Home » Budget Industry » Japan Cabinet Approves Aegis Ashore Buy to Supplement DDGs In Ballistic Missile Defense


Japan Cabinet Approves Aegis Ashore Buy to Supplement DDGs In Ballistic Missile Defense

USS George Washington (CVN-73) with the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Kongo-class guided-missile destroyer JS Kirishima (DDG-174) on Nov. 18, 2014. US Navy Photo

The cabinet of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved the purchase of two Aegis Ashore missile defense systems this week to counter the threat of ballistic missiles from North Korea, though Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters that many specific details are still yet to be determined.

The Tuesday decision by the Japanese government comes after an August request for Fiscal Year 2018 funds for Aegis Ashore. The country had been rumored to be looking into an Aegis Ashore purchase since at least 2014.

Though many of Japan’s recent defense-related decisions have been in response to concerns about China, the decision to buy two Aegis Ashore batteries comes completely in response to a growing threat from North Korea. As that nation has continued its nuclear weapons test program, it continues to launch missiles in the direction of Japan. As North Korean technology improves, Japan wants increased protection beyond its current fleet of four guided-missile destroyers.

In a press conference on Tuesday, Onodera told reporters that Aegis Ashore would go a long way in supplementing the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force’s fleet of Aegis-equipped destroyers, both in terms of range and ability to handle multiple threats at once. He made clear that “the threat against our national security from North Korea’s nuclear and missile development has become more serious and imminent than before and has risen to a new level,” and that two batteries of Aegis Ashore were needed to ensure round-the-clock protection.

“As Aegis Ashore is capable of using the SM-3 Block IIA, we understand that the range and capability of our defense will improve. Currently, the MSDF’s Aegis-equipped destroyers are responsible for missile defense, but given that this task must be performed constantly, on a 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year basis, it is desirable to deploy a land-based system,” he said, according to an English translation of the press conference.
“The MSDF currently possesses four BMD-capable Aegis-equipped destroyers, and the number will increase to five, and ultimately, we will firmly defend Japan with a fleet of eight Aegis-equipped destroyers. However, the Aegis-equipped destroyers are originally not intended only for BMD but also for performing various tasks, including the defense of the southwestern region. When the Aegis Ashore system has been completed, the Aegis-equipped destroyers will be able to perform various tasks, making it possible to defend Japan more effectively.”

However, details about the cost of the systems, how soon they could be fielded, where they would be located and more are still hazy.

Onodera said it takes Japan about five years to acquire an Aegis Combat System for use on a destroyer, so the government is considering that a reasonable timeframe for Aegis Ashore acquisition. He said he is awaiting more details from U.S. officials but added that Japan “would like to introduce the new system as soon as possible.”

He also noted uncertainty over the cost but said “as it is necessary to introduce the system at the earliest possible date in order to meet the Japanese people’s requests in relation to ballistic missile defense, we will provide conscientious explanations in the Diet (legislature) while making efforts to realize the introduction as soon as possible.”

Regarding the location of the two Aegis Ashore sites, Onodera said the government would conduct a slew of studies in FY 2018 to determine the best location for the missile defense sites.

“Before deploying the system, we need to check whether the batteries can be securely deployed in locations effective for defense by conducting a study on the deployment feasibility, including geographic, geological, radio wave environmental surveys and measurements,” he said.
“After radio wave and geological conditions have been examined, we will start consultations with the local communities, as it will be necessary to obtain their understanding and cooperation.”

As for manning, Onodera said he believed the would be joint operations, with the Japan Ground Self Defense Force leading the mission. With the existing Aegis Ashore site in Romania, the Missile Defense Agency oversaw the acquisition and construction of the system and then turned it over to the Navy for operations, with about 100 personnel from U.S. 6th Fleet operating the site. Onodera said he thought that 100-man requirement would serve as a guideline for planning the Japanese sites.

  • Ed L

    I know there is one land base system in Romania and I believe there is one at Vanderberg. So, does this mean that the Aegis BMD shore base system will be built in Hawaii, Guam, Alaska? What about in CONUS? As I understand it the next step for Aegis is to being able to take down ICBM’s in rentry stage

  • leroy

    Sorry, but it’s not enough. Japan must redo their Constitution to allow for the building of a nuclear capacity. They must arm themselves with atomic bombs just like North Korea has. If Kim is allowed to have them – allowed by China – the ROK and Japan should have the weapons too. Nothing else will deter the mad fat little dictator. Only assurance of his death and that of the DPRK will make him think twice about using nuclear weapons. The U.S. umbrella is not enough.

  • DaSaint

    South Korea will request one next to defend Seoul. China will protest vehemently. So be it. And so it starts.

