reads the NDS. “The PRC has expanded and modernized nearly every aspect of the PLA, with a focus on offsetting U.S. military advantages.”

In addition to the NDS and the Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department also released a Missile Defense Review that identifies both China’s and Russia’s missile modernization, including hypersonic weapons, as a persistent challenge to U.S. forces.

The report specifically cited the defense of Guam as a concern.

“The architecture for defense of the territory against missile attacks will therefore be commensurate with its unique status as both an unequivocal part of the United States as well as a vital regional location. Guam’s defense, which will include various active and passive missile defense capabilities, will contribute to the overall integrity of integrated deterrence and bolster U.S. operational strategy in the Indo-Pacific region,” reads the report.

In addition to precision-guided weapons, the Russian use of unguided weapons in Ukraine added concern to missile defense beyond Europe.

“Russia has been indiscriminately using thousands of offensive missiles in Ukraine, and mainly not for precision military effects but instead as broad area terror weapons to inflict terrible hardships on innocent civilians. Their use of missiles in Ukraine shows we should expect these weapons to become a common feature of 21st-century conflict,” the defense official said.

Mallory Shelbourne

Mallory Shelbourne is a reporter for USNI News. She previously covered the Navy for Inside Defense and reported on politics for The Hill . Follow @MalShelbourne

Get USNI News updates delivered to your inbox

Email address:

Frequency Daily Weekly All

Related Topics

• News & Analysis
• Submarine Forces
• Surface Forces

Related Posts

Carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Back in Red Sea, Passes 200-Day Deployment Mark

Chinese Fighter Drops Flares in Front of Aussie Helo in ‘Unprofessional’ Action, Say Officials

USNI News Fleet and Marine Tracker: May 6, 2024

Chinese Aircraft Carrier Fujian Leaves for First Set of Sea Trials

North Korea says it has tested submarine-launched cruise missiles

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised test firings of new cruise missiles designed to be launched from submarines and also reviewed efforts to build a nuclear-powered submarine while reiterating his goal of building a nuclear-armed navy to counter what he portrays as growing external threats, state media said Monday.

The report came a day after South Korea’s military said it detected North Korea firing multiple cruise missiles over waters near the eastern port of Sinpo, where the North has a major shipyard developing submarines. It was the latest in a streak of weapons demonstrations by North Korea amid increasing tensions with the United States, South Korea and Japan.

North Korea’s official newspaper Rodong Sinmun published photos of what appeared to be at least two missiles fired separately. Both created grayish-white clouds as they broke the water surface and soared into the air at an angle of around 45 degrees, which possibly suggests they were fired from torpedo launch tubes.

State media said the missiles were Pulhwasal-3-31, a new type of weapon first tested last week in land-based launches from North Korea’s western coast.

The reports implied that two missiles were fired during the test. KCNA said the missiles flew more than two hours before accurately striking an island target, but it did not specify the vessel used for the launches. North Korea in past years has fired missiles both from developmental, missile-firing submarines and underwater test platforms built on barges.

Lee Sung Joon, spokesperson for South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the South Korean and U.S. militaries were analyzing the launches, including the possibility that the North exaggerated the flight times.

In recent years, North Korea has tested a variety of missiles designed to be fired from submarines as it pursues the ability to conduct nuclear strikes from underwater. In theory, such capacity would bolster its deterrent by ensuring a survivable capability to retaliate after absorbing a nuclear attack on land.

Missile-firing submarines would also add a maritime threat to the North’s growing collection of solid-fuel weapons fired from land vehicles that are designed to overwhelm the missile defenses of South Korea, Japan and the United States.

Still, it would take considerable time, resources and technological improvements for the heavily sanctioned nation to build a fleet of at least several submarines that could travel quietly and execute attacks reliably, analysts say.

The North’s official Korean Central News Agency said Kim expressed satisfaction after the missiles accurately hit their sea targets during Sunday’s test.

He then issued unspecified important tasks for “realizing the nuclear weaponization of the navy and expanding the sphere of operation,” which he described as crucial goals considering the “prevailing situation and future threats,” the report said. KCNA said Kim was also briefed on efforts to develop a nuclear-propelled submarine and other advanced naval vessels.

Kim issued similar comments about a nuclear-armed navy in September while attending the launching ceremony of what the North described as a new submarine capable of firing tactical nuclear weapons from underwater . He said then that the country was pursuing a nuclear-propelled submarine and that it plans to remodel existing submarines and surface vessels so they can handle nuclear weapons.

Nuclear-propelled submarines can quietly travel long distances and approach enemy shores to deliver strikes, which would bolster Kim’s declared aim of building a nuclear arsenal that could viably threaten the U.S. mainland. But experts say such vessels are most likely unfeasible for the North without external assistance in the near term.

North Korea has an estimated 70 to 90 diesel-powered submarines in one of the world’s largest submarine fleets. But they are mostly aging vessels capable of launching only torpedoes and mines.

South Korea’s military said the submarine unveiled by North Korea in September, the “Hero Kim Kun Ok,” did not look ready for operational duty and suggested the North was exaggerating its capabilities.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have increased in recent months as Kim accelerates his weapons development and issues provocative threats of nuclear conflict with the U.S. and its Asian allies.

The U.S., South Korea and Japan in response have been expanding their combined military exercises, which Kim condemns as invasion rehearsals, and sharpening their deterrence strategies built around nuclear-capable U.S. assets.

The Associated Press

• Air Warfare
• Cyber (Opens in new window)
• C4ISR (Opens in new window)
• Training & Sim
• Asia Pacific
• Mideast Africa
• The Americas
• Top 100 Companies
• Defense News Weekly
• Money Minute
• Whitepapers & eBooks (Opens in new window)
• DSDs & SMRs (Opens in new window)
• Webcasts (Opens in new window)
• Events (Opens in new window)
• Newsletters (Opens in new window)
• Events Calendar
• Early Bird Brief
• Digital Edition (Opens in new window)

Satellite photo shows possible new Chinese nuclear submarine able to launch cruise missiles

MELBOURNE, Australia — A submarine seen in a satellite photo of a Chinese shipyard shows what could be a new class or subtype of a nuclear-powered attack sub with a new stealthy propulsion system and launch tubes for cruise missiles.

The satellite photo of the shipyard at Huludao in Liaoning province, northern China, which was provided to Defense News by Planet Labs, was taken May 3 and shows a submarine on a drydock.

The unidentified boat’s presence at the yard was first noted in an April 29 satellite image by geospatial intelligence outfit AllSource Analysis. The organization said the submarine is possibly a new class undergoing construction by China.

The submarine has two distinct patches of green coloring on its hull immediately behind its conning tower, while a cruciform rudder arrangement and a possible shrouded propulsion system are seen.

A naval expert told Defense News he has “moderately high confidence” the submarine includes a row of vertical launch system cells for submarine-launched missiles and a shroud for pump-jet propulsion.

Collin Koh at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies told Defense News that China has conducted research into submarine pump-jet propulsion, citing previously published scientific literature.

Having submarines capable of launching cruise missiles for land-attack and anti-ship missions fits into China’s pursuit of long-range offensive strike capabilities, he said, adding that these include the capability to target U.S. Navy assets and distant land targets, such as those in Guam, where American forces are based.

If the rectangular section on the submarine, as seen in the satellite photo, is indeed a set of VLS cells, it would be in line with a 2021 Pentagon report on China’s military power that the country was likely building “the Type 093B guided-missile nuclear attack submarine.”

The sighting of the new submarine comes after a model of a nuclear-powered attack submarine bearing the nameplate of China State Shipbuilding Corporation Limited and fitted with VLS technology as well as pump-jet propulsion appeared online. (China’s two largest shipbuilding conglomerates, China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation and China State Shipbuilding Corporation, merged in November 2019 to create the business .)

The model, which features 18 VLS cells in three rows of six missile tubes behind the boat’s conning tower, was posted on Chinese social media without the shipyard’s plaque in early May. Some speculated this was a development of the Type 093 class tentatively named Type 093B.

The submarine seen in the latest satellite image of Huludao appears to measure up closely to the Type 093′s 110-meter length, indicating it is likely a development of the Type 093 rather than an altogether new class.

The Type 093 is also known as the Shang class; the Pentagon’s report noted the “new Shang class variant will enhance the PLAN’s [People’s Liberation Army Navy’s] anti-surface warfare capability and could provide a clandestine land-attack option if equipped with land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs).”

The Type 093 and the follow-on Type 093A Shang-II-class boats displace about 6,100 tons each when submerged. China has six Type 093s, including the “A” variant. Their commissioning began in 2006, with each successive boat featuring slight differences in sail design and a hump behind the conning tower, whose purpose has yet to be disclosed nor been fully understood.

Mike Yeo is the Asia correspondent for Defense News.

More In Naval

Biden says US won’t supply weapons for Israel to attack Rafah

U.s. will still supply iron dome rocket interceptors and other defensive arms..

NATO drone surveillance hours surge amid growing appetite for intel

“the north atlantic security environment is under threat,” said scott bray, the assistant secretary general for intelligence and security..

Pentagon innovation chief calls for bigger, faster Replicator 2.0

Defense innovation unit head doug beck outlined his goals for the next version of the drone program, even while the first is a work in progress..

Stingy intel-sharing a ‘recipe for losing,’ Space Force’s Miller says

"the united states does not go into conflict alone," lt. gen. david miller said at the geoint conference. "check your history. it does not happen.".

Teledyne unveils Rogue 1 exploding drone sought by Marine Corps

Should the rogue 1 drone not explode or be recalled, it can be disarmed and reused thanks to a mechanical disconnect., featured video, with insurgents pouring over a wall in afghanistan, this sgt. took them on with only his pistol.

New thermal optics and more at Modern Day Marine 2024 | Defense News Weekly Full Episode 5.4.24

How can I start prepping for upcoming school year expenses? — Money Minute

Thermal / red dot combo on display at Modern Day Marine

Trending now, special operators set to pick light machine gun in new caliber, sweden goes back to the drawing board for a next-gen warplane, how dc became obsessed with a potential 2027 chinese invasion of taiwan, missile mishaps, ammo snags – report details danish frigate deployment, one defense strategy, two drastically different budgets.

A Short History of Cruise Missiles: The Go-To Weapons for Conventional Precision Strikes

The slow, stubby-winged cruise missile has become a major part of modern warfare. This is its story.

• They’re not like other missiles; instead, cruise missiles work more like drones.
• Ironically, the inspiration for the first cruise missiles involved pilots—the infamous kamikazes of World War II .

One weapon that establishes a military power in a completely different category from the rest is the cruise missile. Originally designed to deliver nuclear weapons at long distances, it’s become the go-to weapon for conventional precision strikes, and is currently front and center in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

But as the cruise missile is now in its fifth decade of use, there are signs it’ll need some adjustments to stay relevant on the modern battlefield .

Divine Wind

A cruise missile is a subsonic guided missile that uses a turbojet, a smaller version of the jet engines that power today’s airplanes , to reach its targets. Cruise missiles often have small, stubby wings to allow them to bank and turn, following an invisible flight path in the sky. Modern cruise missiles use satellite navigation to guide themselves to target, and some can even take pictures of the target area, allowing operators to retarget them in midair. The missile’s payload is typically a warhead in the 1,000-pound weight class, often with the ability to penetrate earth and concrete to target underground shelters.

The first cruise missiles were Japan’s kamikaze planes of World War II. The kamikaze, or “divine wind,” was part of the Japanese Special Attack Units. Created out of desperation and meant to curb the inexorable advance of U.S. forces across the Pacific, kamikaze pilots were sent on one-way missions to target ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The planes were loaded with explosives, and the pilots flew low and fast to avoid detection until the last possible moment.

Kamikaze missions were incredibly successful. In the first four months of their use, an estimated 34 percent of all kamikazes reached their targets. Much of their success is likely attributable to American forces’ disbelief that pilots could commit suicide for their mission. But the low-flying mission profile and the pilot’s ability to recognize threats and avoid them were also undoubtedly factors. In the 1970s, when U.S. military planners originally conceived of the cruise missile, the kamikazes were likely not far from anyone’s mind.

How Cruise Missiles Work

Cruise missiles were originally designed to carry nuclear weapons long distances, allowing bombers to strike their targets without entering the range of an adversary’s air-defense weapons. Conventional rocket-powered missiles didn’t fit the bill: rocket engines are designed to provide speed, and burn up fuel quickly. A cruise missile would need an enormous rocket engine to reach a distant target, with the result being a missile so big only a few would be able to fit inside a bomber.

Instead of rockets, engineers took a different tack: small turbofan engines that burn jet fuel. Turbofan engines are much more efficient, allowing a 21-foot-long missile to carry enough fuel to fly 1,000 miles, plus a 1,000-pound high-explosive warhead (or W-80 thermonuclear warhead ) and a guidance system. The downside was that a turbofan-powered cruise missile could not fly particularly fast, just about 500 miles per hour.

A subsonic cruise missile flying a straight flight path and unable to take evasive action would prove easy meat to any enemy interceptor that happened upon it. The first modern cruise missile, the American-made Tomahawk , was designed to fly low, less than 100 meters above the ground. This limited the range at which ground-based radars could detect a cruise missile, as radar waves conform to the curvature of Earth. This also frustrated enemy fighters, whose nose-mounted radars found it difficult to pick out a cruise missile against the clutter created by the ground below. While cruise missiles were too slow to become first-strike weapons, they were effective for retaliatory strikes against heavily defended airspace.

Early Tomahawk cruise missiles followed a pre-programmed flight path to target using a system called terrain contour matching (TERCOM). In TERCOM , a radar altimeter scans the terrain below the missile, then compares it to a terrain elevation map stored in its onboard computer brain. If the two match, the missile is on the right flight path; if they don’t match, the missile adjusts course. Programming TERCOM for a long-range mission was a notoriously time-consuming process, and had to be done at a computer terminal.

As the Tomahawk neared its target, it switched over to a completely different navigation system: digital scene matching and area correlation ( DSMAC ). DSMAC used an optical sensor that took pictures of the ground and compared them to actual sites on the final route to the target. Together, TERCOM and DSMAC delivered unheard of accuracy, allowing Tomahawks to fly hundreds of miles and strike specific parts of land targets, even specific parts of buildings.

More recent cruise missiles, including newer versions of the Tomahawk, have done away with the old navigation systems in favor of using GPS to guide themselves to a fixed target. This has had the effect of making an already accurate missile even more accurate—reportedly to within 32 feet of a target. The Tomahawk Block IV version, introduced in the 2010s, included a camera that could send back imagery to the missile’s controllers, allowing a missile to be re-tasked in midair if its target was already destroyed. Block Va, the latest version, adds the ability to target and attack moving ships at sea.

The Tomahawk missile was the first cruise missile fired in anger. U.S. Navy warships fired a total of 288 Tomahawks during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Tomahawk missiles have also been fired at Bosnia, Sudan, Syria , Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan. U.S. and U.K. forces have delivered just over 2,000 Tomahawk missiles against operational targets, with more than half against Iraq.

In recent years, other countries have also used cruise missiles in combat. In October 2017, Russia began cruise missile strikes against so-called terrorist targets in Syria. These Novator 3M14 Kalibr cruise missiles are very similar to Tomahawk missiles, but use Russia’s GLONASS satellite navigation system, an alternative to the American GPS. Russia has launched a steady stream of air- and sea-launched cruise missiles against Ukraine since the early hours of the invasion on February 24, 2022 , but a shrinking missile stockpile has led to the attacks becoming less frequent, supplemented by Iranian-made kamikaze drones.

The war in Ukraine has also seen the use of two European cruise missiles, the U.K.’s Storm Shadow and the French SCALP missile . The two are essentially the same, with a 340-mile range and 990-pound warhead. The missiles donated to Ukraine are launched from specially modified Su-24 Soviet-era strike jets . Storm Shadow/SCALP was also used against the Khaddafi regime in Libya in 2011, ISIS in 2015, and by Saudi Arabia against Yemeni rebels in 2016.

The Russo-Ukrainian War has also confirmed an important, long suspected fact: low-flying, subsonic cruise missiles are vulnerable to man-portable surface-to-air missiles. In 2022, a Ukrainian National Guardsman was filmed shooting down a Russian cruise missile with an Igla surface-to-air missile. It was the first known case of a shoulder-fired missile, typically carried by infantry, shooting down a multi-million dollar cruise missile. How this event will affect future cruise missiles remains to be seen.

The Takeaway

Cruise missiles have dramatically changed warfare, as one might expect from a weapon that can fly 1,000 miles and deliver a half-ton high-explosive warhead within 32 feet of a target. The missiles allow countries that can afford them the ability to execute precision strikes on heavily defended targets without endangering pilots or aircraft.

The war in Ukraine will likely impart lessons on the next generation of cruise missiles , but the platform isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Kyle Mizokami is a writer on defense and security issues and has been at Popular Mechanics since 2015. If it involves explosions or projectiles, he's generally in favor of it. Kyle’s articles have appeared at The Daily Beast, U.S. Naval Institute News, The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, Combat Aircraft Monthly, VICE News , and others. He lives in San Francisco.

.css-cuqpxl:before{padding-right:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;} Pop Mech Pro .css-xtujxj:before{padding-left:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;}

Special Ops Gunship Shreds “Fishing Boat”

Russia's Unprecedented Nuclear Drills

Henrietta Lacks Never Asked to Be Immortal

Ukraine Is Using an Ancient Weapon on Russia

Inside the CIA’s Quest to Steal a Soviet Sub

Jumpstart Your Car With a Cordless Tool Battery

Lost Villa of Rome’s Augustus Potentially Found

Could Freezing Your Brain Help You Live Forever?

Air Force’s Combat Drone Saga Has Taken a Turn

China’s Building a Stealth Bomber. U.S. Says ‘Meh’

A Supersonic Bomber's Mission Ended in Flames

Read the May magazine issue on food and climate change

United States nuclear weapons, 2024

By Hans M. Kristensen , Matt Korda , Eliana Johns , Mackenzie Knight | May 7, 2024

The United States has embarked on a wide-ranging nuclear modernization program that will ultimately see every nuclear delivery system replaced with newer versions over the coming decades. In this issue of the Nuclear Notebook, we estimate that the United States maintains a stockpile of approximately 3,708 warheads—an unchanged estimate from the previous year. Of these, only about 1,770 warheads are deployed, while approximately 1,938 are held in reserve. Additionally, approximately 1,336 retired warheads are awaiting dismantlement, giving a total inventory of approximately 5,044 nuclear warheads. Of the approximately 1,770 warheads that are deployed, 400 are on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, roughly 970 are on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 300 are at bomber bases in the United States, and approximately 100 tactical bombs are at European bases. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: director Hans M. Kristensen, senior research fellow Matt Korda, research associate Eliana Johns, and program associate Mackenzie Knight.

This article is freely available in PDF format in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ digital magazine (published by Taylor & Francis) at this link . To cite this article, please use the following citation, adapted to the appropriate citation style: Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, and Mackenzie Knight, United States nuclear weapons, 2024, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , 80:3, 182-208, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2024.2339170

To see all previous Nuclear Notebook columns in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists dating back to 1987, go to https://thebulletin.org/nuclear-notebook/ .

In May 2024, the US Department of Defense maintained an estimated stockpile of approximately 3,708 nuclear warheads for delivery by ballistic missiles and aircraft. Most of the warheads in the stockpile are not deployed but rather stored for potential upload onto missiles and aircraft as necessary. We estimate that approximately 1,770 warheads are currently deployed, of which roughly 1,370 strategic warheads are deployed on ballistic missiles and another 300 at strategic bomber bases in the United States. An additional 100 tactical bombs are deployed at air bases in Europe. The remaining warheads—approximately 1,938—are in storage as a so-called “hedge” against technical or geopolitical surprises. Several hundred of those warheads are scheduled to be retired before 2030 (see Table 1).

