Latest news with #B-21
Straits Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
Global nuclear arms spending up 11% in 2024, campaign group says
FILE PHOTO: The United States Air Force's B-21 \"Raider\", the long-range stealth bomber that can be armed with nuclear weapons, rolls onto the runway at Northrop Grumman's site at Air Force Plant 42, during its first flight, in Palmdale, California, U.S., November 10, 2023. REUTERS/David Swanson/File Photo Global nuclear arms spending up 11% in 2024, campaign group says GENEVA - Spending on nuclear weapons by the world's nine nuclear-armed nations rose by 11% in 2024, a report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said on Friday. The $10 billion annual increase to $100.2 billion went towards modernising and in some cases expanding nuclear arsenals, according to ICAN, a global civil society coalition that seeks the total elimination of atomic weapons. "Nuclear-armed countries could have paid the United Nations' budget 28 times with what they spent to build and maintain nuclear weapons in 2024," the report said. The U.S. recorded the largest annual increase in nuclear spending in 2024, rising by $5.3 billion, the report said. Its total expenditure of $56.8 billion exceeded the combined spending of all other nuclear-armed states, it said. China spent $12.5 billion, followed by Britain at $10.4 billion, which was an increase of $2.2 billion, ICAN said. It said the other nuclear-armed states were France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia. 'In terms of kind of the increase in spending in the UK and France, I think we certainly have seen, at least in the rhetoric of political leaders, a reference to the ongoing war in Ukraine, to the tensions, and that could be playing a role,' Alicia Sanders-Zakre, a policy and research coordinator at ICAN, told reporters at a briefing in Geneva. Britain and other allies in NATO now regard Russia as the main security threat to Europe and some have rolled out plans to devote a higher percentage of GDP to defence spending. However, Sanders-Zakre said the increase in nuclear expenditure has been more driven by the costs of servicing long-term contracts and the growing expense of developing nuclear delivery systems than by current security concerns. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - A trillion dollars annually for the Pentagon: Military spending is out of control
The era of trillion-dollar annual Pentagon budgets is upon us. Members of Congress are likely to increase defense spending by $150 billion through the budget reconciliation process. When added to the Trump administration's fiscal year 2026 Department of Defense base budget proposal, Pentagon spending will total over $1 trillion a year. There are two factors that virtually guarantee that defense spending will never dip below that mark again. The first is political. If a future budget proposal dips below the $1 trillion mark, there will be howls about national security cuts, and few politicians are willing to weather those attacks. The second reason is more practical. The reconciliation boost includes development funding for a slew of new weapons programs — the F-47, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the B-21 strategic bomber, Sentinel ballistic missiles, underwater drones, hypersonic missiles and more. The services aren't buying these weapons yet, just paying to develop them. As expensive as they are now, they will become vastly more expensive in coming years when they go into production. This is the beginning of a Pentagon spending 'time bomb.' New programs currently entering into development will be vastly more expensive than they initially appear as they transition into the production and sustainment phases in coming years. The American people are now dealing with the explosion of the last Pentagon spending time bomb, the one that started on Sept. 11, 2001. We now pay more on the military than at any time since the end of World War II. Even at the height of the war on terror, with American troops fighting in two separate theaters, the military wasn't spending as much in real terms as it does now. After the Sept. 11 attacks, no one seriously questioned military spending in Washington. Politicians almost universally wanted to appear strong on defense, and so few were willing to do anything to impede military spending proposals. The services took advantage of the moment and launched a series of new acquisition programs, few of which had any relevance to the war on terror. The Future Combat System, the Littoral Combat Ship, the F-35, the Zumwalt-class Destroyer and others were begun in earnest after 9/11. These were all programs that began the last time the national security establishment decided the historical moment justified their profligacy with taxpayer dollars. In 2001, it was the fear of global terrorism. Today, a menacing China serves the same purpose. The national security establishment has seriously lost its way. It continues to spend more and more while delivering a lot of disappointments. All components of the U.S. military are far smaller than they were 50 years ago. The Army is approximately 40 percent the size it was in 1975. The Navy went from 559 ships to 293 today. The Air Force had more than 10,000 aircraft then and a little more than 5,000 today. What the military does receive is delivered years late and typically twice the quoted price. Many weapons systems also don't work too well. The F-35 works less than one-third of the time. The Navy is retiring Littoral Combat Ships decades ahead of schedule because they