  • Dwight Looi

    AEGIS should replace the Patriot as America’s premiere air defense system. It does not have to be a concrete building. Just put ONE AMDR-S (AN/SPY-6) radar on a big truck. This can be rotated to provide 360-degree coverage or be pointed in a fixed direction for a 110 degree stare. This requires ZERO development, the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar is exactly that — an AMDR-S panel on a rotating mount. Eight Mk41 VLS canisters will fit neatly on the back of a HEMTT (truck). Another truck or two can carry the generators to power these. The battery will have the ability to engage ballistic missiles out to 2,500km out (using the SM-3 Block II), aircraft out to about 400km (using the SM-6) and provide for close in protection similar to that afforded by the Patriot to 50km (using the ESSM Block II). In a contested environment you can also easily add a few Mk15 20mm Phalanx guns or SeaRAM point defense turrets for protection against helicopters and other low altitude pop-up threats. It’ll be the world’s most formindable air defense battery putting the S400/S500 to shame in every respect.

    The US is used to operating with the assumption of air dominance and/or superiority, often neglecting land based SAMs. Ok, maybe we don’t need it. But, this will be a fantastic export to our allies. Israel, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Singapore, NATO and many gulf client states will love it. It’ll be an especially hot item if we have a half dozen of the batteries packed up and ready to deploy. They can pay up and we can have C-17s arrive with the battery for set up the next day.

    • Curtis Conway

      C-17s? How about one C-5M Super Galaxy? Every C-5A Galaxy in the Boneyard should be rebuilt to the C-5M Super Galaxy standard. They will be more valuable than you know if things ever go bad in the Pacific. Replacements, or like capability cannot be built new for the rebuild cost to Super Galaxy.

      • El Kabong

        Wrong.

        The old C-5A’s are worn out and not economically viable to rebuild.

        • Curtis Conway

          A C-5A Galaxy was among the initial rebuilds to prove the concept. Since those platforms had so few flight hours on them, most were VERY good candidates for rebuild. That is why so many C-5As are parked West of the dividing highway at the Boneyard, and Congress required they be put up in flyaway status.

          The additional cost of C-5A conversion is due to modifications required to replace legacy systems that are no longer manufactured, most of which have been reconstituted/replaced for the C-5B/C conversions already. A C-5A Galaxy conversion will most likely cost more than a C-5B conversion to Super Galaxy on the initial units, but that cost is far less than building new platforms with similar capabilities (range and cargo). The conversion line is hot, and more efficient than ever with every build.

          The test to back up cargo at Incirlik AFB was relavent only to that theater. A similar demonstration in the Pacific would be an entirely different animal with multiple locations needing reenforcement and resupply, all at once, accross the vast Pacific, which happens to be a center of gravigy for defense movement too. The time to strike is now, and the window is closing. We will not get this opportunity again. ‘Bird in the hand’ time for the C-5A to C-5M Super Galxy conversion is now, and should happen. The nose wheel screws can be 3D printed.

          Now that the C-17 Globemaster III line is closed, this option/necessity is more relevant if neigh on not required, than ever before.

          • El Kabong

            Oh, good grief…

            “A C-5A Galaxy was among the initial rebuilds to prove the concept.”

            If you paid attention, you’d know the USAF found it was far too expensive to overhaul the old FRED’s…

            I’ll wait while you look up that old nickname for them.

          • Curtis Conway

            I have always been a fan of the C-5 Galaxy. It has been a pain for the USAF. Instead of getting maximum return on their investment they have decided to park over 1/4 of the force. I have always been disappointed in that aircraft’s performance, and the C-5M Super Galaxy rebuilds are performing very well (except for the nose gear perhaps). There will come a day when this airlift capability/capacity will be sorely missed, particularly in the Pacific.

          • El Kabong

            “Instead of…”?

            How about cutting their losses?

            “… and the C-5M Super Galaxy rebuilds are performing very well…”?

            No kidding, Capt’n Obvious.

            Rebuilding the 80’s era C-5’s instead of the 60’s era ones.

            The capability of those hangar queens hasn’t be missed.
            What was the MCR of those FRED’s?

          • Curtis Conway

            Most, if not all, of the things that made them hangar queens was going to be replaced. If rebuilt they would be all but brand new birds.

          • El Kabong

            Answer the question.

        • Curtis Conway

          Constant maintenance and operational problems on the C-5A platforms grounded them more often than not, and preserved much of their airframe time.

          • El Kabong

            WTF????

            “Constant maintenance and operational problems on the C-5A platforms grounded them more often than not…”

            “…preserved much of their airframe time.”?

            Wow.

            That makes no sense.

            At all.