While the majority of the United States’ warheads comprises the Department of Defense’s military stockpile, retired warheads under the custody of the Department of Energy awaiting dismantlement constitute a “significant fraction” of the United States’ total warhead inventory (US Department of Energy 2023b). Dismantlement operations include the disassembly of retired weapons into component parts that are then assigned for reuse, storage, surveillance, or for additional disassembly and subsequent disposition (US Department of Energy 2023b, 2–11). The pace of warhead dismantlement has slowed significantly in recent years: While the United States dismantled on average more than 1,000 warheads per year during the 1990s, in 2020 it dismantled only 184 warheads (US State Department 2021). According to the Department of Energy, “[d]ismantlement rates are affected by many factors, including appropriated program funding, logistics, legislation, policy, directives, weapon system complexity, and the availability of qualified personnel, equipment, and facilities” (US Department of Energy 2022, 2–15). The US Department of Energy stated in April 2023 that it “was on pace to complete the dismantlement of all warheads retired before Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 [Sep. 2008] by the end of FY 2022 [Aug. 2022]” but that the COVID-19 pandemic “delayed the dismantlement of a small number of these retired warheads until after FY 2022 [Aug. 2022]” (US Department of Energy 2023a, 2–12).

Based on these timelines and recent dismantlement rates, we estimate that the United States possesses approximately 1,336 retired—but still intact—warheads awaiting dismantlement, giving a total estimated US inventory of approximately 5,044 warheads.

Between 2010 and 2018, the US government publicly disclosed the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile; however, in 2019 and 2020, the Trump administration rejected requests from the Federation of American Scientists to declassify the latest stockpile numbers (Aftergood 2019; Kristensen 2019a, 2020b). In 2021, the Biden administration restored the United States’ previous transparency levels by declassifying both numbers for the entire history of the US nuclear arsenal until September 2020—including the missing years of the Trump administration. This effort revealed that the United States’ nuclear stockpile consisted of 3,750 warheads in September 2020—only 72 warheads fewer than the last number made available in September 2017 before the Trump administration reduced the US government’s transparency efforts (US State Department 2021). We estimate that the stockpile will continue to decline over the next decade as modernization programs consolidate the remaining warheads.

Following the Biden administration’s initial declassification in 2021, it has since denied successive annual requests from the Federation of American Scientists to disclose the stockpile numbers for 2021, 2022, or 2023 (Kristensen 2023d). A decision to no longer declassify these numbers not only contradicts the Biden administration’s own recent practices, but also represents a return to Trump-era levels of nuclear opacity. Such increased nuclear secrecy undermines US calls for Russia and China to increase transparency of their nuclear forces.

The US nuclear weapons are thought to be stored at an estimated 24 geographical locations in 11 US states and five European countries (Kristensen and Korda 2019, 124). The number of locations will increase over the next decade as nuclear storage capacity is added to three bomber bases. The location with the most nuclear weapons by far is the large Kirtland Underground Munitions and Maintenance Storage Complex south of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Most of the weapons in this location are retired weapons awaiting dismantlement at the Pantex Plant in Texas. The state with the second-largest inventory is Washington, which is home to the Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific and the ballistic missile submarines at Naval Submarine Base Kitsap. The submarines operating from this base carry more deployed nuclear weapons than any other base in the United States.

Implementing the New START treaty

The United States appears to be in compliance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits. Although Russia “suspended” its participation in New START in February 2023, the United States publicly declared in May 2023 that it had 1,419 warheads attributed to 662 deployed ballistic missiles and heavy bombers as of March 1st, 2023 (US State Department 2023a). The United States initially said that it voluntarily released the numbers “[i]n the interest of transparency and the US commitment to responsible nuclear conduct.” However, the United States did not continue this practice beyond that initial exchange and has not published any aggregate numbers since May 2023 (US State Department 2023a).

The United States contends that Russia’s “suspension” of New START implementation is “legally invalid” (US State Department 2023c). In response, the United States adopted four countermeasures in 2023 that it claimed were fully consistent with international law 1) no longer providing biannual data updates to Russia; 2) withholding from Russia notifications regarding treaty-accountable items (i.e. missiles and launchers) required under the treaty; 3) refraining from facilitating inspection activities on US territory; and 4) not providing Russia with telemetric information on US ICBM and SLBM launches (US State Department 2023c).

The New START warhead numbers reported by the US State Department differ from the estimates presented in this Nuclear Notebook, though there are reasons for this. The New START counting rules artificially attribute one warhead to each deployed bomber, even though US bombers do not carry nuclear weapons under normal circumstances. Also, this Nuclear Notebook counts as deployed all weapons stored at bomber bases that can quickly be loaded onto the aircraft, as well as nonstrategic nuclear weapons at air bases in Europe. This provides a more realistic picture of the status of US deployed nuclear forces than the treaty’s artificial counting rules.

Since the treaty entered into force in February 2011, the biannual aggregate data show the United States has cut its arsenal by a total of 324 strategic launchers, reduced deployed launchers by 220 and the warheads attributed to them by 381 (US State Department 2011). The warhead reduction is modest, only equivalent to about 10 percent of the 3,708 warheads remaining in the US stockpile. The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) stated that “[t]he United States will field and maintain strategic nuclear delivery systems and deployed weapons in compliance with New START Treaty central limits as long as the Treaty remains in force” (US Department of Defense 2022a, 20).

As of March 2023, the United States had 38 launchers and 131 warheads less than the treaty limit for deployed strategic weapons but had 119 deployed launchers more than Russia—a significant gap that is just under the size of an entire US Air Force intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) wing. So far Russia has not sought to reduce this gap by deploying more strategic launchers but instead has increased the portion of its missiles that can carry multiple warheads.

The New START treaty has proven useful so far in keeping a lid on both countries’ deployed strategic forces. But it expires in February 2026 and if it is not followed by a new agreement, both the United States and Russia could potentially increase their deployed nuclear arsenals by uploading several hundred of stored reserve warheads onto their launchers. Additionally, if the treaty’s verification and data-exchange arrangements are not replaced, both countries will lose important information about each other’s nuclear forces. Until the treaty’s so-called “suspension,” the United States and Russia had completed a combined 328 on-site inspections and exchanged 25,017 notifications (US State Department 2022).

Nuclear Posture Reviews and nuclear modernization programs

The Biden administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was broadly consistent with the Trump administration’s 2018 NPR (albeit with minor adjustments), which in turn followed the broad outlines of the Obama administration’s 2010 NPR to modernize the entire nuclear weapons arsenal. Just like previous NPRs, the Biden administration’s NPR said the United States reserved the right to use nuclear weapons under “extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners” and rejected policies of nuclear “no-first-use” or “sole purpose” (US Department of Defense 2022a, 9). Even so, the 2022 NPR notes that the United States “retain[s] the goal of moving toward a sole purpose declaration and [it] will work with [its] Allies and partners to identify concrete steps that would allow [it] to do so” (US Department of Defense 2022a, 9) (For a detailed analysis of the 2022 NPR, see Kristensen and Korda 2022).

The most significant change between the Biden and Trump NPRs was the walking back of two Trump-era commitments—specifically, canceling the proposed nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) and continuing with the retirement of the B83–1 gravity bomb.

The Trump NPR had asserted that a SLCM-N with low-yield capability “may provide the necessary incentive for Russia to negotiate seriously a reduction of its nonstrategic nuclear weapons, just as the prior Western deployment of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces [INF] in Europe led to the 1987 INF Treaty” (US Department of Defense 2018, 55). However, this has not proved to be the case. Furthermore, the theory that additional low-yield capabilities would somehow change Russia’s behavior seems flawed because the US arsenal already includes nearly 1,000 gravity bombs and air-launched cruise missiles, combined, with low-yield warhead options (Kristensen 2017b). Moreover, US Strategic Command has already strengthened strategic bombers’ support of NATO in response to Russia’s more provocative and aggressive behavior (see below): 46 B-52 bombers are currently equipped with the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile and both the B-52 and the new B-21 bombers will receive the new AGM-181 Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), which will have very similar capabilities to the sea-launched cruise missile proposed by the 2018 NPR.

Furthermore, the US Navy used to have a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (the TLAM-N) but completed retirement of the system by 2013 because it was redundant and no longer needed. All other nonstrategic nuclear weapons—except gravity bombs for fighter-bombers—have also been retired because there was no longer any military need for them, despite Russia’s larger nonstrategic nuclear weapons arsenal. The suggestion that a US sea-launched cruise missile could motivate Russia to return to compliance with the INF Treaty was also flawed because Russia embarked upon its violation of the treaty at a time when the TLAM-N was still in the US arsenal; besides, the Trump administration ultimately withdrew the United States from the INF Treaty anyway. Development of a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile would violate the United States’ pledge made in the 1992 Presidential Nuclear Initiative not to develop any new types of nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles (Koch 2012, 40), and could, if deployed in the Pacific, potentially also incite China to increase its regional nuclear capabilities.

One final argument against the sea-launched cruise missile is that nuclear-capable vessels triggered frequent and serious political disputes during the Cold War when they visited foreign ports in countries that did not allow nuclear weapons on their territory. In the case of New Zealand, diplomatic relations have only recently—some 30 years later—recovered from those disputes. And Iceland recently opened its ports to non-nuclear-armed attack submarines for the first time ever. Reconstitution of a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile would reintroduce this foreign relations irritant and needlessly complicate relations with key allied countries in Europe and Northeast Asia.

The Biden administration’s NPR echoed many of these arguments, concluding that the “SLCM-N was no longer necessary given the deterrence contribution of the W76-2, uncertainty regarding whether SLCM-N on its own would provide leverage to negotiate arms control limits on Russia’s NSNW, and the estimated cost of SLCM-N in light of other nuclear modernization programs and defense priorities” (US Department of Defense 2022a, 20). The Biden administration used even stronger language against the SLCM-N in an October 2022 statement suggesting that “the SLCM-N, which would not be delivered before the 2030s anyway, is unnecessary and potentially detrimental to other priorities” (US Office of Management and Budget 2022). In its statement, the administration noted that “[f]urther investment in developing SLCM-N would divert resources and focus from higher modernization priorities for the US nuclear enterprise and infrastructure, which is already stretched to capacity after decades of deferred investments. It would also impose operational challenges on the Navy” (US Office of Management and Budget 2022). This is because to carry nuclear weapons onboard, Navy crews would require specialized training and would need to adopt strict security protocols that could operationally hinder these multipurpose vessels (Woolf 2022). Additionally, deployed nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles would take the place of more flexible conventional munitions for vessels on patrol, thus incurring a substantial opportunity cost (Moulton 2022).

Despite the Biden administration’s conclusions, however, the SLCM-N may ultimately be funded through congressional intervention. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorized nominal funding for the system and required the establishment of a program of record for the SLCM-N, even though the Biden administration’s FY 2023 budget request recommended zeroing out the system’s funding entirely (US Congress 2023). The FY 2025 NDAA continued funding of the weapon and the administration accepted it but it remains to be seen whether the SLCM-N will ultimately be fielded given funding constraints and other priorities.

The Biden administration’s NPR also continued earlier plans to retire the B83-1 gravity bomb—the last nuclear weapon with a megaton-level yield in the US nuclear arsenal—“due to increasing limitations on its capabilities and rising maintenance costs” (US Department of Defense 2022a, 20). The Trump administration had put on hold previous plans to retire the B83–1 (US Department of Defense 2018).

The complete nuclear modernization and maintenance program will continue well beyond 2039 and, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate, will cost $1.2 trillion over the next three decades. Notably, although the estimate accounts for inflation (Congressional Budget Office 2017), other estimates forecast that the total cost will be closer to $1.7 trillion (Arms Control Association 2017). Whatever the actual price tag will be, it is likely to increase over time, resulting in increased competition with conventional modernization programs planned for the same period.

In 2023, multiple governmental advisory commissions published reports intended to influence US nuclear posture. The Congressionally-mandated report on “America’s Strategic Posture,” published in October 2023, included a broad range of recommendations for the United States to prepare to increase the number of deployed warheads, as well as to scale up its production capacity of bombers, air-launched cruise missiles, ballistic missile submarines, non-strategic nuclear forces, and warheads (US Strategic Posture Commission 2023). It also called for the United States to deploy multiple warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and consider adding road-mobile ICBMs to its arsenal. In contrast, the US State Department’s International Security Advisory Board report on “Deterrence in a World of Nuclear Multipolarity” advised the United States to pursue competition with Russia and China “without accelerating arms race instability or risking runaway competition” (US State Department 2023b). While neither report represents official US government policy, the Strategic Posture Commission report’s status as a bipartisan document has been particularly useful for nuclear advocates to push for additional nuclear weapons (Heritage 2023; Hudson Institute 2023; Thropp 2023).

While additional modernization programs are being discussed, the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, delivered in 2023 more than 200 modernized nuclear weapons (B61–12 bombs and W88 Alt 370 warheads) to the Department of Defense (US Department of Energy 2024).

Nuclear planning and nuclear exercises

In addition to the Nuclear Posture Review, the nuclear arsenal and the role it plays is shaped by plans and exercises that create the strike plans and practice how to carry them out.

The current strategic nuclear war plan—OPLAN 8010–12—consists of “a family of plans” directed against four identified adversaries: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Known as “Strategic Deterrence and Force Employment,” OPLAN 8010–12 first entered into effect in July 2012 in response to operational order Global Citadel. The plan is flexible enough to absorb normal changes to the posture as they emerge, including those flowing from the NPR. Several updates have been made since 2012, but more substantial updates will trigger the publication of what is formally considered a “change.” The April 2019 change refocused the plan toward “great power competition,” incorporated a new cyber plan, and reportedly blurred the line between nuclear and conventional attacks by “fully incorporat[ing] non-nuclear weapons as an equal player” (Arkin and Ambinder 2022a, 2022b).

OPLAN 8010–12 also “emphasizes escalation control designed to end hostilities and resolve the conflict at the lowest practicable level” by developing “readily executable and adaptively planned response options to de-escalate, defend against, or defeat hostile adversary actions” (US Strategic Command 2012). While not new, these passages are notable, not least of which because the Trump administration’s NPR criticized Russia for an alleged willingness to use nuclear weapons in a similar manner, as part of a so-called “escalate-to-deescalate” strategy.

The Nuclear Employment Strategy published by the Trump administration in 2020 reiterates this objective: “If deterrence fails, the United States will strive to end any conflict at the lowest level of damage possible and on the best achievable terms for the United States, and its allies, and partners. One of the means of achieving this is to respond in a manner intended to restore deterrence. To this end, elements of US nuclear forces are intended to provide limited, flexible, and graduated response options. Such options demonstrate the resolve, and the restraint, necessary for changing an adversary’s decision calculus regarding further escalation” (US Department of Defense 2020, 2). This objective is not just directed at nuclear attacks, as the 2018 NPR called for “expanding” US nuclear options against “non-nuclear strategic attacks.” The Biden administration is expected to complete its guidance in 2024.

OPLAN 8010–12 is a whole-of-government plan that includes the full spectrum of national power to affect potential adversaries. This integration of nuclear and conventional kinetic and non-kinetic strategic capabilities into one overall plan is a significant change from the strategic war plan of the Cold War that was almost entirely nuclear. In 2017, former US Strategic Command commander Gen. John Hyten explained the scope of modern strategic planning by saying:

I’ll just say that the plans that we have right now, one of the things that surprised me most when I took command on November 3 was the flexible options that are in all the plans today. So we actually have very flexible options in our plans. So if something bad happens in the world and there’s a response and I’m on the phone with the Secretary of Defense and the President and the entire staff, which is the Attorney General, Secretary of State, and everybody, I actually have a series of very flexible options from conventional all the way up to large-scale nuke that I can advise the president on to give him options on what he would want to do …

The last time I executed or was involved in the execution of the nuclear plan was about 20 years ago, and there was no flexibility in the plan. It was big, it was huge, it was massively destructive, and that’s all there. We now have conventional responses all the way up to the nuclear responses, and I think that’s a very healthy thing. (Hyten 2017)

The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review and 2023 Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction reaffirm the importance of flexibility, integration, and tailored plans (US Department of Defense 2023f). To practice and fine-tune these plans, the armed forces conducted several nuclear-related exercises in 2023. In October 2023, Air Force Global Strike Command conducted exercise Prairie Vigilance, an annual nuclear bomber exercise at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, which practiced the 5th Bomb Wing’s B-52 strategic readiness and nuclear generation operations (US Air Force 2023a).

The Vigilance exercises normally lead up to Strategic Command’s annual week-long Global Thunder large-scale exercise toward the end of the year, which “provides training opportunities that exercise all US Strategic Command mission areas, with a specific focus on nuclear readiness” (US Strategic Command 2021a). The exercise was most recently conducted in April 2023 at Minot AFB after being delayed in 2022 (US Air Force 2023d).

These exercises coincide with steadily increasing US bomber operations in Europe since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022. Before that, one or two bombers would deploy for an exercise or airshow. But since then, the number of deployments and bombers has increased, and the mission has changed. Very quickly after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the US Strategic Command increased the role of nuclear bombers in support of the US European Command (Breedlove 2015), which, in 2016, put into effect a new standing war plan for the first time since the Cold War (Scapparotti 2017). Before 2018, the bomber operations were called the Bomber Assurance and Deterrence missions but have been redesigned as Bomber Task Force missions to bring a stronger offensive capability to the forward bases. Whereas the mission of Bomber Assurance and Deterrence was to train with allies and have a visible presence to deter Russia, the mission of the Bomber Task Force is to move a fully combat-ready bomber force into the European theater. “It’s no longer just to go partner with our NATO allies or to go over and have a visible presence of American air power,” according to the commander of the 2nd Bomb Wing. “That’s part of it, but we are also there to drop weapons if called to do so” (Wrightsman 2019). These changes are evident in the types of increasingly provocative bomber operations over Europe, in some cases very close to the Russian border (Kristensen 2022a). In October 2023, for example, a B-52 bomber from Barksdale AFB in Louisiana participated in NATO’s annual nuclear exercise Steadfast Noon, and in March 2023 a nuclear-capable B-52 cut south only a few kilometers from the Russian sea border and then flew south near Kaliningrad (Kristensen 2023a; NATO 2023).

These changes are important indications of how US strategy has changed in response to deteriorating East-West relations and the new “great power competition” and “strategic competition” strategy promoted by the Trump and Biden administrations, respectively. They also illustrate a growing integration of nuclear and conventional capabilities, as reflected in the new strategic war plan. B-52 Bomber Task Force deployments typically include a mix of nuclear-capable aircraft and aircraft that have been converted to conventional-only missions. With Sweden joining NATO, US strategic bombers now routinely operate over Swedish territory: In August 2022, for example, two B-52s—one version that is nuclear-capable and one that is de-nuclearized—overflew Sweden, the first overflight since it applied for NATO membership in May 2022 (Kristensen 2022c). On September 21, 2022—the very same day Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons to defend newly annexed regions of Ukraine (Faulconbridge 2023)—four B-52s in Europe took off from the RAF Fairford Station in the United Kingdom and returned to the United States, two of them via northern Sweden. At the same time, their wing at Minot AFB in North Dakota was in the middle of the Prairie Vigilance nuclear exercise. Such close integration of nuclear and conventional bombers into the same task force can have significant implications for crisis stability, misunderstandings, and the risk of nuclear escalation because it could result in overreactions and misperceptions about what is being signaled.

Additionally, since 2019, US bombers have been practicing what is known as an “agile combat employment” strategy by which all bombers “hopscotch” to a larger number of widely dispersed smaller airfields—including airfields in Canada—in the event of a crisis. This strategy is intended to increase the number of aimpoints for a potential adversary seeking to destroy the US bomber force, therefore raising the ante for an adversary to attempt such a strike and increasing the force’s survivability if it does (Arkin and Ambinder 2022a).