can't perform the missions the Navy needs. Army leaders cancelled the Future Combat System without producing a single operational vehicle. Today, policymakers are doubling down on the same structure used to create the current mess. While the American people continue to pay for the sins of the previous generation of policymakers, today's military leaders are setting up at least the next two generations for even more disastrous Pentagon spending. Defense spending has increased nearly 50 percent since 2000. The post-9/11 spending time bomb accounts for a significant portion of that increase. In 20 years, the American people could easily be spending $2 to $3 trillion a year to cover the obligations made today. The Trump administration still has a good opportunity to establish a better path forward. The first step is to reevaluate the strategy that underpins military policies. The world has changed over the last decade. China is facing mounting political, economic and demographic challenges. The U.S. no longer has massive forces fighting overseas. Before proposing gigantic new military spending, the administration should first formulate an updated strategy that can guide policy decisions. By doing things backwards, the entire national security establishment gives the appearance of making the defense budget itself the strategy. Dan Grazier is a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center. He is a former Marine Corps captain who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Irish Sun
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The Irish Sun
‘City-destroying' nuclear missile unveiled by US after years of secret flights – it's 10x deadlier than Hiroshima bomb
AMERICA'S military bosses have shown off a city-destroying nuke after years of secret flights. The AGM-181A Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear cruise missile can evade electronic jamming attacks and features stealth capabilities. Advertisement 4 An artist's rendering of the AGM-181A Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear cruise missile Credit: SWNS 4 The nukes will be used by the B-21 Raider - a sixth-gen warfighter Credit: SWNS It will unleash thermonuclear warheads on enemies. Military chiefs released an artist's concept pic to give a glimpse of the AGM-181A Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear cruise missile. It is being developed in answer to the rapid growth of China's nuclear arsenal. America's next-generation nuclear cruise missile has a range exceeding 1,500 miles. Advertisement It is also expected to have an adjustable nuclear yield from five to 150 kilotons. That's a blast ten times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945. By comparison, deadly Tomahawks have a range of 1,500 miles, and the intermediate-range cruise missiles are equipped with a 1000-pound conventional warhead. The nuclear-armed cruise missile will arm America's warfighter B-21 - part of the Air Force strategic bomber fleet - and its famous combat bomber, the B-52. Advertisement Most read in The US Sun The United States has secretly been testing the new nuclear weapon for years. Once operational in battle, it'll be hard for the enemy to spot - and destroy - thanks to its 'low-observable design' according to defense and security experts at Watch Trump intel chief Tulsi Gabbard warn of nuclear 'annihilation' & slam 'elites with bomb shelters' in puzzling vid And the missile's development is rapidly progressing ahead of schedule. The AGM-181A will replace the 40-year-old AGM-86B Air-Launched Cruise Missile. Advertisement Air Force officials have confirmed that the nuke has already undergone a series of successful flight tests, and it is set for frontline service by 2030. The weapon offers stealth characteristics, jet propulsion, a range exceeding 1,500 miles, and an adjustable nuclear yield from five to 150 kilotons. 4 The LRSO is set to replace the Cold War-era AGM-86B, above Credit: SWNS 4 A B-21 Raider seen taking off at Edwards Air Force Base, California Credit: SWNS Advertisement But mystery remains, as few facts have been released about the LRSO's capabilities - the program remains highly classified. What is known - according to defense experts - is that it will be able to blast enemy targets well over 1,500 miles away. It's also expected to have subsonic missiles - which fly at a speed lesser than that of sound. Plus it will have the ability to navigate in any tough environment. Advertisement TOP SECRET "This highly secretive nuclear cruise missile is expected to offer a low-observable design meant to limit chances of intercept. "The LRSO's total range, top speed, and estimated radar return all remain classified," said 1945. The artist's pic reveals a sleek, stealthy weapon designed to evade modern air defences. The nuke's high-tech features mean it'll be perfect against electronic warfare, as it can be used when GPS jamming is carried out. Advertisement What are the features of the AGM-181A Long-Range Standoff (LRSO)? An artist's rendering shows a first glimpse of the AGM-181A Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear cruise missile What the nuke will offer the U.S. military: An adjustable nuclear yield between 5–150 kilotons, allowing uses ranging from tactical effect to destroying cities The ability to navigate in any environment Subsonic missile - flies at a speed lesser than that of sound Perfect for electronic warfare as they can be used where GPS jamming is carried out Will feature the updated W80-4 thermonuclear warhead - a type of nuclear warhead carried on air-launched cruise missiles