          • Curtis Conway

            Perhaps I have given you too much credit for aviation knowledge? The age of an airframe is measured by flight hours on that airframe, not the hours it remained on the ground in maintenance status., and not flying. Most of the lifetime flight capability is still remaining on these older airframes. Full inspection of the airframes in required on the rebuilds anyway. The C-5M is a complete rebuild of the airframe from wiring, engines (RERP), avionics (AMP), systems. The aircraft coming out of conversion to C-5M Super Galaxy is for all practical purposes a brand new aircraft with nearly twice the capacity it once possessed, and at about the cost of a new like capable transport.

          • El Kabong

            Clearly, you think way too highly of yourself.

            Since the C-5A’s are ALL RETIRED, it seems the USAF and I know more than you.

          • Curtis Conway

            Well, perhaps. The USAF was directed to place the C-5As in Fly-Away status, though recent decisions has changed that a bit. They are still located on the West side of the highway. The aircraft and basic structure are still sound on most of them with many hours left on the airframes. Reconstruction would be a chore but less expensive than buying a replacement of like capability. Recent airlift studies have suggested that the USAF can meet their airlift requirements with their current inventory. I just want to see a return on our investment. The USAF is intent on NOT getting a return on these very valuable aircraft.

          • Secundius

            “Double Deuce”! In 25 August 2014, 22 C-5M Super Galaxies” were delivered. But of the 81 C-5A’s, 45 were Retired and 11 Scrapped with the remaining 25 being converted to C-5B’s with New Wings. Starting in 15 February 2004, ALL remaining C-5B’s and C-5C’s are to be Upgraded to C-5M’s standards…

          • El Kabong

            Perhaps?

            Wow, you aren’t delusional….a LOT.

            “They are still located on the West side of the highway.”?

            “They” are being scrapped.

            You have no idea about what the USAF does.

            The USAF is not wasting their limited resources on the old FRED.

          • Duane

            Curtis, you’ve been “El Kabonged”, a guy who appears to be a favored pet of the moderators here, despite the fact that he constantly hurls abusive personal insults in direct contravention to the posted commenting rules, they let him continue on. Perversely, any time any of his targets or even another commenter makes a simple note of his abusive commenting, it is his targets who get “moderated”, while Mr. Rapid Fire Insults keeps going on and on without any moderation at all. I haven’t quite figured out how the moderator’s actions comport with their own posted rules. I fully expect this comment to get moderated out too. Pretty wacky. I’d sure like to see them explain why they bleep his targets and let him keep firing away with his insults.

          • Curtis Conway

            Thanks for the ‘Heads Up’ Duane.

          • Secundius

            This is why “USNI News”, “Breaking Defense” and “DISQUS” have “Blacklisted” “El K” and ME from Direct Communications with each other…

          • Curtis Conway

            You do know that every Taxpayer has a responsibility to possess an attitude, and gets to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights in this forum and others, about our tax expenditures and for what they are used. With projects exemplified in the Army (various multiple cancelled armored vehicle development programs), Navy (LCS, Ford CVN, Marine vehicles) Programs that are way overbudget and late/cancelled, expressing exasperation is NOT out of order. Particularly when we have ‘Birds in Hand’ parked in the desert that the US Air Force will just throw away, when they could not replace them “In Kind” for the cost of the rebuild. The American People are TIRED of the Military Industrial Complex dreaming up new ways to TAKE OUR MONEY, and getting little or NOTHING for that investment in Defense. That activity IS NOT DEFENSE. AND boohooing those who do not agree with you, and are unwilling, or unable to support their arguments with data, facts (stipulated in detail, and anything but opinion) trying to cook up a ‘Bird in the Bush’ is not our idea of progress.

          • El Kabong

            Clearly, you don’t realize your single opinion is meaningless.

            You have ZERO right to know everything the government does.

            Go ahead, wander out to Tonopah.
            Tell me how that works out for you.

          • Curtis Conway

            I don’t need to know all the nation’s secrets, but I still get to express my opinion in the “Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave”. Not that I have to, but I EARNED the Right via years of service. How about you? Plain logic and truth serve every observer, and escapes few, particularly the intel folks.

          • El Kabong

            “…but I still get to express my opinion in the “Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave””

            Which means ZIP.

            Your amateur, uninformed opinion is irrelevant to those who are experts in the field.

            “Not that I have to, but I EARNED the Right via years of service.”?

            So, in your world, only those who served have the right to free speech?

            Not in my country.

