Latest news with #USHouseArmedServicesCommittee
Asia Times
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
US Navy wants sea-launched nuke missiles to hold China at bay
Amid rising nuclear tensions with China, the US Navy is advancing its most consequential theater nuclear weapon in decades: the sea-launched, low-yield cruise missile. In a statement delivered this month before the US House Armed Services Committee (HASC), Vice Admiral Johnny Wolfe mentioned that the US Navy is set to make a milestone decision in Fiscal Year 2026 on the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile, Nuclear (SLCM-N), aiming for delivery by 2034. According to Wolfe's statement, the decision marks a pivotal step in developing a survivable, flexible nuclear strike option to address regional deterrence gaps, particularly amid growing adversarial capabilities. In his statement, he states that the SLCM-N program has already established a dedicated office and is conducting extensive technical, engineering and integration assessments across missile, fire control, warhead and submarine systems. However, the statement notes key challenges, such as adapting a nuclear warhead to a conventionally designed cruise missile and ensuring compatibility with Virginia-class submarines, while maintaining nuclear surety and minimizing operational disruptions. Despite those challenges, the statement says infrastructure development at Strategic Weapons Facilities is underway to support storage and handling without affecting existing Trident programs. It stresses that continued funding and rapid workforce scaling are deemed critical to meeting the 2034 initial operational capability goal. The statement notes that the milestone decision in FY26 will formally initiate acquisition and solidify program execution strategy, setting the stage for one of the US Navy's most consequential nuclear modernization efforts in decades amid rising strategic competition and the need for credible deployable deterrent options in the region. Contextualizing the impetus behind the revamped SLCM-N program, the US Department of Defense (DOD) 2024 China Military Power Report (CMPR) states that China possesses 600 operational nuclear warheads and will have over 1,000 by 2030. The report also says China is building a nuclear triad alongside developing advanced delivery systems such as fractional orbital bombardment systems (FOBS) and low-yield warheads for regional deterrence and proportionate response. The report points out that despite China's no-first-use (NFU) policy, its actions indicate otherwise, saying that it might resort to nuclear weapons use if conventional attacks threaten its nuclear infrastructure or the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) regime survival, particularly in a Taiwan contingency. It adds that the integration of conventional and nuclear capabilities, coupled with blurred thresholds for use, could complicate crisis management and escalation control. In line with those developments, the 2023 US Strategic Posture Report states that additional US theater nuclear capabilities are needed in Europe and the Indo-Pacific to deter Russia and China, respectively. It notes that such capabilities should be deployable, survivable and offer variable yield options. It also adds that the US president must have a range of militarily effective nuclear response options to deter or counter limited nuclear use in theater conflicts, highlighting concerns that US deterrence lacks credibility in limited nuclear escalation scenarios where strategic weapons appear disproportionate. Delving into the SLCM-N's capabilities, John Harvey and Rob Soofer mention in a November 2022 Atlantic Council report that it addresses a US capability gap in response to the threat of limited nuclear employment. It also states that China has more options at the regional level, while US nuclear capabilities are not necessarily prompt, may lack survivability and may be vulnerable to adversary defenses. Highlighting the vulnerability of the US air-based nuclear arsenal in the Pacific, Thomas Shugart III and Timothy Walton mention in a January 2025 Hudson Institute report that in a US-China war over Taiwan, most US aircraft losses would happen on the ground, as most US air bases in the Pacific lack substantial hardening against China's long-range strike capabilities, making them vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike. Regarding the US sea-based nuclear arsenal, Thomas Mahnken and Bryan Clark highlight in a June 2020 article for The Strategist that if an alert nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) cannot launch its missiles, fails to communicate with commanders ashore or gets destroyed, all of its missiles become unavailable simultaneously. Mahnken and Clark stress that if only one SSBN is on patrol, its loss could mean the loss of an entire leg of a nuclear triad. In contrast to those vulnerabilities, a February 2025 US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report states that deploying the SLCM-N aboard surface vessels or nuclear attack submarines (SSN) provides greater availability and regional presence, while being forward-deployed, survivable against pre-emptive attack and capable of penetrating air and missile defenses. Despite the SLCM-N's advantages, David Kearn argues in a January 2025 article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that the weapon is redundant, considering the US already has other low-yield nuclear options such as the Long-Range Standoff Missile (LRSO), the B61-12 gravity bomb and a low-yield variant of the Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Kearn adds that the high costs of the SLCM-N program – price-tagged at US$10 billion, but likely even more than that – could draw away funds, infrastructure and workforce from other programs, such as upgrading the Trident II D-5 SLBM and the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPM) hypersonic weapon, at a critical time. He points out that the US industrial base is already struggling to produce conventional and nuclear munitions, with US nuclear infrastructure belatedly starting to reverse decades of neglect and underinvestment. Given the arguments for and against