Greater range than its predecessors - its stand-off range is expected to be more than (1,500 miles (2,500 km) It's pegged to replace America's only nuclear-armed cruise missile in operation today, which has served since the start of the Cold War - and are becoming obselete. Defense experts at STEALTH MODE Commenting on the first unclassified image, TWZ said the AGM-181A features an inverted tail. It also noted, "The missile looks like it has a trapezoidal fuselage cross-section design with a wedge-like nose. Advertisement "We see no air inlet in the concept rendering, which could be for security reasons, considering the inlet design is often a closely guarded feature on stealthy flying machines - or it could be located on the top of the missile." BUILT IN U.S. The experts warned, though, that the concept pic could well be inaccurate, as "some features will be omitted or even misleading for an initial public release." They described it as a "critical tool" for American's nuclear triad - hoped to avert a "nuclear holocaust." It's being built by major American aerospace and defense firm Raytheon, with production slated for 1,020 units, according to 1945. Advertisement The nukes will be carried by both the forthcoming £585 million B-21 Raider and upgraded B-52 Stratofortress bombers. The AGM-181s are expected to replace the AGM-86B missiles by 2030, added TWZ, quoting a We stand here today closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard The Pentagon's 2022 acquisition estimates the program will cost $16 billion for 1,020 missiles. And unit costs are currently projected to be around $14 million. Advertisement "With the aging Air-Launched Cruise Missile nearing obsolescence and no other nuclear cruise missile currently in service, the AGM-181A LRSO will fill a crucial gap in US deterrence strategy." WAR TURMOIL Its development comes during one of the most violent periods since the end of the Second World War. US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard warned on Tuesday, after a trip to Advertisement She posted a video of grisly footage from the world's first nuclear attack, and said, "A single nuclear weapon today could kill millions in just minutes. 'As we stand here today closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elites and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers.' These include ongoing threats from Iran, China, North Korea and Russia. U.S. TARGETS Iran today threatened to target U.S. military bases in the region if conflict breaks out. Advertisement Meanwhile, evil despot Vladimir Putin has his brutal ambitions set on invading Nato, warned Bruno Kahl, head of Berlin's Federal Intelligence Service. And just last October, the U.S. and its allies said they were 'alarmed' by North Korea's nuclear and missile threats. An opinion piece in It cited Defense Secretary Advertisement Read more on the Irish Sun The Hill said, 'The Chinese regime, which is mobilizing all of society for war, is now unstable. It is not clear who, if anyone, is in charge. Therefore, the regime could take us by surprise. 'Given all the turmoil in the Chinese military, America and its partners need to focus on more than just Taiwan. In fact, the main island of Taiwan might be the least likely target.'
The Hill
11-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
A trillion dollars annually for the Pentagon: Military spending is out of control
The era of trillion-dollar annual Pentagon budgets is upon us. Members of Congress are likely to increase defense spending by $150 billion through the budget reconciliation process. When added to the Trump administration's fiscal year 2026 Department of Defense base budget proposal, Pentagon spending will total over $1 trillion a year. There are two factors that virtually guarantee that defense spending will never dip below that mark again. The first is political. If a future budget proposal dips below the $1 trillion mark, there will be howls about national security cuts, and few politicians are willing to weather those attacks. The second reason is more practical. The reconciliation boost includes development funding for a slew of new weapons programs — the F-47, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, the B-21 strategic bomber, Sentinel ballistic missiles, underwater drones, hypersonic missiles and more. The services aren't buying these weapons yet, just paying to develop them. As expensive as they are now, they will become vastly more expensive in coming years when they go into production. This is the beginning of a Pentagon spending 'time bomb.' New programs currently entering into development will be vastly more expensive than they initially appear as they transition into the production and sustainment phases in coming years. The American people are now dealing with the explosion of the last Pentagon spending time bomb, the one that started on Sept. 11, 2001. We now pay more on the military than at any time since the end of World War II. Even at the height of the war on terror, with American troops fighting in two separate theaters, the military wasn't spending as much in real terms as it does now. After the Sept. 11 attacks, no one seriously questioned military spending in Washington. Politicians almost universally wanted to appear strong on defense, and so few were willing to do anything to impede military spending proposals. The services took advantage of the moment and launched a series of new acquisition programs, few of which had any relevance to the war on terror. The Future Combat System, the Littoral Combat Ship, the F-35, the