Land-based ballistic missiles

The US Air Force (USAF) operates 400 silo-based Minuteman III ICBMs and keeps “warm” another 50 silos to load stored missiles if necessary, for a total of 450 silos. Land-based missile silos are divided into three wings: the 90th Missile Wing at F. E. Warren Air Force Base in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming; the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota; and the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Each wing has three squadrons, each with 50 Minuteman III silos collectively controlled by five launch control centers. We estimate there are up to 800 warheads assigned to the ICBM force, of which about half are deployed (see Table 1).

The 400 deployed Minuteman IIIs carry one warhead each, either a 300-kiloton W87/Mk21 or a 335-kiloton W78/Mk12A. ICBMs equipped with the W78/Mk12A, however, could technically be uploaded to carry two or three independently targetable warheads each, for a total of 800 warheads available for the ICBM force. The USAF occasionally test-launches Minuteman III missiles with unarmed multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) to maintain and signal the capability to reequip the Minuteman III missiles with additional reentry vehicles, if desired. The most recent such test occurred on September 6, 2023, when a Minuteman III equipped with three test reentry vehicles was launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California and flew approximately 4,200 miles to the US ICBM testing ground at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands (US Air Force 2023e).

Although the Minuteman III was initially deployed in 1970, it has been modernized several times, including in 2015, when the missiles completed a multibillion-dollar, decade-long modernization program to extend their service life until 2030. The modernized Minuteman III missiles were referred to by Air Force personnel as “basically new missiles except for the shell” (Pampe 2012).

Part of the ongoing ICBM modernization program involves upgrades to the Mk21 reentry vehicles’ arming, fuzing, and firing system at a total cost of nearly $1 billion (US Department of Defense 2023c, 32). The publicly stated purpose of this refurbishment is to extend the vehicles’ service lives, but the effort appears to also involve adding a “burst height compensation” to enhance the targeting effectiveness of the warheads (Postol 2014). A total of 743 fuze replacements—including all necessary units for the development, qualification, certification, fielding, aging, and replenishment of the fuzes—are planned to be delivered for deployment on the Minuteman IIIs as well as their replacement missile—LGM-35 Sentinel—by the end of FY26 (US Department of Defense 2023a). A cost-projection overrun of the fuze integration program unit cost triggered a breach of the Nunn-McCurdy Act in September 2020 but is expected to begin full-rate production in FY 2024 (Reilly 2021; US Department of Defense 2023c). As part of the Mk21A program, Lockheed Martin was awarded a sole source contract in October 2023 amounting to just under $1 billion for the engineering and manufacturing of the new reentry vehicle (US Department of Defense 2023b). These modernization efforts complement a similar fuze upgrade underway to the Navy’s W76–1/Mk4A warhead.

Early acquisition activities for a Next Generation Reentry Vehicle (NGRV) began in FY24. The NGRV will be integrated into the new Sentinel ICBM to bolster its payload suite and will be capable of carrying both current and future warheads (US Air Force 2023f, 589).

The Air Force’s FY24 budget for ICBM Reentry Vehicles Research Development, Test & Evaluation Programs increased significantly from the previous President’s Budget due to changes to the Payload Reentry System requirements, which cost an extra $43.4 million, as well as the need to add another flight test due to a failed flight test in July 2022, which will cost over $48 million. In addition, NGRV funding was accelerated to begin early acquisition activities in FY24, adding $15.5 million to the FY24 budget. The total program cost for ICBM reentry vehicle development in FY24 is just over $475 million and will increase up to $864 million by FY28 (US Air Force 2023f, 589).

While the Air Force insists that “there is no backup plan for Sentinel,” it appears that it would be technically possible to conduct a second life-extension of the Minuteman III missile before it would have to be retired and replaced (Clark 2019; Heckmann 2023). A July 2022 environmental impact assessment revealed that the Air Force did consider such a life extension as well as three other options, including deploying a “[s]mall ICBM […] with lower procurement costs and enhanced accuracy;” working with “a private spacecraft company” to deploy commercial launch vehicles equipped with nuclear-capable reentry vehicles; and converting the existing Trident II D5 sea-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) to be deployed in land-based silos. However, the Air Force ultimately eliminated these options because they did not meet what it called its “selection standards,” which include criteria such as sustainability, performance, safety, riskiness, and capacity for integration into existing or proposed infrastructure (US Air Force 2022d). Instead, the Air Force opted to purchase a whole new generation of ICBMs known by its programmatic name—the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)—until it was officially named the LGM-35A Sentinel in April 2022 (US Air Force 2022a).

Non-governmental experts, including those conducting Department of Defense-sponsored research, have questioned the Pentagon’s procurement process and lack of transparency regarding its decision to pursue the Sentinel option over other potential deployment and basing options (Dalton et al. 2022, 4). Moreover, it is unclear why an enhancement of ICBM capabilities would be necessary for the United States. For instance, any such enhancements would not mitigate the inherent challenges associated with launch-on-warning, risky territorial overflights, or silo vulnerabilities to environmental catastrophes or conventional counterforce strikes (Korda 2021). Additionally, even if adversarial missile defenses improved significantly, the ability to evade missile defenses lies with the payload—not the missile itself. By the time an adversary’s interceptor would be able to engage a US ICBM in its midcourse phase of flight, the ICBM would already have shed its boosters, deployed its penetration aids, and be guided solely by its reentry vehicle—which can be independently upgraded as necessary. For this reason, it is not readily apparent why the US Air Force would require its ICBMs to have capabilities beyond the current generation of Minuteman III missiles; the Air Force has yet to publicly explain why.

The development of the Sentinel has also been marked by a series of controversial industry contracts, starting with the awarding of a $13.3 billion sole-source contract to Northrop Grumman in 2020 to complete the engineering and manufacturing development stage (For a more detailed summary of the Sentinel’s procurement timeline, see Korda 2021). There have been warnings about program cost projection overruns for years: It was originally projected to cost between $93.1 billion and $95.8 billion, an increase from a preliminary $85 billion Pentagon estimate in 2016. In July 2023, the US Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of acquiring and maintaining the Sentinel would total approximately $118 billion over the 2023–2032 period—approximately $20 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office had previously estimated for the 2019–2028 period, and $36 billion more than the 2021–2030 period (Congressional Budget Office 2019, 2021, 2023). But in early 2024, the Air Force notified Congress of a two-year delay in the schedule and an estimated 37-percent increase from the current cost target to at least $125 billion (Tirpak 2024). These amounts do not include the costs for the new Sentinel warhead—the W87–1—which is projected to cost up to $14.8 billion, or the plutonium pit production that the US Air Force and US Strategic Command say is needed to build the warheads (Government Accountability Office 2020).

The schedule and extreme cost overruns for the Sentinel program incurred a critical breach of the Nunn-McCurdy Act, which requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a root-cause analysis and renewed cost assessment before providing a certification to Congress that verifies the necessity and viability of the program no later than 60 days after a Selected Acquisition Report is also submitted to Congress (Knight 2024b). Only if the Secretary of Defense determines that a certification can be issued will the Sentinel program avoid termination. In this case, the Nunn-McCurdy Act then requires the program to be assigned new approval milestones and be restructured to address the causes behind the overrun. It is likely that the Secretary of Defense will justify the need for the Sentinel program. The Air Force asserted that the Sentinel program will continue at all costs and will make any necessary “trades,” which could mean an increased defense budget or a reduction or cancellation of other programs (Decker 2024).

Andrew Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics clarified that while the cost of the missile itself has increased, challenges with supporting infrastructure is the significant driver of schedule overrun, which also further impacts the overall cost (Tirpak 2024). In addition to an entirely new missile, the Sentinel program includes launch facility replacement and modifications (since the Sentinel may require a larger silo), new missile alert facilities, and new command and control facilities and systems—not to mention new training and curriculum for USAF personnel. Many of these delays are results of staffing shortfalls, clearance delays, IT infrastructure challenges, and trouble with supply chains on the part of Northrop Grumman (Government Accountability Office 2023a, 88).

According to a USAF program report published in 2020, the Air Force must deploy 20 new Sentinel missiles with legacy reentry vehicles and warheads to achieve initial operating capability, scheduled in fiscal year 2029 (Sirota 2020). The plan is to purchase a total of 659 missiles—400 of which would be deployed, while the remainder will be used for test launches and as spares (Capaccio 2020). However, the Air Force announced in early 2024 that the date of the first Sentinel deployment will slide into spring 2030 and may fall even further behind schedule. The Department of Defense has previously indicated that a two-year delay could lower the force structure by at least 30—which raises the question of whether some of the Minuteman III ICBMs will be life-extended anyways or if the US force structure will dip below the congressionally-mandated requirement of 400 deployed ICBMs (Korda and White 2021).

Program officials had originally announced that the first Sentinel prototype would conduct a test flight by the end of 2023, but this schedule has been delayed and is now planned for FY24 (Bartolomei 2021; Government Accountability Office 2023a). The first two in a series of static firing tests were completed in March 2023 and January 2024 to assess the first and second stages of the Sentinel’s three-stage propulsion system (Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center 2023, 2024). Northrop Grumman also conducted a series of “shroud fly-off and missile modal tests” in early 2024 to evaluate the “forward and aft sections” of the Sentinel (Northrop Grumman 2024). Throughout 2023, satellite imagery revealed construction to a test launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base, in a likely effort to upgrade the site to accommodate the Sentinel test flight program (see Figure 1).

According to the US Air Force, the new Sentinel missile will meet existing user requirements but will have the adaptability and flexibility to be upgraded throughout 2075 and will have a greater range than the current Minuteman III (US Air Force 2016). Still, it is unlikely that the Sentinel will have enough range to target countries like China, North Korea, and Iran without over-flying Russia.

The Sentinel missile will be able to carry multiple warheads, possibly up to two per missile. The Air Force initially planned to equip the Sentinel with life-extended versions of the existing W78 (the modified version of which was known as Interoperable Warhead 1) and W87 warheads. However, in 2018, the Air Force and the NNSA canceled the upgrades and instead proposed a Modification Program to replace the W78 and eventually the W87 with a new warhead known as the W87–1/Mk4A. This new warhead will use a W87-like plutonium pit along with “a well-tested IHE [Insensitive High Explosive] primary design” and will be incorporated into the Mk21A, a modified version of the current Mk21 reentry vehicle (US Department of Energy 2018b). The Weapons Development Cost Report for the W87 modernization program lists the total estimated cost to be up to $15.9 million, not including the costs associated with the production of the new plutonium pits (NNSA 2023, 8–31).

As required by the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act, the NNSA has set an ambitious course of action for producing at least 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030 to meet the Sentinel’s planned deployment schedule. However, due to the agency’s consistent inability to meet project deadlines and its lack of a latent large-scale plutonium production capability, the NNSA notified Congress in 2021 of what independent analysts have long predicted—that the agency will not be able to meet the 80-pit requirement (Demarest 2021; Government Accountability Office 2020; Institute for Defense Analyses 2019). To come as close to the annual pit production requirement as possible, the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility has been tasked with producing 50 of the plutonium pits while the other 30 will be produced at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A repurposed, never-completed, Mixed Fuel Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site was originally scheduled to come online in 2030 to support the goal of 50 pits per year, but the date of completion was extended to between 2032 and 2035 (NNSA 2021a).

Despite completing its Weapon Design Cost Report and entering Phase 6.3 for development engineering in FY23, the W87–1 program will continue to face significant delays and will not enter production until the early 2030s (NNSA 2023, ix, 2–8). Therefore, the Sentinel will be initially fielded with a modified version of the existing W87 known as the W87–0 (NNSA 2023, 1–6).

The Air Force is faced with a tight construction schedule for the deployment of the Sentinel. Each launch facility is expected to take 10 months to upgrade, while each missile alert facility will take approximately 16 months (US Air Force 2023c). The Air Force intends to upgrade all 150 launch facilities and eight out of 15 missile alert facilities for each of the three ICBM bases; the remaining seven missile alert facilities at each base will be dismantled (US Air Force 2023c).

Since each missile alert facility is currently responsible for a group of 10 launch facilities, this could indicate that each missile alert facility may eventually be responsible for up to 18 or 19 launch facilities once the Sentinel becomes operational, which would have implications for the future vulnerability of the Sentinel’s command-and-control system (Korda 2020). Once these upgrades begin, potentially in early 2024, the Air Force must complete one launch facility per week for nine years to complete the new missile’s deployment by 2036 (Mehta 2020).

But since it will take more than one week to complete each facility, several will be out of operation at any given time, which means the Air Force will not be able to maintain 400 operational ICBMs during the construction program. As a result, the 2023 Congressional Strategic Posture Commission recommended the Air Force deploy more than one warhead on some of the ICBMs to maintain the current warhead level (US Strategic Posture Commission 2023). It is expected that construction and deployment will take place first at F. E. Warren Air Force Base between 2023 and 2031, followed by Malmstrom between 2025 and 2033, and finally Minot between 2027 and 2036. While initial construction activities for the Sentinel were approved in May 2023, the schedule may shift as more information becomes available regarding the results from the Sentinel program’s breach of the Nunn-McCurdy Act (Miller and Perez 2023).

As the Sentinel missile gets deployed, the Minuteman III missiles will be removed from their silos and temporarily stored at their respective host bases before being transported to Hill Air Force Base, the Utah Test and Training Range, or Camp Navajo in Arizona. The rocket motors will eventually be destroyed at the Utah Test and Training Range, while non-motor components will be decommissioned at Hill Air Force Base. To that end, five and 11 new storage igloos will be constructed at Hill Air Force Base and Utah Test and Training Range, respectively (US Air Force 2020b).

The three ICBM bases will also receive new training, storage, and maintenance facilities as well as upgrades to their Weapons Storage Areas. The first base to receive this upgrade is F. E. Warren, where a groundbreaking ceremony for the new underground Weapons Storage and Maintenance Facility (also called the Weapons Generation Facility) was held in May 2019. Substantial construction began in spring 2020 and was scheduled to be completed in September 2022 (Kristensen 2020a; US Air Force 2019d). Commercial satellite imagery indicates that construction has made substantial progress as of February 2024, although completion could not be confirmed. Construction on new tactics-training facilities have also begun at both F. E. Warren and Malmstrom Air Force Bases. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY24 authorized $10.3 million for construction and land acquisition at Malmstrom that will go toward a new fire station bay and storage area (Tester 2023).

The Air Force conducts several Minuteman III flight tests each year. These are long-planned tests, and the Air Force consistently states that they are not scheduled in response to any external events. After postponements of several tests in 2022 due to global tensions, in 2023 the Minuteman III was launched three separate times from Vandenberg Air Force Base to the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Western Pacific traveling approximately 4,200 miles with between one to three test reentry vehicles (Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs 2023a, 2023b, 2023c). However, a fourth test that took place in November 2023 was “safely terminated” during its flight due to an “anomaly” that occurred during launch (Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs 2023d).

Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines

The US Navy operates a fleet of 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), of which eight operate in the Pacific from their base near Bangor, Washington, and six operate in the Atlantic from their base at Kings Bay, Georgia. In the past, two of the 14 submarines would be in reactor refueling overhaul (a lengthy refitting process typically carried out about midway through their operating lifespan) at any given time. As the last refueling was completed in February 2023, all 14 boats could now potentially be deployed until 2027 when the first Ohio-class submarine is expected to retire (PSNS & IMF Public Affairs 2023; US Navy 2019). But because operational submarines undergo minor repairs at times, the actual number at sea at any given time is usually closer to eight or 10. Four or five of those are thought to be on “hard alert” in their designated patrol areas, while another four or five boats could be brought to full alert status in hours or days.

Each submarine can carry up to 20 Trident II D5 sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), a number reduced from 24 to meet the limits of New START. The 14 SSBNs could potentially carry up to 280 such missiles but the United States has stated that it will not deploy more than 240. Since 2017, the Navy has been replacing the original Trident II D5 with a life-extended and upgraded version known as Trident II D5LE (LE stands for “life-extended”). The upgrade is expected to be completed in 2024. The D5LE, which has a range of more than 12,000 km, is equipped with the new Mk6 guidance system designed to “provide flexibility to support new missions” and make the missile “more accurate,” according to the Navy and Draper Laboratory (Draper Laboratory 2006; Naval Surface Warfare Center 2008). According to FY24 budget documents, the D5LE has also added a hard-target kill capability and increased its payload “to the level permitted by the size of the TRIDENT submarine launch tube, thereby allowing mission capability to be achieved with fewer submarines” (US Department of Defense 2023d). This is to compensate for the fact that the United States will deploy fewer Columbia-class submarines than Ohio-class submarines and each submarine will only carry 16 missiles. (See later paragraphs in this section for more details).

The D5LE upgrade will continue until all boats have been upgraded and will also replace existing Trident SLBMs on British ballistic missile submarines. The D5LE will also arm the new US Columbia-class and British Dreadnought-class ballistic missile submarines when they enter service.

Instead of building a new ballistic missile like the Air Force wants to do with the Sentinel ICBM, the Navy plans to do a second life-extension of the Trident II D5LE to ensure it can operate through 2084 (Eckstein 2019). In 2021, the Director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Program testified to Congress that the D5LE2, as the second life-extended missile is known, is scheduled to enter service on the ninth Columbia-class SSBN beginning in FY 2039, following which it will be back-fitted to the remaining eight boats (Wolfe 2021b). The Navy also announced in 2021 that it would acquire an additional 108 Trident missiles to be used for deployment and testing (Wolfe 2021a).

Each Trident SLBM can carry up to eight nuclear warheads, but they normally carry an average of four or five warheads, for an average load-out of approximately 90 warheads per submarine. The payloads of the different missiles on a submarine are thought to vary significantly to provide maximum targeting flexibility, but all deployed submarines are thought to carry the same combination. Normally, around 950 warheads are deployed on the operational SSBNs, although the number can be lower due to maintenance of individual submarines. Overall, SSBN-based warheads account for approximately 70 percent of all warheads attributed to the United States’ deployed strategic launchers under New START.

Three warhead types are deployed on US SLBMs: the 90-kiloton enhanced W76–1, the 8-kiloton W76–2, and the 455-kiloton W88. The W76–1 is a refurbished version of the W76–0, which is being retired, apparently with slightly lower yield but with enhanced safety features added. The NNSA completed the massive decade-long production of an estimated 1,600 W76–1 warheads in January 2019 (US Department of Energy 2019). The Mk4A reentry body that carries the W76–1 is equipped with a new arming, fuzing, and firing unit with better targeting effectiveness than the old Mk4/W76 system (Kristensen, McKinzie, and Postol 2017). We estimate there may be up to 1,920 warheads assigned to the SSBN fleet (although the number might be a little lower), of which roughly 950 are deployed (see Table 1).

The higher-yield W88 warhead is currently undergoing a life-extension program that modernizes the arming, fuzing, and firing components, addresses nuclear safety concerns by replacing the conventional high explosives with insensitive high explosives, and will ultimately support future life-extension options (US Department of Energy 2022, 2–12). The first production unit for the W88 Alt 370 was completed on July 1, 2021, half had been delivered by 2023, and production is expected to be completed in FY26 (NNSA 2021b; US Department of Energy 2024).

The W76–2 only uses the warhead fission primary to produce a yield of about 8 kilotons. We estimate that no more than 25 were ultimately produced, and that one or two of the 20 missiles on each SSBN is armed with one or two W76–2 warheads each, while the remainder of the SLBMs will be filled with either the 90-kiloton W76–1 or the 455-kiloton W88 (Arkin and Kristensen 2020). The Biden NPR agreed “that the W76–2 [warhead] currently provides an important means to deter limited nuclear use”; however, the review left the door open for the weapon to be removed in the future, noting: “Its deterrence value will be re-evaluated as the F-35A [aircraft] and LRSO [air-launched cruise missile] are fielded, and in light of the security environment and plausible deterrence scenarios we could face in the future” (US Department of Defense 2022a, 20). This passage suggests that the W76–2 warhead could potentially be removed from service closer to the turn of the decade.