the SLCM-N, particularly in the context of a possible US-China war over Taiwan, there is clear incentive to keep such a conflict below the nuclear threshold. In a November 2024 RAND report, Edward Geist and other writers mention that to avoid nuclear escalation in a Taiwan conflict scenario, the US must pursue a strategy rooted in restraint, calibrated force employment and real-time adaptability. Geist and others stress that objectives must be limited to denying a Chinese invasion, not threatening regime survival or China's nuclear deterrent, both of which could provoke a first strike. They point out that long-range strikes, while operationally essential, must be designed with escalation sensitivity, eschewing ambiguous tactics that could be misread as nuclear preemption. Crucially, Geist and others emphasize that the US must anticipate Chinese misperceptions, recognizing that red lines are fluid and often opaque, highlighting that intelligence updates, clear signaling, and robust crisis communication channels are essential to prevent miscalculation or accidental escalation. They also call for strategic humility – acknowledging that even minor tactical decisions may cascade into catastrophic outcomes, stressing that victory without nuclear disaster hinges not on raw power but on disciplined, perception-sensitive warfighting.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
These are the 5 critical technologies the US needs to fight future wars, a top defense lawmaker says
A top lawmaker identified the five capabilities he believes the US military needs to innovate in. Those areas are missiles, missile defenses, drones, counter-drone systems, and secure comms, Rep. Smith said. Special operations forces lead the charge on experimenting with some of those, he added. There are five critical technologies needed to fight future wars, a top lawmaker on military and defense matters said recently. Those areas are missiles, missile defenses, drones, counter-drone systems, and secure communications, Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat and the ranking member of the US House Armed Services Committee, said at a recent symposium in Washington, DC. He said these are the areas where the US needs to innovate and develop game-changing capabilities. Having the best weapons within those areas, he said, is key to winning future wars. The war in Ukraine is showing just how crucial these capabilities are. Smith pointed out that the development of countermeasures demands a constant cycle of modifying these systems. That's been seen especially in the mass use of electronic warfare to jam drones; in response, both sides of the war have developed ways to evade frequency jamming. Beyond drones and counter-drone tech, the importance of missiles and missile defense are increasingly hot topics among military leaders as US rivals and adversaries, from Russia and China to Iran and North Korea, invest in missiles. The US has seen interceptor stocks strained by Iranian bombardments and lower-end threats like the Houthis in Yemen, who terrorized ships in and around the Red Sea. In a great-power conflict, such as a potential war with China in the Indo-Pacific region, air defenses could be more critical to shield naval bases, air bases, and other installations, as well as ships. The US military is also developing and fielding certain offensive missile capabilities, like the Typhon Mid-Range Capability, which is a land-based launch option for Tomahawk cruise missiles, and hypersonic missile systems. Likewise, another key development area has been secure communications and assured navigation. Vulnerabilities in these spaces can be costly in a high-end fight. For the US military, special operations forces can be seen leading the way in innovative iteration. "They're going to iterating on a day-in and day-out basis, and we need to learn from that and expand it," Smith said at the National Defense Industrial Association US Special Operations Symposium. US special operators testing out uncrewed systems in different environments against different threats, for example, are at the front lines of figuring out what could be needed for a future fight. They are often among the first to get their hands on new technologies, and they work closely with the defense industry to develop new systems, leading to real-time adaptations and rapid evolutions. As special operations leadership said at the recent symposium, operators are going to need cheaper, more expendable weapons, like drones, in a potential future fight. While this doesn't mean that other systems — such as F-35 Joint Strike Fighters or Ford-class aircraft carriers — aren't needed, it does raise questions about where the US Department of Defense's priorities are. "We are spending a ton of money at DoD right now that isn't in those five things," Smith said. The Pentagon is reshuffling the Defense Department's budget. It is still a bit murky, with submarines being among the few clearly articulated priorities, but it's moving roughly $50 billion from legacy programs to new priorities, which do appear to include missile defense and drone-related technologies. Big challenges for the department in fielding new capabilities can be contracting issues and slow acquisition processes. Military officials and industry partners at the NDIA special operations symposium spoke about the challenges facing the US military's acquisition process, including requirement and funding hurdles that have hindered the adoption of new weapons and capabilities. Some speakers highlighted the agile and flexible acquisition process used by US special operations forces as a model for how the Department of Defense can better implement new technologies, especially drones and other uncrewed systems. They said that having a process able to produce a variety of systems could be vital in a longer, protracted conflict. Others noted that a future, high-speed, highly digitized war could be even more demanding with the rise of artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. Questions were raised, too, about whether decision-making will occur at such a pace that humans can't keep up. The technological space is evolving fast. Read the original article on Business Insider