Zumwalt-class Destroyer and others were begun in earnest after 9/11. These were all programs that began the last time the national security establishment decided the historical moment justified their profligacy with taxpayer dollars. In 2001, it was the fear of global terrorism. Today, a menacing China serves the same purpose. The national security establishment has seriously lost its way. It continues to spend more and more while delivering a lot of disappointments. All components of the U.S. military are far smaller than they were 50 years ago. The Army is approximately 40 percent the size it was in 1975. The Navy went from 559 ships to 293 today. The Air Force had more than 10,000 aircraft then and a little more than 5,000 today. What the military does receive is delivered years late and typically twice the quoted price. Many weapons systems also don't work too well. The F-35 works less than one-third of the time. The Navy is retiring Littoral Combat Ships decades ahead of schedule because they can't perform the missions the Navy needs. Army leaders cancelled the Future Combat System without producing a single operational vehicle. Today, policymakers are doubling down on the same structure used to create the current mess. While the American people continue to pay for the sins of the previous generation of policymakers, today's military leaders are setting up at least the next two generations for even more disastrous Pentagon spending. Defense spending has increased nearly 50 percent since 2000. The post-9/11 spending time bomb accounts for a significant portion of that increase. In 20 years, the American people could easily be spending $2 to $3 trillion a year to cover the obligations made today. The Trump administration still has a good opportunity to establish a better path forward. The first step is to reevaluate the strategy that underpins military policies. The world has changed over the last decade. China is facing mounting political, economic and demographic challenges. The U.S. no longer has massive forces fighting overseas. Before proposing gigantic new military spending, the administration should first formulate an updated strategy that can guide policy decisions. By doing things backwards, the entire national security establishment gives the appearance of making the defense budget itself the strategy. Dan Grazier is a senior fellow and program director at the Stimson Center. He is a former Marine Corps captain who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Pentagon Wants To Shift Funds From Navy F/A-XX To USAF F-47: Report
The U.S. Navy's F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter program looks to have hit another snag, with the Pentagon reportedly prioritizing the Air Force's F-47 stealth fighter, amid concerns about how to run the two efforts simultaneously. Already, the F/A-XX was in limbo, with a U.S. official telling TWZ last month that the future of the program was still being reviewed. This came after reports that a contract award for the Navy's new combat jet could be delayed by as much as three years. Navy officials, meanwhile, continue to stress the importance of the F/A-XX to their plans. 'There's certainly a strong requirement for a sixth-gen fighter still,' Dr. Brett A. Seidle, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition (RD&A), said yesterday. 'I know there's a lot of discussion about [F/A-XX] right now, but the Navy position on that is there's a requirement that's necessary.' Seidle was speaking at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Seapower and Projection Forces. His comments came in response to questions from U.S. Rep. Joseph David Courtney, the Democrat representative for Connecticut's 2nd congressional district. You can see that exchange in the video below, starting at the 35.25 mark: The hearing followed a Pentagon request last month to the House and Senate defense policy committees, which was seen by Bloomberg News, warning that 'Simultaneously pursuing two sixth-generation fighters risks under-delivery on both.' 'Given the schedule delays and cost growth across numerous airframes, DoD recommends a focus on the F-47, giving the Navy's F/A-XX program time for technical maturity and development,' the Pentagon request added. 'Phasing the F/A-XX after the Air Force's initial F-47 development will alleviate capacity concerns in the industrial base.' Exactly why there should be concerns about industrial capacity is somewhat unclear, although that could be a factor were Boeing to win the F/A-XX contract on top of the F-47. On the other hand, with Northrop Grumman busy with the B-21 stealth bomber, which still needs to get through flight testing, adding a few years to the F/A-XX timeline could mitigate risk there, were this contractor to walk away with F/A-XX. Reportedly, the U.S. Department of Defense requested that Congress shift $500 million from F/A-XX to the F-47, the contract for which was awarded to Boeing in March. Previously, these funds were allocated for the 'accelerated development' of the Navy fighter. There is now something of a battle between the Pentagon Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). On the one hand, the F-47 is considered by the Pentagon to have 'full presidential support,' making it a priority for the $500 million that the House Armed Services Committee had added to the F/A-XX program under President Donald Trump's sweeping $3.9-trillion tax breaks package. While we previously reported on Pentagon recommendations to withhold $500 million from the F/A-XX program, it wasn't previously understood that it wanted to redirect this to the Air Force's equivalent effort, the F-47. The House Armed Services Committee is now seeking to block the funds from being redirected to the F-47, arguing that the Pentagon hasn't provided an adequate reason for this. Heather Vaughan, a committee spokesperson, told Bloomberg News that the Pentagon 'has yet to brief the committee on any changes for its plans to develop and procure' the Navy's new stealth jet. 