The United States is also planning to build a new SLBM warhead—the W93—which will be housed in the Navy’s proposed Mk7 aeroshell (reentry body). According to the Department of Energy, “all of its key nuclear components will be based on currently deployed and previously tested nuclear designs, as well as extensive stockpile component and materials experience. It will not require additional nuclear explosive testing to be certified” (US Department of Energy 2022, 1–7). The W93 is intended to initially supplement, rather than replace, the W76–1 and W88. Another new warhead is subsequently planned to eventually replace those warheads in the future. The completion of the W93ʹs first production unit is tentatively scheduled for 2034–2036 (US Department of Energy 2022, 2–10). In November 2023, the NNSA projected the W93 program to cost $22.9 billion, which is $8.9 billion more than the NNSA’s cost estimate published in March 2022 (US Department of Energy 2022, 205; 2023b, 201)—a nearly 40-percent difference of two cost projections only a year-and-a-half apart.

The US sea-based nuclear weapons program also supports the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent. The missiles carried on the Royal Navy ballistic missile submarines are from the same pool of missiles carried on US SSBNs. The warhead uses the Mk4A reentry body and is thought be a slightly modified version of the W76–1 (Kristensen 2011a); the UK government calls it the “Trident Holbrook” (UK Ministry of Defence 2015). The Royal Navy also plans to use the new Mk7 for the replacement warhead it plans to deploy on its new Dreadnought submarines in the future. A 2021 update to Parliament reaffirmed that “[t]he UK warhead will be integrated with the US supplied Mark 7 aeroshell to ensure it remains compatible with the Trident II D5 missile and delivered in parallel with the US W93/Mk7 warhead programme” (Government of the United Kingdom 2021). In 2023, the US Navy Director for Strategic Systems Programs clarified that, “the development of the Mk7 reentry system to support the US W93 warhead program is also critical to the development of a next generation nuclear warhead and reentry system for the UK. The two nations are working separate but parallel warhead programs with collaboration between the two” (Wolfe 2023).

In the past 25 years, deterrence patrol operations have changed significantly, with the annual number having declined by more than half, from 64 patrols in 1999 to between 30 and 36 annual patrols in recent years. Most submarines now conduct what are called “modified alerts,” which mix deterrent patrol with exercises and occasional port visits (Kristensen 2018). While most ballistic missile submarine patrols last 77 days on average, they can be shorter or, occasionally, last significantly longer. In October 2021, for example, the USS Alabama (SSBN-731) completed a 132-day patrol, and in June 2014, the USS Pennsylvania (SSBN-735) returned to its Kitsap Naval Submarine Base in Washington after a 140-day deterrent patrol—the longest patrol ever by an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (US Strategic Command 2021b). In the Cold War years, nearly all deterrent patrols took place in the Atlantic Ocean. In contrast, more than 60 percent of deterrent patrols today normally take place in the Pacific, reflecting increased nuclear war planning against China and North Korea (Kristensen 2018).

Ballistic missile submarines normally do not visit foreign ports during patrols, but there are exceptions. The United States conducted routine visits to South Korea in the late 1970s and early 1980s as well as occasional visits to Europe, the Caribbean, and Pacific ports during the 1980s and 1990s (Kristensen 2011b). After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, the US Navy started to conduct one or two foreign port visits per year to send political messages and to make ballistic missile submarines more visible. Port visits by US submarines have continued every year since, except in 2020, to locations including Scotland, Alaska, Guam, and Gibraltar. In October 2022, US Central Command released photos indicating that the USS West Virginia (SSBN-736) was operating at an undisclosed location in international waters in the Arabian Sea—a highly rare public disclosure of a ballistic missile submarine’s operating area and the first Ohio-class SSBN deployment in the Indian Ocean (US Central Command 2022). Notably, in July 2023, the USS Kentucky (SSBN-737) made a port visit to Busan, South Korea following the signing of the Washington Declaration by South Korean President Yoon and President Biden to affirm extended deterrence commitments (Mongilio 2023). This was the first time that nuclear weapons have been in South Korea since the US weapons were removed from their deployment in 1991.

Design of the next generation of ballistic missile submarines, known as the Columbia-class, is well underway. This new class is scheduled to begin replacing the current Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines in the late 2020s. The Columbia-class will be 2,000 tons heavier than the Ohio-class but will be equipped with 16 missile tubes rather than its predecessor’s 20. The Columbia-class submarine program, which is expected to account for approximately one-fifth of the budget of Navy’s entire shipbuilding program from the mid-2020s to the mid-2030s, is projected to cost a little over $112 billion—an increase of $3.4 billion from the Government Accountability Office’s 2021 assessment (Government Accountability Office 2022, 179–180).

The lead boat in a new class is generally budgeted at a significantly higher amount than the rest of the boats, as the Navy has a longstanding practice to incorporate the entire fleet’s design detail and non-recurring engineering costs into the cost of the lead boat. As a result, the Navy’s fiscal 2024 budget submission estimated the procurement cost of the first Columbia-class SSBN—the USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826)—at approximately $15.2 billion, followed by $9.3 billion for the second boat (Congressional Research Service 2024, 9). A $5.1 billion development contract was awarded to General Dynamics Electric Boat in September 2017, and construction of the first boat began on October 1, 2020—the first day of FY 2021. The keel for the lead boat was laid down in June 2022, and procurement of the second boat is expected for FY24 (US Navy 2022).

Certain elements of construction were originally delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but after several years of full-scale construction, the Navy continues to face delays due to challenges with design, materials, and quality of work on the lead submarine (Eckstein 2020; Government Accountability Office 2023b). According to a June 2023 report by the Government Accountability Office, “the program remains behind on producing design products—in particular, work instructions that detail how to build the submarine—because of ongoing challenges using a software-based design tool. These, in turn, contributed to delays in construction of the lead submarine” (Government Accountability Office 2023a, 160). The Navy is working to mitigate additional delays, but these constraints mean that the program is at significant risk of cost overgrowth and is very likely to suffer further setbacks.

The Columbia-class submarines are expected to be significantly quieter than the current Ohio-class fleet. This is because a new electric-drive propulsion train will turn each boat’s propeller with an electric motor instead of louder, mechanical gears. Additionally, the components of an electric-drive propulsion train can be distributed around the boat, increasing the system’s resilience, and lowering the chances that a single weapon could disable the entire drive system (Congressional Research Service 2000, 20). The Navy has never built a nuclear-powered submarine with electric-drive propulsion before, which could create technical delays for a program that is already on a very tight production schedule (Congressional Research Service 2022, 12).

The Navy’s schedule indicates that the Ohio-class boats will begin going offline in fiscal year 2027, around the same time that the first Columbia-class boat is scheduled to be delivered in October 2027. Sea trials are expected to last approximately three years, and the first Columbia deterrence patrol is scheduled for 2031 (Congressional Research Service 2022, 8). Because the Ohio retirement and Columbia production are not completely aligned, the Navy projects that the total number of operational SSBNs will go from 14 boats to 13 in 2027, 12 in 2029, 11 in 2030, and 10 in 2037, before eventually climbing back to 11 in 2041 and the full complement of 12 Columbia-class boats in 2042 (Rucker 2019; US Navy 2019). As noted previously, the lead boat of the new Columbia-class submarine fleet will be designated the USS District of Columbia (SSBN-826)—and the second boat will be designated the USS Wisconsin (SSBN-827). The rest of the Columbia-class submarine fleet has not yet been named.

The last Ohio-class to complete a mid-life multi-year refueling overhaul—the USS Louisiana (SSBN-743)—returned to full operational status in September 2023 when it carried out a Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) to test the boat’s readiness; the launch marked the 191 st successful test launch of the Trident II system (US Navy 2023).

The Columbia-class SSBNs will not require nuclear refueling; as a result, their midlife maintenance operations will take significantly less time than their Ohio- class predecessors (Congressional Research Service 2022, 5).

Strategic bombers

The US Air Force currently operates a fleet of 20 B-2A bombers (all of which are nuclear-capable) and 76 B-52 H bombers (46 of which are nuclear-capable). A third strategic bomber, the B-1B, is not nuclear-capable. Of these bombers, we estimate that approximately 60 (18 B-2As and 42 B-52Hs) are assigned nuclear missions under US nuclear war plans, although the number of fully operational bombers at any given time is lower. The New START data from September 2022, for example, only counted 43 deployed nuclear bombers (10 B-2As and 33 B-52Hs) (US State Department 2023a). The bombers are organized into nine bomb squadrons in five bomb wings at three bases: Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. The new B-21 bomber program will result in an increase in the number of nuclear bomber bases to five (Kristensen 2017c).

Each B-2 can carry up to 16 nuclear bombs (the B61–7, B61–11, B61–12, and B83–1 gravity bombs), and each B-52 H can carry up to 20 air-launched cruise missiles (the AGM-86B). B-52 H bombers are no longer assigned gravity bombs (Kristensen 2017a). An estimated 788 nuclear weapons, including approximately 500 air-launched cruise missiles, are assigned to the bombers, but only about 300 weapons are thought to be deployed at bomber bases (see Table 1). The estimated remaining 488 bomber weapons are thought to be in central storage at the large Kirtland Underground Munitions Maintenance and Storage Complex outside Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The United States is modernizing its nuclear bomber force by upgrading nuclear command-and-control capabilities on existing bombers, developing enhanced nuclear weapons (the B61–12, B61–13, and the new AGM-181 Long-Range Standoff Weapon or LRSO), and designing a new heavy bomber (the B-21 Raider).

Upgrades to the nuclear command-and-control systems that the bombers use to plan and conduct nuclear strikes include the Global Aircrew Strategic Network Terminal (ASNT). This is a new, high-altitude, electromagnetic pulse-hardened network of fixed and mobile nuclear command-and-control terminals. This network provides wing command posts, task forces, munitions support squadrons, and mobile support teams with survivable ground-based communications to receive launch orders and disseminate them to bomber, tanker, and reconnaissance air crews. First delivery of the Global ASNT, which the Air Force describes as “the largest upgrade to its nuclear command, control and communication systems in more than 30 years,” occurred in January 2022 when Barksdale Air Force Base received the system (US Air Force 2022c). Raytheon, the US defense corporation which was awarded a $134.4 million contract to develop the system, achieved initial operational capability for the system in August 2022 (Airforce Technology 2022).

Another command-and-control upgrade involves a program known as Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals (FAB-T), which will replace existing Milstar terminals to connect strategic bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with military satellite constellations operated by the US Space Force. These new, extremely high frequency, nuclear-hardened terminals are designed to communicate with several satellite constellations, including Milstar, advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF), and enhanced polar system (EPS) constellations. The 37 ground stations and nearly 50 airborne terminals of the FAB-T will provide protected high-data rate communication for nuclear and conventional forces, including for what is officially called “presidential national voice conferencing” (US Air Force 2019c). In a February 2023 annual report to Congress on its acquisition programs, the Air Force listed the FAB-T as one of its five lowest-performing programs, reporting that the program has already faced over a decade of schedule delays and other platform issues (US Air Force 2023b). In a June 2023 report accompanying a Defense spending bill, the House Appropriations Committee said it “remains very concerned” about these lowest performing programs and directed the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration to submit to both House and Senate appropriations committees detailed, quarterly updates on “the status of corrective actions” for the programs, including the FAB-T (US House of Representatives 2023). The Air Force announced on June 28, 2023, that it awarded Raytheon Technologies a sole-source, $625 million contract to produce FAB-T (Erwin 2023).

The heavy bombers are also being upgraded with improved nuclear weapons. This effort includes development of the first guided, standoff nuclear gravity bomb, known as the B61–12, which was ultimately intended to replace all existing gravity bombs. The bomb uses a modified version of the warhead used in the current B61–4 gravity bomb. The B61–12 became operational with the B-2 bombers in 2023 (National Nuclear Security Administration 2023). The bomb will later become operational with several fighter-bomber jets (see below).

After several years delay, the First Production Unit prototype of the B61–12 was completed by NNSA on August 25, 2020, at its Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas (NNSA 2020). The actual First Production Unit was completed in November 2021, and NNSA confirmed in October 2022 that full-scale production had begun (NNSA 2022). By 2023, half of the planned B61-12s had been produced (US Department of Energy 2024).

The United States was initially expected to produce approximately 480 B61–12 bombs, but in 2023 it announced that a small number of them instead will be produced as the B61–13, a gravity bomb with a much larger yield (US Department of Defense 2023e) (See below paragraph for more details). The B61–13 will use the warhead from B61-7s but use the B61–12 safety and control features and guided tail kit for improved accuracy. As such, the B61–13 will have the same maximum yield of 360 kilotons, significantly higher than the B61–12’s yield of 50 kilotons. The B61–13 will be designed for the future B-21 bomber and possibly the B-2 until its retirement. The military justification for the new B61–13 gravity bomb is difficult to identify through open sources, although it appears that the bomb will have a mission related to broad area targeting and perhaps holding some underground targets at risk. The bomb’s development may also be related to the ongoing effort to retire the B83–1 (Kristensen and Korda 2023).

The Air Force is also developing a new nuclear air-launched cruise missile known as the AGM-181 LRSO. It will replace the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) in 2030 and will carry the W80–4 nuclear warhead, a modified version of the W80–1 used in the current ALCM. The NNSA authorized the production engineering phase (Phase 6.4) for the W80–4 in March 2023, and the First Production Unit is scheduled for delivery in September 2027 (US Department of Energy 2023c). Production of the warhead is scheduled to be completed in FY 2031 (Leone 2022).

The LRSO will arm both the 46 nuclear-capable B-52Hs and the new B-21, the first time a US stealth bomber will carry a nuclear cruise missile. A $250 million contract was awarded to Boeing in March 2019 for the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (phase to integrate the future LRSO onto the B-52Hs, a process that is expected to be completed by the beginning of 2025 (Hughes 2019). On January 8, 2024, the Air Force posted a solicitation for sources to develop Carriage Equipment for integration of the LRSO onto the B-52Hs (US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center 2024). Development and production were initially projected to reach at least $4.6 billion for the missile (US Air Force 2019b) with another $10 billion for the warhead (US Department of Energy 2018a); however, that estimate has since risen to a total acquisition cost of approximately $16 billion (Congressional Budget Office 2023).

The LRSO missile itself is expected to be entirely new, with significantly improved military capabilities compared with the ALCM, including longer range, greater accuracy, and enhanced stealth (Young 2016). Supporters of the LRSO argue that a nuclear cruise missile is needed to enable bombers to strike targets from well outside the range of current and future air-defense systems of potential adversaries. Proponents also argue that these missiles are needed to provide US leaders with flexible strike options in limited regional scenarios. However, critics argue that conventional cruise missiles, such as the extended-range version of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, can currently provide standoff strike capability, and that other nuclear weapons would be sufficient to hold the targets at risk. In fact, the conventional Extended-Range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile is now an integral part of US Strategic Command’s strategic war plan. (Standoff weapons engage targets from a distance where attacking personnel are standing off outside the range of defensive weapons).

After clearing the Air Force’s preliminary design review received in early 2017, the Air Force announced in early-2022 that six B-21 bombers were in production, and the first assembled bomber was taken to conduct its calibration tests in early March 2022 (Tirpak 2022a). The first test flight took place in November 2023 (Copp 2023) and a second test flight occurred on January 17, 2024 (Harpley 2024). Following its first flight, the Pentagon approved the program to enter the low-rate initial production phase. The B-21 is expected to enter service by 2027 to gradually replace the B-1B and B-2 bombers during the 2030s (Marrow 2024b).

It is expected that the Air Force will procure at least 100 (possibly as many as 145) of the B-21, with the latest service costs estimated at approximately $203 billion for the entire 30-year operational program, at an estimated cost of $550 million per plane (Capaccio 2021; Tirpak 2020). The budget and many design details of the B-21 are still secret. The official unveiling ceremony at Northrop Grumman’s production facilities in December 2022 showed a design very similar to the B-2 but slightly smaller with a reduced weapons capability (US Air Force 2022b).

The B-21 will be capable of delivering the B61–12 and B61–13 guided nuclear gravity bombs and the future AGM-181 LRSO, as well as a wide range of non-nuclear weapons, including the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff (JASSM) cruise missile.

The Air Force announced in March 2019 that the B-21 bombers will first be deployed at Ellsworth Air Force Base (South Dakota), followed by Whiteman Air Force Base (Missouri) and Dyess Air Force Base (Texas) “as they become available” (US Air Force 2019a). Construction at Ellsworth AFB began in 2022, and the base’s new Weapons Generation Facility, which will store and maintain nuclear bombs and cruise missiles, is scheduled to be completed by February 2026 (Tirpak 2022b). Ellsworth AFB is currently expected to host two B-21 squadrons (one operational squadron and one training squadron). However, according to South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, a second operational squadron might eventually be stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base as well in the future (News Center 1 2022).

The conversion of the non-nuclear B-1 host bases to receive the nuclear B-21 bomber will increase the overall number of bomber bases with nuclear weapons storage facilities from two bases today (Minot AFB and Whiteman AFB) to five bases by the 2030s (Kristensen 2020b). A new Weapons Generation Facility is also under construction at Barksdale AFB, which will reinstate nuclear storage capability once complete (Knight 2024a) (see Figure 2).

Nonstrategic nuclear weapons

The United States has only one type of nonstrategic nuclear weapon in its stockpile: the B61 gravity bomb. But it exists in several versions: the B61–3 and the B61–4 with yields varying from 0.3 kilotons up to 170 and 50 kilotons, respectively, and the new B61–12 entering the stockpile with a yield of up to 50 kilotons. All other previous versions have been retired. Approximately 200 such tactical B61 bombs are currently stockpiled (see Table 1). About 100 of these (versions −3 and − 4) are thought to be deployed at six bases in five European countries: Aviano and Ghedi in Italy; Büchel in Germany; Incirlik in Turkey; Kleine Brogel in Belgium; and Volkel in the Netherlands. This number has declined since 2009 partly due to reduction of operational storage capacity at Aviano and Incirlik (Kristensen 2015, 2019c). A seventh country—Greece—has a contingency nuclear strike mission and accompanying reserve squadron, but it does not host any nuclear weapons (Kristensen 2022b).

The other 100 B61 bombs are stored in the United States for backup and potential use by US fighter-bombers in support of allies outside Europe, including Northeast Asia. The fighter-bombers include F-15Es from the 391st Fighter Squadron of the 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home in Idaho (Carkhuff 2021).

Over the next few years, the new B61–12 will replace all legacy B61 bombs currently deployed in Europe and will be integrated onto US- and allied-operational tactical aircraft (Kristensen 2023b).

The Belgian, Dutch, German, and Italian air forces are currently assigned an active nuclear strike role with US nuclear weapons. Under normal circumstances, the nuclear weapons are kept under the control of US Air Force personnel; their use in war must be authorized by the US president. A 2022 NATO factsheet states that “a nuclear mission can only be undertaken after explicit political approval is given by NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group authorization is received from the US President and UK prime minister” (NATO 2022). However, it is unclear why the UK Prime Minister would have to authorize employment of US nuclear weapons, and unless NATO territory had been attacked with nuclear weapons first, it seems unlikely that the entire Nuclear Planning Group would be able to agree on approving the employment of non-strategic nuclear weapons from bases in Europe.

The Belgian and Dutch air forces currently use the F-16 aircraft for the nuclear missions, although both countries are in the process of obtaining the F-35A Lightning II to eventually replace their F-16s. Lockheed Martin presented the first F-35A for Belgium during a rollout ceremony in December 2023, during which Belgium’s Chief of Defense remarked that “the introduction of the F-35 … will enable us to continue to fulfil all our missions in the coming decades, in cooperation with our allies and partners in NATO, the EU and beyond” (Lockheed Martin 2023). The Italian Air Force uses the PA-200 Tornado for the nuclear mission but is also in the process of acquiring the F-35A. Like the Tornados, the nuclear F-35As will be based at Ghedi Air Base, which is currently being upgraded. Italy’s 6° Stormo (Wing) at Ghedi Air Base received its first F-35A in June 2022 (Cenciotti 2022). Germany also uses the PA-200 Tornado for the nuclear mission; however, it plans to retire its Tornados by 2030 and to replace them with 35 F-35A aircraft to continue the nuclear mission (US Department of Defense 2022b).

