|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
New Warhead Might Require New Shells, Navy Says By Elaine M. Grossman WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy last week said that a nuclear warhead under development might require the production of new “re-entry bodies,” a potentially costly aeroshell designed to carry a weapon as it descends to its target (see GSN, March 5). The Bush administration has said the first variant of its proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead would use a Mk-5 re-entry body, which is employed today in fewer than one in every eight Trident D-5 submarine-launched warheads. However, until now government officials have not publicly addressed whether they might utilize any spare Mk-5s for the new warhead or if new aeroshell production would be required. Producing potentially more than 1,000 new Mk-5 re-entry bodies could significantly boost the price tag of the administration’s controversial plans for the new warhead, according to defense experts. The Mk-5 would cost $800,000 apiece to procure in current-year dollars, not taking into account any additional development or integration costs that might be required, according to Lt. Karen Eifert, a Navy spokeswoman. One former military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, estimated that procurement of new aeroshells could add hundreds of millions of dollars to an overall multibillion dollar warhead effort. “I think building the re-entry bodies would be a major acquisition program,” the source said. Pentagon officials “have not been forthcoming on this.” Reliable Replacement Warhead advocates have made affordability a key selling point but have not yet said how much it would cost to develop and produce the weapon. Administration officials say the price would depend on engineering and production plans to be drawn up this year and presented to Congress in 2008. A variety of replacement warheads could eventually renovate the entire nuclear stockpile, administration officials have said. The first variant is to replace the Trident missile’s W-76 warhead, which entered the force in 1978. While the W-76 warhead is housed in a Mk-4 re-entry body, the Pentagon wants to use the larger Trident aeroshell, the Mk-5, for the replacement warhead. One reason for the switch appears to be that the Mk-5 offers design features that might compensate for the new warhead’s slightly lower yield. The replacement warhead design trades away some of the W-76’s 100-kiloton yield in exchange for improvements in safety, security and reliability, according to defense officials. “The Mk-5 provides somewhat more accuracy than the Mk-4, offsetting any loss of effectiveness from a slight yield reduction of the RRW, so that the [new unit] could fulfill … mission requirements” of the one it replaces, according to a July Congressional Research Service report. The Navy maintains roughly 400 Mk-5 re-entry bodies on active deployment or in readily accessible storage, but they now house a W-88 warhead that is to remain in the force for the time being. The new warhead would require an estimated 1,100 aeroshells, according to Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists Nuclear Information Project. That is how many W-76 warheads currently in the Trident missile fleet would be replaced by Reliable Replacement Warheads by 2021, under existing administration plans, he told GSN this week. The Navy would not comment on whether it keeps any significant number of Mk-5 aeroshells in storage. The service would say only that it plans to review options for using either existing or newly produced re-entry bodies. “The Navy intends to leverage off of available material assets where possible,” said Eifert, the service spokeswoman. “The number of aeroshells which might be manufactured for the RRW and any associated costs have yet to be determined.” Those questions will be resolved as the warhead effort proceeds through a system development and demonstration phase that began last spring at the Energy Department, Eifert said. Work done during this stage of an acquisition program typically focuses on developing a system or capability; reducing integration and manufacturing risks; ensuring the system can be maintained affordably once it is operational; and demonstrating system integration, interoperability, safety and utility, according to the Defense Department. While Pentagon participation in this phase awaits congressional approval, development and demonstration work is slated to wrap up by September 2008, Eifert said. Retired Gen. Larry Welch, who commanded “There are enough Mk-5 aeroshells for SLBM plans,” he stated in an Oct. 24 e-mail, referring to the replacement warhead for sea-launched ballistic missiles. “Different aeroshells are available for other future ballistic missile warheads.” Welch, now president and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analyses in However, another defense expert cast doubt on the notion that enough Mk-5s are available to preclude new manufacture. Perhaps the smaller Mk-4 re-entry body should be used for the replacement warhead, particularly given that they currently house the weapon that the new warhead is intended to supplant, the source suggested. “Is it better to sacrifice a little more yield to keep things in the Mk-4 re-entry body instead of maybe reopening the Mk-5 production line?” asked the expert, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue. Lawmakers have expressed serious concerns that many details about the Reliable Replacement Warhead, including its costs, remain unknown (see GSN, May 24). As one means of cutting costs, some lawmakers have urged that the administration reuse plutonium “pits” from dismantled or stored weapons in building the Reliable Replacement Warhead.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