'Absent any new information from the Navy concerning revision to defined capability gaps and shortfalls, mission requirements, cost, or acquisition strategy for F/A-XX, the committee continues to support the development of this critical platform,' Vaughan added. Earlier this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee released its defense section of the tax breaks package, which includes $750 million to 'accelerate the F/A-XX aircraft.' Originally, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman were all in the running to develop the F/A-XX. However, Lockheed Martin was reportedly eliminated from the competition in March because its proposal 'did not satisfy the service's criteria,' according to Breaking Defense, whose story cited an unnamed source with knowledge of the program. Any holdups to the F/A-XX program will be a worry for the Navy. The service considers a sixth-generation combat aircraft as a prerequisite for the future carrier air wing, especially in terms of a potential confrontation with China in the Indo-Pacific theater. 'The sixth-gen fighter has some capabilities that we need to counter the PRC,' Navy Adm. James W. Kilby, acting Chief of Naval Operations, said of the F/A-XX last month. 'Those are signatures, those are range, those are different engines. Those are all the things that will make it survivable. The Air Force and Navy have different missions, but we're going against the same threat.' Last month, a U.S. official, speaking to TWZ on condition of anonymity, denied reports that the F/A-XX program contract award could be delayed by as much as three years. 'Nothing is being delayed,' the official stated. 'A decision hasn't been made yet. That decision is still being determined by [the Pentagon] and service leaders, with conversations among Congress as well. It's a big program. Obviously, these things don't get settled on by one individual. Leaders are making a decision on whether to invest. It's all part of the process.' The Navy had planned for the F/A-XX aircraft to enter service in the 2030s and thereafter to replace F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets. According to a 2025 Naval Aviation Playbook, the F/A-XX 'is expected to feature superior range, speed, and sensor capabilities, with an emphasis on integrating manned and unmanned systems. This includes collaboration with autonomous drones serving as force multipliers and electronic warfare assets.' In regards to the range, it emerged earlier this year that the F/A-XX may offer just a 25 percent increase in this respect over the existing tactical combat jets in its carrier air wings. That disclosure is surprising, given that the service consistently makes it clear that extending the reach of its carrier strike groups and thus enhancing their survivability is a critical priority, as the range of expected threats also continues to grow. Regardless, the continued funding dispute may well still derail the current timeline for F/A-XX. In a report last month, Reuters wrote that the Pentagon's main issue about the F/A-XX program was 'concerns about engineering and production capacity,' but didn't elaborate further. If the F/A-XX does end up being delayed, the Navy might well have to look again at its tactical fighter fleet to avoid shortfalls. One immediate result would be the service relying longer than expected on its aging fleets of Super Hornets and Growlers. At one stage, the Super Hornet production line was expected to be shut down this year. However, in March of last year, the Navy issued Boeing a $1.3-billion contract for 17 new Super Hornets with a final delivery planned for spring 2027 at the latest. Buying more Super Hornets could be an option, but such a move would have to be made before the line is closed. An alternative would be to push more resources toward the F-35C stealth fighter, which the Navy has introduced to replace the last of its 'legacy' Hornets. As well as the baseline F-35C, Lockheed Martin is increasingly looking at the potential of further advanced developments of the Joint Strike Fighter, something the company has previously described as a 'Ferrari' or 'NASCAR upgrade' to the F-35's core 'chassis.' This could include a substantial fuselage redesign. With a future Pacific fight very much on its mind, neither of these options would be ideal for the Navy, and the current uncertainty around the F/A-XX program is very much bad news for the service. It's also worth considering the Navy's approach for the fleets of carrier-capable drone wingmen that it wants to accompany crewed combat aircraft in the future. As it now stands, the service wants its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) designs to cost no more than $15 million to buy and have zero long-term sustainment costs. At the same time, there are signs the Navy may not be moving as quickly on CCAs as the Air Force, as you can read about here. Meanwhile, if the Pentagon gets its way and is able to inject another $500 million into the F-47, that will only help realize its goal to have the next-generation Air Force combat jet flying before the end of the current Trump administration. Contact the author: thomas@