Incirlik Air Base in Turkey hosts approximately 20 to 30 B61 nuclear bombs for delivery by US aircraft or, in a contingency, Turkish F-16 aircraft. Unlike other NATO partners, Turkey does not allow the US to permanently base its aircraft at Incirlik; in a crisis, US aircraft would have to fly to the base to pick up the B61 bombs, or the bombs would have to be shipped out for use. In 2019, the Trump administration halted delivery of F-35As to Turkey—some of which were intended to take over the nuclear mission—because of its plans to acquire the Russian S-400 air-defense system (DeYoung, Fahim, and Demirjian 2019).

Despite the New York Times reporting in 2019 that US officials had reviewed emergency nuclear weapons evacuation plans for Incirlik (Sanger 2019), United States Air Force Europe A10 leaders visited Incirlik in July 2023 to discuss the “surety mission” and “the role that Incirlik plays in strategic deterrence,” indicating that the nuclear mission at Incirlik is still in effect (Myricks 2023). (“Surety” is a term commonly used by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy to refer to the capability to keep nuclear weapons safe, secure, and under positive control, whereas the “A10 office” is the Air Force’s office for “Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration.”) This is further reinforced by ongoing infrastructure work at nuclear weapon storage sites in Turkey (US Department of Defense 2022c).

The United States withdrew nuclear weapons from the United Kingdom around 2007 after storing them at Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath for several decades (Kristensen 2008). But increasing evidence over the past two to three years suggests that the United States may be returning its nuclear mission to UK soil (Korda and Kristensen 2023) (see Figure 3).

In addition to the mention of construction of a “surety dormitory” at RAF Lakenheath in USAF FY 2024 budget documents, The Telegraph in January 2024 described Pentagon contract documents that confirmed that the US Air Force intended to return the “nuclear mission” to the base (Diver 2024). Whether the US plans to permanently store nuclear weapons at RAF Lakenheath is unconfirmed, but it is clear that preparations are underway to reinstate the base’s capability to receive nuclear weapons, possibly to give NATO the option to redistribute its nuclear weapons in times of heightened tensions, or to potentially move them out of Turkey in the future (see Figure 4).

NATO Member States that do not host nuclear weapons can still participate in the nuclear mission as part of Conventional Support to Nuclear Operations (CSNO), previously known as Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics, or SNOWCAT.

NATO is working on a broad modernization of the nuclear posture in Europe that involves upgrading bombs, aircraft, and the weapons storage system (Kristensen 2022b). The tactical B61–12 is identical to the strategic B61–12 assigned to the B-2 (and soon B-21) bombers. The B61–12 uses the nuclear explosive package of the B61–4, which has a maximum yield of approximately 50 kilotons and several lower-yield options. However, it will be equipped with a guided tail kit to increase accuracy and standoff capability, which will allow strike planners to select lower yields for existing targets to reduce collateral damage. The increased accuracy of the B61–12 will give the tactical bombs in Europe the same military capability as strategic bombs used by the bombers in the United States. Although the B61–12 has not been designed as a designated earth-penetrator, it does appear to have some limited earth-penetration capability that will increase the capability of the stockpile in Europe to hold at risk underground targets (Kristensen and McKinzie 2016). While the old PA-200 Tornado and F-16MLU jets will not be able to make use of the increased accuracy provided by the B61–12 tail kit, the F-15E and new F-35A will.

In March 2020, the F-15E became the first aircraft to be certified as technically capable of delivering the B61–12 bomb after completing the last in a series of six compatibility tests at Nellis Air Force Base (Nevada) and the Tonopah Test Range (Nevada) (Baker 2020). The F-35A followed in October 2021 after completing two drop B61–12 tests (US Air Force 2021). Sandia National Laboratories reported in 2023 that the F-35A, B-2A, and F-16A/B had all received initial certification of compatibility with the B61–12 (Sandia National Laboratories 2023). An image from Sandia National Laboratories seems to reveal that Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands started integration training of the B61–12 on its F-16 aircraft in 2021 (Kristensen 2023c), and in November 2023, Commander of the Dutch Air Combat Command Johan van Deventer announced on X (formerly Twitter) that the Netherlands had received “initial certification for the deterrence task with the F-35” from a US inspection team (Van Deventer 2023). Per a USAF announcement in February 2022, the US Secretary of Defense promised to deliver F-35A nuclear capability to NATO partners by January 2024 (Casem 2022). Finally, in October 2023, the F-35A achieved technical certification to carry the B61–12, clearing the way for US Air Force units in Europe to complete their nuclear surety certifications before ultimately receiving the new bombs (Marrow 2024a).

After the units in Europe receive their B61–12 certification, the new bomb is expected to be air-lifted to the bases and the old B61–3/4 bombs returned to the United States. A report that delivery of the B61–12 to Europe had been pushed up to December 2022 (Association Bender, McLeary, and Banco 2022) was denied by the Department of Defense (Johnson 2022).

In addition to weapons and aircraft, NATO’s nuclear modernization involves life-extending the weapons storage security system, including upgrading command and control, as well as security, at the six active bases (Aviano, Büchel, Ghedi, Kleine Brogel, Incirlik, and Volkel), one additional base (RAF Lakenheath), and one training base (Ramstein). Specifically, these upgrades include the installation of double-fence security perimeters, modernizing the weapon storage and security systems and the alarm communication and display systems, and the operation of new secure transportation and maintenance system trucks (Kristensen 2021). Security upgrades now appear to have been completed at Aviano, Incirlik, and Volkel, and are underway at Ghedi, Kleine Brogel, and Büchel. RAF Lakenheath will be the first USAF base in Europe equipped with the nuclear-capable F-35A (Korda and Kristensen 2023).

In addition to the modernization of weapons, aircraft, and bases, NATO also appears to be increasing the profile of the dual-capable aircraft posture. NATO is now publicly announcing its annual Steadfast Noon tactical nuclear weapons exercise. For example, NATO described in 2023 that the exercise involved the participation of 13 countries and 60 aircraft including fighter jets and US B-52 bombers (NATO 2023). Moreover, displays at nuclear bases have become more robust including with a so-called “elephant walk” of aircraft on the runway (US Air Force 2020a).

Finally, in addition to these ongoing upgrades, the United States is also considering developing a new non-strategic nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N). Initially proposed by the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review in 2018 but canceled by the Biden administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, the US Congress has insisted on funding the weapon as what it calls a Program of Record—a budgeting term meaning that it has been approved with dedicated funding—including money for research for both the missile and warhead.

This research was carried out with generous contributions from the New-Land Foundation, the Prospect Hill Foundation, Longview Philanthropy, Ploughshares Fund, and individual donors.

Aftergood, S. 2019. “Pentagon Blocks Declassification of 2018 Nuclear Stockpile.” FAS Secrecy News , April 17. https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/04/stockpile-2018/

Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs. 2023a. “Minuteman III Test Launch Showcases Readiness of U.S. Nuclear force’s Safe, Effective Deterrent.” Air Force Global Strike Command , February 10. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3289352/minuteman-iii-test-launch-showcases-readiness-of-us-nuclear-forces-safe-effecti/

Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs. 2023b. “Minuteman III Test Launch Showcases Readiness of US Nuclear force’s Safe, Effective Deterrent.” Air Force Global Strike Command , April 19. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3367432/minuteman-iii-test-launch-showcases-readiness-of-us-nuclear-forces-safe-effecti/

Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs. 2023c. “Minuteman III Test Launch Showcases Readiness of U.S. Nuclear force’s Safe, Effective Deterrent.” Air Force Global Strike Command , September 16. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3516126/minuteman-iii-test-launch-showcases-readiness-of-us-nuclear-forces-safe-effecti/

Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs. 2023d. “Minuteman III Test Provides Vital Data Before Termination.” Air Force Global Strike Command , November 1. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3575636/minuteman-iii-test-provides-vital-data-before-termination/

Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center Public Affairs. 2023. “Air Force Conducts Second Sentinel Static Fire Test.” Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center , March 6. https://www.afnwc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3319317/air-force-conducts-sentinel-static-fire-test/

Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center Public Affairs. 2024. “Air Force Conducts Second Sentinel Static Fire Test.” Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center , January 12. https://www.afnwc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3644827/air-force-conducts-second-sentinel-static-fire-test/

Airforce Technology. 2022. “Raytheon Declares IOC for USAF’s Global ASNT System.” August 11. https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/raytheon-usafs-global-asnt-system/?cf-view

Arkin, W. M., and M. Ambinder. 2022a. “Exclusive: Ukraine Crisis Could Lead to Nuclear War Under New Strategy.” Newsweek , February 4. https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-ukraine-crisis-could-lead-nuclear-war-under-new-strategy-1676022

Arkin, W. M., and M. Ambinder. 2022b. “Nuclear Weapons and the Ukraine Crisis.” Secrets Machine , January 28. https://www.secretsmachine.com/p/stratcoms-global-lightning-nuclear

Arkin, W. M., and H. M. Kristensen. 2020. “US Deploys New Low-Yield Nuclear Submarine Warhead.” FAS Strategic Security (blog) . January 29. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/01/w76-2deployed/

Arms Control Association. 2017. “The Trillion (And a Half) Dollar Triad?” Arms Control Today 9: 6 August 18. https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2017-08/trillion-half-dollar-triad

Association Bender, B., P. McLeary, and E. Banco. 2022. “U.S. Speeds Up Plans to Store Upgraded Nukes in Europe.” Politico , October 26. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/26/u-s-plans-upgraded-nukes-europe-00063675

Baker, M. 2020. “B61-12 Compatible with F-15E Strike Eagle.” Sandia Lab News 72: 11 (June 5): 5. https://www.sandia.gov/app/uploads/sites/81/2021/06/labnews_06-05-20.pdf

Bartolomei, J. 2021. “Sustaining and Modernizing Ballistic Missile Operations.” Paper presented at the Air & Space Force Association’s Doolittle Leadership Center Virtual Forum, Arlington, VA, June 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRC0RRA975A&ab_channel=AirForce

Breedlove, P. 2015. “Statement of General Philip Breedlove, Commander, U.S. Forces Europe.” February 25. https://docshouse.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20150225/103011/HHRG-114AS00WstateBreedloveUSAFP-20150225.pdf

Capaccio, A. 2020. “U.S. ICBM to Replace 1970s Minuteman May Cost $111 Billion.” Bloomberg , October 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-01/pentagon-s-next-generation-icbm-program-may-cost-111-billion

Capaccio, A. 2021. “Under-Wraps B-21 Bomber Is Seen Costing $203 Billion into 2050s.” Bloomberg Government , November 17. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-17/under-wraps-b-21-bomber-is-seen-costing-203-billion-into-2050s

Carkhuff, J. 2021. “F-15E’s [Sic] Take Part in Dual-Capable Aircraft NucWSEP.” Air Combat Command Public Affairs , November 19. https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article/2849457/f-15es-take-part-in-dual-capable-aircraft-nucwsep/

Casem, G. 2022. “F-35 ITF’s Dual Capable Aircraft Team Wins National Aviation Award.” Edwards Air Force Base , February 17. https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/2940015/f-35-itfs-dual-capable-aircraft-team-wins-national-aviation-award/

Cenciotti, D. 2022. “First F-35A Officially Delivered to the 6° Stormo at Ghedi Air Base.” The Aviationist , June 16. https://theaviationist.com/2022/06/16/f-35a-delivered-to-ghedi/

Clark, R. 2019. “Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for U.S. Department of Defense Nuclear Priorities.” Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Rayburn 2118, March 28. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings?ID=FA8DBDAB-5585-4437AF88-61FBB1B7D428

Congressional Budget Office. 2017. “Approaches for Managing the Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2017 to 2046.” October 1. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53211-nuclearforces.pdf

Congressional Budget Office. 2019. “Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces 2019–2028.” January 24. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-01/54914-NuclearForces.pdf

Congressional Budget Office. 2021. “Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces 2021–2030.” May. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-05/57130-Nuclear-Forces.pdf

Congressional Budget Office. 2023. “Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces 2023–2032.” July. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-07/59054-nuclear-forces.pdf

Congressional Research Service. 2000. “Electric-Drive Propulsion for U.S. Navy Ships: Background and Issues for Congress.” July 31. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20000731_RL30622_c288e8b1829d574fffb93ddf56d0891b36cff9fc.pdf

Congressional Research Service. 2022. “Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress.” February 22. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

Congressional Research Service. 2024. “Navy Columbia (SSBN-826) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Program: Background and Issues for Congress.” March 1. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf

Copp, T. 2023. “Nuclear Stealth Bomber, the B-21 Raider, Takes First Test Flight.” Defense News , November 10. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/11/10/nuclear-stealth-bomber-the-b-21-raider-takes-first-test-flight/

Dalton, T., M. DuBois, N. Montoya, A. Panda, and G. Perkovich. 2022. “Assessing U.S. Options for the Future of the ICBM Force: Report to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace , August. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/ICBM_DOD_final.pdf

Decker, A. 2024. “Air Force Sticking with Sentinel Despite Huge Cost Breach, Officials Say.” Defense One , January 24. https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/01/air-force-sticking-sentinel-despite-huge-cost-breach-officials-say/393600/

Demarest, C. 2021. “Plutonium Pit Production in SC Might Happen in 2035. The Target Was 2030.” Aiken Standard , June 12. https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/plutonium-pit-production-in-sc-might-happen-in-2035-the-target-was-2030/article_96e0b392-cada-11eb-a047-6fbc3e70d188.html

DeYoung, K., K. Fahim, and K. Demirjian. 2019. “Trump Says US. Will Cancel Turkey’s Purchase of F-35 Planes.” The Washington Post , July 16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-says-us-will-cancel-turkeys-purchase-of-russian-antimissile-system/2019/07/16/4921da04-a710-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html

Diver, T. 2024. “US to Station Nuclear Weapons in UK to Counter Threat from Russia.” The Telegraph , January 26. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/26/us-nuclear-bombs-lackenheath-raf-russia-threat-hiroshima/

Draper Laboratory. 2006. Keeping trident ever ready. Explorations, spring, . 8. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Keeping-Trident-Ever-Ready.pdf

Eckstein, M. 2019. “Navy Beginning Tech Study to Extend Trident Nuclear Missile into the 2080s.” US Naval Institute News , November 14. https://news.usni.org/2019/11/14/navy-beginning-tech-study-to-extend-trident-nuclear-missile-into-the-2080s

Eckstein, M. 2020. “COVID Pandemic a Barrier to Navy’s Oversight of Columbia Submarine Industrial Base; PEO Working on Virtual Oversight.” US Naval Institute News , June 2. https://news.usni.org/2020/06/02/covid-pandemic-a-barrier-to-navys-oversight-of-columbia-submarine-industrial-base-peo-working-on-virtual-oversight

Erwin, S. 2023. “Air Force Awards Raytheon $625 Million Contract for Nuclear-Hardened Satcom Terminals.” Space News , June 29. https://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-raytheon-625-million-contract-for-nuclear-hardened-satcom-terminals/

Faulconbridge, G. 2023. “Putin Escalates Ukraine War, Issues Nuclear Threat to West.” Reuters , September 21. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-signs-decree-mobilisation-says-west-wants-destroy-russia-2022-09-21/

Government Accountability Office. 2020. “NNSA Should Further Develop Cost, Schedule, and Risk Information for the W87-1 Warhead Program.” GAO-20-703, September. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/709253.pdf

Government Accountability Office. 2022. “Weapon System Annual Assessment.” GAO-22–105230. June. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105230.pdf

Government Accountability Office. 2023a. “Weapon System Annual Assessment.” GAO-23106059. June. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106059.pdf

Government Accountability Office. 2023b. “Columbia Class Submarines: Program Lacks Essential Schedule Insight Amid Continuing Construction Challenges.” January. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106292.pdf

Government of the United Kingdom. 2021. “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: The 2021 Update to Parliament.” December 16. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-united-kingdoms-future-nuclear-deterrent-the-2021-update-to-parliament/the-united-kingdoms-future-nuclear-deterrent-the-2021-update-to-parliament

Harpley, U. L. 2024. “B-21 Raider Starts Test Flights Out of Edwards Air Force Base.” Air and Space Forces Magazine , January 18. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/b-21-raider-test-flight-edwards/

Heckmann, L. 2023. “Sentinel System: ‘There is No Backup Plan.” National Defense , November 8. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/11/8/sentinel-system-there-is-no-backup-plan

Heritage Foundation. 2023. “The Strategic Posture Commission: Defending America in a Modern World.” Heritage.org , November 30. https://www.heritage.org/defense/event/the-strategic-posture-commission-defending-america-modern-world

Hudson Institute. 2023. “A Discussion with Commissioners of the Final Report of the US Strategic Posture Commission.” Hudson.org , October 23. https://www.hudson.org/events/discussion-commissioners-final-report-us-strategic-posture-commission

Hughes, R. 2019. “Boeing Contracted to Integrate LRSO Cruise Missile with the B-52H Bomber.” Jane’s 360 , March 15. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/boeing-contracted-to-integrate-lrso-cruise-missile-with-the-b-52h-bomber

Hyten, J. 2017. “Military Reporters and Editors Association Conference, Keynote Speech, US Strategic Command.” March 31. http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Speeches/Article/1153029/military-reporters-and-editors-association-conference-keynote-speech/

Institute for Defense Analyses. 2019. “Independent Assessment of the Two-Site Pit Production Decision: Executive Summary.” May. https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/i/in/independent-assessment-of-the-two-site-pit-production-decision-executive-summary/d-10711.ashx

Johnson, R. C. 2022. “Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy.” Statement at Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, Washington DC, October 28. https://ceipfiles.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/NPC22/Parsing+the+2022+U.S.+Nuclear+Posture+Review.pdf

Knight, M. 2024a. “Construction Of New Nuclear Weapons Facility At Barksdale AFB.” FAS Strategic Security (blog) . February 20. https://fas.org/publication/new-barksdale-construction-2024/

Knight, M. 2024b. “‘Critical’ Overrun Of Sentinel ICBM Program Demands Government Transparency.” FAS Strategic Security (blog) . February 2. https://fas.org/publication/critical-sentinel-overrun/

Koch, S. 2012. The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991- 1992 . Washington D.C: National Defense University. September 40.

Korda, M. 2020. “Environmental Assessment Reveals New Details about the Air Force’s ICBM Replacement Plan.” FAS Strategic Security blog , November 3. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/11/environmental-assessment-reveals-new-details-about-the-air-forces-icbm-replacement-plan/

Korda, M. 2021. “Siloed Thinking: A Closer Look at the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent.” Federation of American Scientists , March. https://man.fas.org/eprint/siloed-thinking.pdf

Korda, M., and H. M. Kristensen. 2023. “Increasing Evidence That The US Air Force’s Nuclear Mission May Be Returning To UK Soil.” FAS Strategic Security (blog) . August 28. https://fas.org/publication/increasing-evidence-that-the-us-air-forces-nuclear-mission-may-be-returning-to-uk-soil/

Korda, M., and T. White. 2021. “The U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Force: A Post-Cold War Timeline.” Federation of American Scientists , March 24. https://fas.org/publication/icbm-info-timeline/

Kristensen, H. M. 2008. “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Withdrawn From The United Kingdom.” FAS Strategic Security (blog) . June 26. https://fas.org/publication/us-nuclear-weapons-withdrawn-from-the-united-kingdom/

Kristensen, H. M. 2011a. “British Submarines to Receive Upgraded US Nuclear Warhead.” FAS Strategic Security blog , April 1. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2011/04/britishw76-1/

Kristensen, H. M. 2011b. “When the Boomers Went to South Korea.” FAS Strategic Security blog , October 4. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2011/10/ssbnrok/

Kristensen, H. M. 2015. “Upgrades at US Nuclear Bases in Europe Acknowledge Security Risk.” FAS Strategic Security blog , September 10. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/09/nuclear-insecurity/

Kristensen, H. M. 2017a. “B-52 Bomber No Longer Delivers Nuclear Gravity Bombs.” FAS Strategic Security blog , May 25. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/05/b-52-bombs/

Kristensen, H. M. 2017b. “The Flawed Push for New Nuclear Weapons Capabilities.” FAS Strategic Security Blog , June 29. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/06/new-nukes/

Kristensen, H. M. 2017c. “USAF Plans To Expand Nuclear Bomber Bases.” FAS Strategic Security blog , November 17. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/11/usaf-plans-to-expand-nuclear-bomber-bases/

Kristensen, H. M. 2018. “US SSBN Patrols Steady, But Mysterious Reduction In Pacific In 2017.” May 24. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/05/ssbnpatrols1960-2017/

Kristensen, H. M. 2019a. “Pentagon Slams Door on Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Transparency.” FAS Strategic Security Blog , April 17. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2019/04/stockpilenumbersecret/

Kristensen, H. M. 2019b. “Urgent: Move US Nuclear Weapons Out of Turkey.” FAS Strategic Security blog , October 16. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2019/10/nukes-out-of-turkey/

Kristensen, H. M. 2020a. “Construction of New Underground Nuclear Warhead Facility at Warren AFB.” FAS Strategic Security blog , September 28. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/09/warren-underground-facility/

Kristensen, H. M. 2020b. “USAF Plans to Expand Nuclear Bomber Bases,” FAS Strategic Security blog , November 17. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/11/usaf-plans-to-expand-nuclear-bomber-bases

Kristensen, H. M. 2021. “NATO Nuclear Weapons Exercise Over Southern Europe.” FAS Strategic Security blog , October 20. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2021/10/steadfastnoon2021/

Kristensen, H. M. (@nukestrat). 2022a. “I Guess Previous Constraints on Offensive Bomber Operations are Over: One of the B-52 Bombers (60-0026) Makes a Run past Tallin toward St Petersburg, to Less than 30 Km from the Russian Border. Credit: Stockholm Overflight Video by @adampahlmant.” Twitter, September 2. https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1565658917056692225

Kristensen, H. M. 2022b. “NATO Steadfast Noon Exercise and Nuclear Modernization in Europe.” FAS Strategic Security blog , October 17. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2022/10/steadfast-noon-exercise-and-nuclear-modernization/

Kristensen, H. M. (@nukestrat). 2022c. “The Two B-52 Bombers that Operated over Sweden Earlier Today Included One nuclear-capable (60-0026) and One Denuclearized Version (60-0034). This Is the First Bomber Overflight of Sweden since It Applied for NATO Membership.” Twitter, August 18. https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1560303040053366786

Kristensen, H. M. (@nukestrat). 2023a. “After the Gulf of Finland signaling, the B-52 (60-0026, NOBLE62) flies south over Baltic States, then along Kaliningrad. Quite a mission today.” Twitter, March 11. https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/1634643985309351936

Kristensen, H. M. 2023b. “The C-17A Has Been Cleared To Transport B61-12 Nuclear Bomb To Europe.” FAS Strategic Security blog , January 9. https://fas.org/publication/c17-cleared-to-transport-b61-12/

Kristensen, H. M. 2023c. “New Nuclear Bomb Training At Dutch Air Base.” FAS Strategic Security blog , December 13. https://fas.org/publication/new-nuclear-bomb-training-at-dutch-air-base/

Kristensen, H. M. 2023d. “While Advocating Nuclear Transparency Abroad, Biden Administration Limits It At Home.” FAS Strategic Security blog , July 31. https://fas.org/publication/while-advocating-nuclear-transparency-abroad-biden-administration-limits-it-at-home/

Kristensen, H. M., and M. Korda. 2019. “United States Nuclear Forces.” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 75 (3): 122–134. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1606503

Kristensen, H. M., and M. Korda. 2022. “The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review: Arms Control Subdued By Rivalry.” FAS Strategic Security blog , October 27. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2022/10/2022-nuclear-posture-review/

Kristensen, H. M., and M. Korda. 2023. “Biden Administration Decides To Build A New Nuclear Bomb To Get Rid Of An Old Bomb.” FAS Strategic Security blog , October 27. https://fas.org/publication/biden-administration-to-build-a-new-nuclear-bomb/

Kristensen, H. M., and M. McKinzie. 2016. “Video Shows Earth-Penetrating Capability of B61-12 Nuclear Bomb.” FAS Strategic Security blog , January 14. https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/01/b61-12_earth-penetration/

Kristensen, H. M., M. McKinzie, and T. A. Postol. 2017. “How US Nuclear Force Modernization is Undermining Strategic Stability: The Burst-Height Compensating Super-Fuze.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , March 1. https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-undermining-strategic-stability-burst-height-compensating-super10578

Leone, D. 2022. “Two-Year Delay for First LRSO Warhead, but NNSA Says Will Still Deliver On-Time to Air Force.” Defense Daily , August 4. https://www.defensedaily.com/two-year-delay-for-first-lrso-warhead-but-nnsa-says-will-still-deliver-on-time-to-air-force/uncategorized/

Lockheed Martin. 2023. “Belgium And Lockheed Martin Celebrate Rollout Of First F-35A For Belgium.” December 10. https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2023-12-10-Belgium-and-Lockheed-Martin-Celebrate-Rollout-of-First-F-35A-for-Belgium

Marrow, M. 2024a. “EXCLUSIVE: F-35A officially certified to carry nuclear bomb.” Breaking Defense , March 8. https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/exclusive-f-35a-officially-certified-to-carry-nuclear-bomb/

Marrow, M. 2024b. “Northrop Grumman logs billion-dollar charge on B-21 stealth bomber.” Breaking Defense , January 25. https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01/northrop-grumman-logs-billion-dollar-charge-on-b-21-stealth-bomber/

Mehta, A. 2020. “DoD Seeks Legislative Help for ICBM Replacement Construction Costs.” Defense News , September 25. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2020/09/25/dod-seeking-legislative-help-for-icbm-replacement-construction-costs/

Miller, M., and N. Perez. 2023. “Environmental analysis clears Sentinel missile infrastructure construction for takeoff.” Air Force Civil Engineer Center , May 23. https://www.afcec.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3404042/environmental-analysis-clears-sentinel-missile-infrastructure-construction-for/

Mongilio, H. 2023. “USS Kentucky Make Port Call in South Korea, First SSBN Visit in 40 Years.” USNI News , July 18. https://news.usni.org/2023/07/18/uss-kentucky-calls-in-south-korea-first-ssbn-visit-in-40-years

Moulton, J. 2022.“A Treater View on the Nuclear Sea- Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N).” Council on Strategic Risks , Briefer No. 37, November 16. https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/37-SLCM-Optionality-Warfighting.pdf

Myricks, E. 2023. “USAFE Senior Leaders Visit Incirlik.” Incirlik Air Base , July 21. https://www.incirlik.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3466508/usafe-senior-leaders-visit-incirlik/

NATO. 2022. “NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Arrangements.” February. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pdf/220204-factsheet-nuclear-sharing-arrange.pdf

NATO. 2023. “U.S. B-52 Bomber Supports NATO Exercise Steadfast Noon in Transatlantic Mission.” October 26. https://ac.nato.int/archive/2023/US_B52_BTF_NATO

Naval Surface Warfare Center. 2008. “Underwater Wonder, Submarines: A Powerful Deterrent.” Crane Division, Indiana. Warfighter Solutions, 14.

News Center 1. 2022. “The B-21 Mission May Be Bigger for Ellsworth than Previously Thought.” October 28. https://www.newscenter1.tv/the-b-21-mission-may-be-bigger-for-ellsworth-than-previously-thought/

NNSA. 2020. “First Production Capability Unit Marks B61-12 Modernization Milestone at Pantex.” National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy , September 10. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/first-production-capability-unit-marks-b61-12-modenization-milestone-pantex

NNSA. 2021a. “NNSA Approves Critical Decision 1 for Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility.” National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy , June 28. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-approves-critical-decision-1-savannah-river-plutonium-processing-facility

NNSA. 2021b. “NNSA Completes First Production Unit of W88 Alteration 370.” National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy , July 13. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-completes-first-production-unit-w88-alteration-370

NNSA. 2022. “Email to Hans M. Kristensen.” National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy . October 27.

NNSA. 2023. “Fiscal Year 2024 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan: Biennial Plan Summary.” National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy , November. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/FY24SSMP_FINAL_NOVEMBER_2023_0.pdf

Northrop Grumman. 2024. “Sentinel – GBSD (Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent) – ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) – LGM-35A.” February 20. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-advances-sentinel-design-phase-with-key-tests

Pampe, C. 2012. “Life Extension Programs Send Missiles into the Future.” US Air Force Global Strike Command , October 26. https://www.20af.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/457746/life-extension-programs-send-missiles-into-the-future/

Postol, T. A. 2014. “How the Obama Administration Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” The Nation , December 10. http://www.thenation.com/print/article/192633/how-obama-administration-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-bomb

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF Public Affairs). 2023. “Louisiana back underway: Project team completes the final engineered refueling overhaul for an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine.” Naval Sea Systems Command , March 8. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/3315248/louisiana-back-underway-project-team-completes-the-final-engineered-refueling-o/

Reilly, B. 2021. “ICBM Fuze Program Now Expected to Enter full-rate Production in FY-24.” Inside Defense , September 7. https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/icbm-fuze-program-now-expected-enter-full-rate-production-fy-24

Rucker, J. 2019. “Discussion on the Columbia Class Submarine and GBSD.” Presentation at the Triad Symposium, Washington, DC, Capitol Hill Club, October 8.

Sandia National Laboratories. 2023. “2023 Labs Accomplishments: Nuclear Deterrence.” Sandia Lab News . https://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/labs-accomplishments/article/2023/nuclear-deterrence-6/

Sanger, D. 2019. “Trump Followed His Gut on Syria. Calamity Came Fast.” The New York Times , October 14. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/middleeast/trump-turkey-syria.html

Scapparotti, C. M. 2017. “Statement of General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, Commander, United States European Command.” House Armed Services Committee, March 23. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Scaparrotti_03-23-17.pdf

Sirota, S. 2020. “GBSD Requires 20 New Launch Facilities, Missiles Equipped with Legacy Warheads by FY-29.” Inside Defense , August 3. https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/gbsd-requires-20-new-launch-facilities-missiles-equipped-legacy-warheads-fy-29

Tester, J. 2023. “Tester Authorizes Major Defense Wins Including $10 Million for Malmstrom & $30 Million for Montana Air Guard, Pay Raises for Troops.” Tester.Senate.gov , December 13. https://www.tester.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/tester-authorizes-major-defense-wins-including-10-million-for-malmstrom-30-million-for-montana-air-guard-pay-raises-for-troops/

Thropp, C. 2023. “HASC Chairman Mike Rogers Highlights Results of Strategic Posture Commission Report.” ExecutiveGov.com , October 13. https://executivegov.com/2023/10/hasc-chairman-mike-rogers-highlights-results-of-strategic-posture-commission-report/

Tirpak, J. A. 2020. “A New Bomber Vision.” Air Force Magazine , June 1. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/strategy-policy-9/

Tirpak, J. A. 2022a. “First B-21 Moves to New Hangar for Loads Calibration.” Air Force Magazine , March 3. http://www.airforcemag.com/first-b-21-moves-to-new-hangar-for-loads-calibration/

Tirpak, J. A. 2022b. “Some B-21 Bomber Facilities at Ellsworth to Be Ready for 2024.” Air Force Magazine , April 21. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/some-b-21-bomber-facilities-at-ellsworth-to-be-ready-for-2024/

Tirpak, J. A. 2024. “New ICBM Has ‘Critical’ Cost and Schedule Overruns, Needs SecDef Certification to Continue.” Air and Space Forces Magazine , January 18. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/new-icbm-critical-cost-schedule-overruns/

UK Ministry of Defence. 2015. “Freedom of Information Act Response to [Redacted].” October 13. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470321/20151013-FOI_2015_07375.pdf

US Air Force. 2016. “AF Reaches First Milestone in Acquisition of New ICBM.” Air Force Nuclear Weapons Council Public Affairs Office, September 1. http://www.kirtland.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/933565/af-reaches-first-milestone-in-acquisition-of-new-icbm

US Air Force. 2019a. “Air Force Announces Ellsworth as First B-21 Base.” 509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs , March 29. https://www.whiteman.af.mil/News/Article/1799968/air-force-announces-ellsworth-as-first-b-21-base/

US Air Force. 2019b. “US Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Budget Estimates, Air Force Justification Book Volume 2 of 3: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force Vol−II, February, 691.” https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY20/RDTE/FY20_PB_RDTE_Vol-II.PDF?ver=2019-03-18-153506-683

US Air Force. 2019c. “US Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 President’s Budget Submission, Air Force Justification Book Volume 3b, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force, Volume III, Part 2, February, 3b–769.” https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY20/RDTE/FY20_PB_RDTE_Vol-IIIb.pdf?ver=2019-03-18-153459-043

US Air Force. 2019d. “USACE Contract Awarded to Fluor Corporation.” 90th Missile Wing Public Affairs , May 23. https://www.warren.af.mil/News/Article/1857157/usace-contract-awarded-to-fluor-corporation/

US Air Force. 2020a. “Aviano Elephant Walk.” June 5. https://www.aviano.af.mil/Articles/Photos/igphoto/2002311011/

US Air Force. 2020b. “Environmental Impact Statement for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Deployment and Minuteman III Decommissioning and Disposal: Public Scoping Materials.” Air Force Global Strike Command , September 29. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BQXd36ek8EispPEPOCvAz8O8Jt9aP02w/view

US Air Force. 2021. “F-35A Complete 5th Generation Fighter Test Milestone with Refurbished B61-12 Nuclear Gravity Bombs.” 53rd Wing, October 6. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2801860/f-35a-complete-5th-generation-fighter-test-milestone-with-refurbished-b61-12-nu/

US Air Force. 2022a. “Air Force’s New Intercontinental Ballistic Missile System Has a Name: Sentinel.” Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs , April 5. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2990069/air-forces-new-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-system-has-a-name-sentinel/

US Air Force. 2022b. “B-21 Bomber to Be Unveiled Dec. 2.” Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs , October 20. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3164776/b-21-bomber-to-be-unveiled-dec-2/

US Air Force. 2022c. “Barksdale AFB First to Implement Upgrade to Nuclear Enterprise in More than 30 Years.’” 2nd Bomb Wing Public Affairs , February 23. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2943340/barksdale-afb-first-to-implement-upgrade-to-nuclear-enterprise-in-more-than-30/

US Air Force. 2022d. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Deployment and Minuteman III Decommissioning and Disposal.” Air Force Global Strike Command , July. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aKCcvEq92PdKShP5qWzIxrvwNN9P7zo7/view

US Air Force. 2023a. “5th Bomb Wing carries out Exercise Prairie Vigilance 24-1.” Air Force Global Strike Command , October 30. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3575119/5th-bomb-wing-carries-out-exercise-prairie-vigilance-24-1/

US Air Force. 2023b. “Annual Report on Highest and Lowest Performing Acquisition Programs.” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Space Acquisition and Integration, February. https://insidedefense.com/sites/insidedefense.com/files/documents/2023/may/05302023_af806.pdf

US Air Force. 2023c. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sentinel (GBSD) Deployment and Minuteman III Decommissioning and Disposal.” Air Force Global Strike Command , March. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/Portals/51/Docs/Sentinel/Sentinel%20FEIS%20-%20Volume%20I%20Final%20EIS%20March%202023.pdf?ver=9hr8vgh9qqkm934XersFcg%3d%3d

US Air Force. 2023d. “Global Thunder 23 concludes at Minot.” Air Force Global Strike Command , April 20. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3373381/global-thunder-23-concludes-at-minot/

US Air Force. 2023e. “Minuteman III test launch showcases readiness of U.S. nuclear force’s safe, effective deterrent.” Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs , September 6. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3516126/minuteman-iii-test-launch-showcases-readiness-of-us-nuclear-forces-safe-effecti

US Air Force. 2023f. “US Department of Defense Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Estimates, Air Force Justification Book Volume 3 of 4, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force.” https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY24/Research%20and%20Development%20Test%20and%20Evaluation/FY24%20Air%20Force%20Research%20and%20Development%20Test%20and%20Evaluation%20Vol%20IIIa.pdf?ver=XlpR81Vas-iawp8KzshPww%3D%3D

US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center. 2024. “LRSO CE Production Sources Sought.” HigherGov , January 8. https://www.highergov.com/document/lrso-ce-production-sources-sought-pdf-061f59/#overview

US Central Command. 2022. “CENTCOM Commander Embarks USS West Virginia Ballistic Missile Submarine.” October 20. https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/3194433/centcom-commander-embarks-uss-west-virginia-ballistic-missile-submarine/

US Congress. 2023. “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2670.” 118th Congress, 1st Session. December. https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/FY24%20NDAA%20Conference%20Report%20-%20%20FINAL.pdf#page=2770

US Department of Defense. 2018. “Nuclear Posture Review.” February. https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/media/2018-Nuclear-Posture-Review-Version-2.pdf

US Department of Defense. 2020. “Report on the Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States: 2020.” November 30. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/NCB/21-F-0591_2020_Report_of_the_Nuclear_Employement_Strategy_of_the_United_States.pdf

US Department of Defense. 2022a. “2022 Nuclear Posture Review.” October 27. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF

US Department of Defense. 2022b. “Germany – F-35 Aircraft and Munitions.” Defense Security Cooperation Agency , July 28. Transmittal No. 22-53. https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/Press%20Release%20-%20Germany%2022-53%20CN.pdf

US Department of Defense. 2022c. “Military Construction Program: FY2024 Budget, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program.” Justification Data Submitted to Congress, April. https://comptroller.defense.gov/portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2023/budget_justification/pdfs/11_NATO_Security_Investment_program/FY23_NATO_Security_investment_program.pdf

US Department of Defense. 2023a. “Contracts For Oct. 30, 2023.” October 30. https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3573405/

US Department of Defense. 2023b. “Department of Defense Announces Pursuit of B61 Gravity Bomb Variant.” October 27. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3571660/department-of-defense-announces-pursuit-of-b61-gravity-bomb-variant/

US Department of Defense. 2023c. “Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Estimates. Air Force: Justification Book Volume 1 of 1. Missile Procurement, Air Force.” March. https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY24/Procurement/FY24%20Air%20Force%20Missile%20Procurement.pdf?ver=1w-MhmMoMWdCOZp7CxcAig%3D%3D

US Department of Defense. 2023d. “Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Estimates. Navy: Justification Book Volume 1 of 1. Weapons Procurement, Navy.” March. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/24pres/WPN_Book.pdf

US Department of Defense. 2023e. “Selected Acquisition Report. Air Force Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fuze Modernization (ICBM Fuze Mod).” April 19. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2022_SARS/ICBM%20Fuze%20Mod_SAR_DEC_2022.pdf

US Department of Defense. 2023f. “Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction.” September 28. https://media.defense.gov/2023/Sep/28/2003310413/-1/-1/1/2023_STRATEGY_FOR_COUNTERING_WEAPONS_OF_MASS_DESTRUCTION.PDF

US Department of Energy. 2018a. “Fiscal Year 2019 Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan.” National Nuclear Security Administration , October, 4–41. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/10/f57/FY2019%20SSMP.pdf

US Department of Energy. 2018b. “W78 Replacement Program (W87-1): Cost Estimates and Use of Insensitive High Explosives.” National Nuclear Security Administration , December. https://nukewatch.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/W78-Replacement-Program-Cost-Estimates-IHE-1.pdf

US Department of Energy. 2019. “DOE and NNSA Celebrate W76-1 Life Extension Program.” January 23. https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-and-nnsa-celebrate-w76-1-life-extension-program

US Department of Energy. 2022. “Fiscal Year 2022 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.” March. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/FY%202022%20SSMP%20March%202022.pdf

US Department of Energy. 2023a. “Fiscal Year 2023 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.” National Nuclear Security Administration , April. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/FY23%20SSMP_FINAL.pdf

US Department of Energy. 2023b. “Fiscal Year 2024 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.” National Nuclear Security Administration , November. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/FY24SSMP_FINAL_NOVEMBER_2023_0.pdf

US Department of Energy. 2023c. “W80-4 Life Extension Program Enters Phase 6.4, Production Engineering.” National Nuclear Security Administration , May 1. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/w80-4-life-extension-program-enters-phase-64-production-engineering

US Department of Energy. 2024. “2023: Year In Review.” National Nuclear Security Administration , February. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/NNSA%202023%20Year%20In%20Review_0.pdf

US House of Representatives. 2023. “Report Accompanying Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2024.” Committee on Appropriations. 118th Congress, 1st Session, June. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20230622/116151/HMKP-118-AP00-20230622-SD002.pdf

US Navy. 2019. “Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2020.” Office of the Chief of Naval Operations , March. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/20pres/PB20%2030-year%20Shipbuilding%20Plan%20Final.pdf

US Navy. 2022. “Keel Laying Ceremony Held for First Columbia-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine.” June 4. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3052900/keel-laying-ceremony-held-for-first-columbia-class-ballistic-missile-submarine/

US Navy. 2023. “USS Louisiana Proves Readiness of Unmatched Strategic Weapons System.” September 28. https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3542324/uss-louisiana-proves-readiness-of-unmatched-strategic-weapons-system/

US Office of Management and Budget. 2022. “Statement of Administration Policy on S. 4543 – James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.” Executive Office of the President, October 18. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/S4543-NDAA-SAP.pdf

US State Department. 2011. “New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms.” Fact Sheet, June 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20120113002048/http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/164722.html

US State Department. 2021. “Transparency in the US Nuclear Weapons Stockpile.” Fact Sheet, October 5. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fact-Sheet_Unclass_2021_final-v2-002.pdf

US State Department. 2022. “New START at a Glance.” October 19. https://www.state.gov/new-start/

US State Department. 2023a. “New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms” May 12. https://www.state.gov/new-start-treaty-aggregate-numbers-of-strategic-offensive-arms-5/

US State Department. 2023b. “Report on Deterrence in a World of Nuclear Multipolarity.” International Security Advisory Board, November. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ISAB-Report-on-Deterrence-in-a-World-of-Nuclear-Multipolarity_Final-Accessible.pdf

US State Department. 2023c. “U.S. Countermeasures in Response to Russia’s Violations of the New START Treaty.” June 1. https://www.state.gov/u-s-countermeasures-in-response-to-russias-violations-of-the-new-start-treaty/

US Strategic Command. 2012. “USSTRATCOM OPLAN 8010-12: Strategic Deterrence and Force Employment.” Partially Declassified and Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, July 30, xvi xviii–xix. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/18747-u-s-strategic-command-usstratcom-oplan-8010-12

US Strategic Command. 2021a. “U.S. Strategic Command to Begin Exercise Global Thunder 22.” November 2. https://www.barksdale.af.mil/News/Article/2830350/us-strategic-command-to-begin-exercise-global-thunder-22/

US Strategic Command. 2021b. “USS Alabama Completes 100th Patrol.” October 25. https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2823276/uss-alabama-completes-100th-patrol/

US Strategic Posture Commission. 2023. “America’s Strategic Posture: The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.” October 12. https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/Strategic-Posture-Committee-Report-Final.pdf

Van Deventer, J. (@Jvd_Tweet). 2023. “#ACC “Ready for Operations” was de uitslag van het team dat ons deze week inspecteerde. Hiermee hebben we onze initiële certificering voor de afschrikkingstaak met de F-35. Een belangrijke stap in de transitie. Mogelijk gemaakt door Teamwerk @VlbVolkel @F35_CFTT.” Twitter, November 9. https://twitter.com/Jvd_Tweet/status/1722670191232852383

Wolfe, J. 2021a. Presentation at the Nuclear Deterrence Forum. Mitchell Institute, January 14. https://mitchellaerospacepower.org/nuclear-deterrence-forum-vadm-johnny-wolfe-ssp/

Wolfe, J. 2021b. “Testimony to House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Hearing: ‘FY22 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces and Atomic Energy Defense Activities’.” June 10. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings?ID=E382890A-2CE2-4141-B0A6-F899B9D2A8B0

Wolfe, J. 2023. “Statement of Vice Admiral Johnny Wolfe, USN Director, Strategic Systems Programs Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the House Armed Services Committee on FY 2024 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces and Atomic Energy Defense Activities.” March. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115619/witnesses/HHRG-118-AS29-Wstate-WolfeJ-20230328.pdf

Woolf, A. 2022. “Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N).” Congressional Research Service , April 25. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12084

Wrightsman, J. 2019. “Bomber Task Force in Europe Showcases Future of Strategic Deterrence.” 2nd Bomb Wing Public Affairs , April 19. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/318796/bomber-task-force-europe-showcases-future-strategic-deterrence

Young, S. 2016. “Just How New Is the New, Nuclear-Armed Cruise Missile?” Union of Concerned Scientists , January 13. http://allthingsnuclear.org/syoung/the-new-cruise-missile

Together, we make the world safer.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important . In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

Keywords: Nuclear Notebook , Nuclear Posture Review , United States , ballistic missiles , nuclear risk , nuclear weapons Topics: Nuclear Notebook , Nuclear Weapons

• Copy link Linked copied

Hans M. Kristensen

Hans M. Kristensen is the director of the Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC. His work focuses... Read More

Matt Korda is a senior research fellow for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, where he coauthors the Nuclear... Read More

Eliana Johns

Eliana Johns, née Reynolds, is a research associate for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, where she... Read More

Mackenzie Knight

Mackenzie Knight is a program associate for Global Risk at the Federation of American Scientists where her work focuses on the Nuclear Information... Read More

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

Interview: Catherine Bertini on eliminating hunger in a changing climate

By Dawn Stover

What do we really know about urban agriculture’s impact on people, places, and the planet?

By Agnès Fargue-Lelièvre , Jason K. Hawes , Benjamin Goldstein , Lidia Poniży , Erica Dorr

What if potatoes grew on trees? An interview with the Breadfruit Institute’s Diane Ragone

By Dan Drollette Jr

Regenerative agriculture sequesters carbon—but that’s not the only benefit and shouldn’t be the only goal

By Jessica McKenzie

Introduction: Bringing the world’s food production in line with global climate goals

We need to act now to ensure global food security and reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions

By Bradley R. Ringeisen , Clarice de Azevedo Souza , Elizabeth Njuguna , Pamela C. Ronald

RELATED POSTS

Russian nuclear weapons, 2024

By Hans M. Kristensen , Matt Korda , Eliana Johns , Mackenzie Knight

Introduction: Nuclear testing in the 21st century—legacies, tensions, and risks

By François Diaz-Maurin

New confidence-building measures can reduce tensions around subcritical tests

By Julien de Troullioud de Lanversin , Christopher Fichtlscherer

Preserving the nuclear test ban after Russia revoked its CTBT ratification

By Pavel Podvig

The horrors of nuclear weapons testing

By Walter Pincus

Environmental impacts of underground nuclear weapons testing

By Sulgiye Park , Rodney C. Ewing

Bulletin Daily

May issue: The future of food in a time of climate change

Ukrainian journalist Illia Ponomarenko on the horror and absurdity of Russia’s senseless, existential war

By Susan D’Agostino

What India’s MIRV test adds to the ‘strategic trilemma’ in South Asia

By Huma Rehman

Trump says he’d disband the pandemic preparedness office—again

By Erik English

Republicans and Democrats investigating the origins of COVID-19 find a common target: Peter Daszak

By Matt Field

An Indigenous future for nuclear power in California?

By Jon Christensen , Matthew Crotty

To find a place to store spent nuclear fuel, Congress needs to stop trying to revive Yucca Mountain

By David Klaus

Drink the Kool-Aid all you want, but don’t call AI an existential threat

By Jeff Caruso

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

North Korea Launches Cruise Missiles From Submarine

The missile test, the first of its kind carried out by the North, took place as South Korea and the United States were about to begin joint military exercises.

By Choe Sang-Hun

Reporting from Seoul

North Korea said on Monday that it had fired two strategic cruise missiles from a submarine, its first such missile test, as South Korea and the United States were about to begin a major joint military exercise.

The missiles were launched at dawn on Sunday and flew for more than two hours, covering a distance of 932 miles, according to the North’s state-run Korean Central News Agency. The report said they were fired from the 8.24 Yongung, the only submarine capable of launching missiles that North Korea is known to possess. South Korea’s military confirmed that the test had taken place.

The North Korean report indicated that the missiles were capable of carrying nuclear warheads, calling the launch part of a test of the North’s “nuclear deterrent.” North Korea has said that it is developing nuclear-capable missiles of various ranges and types, but some outside analysts are skeptical that it has warheads light enough to be mounted on cruise or small ballistic missiles.

The launch, North Korea’s sixth missile test this year, marked the first time the North had tested cruise missiles from a submarine. The country last launched a short-range ballistic missile from a submarine on May 7 off its east coast.

The North announced the launch as South Korea and the United States were beginning an 11-day joint military exercise on Monday. Code-named Freedom Shield, the drill, one of the biggest the two allies have planned for this year, will involve large numbers of troops, including a simulated storming of a beach.

Seoul and Washington have expanded their joint military exercises this year, citing a growing threat from the North, which launched a record number of missiles last year . North Korea has long characterized the allies’ drills as rehearsals for an invasion.

The North appears to have stepped up its weapons tests as Freedom Shield drew closer. On Thursday, North Korea launched six short-range ballistic missiles off its west coast, testing what the country called its ability to strike military airfields in the South. North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, watched the test with his daughter , according to North Korean state media.

At a meeting of the North’s Central Military Commission over the weekend, Mr. Kim said “the war provocations of the U.S. and South Korea are reaching the red line” and called for “important practical steps,” according to state media.

In its report Monday on the submarine missile test, North Korea said it was responding to the allies’ drills by testing “different” ways of launching nuclear warheads. Submarine-launched nuclear missiles are among an array of new weapons that Mr. Kim has ordered his government to develop.

The North’s submarine-launched missile program, by potentially extending the range of the country’s nuclear arsenal, is believed to pose a particularly acute threat to the United States and its allies. The deployment of submarine-launched missiles is also harder to detect in advance.

North Korea has been launching ballistic missiles since 2016 from the 8.24 Yongung. That submarine has a single launch tube, but the North has been developing a new missile-capable submarine with greater capabilities, according to the South Korean military.

Choe Sang-Hun is the Seoul bureau chief for The New York Times, focusing on news on North and South Korea. More about Choe Sang-Hun

North Korea’s Kim ‘guided’ submarine-launched cruise missile test: KCNA

Second test of weapon in days as North Korea accelerates efforts to modernise its navy.

North Korean state media say the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, oversaw the launch of two submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCM), the second test of the weapon within days.

The newly-developed Pulhwasal-3-31 missiles “flew in the sky above the East Sea … to hit the island target”, the KCNA news agency reported on Monday, adding that Kim “guided” the launch.

Keep reading

North korea fires multiple cruise missiles off east coast, north korea says tested new type of cruise missile with nuclear capability, is north korea’s kim jong un planning war experts have conflicting views, north korea fires ‘several’ cruise missiles from west coast.

It shared photos of Kim at an undisclosed location pointing at a missile in the sky and laughing with members of the military. In other images, huge clouds of white smoke obscured the actual launch platform.

South Korea’s military announced on Sunday that multiple missiles had been launched from waters near the North Korean port of Sinpo, where Pyongyang operates a shipyard that manufactures naval assets including submarines. It did not go into further detail.

The Pulhwasal-3-31 is a new generation of nuclear-capable cruise missile that Pyongyang first tested last Wednesday , as it seeks to enhance the weapons capability of the country’s navy.

The testing of cruise missiles, which are jet-propelled and fly at lower altitudes, is not banned under United Nations sanctions imposed over North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme that outlaw ballistic missile testing.

KCNA said the SLCMs were in the air for 7,421 seconds and 7,445 seconds – approximately two hours – but did not say how far they flew.

North Korea’s exact sea-based launch capabilities remain unclear, and previous tests have been carried out from older vessels, including from a submerged platform, rather than an actual submarine.

Kim expressed “great satisfaction” over Sunday’s test, according to KCNA, noting North Korea’s determination to build a “powerful naval force”.

The North Korean leader separately inspected “the building of a nuclear submarine” and discussed issues related to the construction of other new warships, the report added without giving details.

“They will focus on improving naval power in the East Sea and test weapons systems that can be mounted on submarines, with the first attempt being this strategic cruise missile,” Yang Moo-jin, president of the University of North Korean Studies told the AFP news agency.

“In the future, it will lead to the development of submarine-launched ballistic missiles and nuclear-powered submarines, which will have a much higher impact than SLCMs,” he added.

Proven SLBM capability would take North Korea’s arsenal to a new level, allowing deployment far beyond the Korean Peninsula and a second-strike capability in the event of an attack.

Choi Il, a retired South Korean Navy submarine captain, said once a nuclear-tipped SLCM becomes operational, it will pose a “new threat” to South Korea.

“North Korea will be equipped with a two-track nuclear attack means, with the capabilities of mass destruction of a SLBM and precision strike of a SLCM,” he said.

In recent months, North Korea has tested a variety of weapons, including ballistic missile systems under development and an underwater drone.

Last September, Kim launched the country’s first nuclear attack submarine , which analysts said was probably designed to carry ballistic and cruise missiles and appeared to be modified from an existing diesel-powered submarine.

KCNA said the submarine marked the beginning of a new chapter for North Korea’s navy.

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

North Korea tests submarine-launched cruise missiles, KCNA says

• Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below

By Jack Kim

SEOUL (Reuters) -North Korea tested its new submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) on Sunday, firing an upgraded missile for the second time in a week and accelerating its navy's nuclear armament, state media reported on Monday.

Leader Kim Jong Un supervised the test of the missile, called "Pulhwasal-3-31," which is identical to the strategic cruise missiles that the North test-launched last week as part of upgrading its weapons system.

State news agency KCNA and official Rodong Sinmun newspaper said the missiles flew above the sea off the country's east coast for 7,421 seconds and 7,445 seconds and hit an unspecified island target, indicating the flight time exceeded two hours.

Kim called the test a success, KCNA said, "which is of strategic significance in carrying out the plan...for modernizing the army which aims at building a powerful naval force."

South Korea's military said on Sunday that the North fired multiple cruise missiles off its coast but did not provide details. On Monday, it said the claimed flight time was an exaggeration saying it tracked the missiles real time and also played down the possibility it was propelled by solid fuel.

Last week, the North said it had tested a new strategic cruise missile, implying it was designed to carry a nuclear warhead, but at the time did not mention it was being developed for submarine launch.

State media photographs published on Monday showed a missile launching into a cloudy sky from the water trailed by a plume of smoke which obscures the type of platform it was being fired from.

North Korea's cruise missiles are typically less controversial and are not explicitly banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions. But analysts have said intermediate-range cruise missiles were no less a threat than ballistic missiles and are a serious capability for North Korea.

In recent months, the North has tested an array of weapons that include ballistic missile systems that are under development and an underwater drone.

Kim separately inspected the construction of a nuclear submarine and discussed issues related to the manufacturing of other types of new warships, KCNA said but gave no details.

North Korea last year launched what it called its first operational nuclear attack submarine, which analysts said appeared to be a modified from an existing submarine and likely designed to carry ballistic and cruise missiles.

There was scepticism over the real-world utility of such a vessel, especially compared to the more advanced land-based missile systems, because its diesel propulsion generates noise and is limited in range, according to weapons experts.

South Korea's military said on Monday it believed the submarine "has no military use" and the vessel appeared to be under repair or maintenance.

Kim said at the time the country would accelerate the programme to build nuclear-powered submarines.

(Reporting by Jack Kim;Editing by Andrew Cawthorne, Lisa Shumaker, Leslie Adler and Diane Craft)

Recommended Stories

The fdic change that leaves wealthy bank depositors with less protection.

Affluent Americans may want to double-check how much of their bank deposits are protected by government-backed insurance. The rules governing trust accounts just changed.

Former NBA guard Darius Morris dies at 33

Former NBA guard Darius Morris has died at the age of 33. He played for five teams during his four NBA seasons. Morris played college basketball at Michigan.

Timberwolves coach Chris Finch calls Jamal Murray's heat-pack toss on court 'inexcusable and dangerous'

Murray made a bad night on the court worse during a moment of frustration on the bench.

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan says he’s not voting for Trump : 'Character is too important'

Ryan says he would be writing in a Republican candidate instead of voting for Donald Trump.

Nuggets star Nikola Jokić wins third NBA MVP in four seasons, placing him alongside all-time greats

Nikola Jokić joins a short list of the game's all-time greats after securing his third MVP.

Cardinals lose C Willson Contreras after left arm fractured by J.D. Martinez's swing

The Cardinals' nightmare season continues.

Ranking the best situations for the rookie quarterbacks: Start with Michael Penix in Atlanta at No. 1

It’s key to note that we’re not saying the “best team” or “best roster.” Instead, we’re talking about the best confluence of factors that can outline a path for survival and then success.

These 3 stocks are poised to benefit from the massive energy transition

The energy transition will benefit companies providing electrical needs for surging demand. Analysts point to these three stocks as a Buy.

Blockbuster May trade by Padres, MVP Ohtani has arrived, Willie Mays’ 93rd birthday & weekend recap

Jake Mintz & Jordan Shusterman discuss the Padres-Marlins trade that sent Luis Arraez to San Diego, as well as recap all the action from this weekend in baseball and send birthday wishes to hall-of-famer Willie Mays.

Heat's Pat Riley unhappy with Jimmy Butler's remarks on Celtics and Knicks, implies he needs to play more

Miami Heat president Pat Riley rebuked comments Jimmy Butler made about the Boston Celtics and New York Knicks, while also implying that his star needs to play more.

Phil Mickelson on the majors: 'What if none of the LIV players played?'

Phil Mickelson hints that big changes could be coming to LIV Golf's rosters, and the majors will need to pay attention.

Fantasy Baseball Trade Analyzer: Buy into a pair of Astros sluggers

Fantasy baseball analyst Fred Zinkie offers up his top buy low/high and sell low-high candidates for Week 6.

2024 NFL Team Fantasy Football Power Rankings, 1.0

With NFL rosters pretty much set before training camp, Scott Pianowski reveals his first set of team fantasy power rankings for the 2024 season.

Social Security just passed Medicare as the government's most pressing insolvency risk

An annual government report offered a glimmer of good news for Social Security and a jolt of good news for Medicare even as both programs continue to be on pace to run dry next decade.

NBA fines Nuggets G Jamal Murray $100K for tossing heat pack, towel on court vs. Timberwolves; no suspension

Murray tossed a heat pad onto the court during gameplay vs. the Timberwolves.

NBA playoffs: Officials admit they flubbed critical kick-ball call in controversial final minute of Pacers-Knicks

Tuesday's last-2-minute report should be interesting.

The best budgeting apps for 2024

Budgeting apps can help you keep track of your finances, stick to a spending plan and reach your money goals. These are the best budget-tracking apps available right now.

The Scorecard: Andy Pages looks set to go down as one of the best fantasy baseball waiver wire pickups of 2024

Fantasy baseball analyst Dalton Del Don delivers his latest batch of hot takes as we enter Week 6 of the season.

Ex-Ole Miss QB and Denver Broncos draft pick Chad Kelly suspended at least nine games by CFL

Kelly allegedly harassed a female strength and conditioning coach who sued him and the Toronto Argonauts in February.

Fed’s Kashkari: Rates will stay high for 'extended period' and can't rule out a hike

Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari said interest rates will likely stay at current levels for an "extended period" and didn't rule out a hike if inflation stalls near 3%.

Switch language:

SSGN Oscar II Class (Project 949.A) (Kursk)

As a cruise-missile submarine, the Oscar was designed primarily to attack NATO aircraft carrier battle groups. To cope w

Project type

Attack submarine

Russian Navy

Displacement

SSGN Oscar II class cruise-missile submarines (Project 949A/Antey class) are designed primarily to attack NATO aircraft carrier battle groups. To cope with its resource problems, the Russian Navy, in the early 1990s, made an effort at preserving its core submarine force capabilities.

The Russian Navy continued to invest in new construction. In the late 1990s, it completed several new submarines of the third generation Oscar II. 11 of the larger Oscar II submarines were built between 1985 and 1999 at the Sevmash yard in Severodvinsk. Three have been decommissioned and one, the Kursk, sank. Two Oscar II submarines are active with the Northern Fleet and five with the Pacific Fleet.

Recommended White Papers

Key Radio Parameters for Spectrum Monitoring Receivers

Angle of arrival/direction-finding techniques, recommended buyers guides.

Military messaging and naval communications software providers for the naval defence industry

Maritime solutions: subsystems for the naval industry.

The Pacific Fleet is set to upgrade four Oscar II submarines with 3M-54 Kalibr family of cruise missiles by 2021 as part of a multi-year programme. The submarines can also be fitted with other cruise missiles, including 3M-54 anti-ship, 3M-14 land-attack missiles, and PT91 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) torpedoes.

The upgraded submarines will be designated Project 949AM.

Oscar II submarine design and features

Oscar II submarines have a length of 155m, depth of 600m and a displacement of 24,000t. Each submarine has the capacity to accommodate a total of 107 crew members.

Designed to deliver missile blows on groups of ships and coastal installations, the submarine constitutes an updated version of Project 949 with one additional compartment to improve the inner arrangement of the armament and equipment.

The Oscar II is a double-hulled design and is divided into ten major compartments. The reinforced rounded cover of the sail is intended to break through the ice of the Artic ice cap. The two periscopes, radio-sextant and radar masts are located within the retractable devices area.

The HF and UHF radio-masts, radio direction-finder masts and satellite communication and navigation masts are located on the airshaft to feed compressors. The submarine is fitted with a floating antenna buoy to receive radio messages, target designation data and satellite navigation signals at a great depth and under the ice.

The bow horizontal hydroplanes are retracted into the hull. The main mechanisms have modular design and two-cascade shock-absorbing system.

As with other Russian submarines, the Oscar features a double hull, comprising an inner pressure hull and an outer hydrodynamic hull. The 3.5m separation between the inner and outer hulls on the Oscar provides significant reserve buoyancy and improved survivability against conventional torpedoes. These large submarines are said to be slow to dive and manoeuvre, though they are credited with a submerged speed of about 30 knots, sufficient to keep pace with their targets.

The improved Oscar II is about 10m longer than the Oscar I, possibly making room for a quieter propulsion system, and features upgraded electronic systems. The Oscar II is also characterised by a substantially enlarged fin, which should improve underwater manoeuvrability.

Oscar II weapons systems

The submarine is equipped with 24 SS-N-19 Granit (NATO codename “Shipwreck”) cruise missiles with a range of 550km. The missile has a length of 10.5m and weighs 6.9t with a warhead weighing 1000kg. Its speed is Mach 1.5.

Under the START treaty, nuclear warheads for these missiles have been replaced with high-explosive warheads. The missiles, which are launched while the submarine is submerged, are fired from tubes fixed at an angle of approximately 40°.

The tubes, arranged in two rows of twelve, are each covered by six hatches on each side of the sail, with each hatch covering a pair of tubes. The launchers are placed between the inner pressure hull and the outer hydrodynamic hull.

The torpedo tubes fire both torpedoes and shorter-range anti-ship missiles, and a combination of some two dozen weapons are carried, including the SS-N-16 missile. The SS-N-16 has a range of 50km and is powered by a liquid fuel turbojet engine. It can carry either an explosive warhead or a Type 40 torpedo.

In the 1980s, the Rubin Design Bureau was responsible for developing a number of third-generation nuclear-powered submarines with cruise missiles, including Projects 949 (“Granit”, “Oscar I”) and 949A (“Antey”, “Oscar II”). The Bureau took the lead in using naval cruise missiles, designing the first cruise missile nuclear submarine – Project 659 (“Echo I”), then Project 675 (“Echo II”) and related modifications.

The Kursk disaster

In August 2000, the Oscar II nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine, Kursk (K 141), sank in the Barents Sea, with the loss of all 118 crew. Commissioned in 1994, the Kursk was part of the Russian Northern Fleet. From Norwegian seismological records, it appeared that the submarine was destroyed by two explosions.

Related Projects

More Projects

Project 15B Guided Missile Destroyers

Harrier ii plus (av-8b) vstol fighter and attack aircraft, type 26 global combat ship programme, uk, p-8a poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, usa, sign up for our daily news round-up.

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

Sign up to the newsletter

Your corporate email address.

Naval Technology In Brief

Global Defence Technology

Thematic Take

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

Israel Launches New Submarine, First In World With Modern Missiles In Sail

The israeli navy is known for the secrecy surrounding its submarine force. 5 dolphin-i/ii class submarines are believed to carry nuclear-armed missiles. now the latest boat, ins drakon, has been quietly launched in kiel, germany. it appears to have new, larger, missiles..

H I Sutton 14 Aug 2023

Israel’s latest submarine, INS Drakon (‘Dragon’), has been launched in Kiel, Germany. It indicates significant growth in Israeli submarine capabilities. A variant of the successful Dolphin-II class, its unique lines also showcase Israel’s fiercely independent naval thinking.

INS Drakon is larger than any previous Israeli submarine, being much longer than the first two Dolphin-II boats. Even more noticeable is the ginormous sail. This likely contains its defining feature: advanced new missiles.

Needing A Bigger Boat

The Dolphin-II already had a lengthened hull compared to the original Dolphin-I in order to fit in AIP (air independent power). The new hull insert makes the submarine even longer. Based on available information, the follow-on Dakar class will be about the same length as Drakon and feature a similarly lengthened sail. So INS Drakon can be thought of as the bridge between the Dolphin class and the future Dakar Class.

Naval News had previously reported that the submarine was likely to be longer, and feature a vertical launch system. But at that time it wasn’t clear that the missiles would be in the sail.

Submarines have been equipped with missile silos in the sail before. The Soviet Union’s first purpose built ballistic missile submarines, the Hotel and Golf classes, did this. More recently North Korea has leveraged this trick to get larger missiles into smaller submarines. Yet the German-designed submarine is the first truly modern design to feature this.

Rough estimates suggest that the longer hull and sail add a space approximately 2 meters wide by 4 meters long and up to 11 meters deep. This could accommodate two large missile silos, or more likely, 4-8 smaller ones. It is also a reasonable assumption that they can be nuclear armed.

Other explanations for the large sail should also be considered. Possibly it related to special forces equipment. Or possibly a hangar for autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), uncrewed air vehicles (UAVs), loitering munitions or even a rescue submersible. But none of these are as convincing as the missile hypothesis.

New Missiles

The exact nature of the new missiles can only be guessed at. By implication they are ballistic missiles, possibly with a guided final stage. Whatever they are, Israel is keeping it secret.

Placing the missile tubes in the hull below the sail allows for much longer missiles than if they had to be accommodated under the deck casing. The sail adds several meters to their possible length, although weight and stability still needs to be considered.

Interestingly, despite the new missiles in the sail, the submarine still has four extra torpedo tubes in the bow. These appear to be unchanged from the previous Dophin-I & II class boats. The extra tubes are larger than regular 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes. They are understood to be dedicated to Israeli developed cruise missiles . These missiles can be nuclear armed and, it is believed, form part of Israel’s nuclear deterrent.

A New Mystery About The Armament

Having both the torpedo tubes for nuclear armed cruise missiles and the vertical launch tubes may surprise analysts. It suggests that the new missiles are not a direct replacement for the cruise missiles.

One explanation is that the new weapons will not be ready until after the submarine enters service. Indeed, Drakon may be used to test the new missiles. So retaining the torpedo tubes allows continued nuclear deterrence during the transition.

Possibly one set of missiles will be conventionally armed and the other nuclear armed. This would allow land attack missions while simul maintaining a nuclear deterrence.

A more prosaic answer is that the vertical launch tubes were added late in the design, possibly even after construction had started. It may have been cheaper and easier to keep the additional torpedo tubes. This would be despite the temptation of weight savings and simplification if they were removed.

It may take some time, possibly years, to decipher the submarine’s capabilities. Indeed, the Israeli Navy keeps some aspects of their existing submarines secret, so we may never know all of it. But as new images come in, some parts of the puzzle may fall into place.

Related Articles

HII delivers Virginia-class submarine New Jersey (SSN 796) to U.S. Navy

Portugal deploys Submarine NRP Arpão to the North Atlantic

Hanwha Systems Successfully Localizes Submarine Tactical Training Ground

China has a lot more missiles — with US warships and bases in its sights

American warships and bases in the Pacific are within reach of an increasingly worrying threat, a daunting missile force unlike any the US has faced in combat before.

China's ever-expanding Rocket Force is armed with thousands of missiles with ominous nicknames such as "carrier killers" and the "Guam Express."

US military leaders and officials say these weapons could make a war in the Indo-Pacific devastating for American forces. And that's exactly the message they say Beijing wants to send, that messing with China would be catastrophic.

The dangers are startling. An American air base such as Andersen on Guam that routinely hosts US bombers or a carrier strike group sailing in the South China Sea could face dozens, even hundreds, of ballistic missiles in salvos intended to overwhelm their defenses, shatter critical capabilities, and send US warships sinking into the depths. China's missiles haven't been tested in combat, but the threat is real.

In interviews with Business Insider, current and former military officials and defense analysts described the meteoric rise of China's People's Liberation Army Rocket Force as a chief concern. One senior defense official said it's changing America's appetite for war in the region, "creating a conventional deterrence capability that threatens our posture, our presence, and our activities in ways that would potentially cause decision-makers in Washington to consider the risks to be too high."

From 2021 to 2022, the Chinese military effectively doubled its stock of some missiles, including the medium-range ballistic missiles it might use to target American military bases in Japan and intermediate-range missiles that are able to reach Guam, the Pentagon said in its most recent report on the military threat from China.

The "dramatic expansion" of the Chinese missile arsenal, especially MRBMs and IRBMs, is designed to threaten US forces and allies across the Indo-Pacific region, Thomas Shugart, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a retired US Navy submarine officer, said.

What these key developments show "is that the PLA leadership has decided that the long-range missiles are a winning capability for them," Bryan Clark, a retired US Navy officer and defense expert at the Hudson Institute, said.

The current commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. John Aquilino, said in his final public interview before he retired that during his tenure as commander, "the security environment has changed drastically and not in a good way," calling China "the most concerning security threat that exists."

China's growing, far-reaching arsenal

China's military doctrine focuses heavily on maintaining the ability to deter threats and, failing that, striking fast and hard. It also encourages maintaining an element of surprise before dealing significant damage to its foes. The People's Liberation Army Rocket Force gives it such an option.

It "is designed as a mechanism to deliver an anti-access, area-denial (A2AD) strategy to push the US and allies and partners from the region," retired Adm. Harry Harris, a former commander of Pacific Command and former ambassador to South Korea, told BI.

He said that the force's "objective is to be able to enforce the illegal and illegitimate claim of everything inside the nine-dash line as sovereign Chinese sea and airspace, as well as forcibly bring Taiwan under Beijing's control."

The nine-dash line refers to China's vast claims in the South China Sea, including its human-made islands and others it has disputes with neighbors over.

Harris said China's advancing missile capabilities concerned him more than any other Chinese military developments during his time as the 24th commander of what was then Pacific Command.

The Taiwan Strait is one area where the Pentagon has said China is strategically expanding its Rocket Force with "new missile brigades, potentially indicating an increasing number of deployed missiles."

Experts said this was part of a larger strategy to prevent the US and its allies from gaining unrestricted access to the Pacific region — whether in a war or in a scenario where US forces attempt to come to Taiwan's aid during a Chinese blockade or invasion .

With these missiles, China is signaling that it could attack US bases and ships in the region with little to no warning, Clark said. One such missile, the DF-26, has been commonly referred to as the "Guam Express" or the "Guam Killer" because it can reach US forces on the island, which is roughly 3,000 miles from Beijing.

The weapon, capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional payloads, also has an anti-ship role and another nickname: " carrier killer ." The People's Liberation Army Rocket Force's DF-21D is another such missile that China could use to target US ships.

There's a lot more to the Chinese Rocket Force than these weapons, though. Other elements of the PLARF arsenal are its DF-17 hypersonic missile, short-range ballistic missiles such as the DF-15 that give it the ability to strike Taiwan with relative ease, and intercontinental ballistic missiles like the DF-5s, DF-31s, and newer DF-41s.

Newer developments, the Pentagon said last fall, "will significantly improve its nuclear-capable missile forces and will require increased nuclear-warhead production." The US Defense Department estimates China has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads, the third most in the world, and that number is expected to increase.

While some are based in silos, many of China's missiles are road-mobile assets or hidden in caves and mountains, making them harder to kill. And outside the Rocket Force, Chinese submarines carry long-range missiles. Its H-6 bombers can do the same. Any confrontation with China must account for the likelihood that many of its nuclear forces would survive direct strikes.

In regard to the Chinese "carrier killer" missiles, satellite-imagery analysts have for years been finding mock-ups of US aircraft carriers and other warships out in Chinese deserts. The suspected targets suggest that China may be relying on these mock-ups to improve its missiles or to practice locking on to and hitting American warships. China has also conducted tests at sea, at least one against a moving target.

After the Pentagon's latest report on China's military power came out, Shugart suggested the sheer number of DF-26s and launchers could turn the missile into a generic "ship killer," available for strikes on not just high-value carriers but also destroyers, cruisers, amphibious assault ships, fleet oilers, and more.

And China doesn't have to sink a ship to score a combat kill. Damaged vessels would have to limp back home, where US repair and maintenance woes could mean a slow recovery.

That changes considerations for US Navy vessels when operating in the Indo-Pacific and raises questions about the role of aircraft carriers in a conflict with China, as they may not be able to get within the strike range for F/A-18s or F-35s.

At a certain range, Clark said, "you're going to have to expend so much effort trying to conceal your presence and prevent targeting by Chinese forces, it's going to constrain your ability to do air operations" from a carrier. And the jets might not even be able to reach their targets.

China's missiles could also influence how the Navy arms its warships, forcing them to carry more air-defense missiles at the expense of other weapons that may be useful in land-attack missions or a confrontation with China's larger navy.

Better defenses, but more work to do

In the vast Indo-Pacific region, the Rocket Force is one of the US military's top concerns "because of its unique capabilities to execute long-range precision fires while not exposing large numbers of personnel to danger," a senior defense official told BI, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence observations of threats in the Indo-Pacific.

Facing this threat and others from China, the US has expanded its training exercises and strengthened connections with its Pacific allies and partners to counter not only PLARF but also the broader Chinese military, the official added.

Experts and analysts have long called for the US to respond to the challenges from China in a way that recognizes the scale of the threats at hand, which goes far beyond the Rocket Force, as frequent risky and unsafe intercepts of US and allied aircraft by China have shown.

Harris said one of the best ways to counter PLARF would be to make "robust" air and missile defenses a reality this decade in the region, with the US positioning land-based, medium-range ballistic-missile systems there, working closer with allies, and not letting China determine US foreign policy in the area, especially with Taiwan.

The US has beefed up its air defenses in the region, employing Terminal High Altitude Area Defense batteries in South Korea and working with Japan's navy on ballistic-missile interceptors such as the SM-3 Block IIA as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. And in Guam, the Army has fast-tracked a new project and office for the island's defenses. But experts argue that more is needed.

Robert Peters, a research fellow on nuclear deterrence and missile defense for the Heritage Foundation, wrote in January that the US should station Aegis Afloat cruisers near Guam that are equipped to defeat ballistic missiles. Peters said the US couldn't afford to lose Guam, and the land-based Aegis defense option is likely years from deployment.

"Should a war with China break out, conventional thinking is that China would launch a large salvo of cruise and ballistic missiles at Guam to destroy military bases there that are key to US military operations throughout the Pacific," he wrote, adding that an attack would be a "modern Pearl Harbor" that could hinder power projection and logistics.

Beyond strengthening air defenses, the US can also harden bases in the Pacific so that infrastructure, such as critical runways, could survive a barrage and still launch aircraft. But the disaggregation and dispersal of forces is also important. Fixed bases are targets that can only brace for an attack, not avoid them.  

The US Air Force turned to a new doctrine in August 2022 that assessed : "New weapons systems now place bases at risk that were previously considered sanctuaries." That shift led to the creation of Agile Combat Employment, which looks to atypical approaches to keep key assets from being destroyed.

Agile Combat Employment considers highways, fields, beaches, and more as nontraditional runways to create "a network of smaller, dispersed locations that can complicate adversary planning and provide more options for joint-force commanders." China can target runways at air bases, but it can't hit every piece of concrete in the Pacific.

US ground forces in the region are also keeping an eye on the Chinese Rocket Force, but they're less concerned than the other service branches that China more clearly has in its crosshairs.

The US Army Pacific commander, Gen. Charles Flynn, told BI that while the growth of the Chinese Rocket Force had been "meteoric," PLARF's missiles were "primarily designed to defeat naval and air power."

"I'm always worried about rockets," Flynn said, but they're "not there primarily to defeat distributed, dispersed, mobile, some fixed and some unfixed, reloadable, and meshed land-forces network," which his command and its allies in the Pacific have been developing and prioritizing.

That said, he added, there are many ways for ground forces to create a " dilemma " for Chinese missile forces, such as masking signatures, hiding in different environments, and undermining PLARF's ability to find, locate, and target them.

Beyond defensive measures, the US has various offensive options for combating the Rocket Force.

Difficult-to-detect American submarines can, for instance, fire cruise and ballistic missiles. Stealth bombers, like the B-2 Spirit, can also avoid being spotted while on missions to knock out China's weapons. The US doesn't have the missiles to counter China in this theater of operations, though these systems are in development.

Weak points in the missile game

PLARF may be, as Shugart has said, the " crown jewel " of the Chinese military, but it's not without its limitations. Recent high-profile cases of corruption across the army, in particular in PLARF, have raised questions about how widespread graft may be — and whether that's affecting readiness in the short term.

US intelligence has documented several cases of supposed corruption, including missiles filled with water rather than rocket fuel and problematic silos. Military leadership shake-ups , too, have sparked concerns, as many senior officers and bigwig defense leaders were replaced with little to no explanation.

That said, the US and its allies can't afford to assume the Rocket Force won't be ready should conflict come.

"They now have the world's largest navy, the largest air force in the region," Clark said, "but they invest substantially in these long-range missiles because it's clear that they see that as a more reliable capability."

But clarity on the threat gives the US options. Knowing that China could lean on its missiles in a Pacific showdown allows American forces to train and adapt to work around such a threat.

"Deterrence is a combination of a country's capability and willingness to use that capability," Harris said, "and an adversary's perception of both." In other words, how the US prepares itself and adapts to the Chinese Rocket Force gives it the best shot at avoiding a fight altogether. But there's no guarantee deterrence holds.

Related stories

More from Military & Defense

Most popular

• Main content