          • Secundius

            Something to make you Happy “Curtis”, and a Belated Christmas Present too! According to “Asia Pacific” dated 26 December 2017, BOTH Japan and South Korea are Taking A “Hard” Second Look at Modifying their “Izumo” DDH’s for Japan and “Dokdo” Assault Ships for SK. To be F-35B Deployable! Still not clear on whether “Indigenous” F-35B’s or “Allied” (i.e.USMC) F-35B’s…

          • Curtis Conway

            I read an article no too long ago (after your suggestion) about Australia considering F-35Bs for their Large Deck Amphibians too. Things are a changin . . . and fast. Although all of the F-35 models are a leap in operational capability in combat aircraft, of the three F-35 models the “B” has the greatest capacity to change things via game changing qualities (STOVL operations). We really needed that upgraded F136 engine, or the ADVENT version soon. We also need that VSTOL/STOVL AEW&C aircraft that can operate off of any flight deck.

          • PolicyWonk

            Given Japan’s history, and their constitutional limitations, that the Japanese are seriously considering upgrading their “helicopter destroyers” to handle F35B’s represents an extraordinary event.

          • Curtis Conway

            China is counting on Japan sticking to the restrictions in their constitution as an Ace in the Hole! Indications for the last couple of years is the Japanese are going to step up to the plate for greater security responsibilities in the Pacific as the United States has been asking them to do for some time. This will require them to build a naval aviation program, it just will not be a Divine Wind this time.
            The rise in military power of Japan has been slow, methodical, and NOT in an Imperialistic model as before, which left such a bad taste in everyone’s mouth (as polite as I can put it), and created problems in the Pacific for decades. This time Japan has helped with it neighbors in numerous occasions and is standing with them against Chinese Imperialism, which China characterizes as anything but, but is exactly that! Now China is caught Red Handed lying to the US about help with the North Korean problem, which they REALLY don’t want a solution to, because it does not serve their long term purposes in the region. Going to be an interesting next couple of years.

            It would go a long ways in the Right Direction if Japan and South Korea could “Bury the Hatchet”, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. That hatred is deep, wide, and ancient.

          • PolicyWonk

            Well, like you I think the Chinese are going to come to a rude awakening when it comes to Japan, and what it ultimately decides to do with the F-35B and their “helicopter destroyers”.

            It has been a fairly drawn out process, but it wasn’t hard to see this coming if you read the US NIE of 2008 (if you haven’t read that one recently, its worth a look because the authors were predicting the future with a lot of accuracy – at least if you understand the concept of “cause and effect”).

            The Chinese weren’t exactly caught red-handed when it came to N. Korea, because its been known in foreign policy circles for years that they won’t tolerate either the US or one of its allies abutting their border. And after the last major war games we had with the S. Koreans, they had their own war games (unscheduled) at the same time while letting it be known (bluntly) through back channels that if a war with N. Korea were to start, they would likely join in on the side of the N. Koreans.

            I’m sure you recall the last time we ignored their threats in this regard, it didn’t end well. The Chinese are also acutely aware that they have a massive logistical advantage, and a huge naval presence that we simply cannot match for an extended period of time (and they have many conventional submarines, both D/E and AIP at their disposal).

            China has used N. Korea as a buffer and always have since the armistice – this I can assure you is nothing new – and they’ve never been interested in the reunification of the Koreas. And we’re not in much of a position to do much about it without seriously risking the start of WWIII, and many millions of lives.

            Assuming the Dept of State and DIA haven’t gone out of business, the POTUS had to have been made aware of the facts – yet he (IMO) took a pretty risky approach to handling N. Korea – and either he loses face and backs down, or we’ll be lucky to still be discussing it by the end of 2018.

            W/r/t the S. Koreans and Japanese – you’re right: they’d be so much better off if they could find a way to work together despite the past. But the past is a very difficult one as you mention in your posting. The good news is that they are at least back to having arguments (“diplomatic discussions”) due to China’s rising influence and military power (again – the 2008 NIE’s predictions coming to fruition).

            Lots to think about – lots to discuss.

            Unfortunately, we’re living in “interesting times”, which in Chinese culture isn’t a good thing.

          • Curtis Conway

            “The Chinese weren’t exactly caught red-handed when it came to N. Korea”

            Unfortunately, I do not start my day with a ‘stack of traffic’, or run in those circles, but thank you for the post. At least someone out there has their feet on stable ground, and is at the Helm. I fear for our nation when the last relevant NIE was in ‘2008’ (beginning of the last administration). My, how our Defense apparatus has been affected. Reconstitution of THAT organization (and all the intel assets) should be the highest priority.

          • PolicyWonk

            Well, its strong to say that the last NIE that was worth anything was 2008 – but the seriousness of the implications were there – and its all come true. The 2008 NIE came at the end of what is considered the longest string of national security and foreign policy disasters in US history (possibly beyond). But they correctly predicted the massive Chinese military build-up resulting from the unprecedented, massive transfer of 10’s of thousands of dual-use technologies, the hard won manufacturing techniques, and 6M+ US jobs that was permitted starting 2002.

            That NIE declared that the Communist Chinese gained more new technology in 6 years than the USSR got in 60 years of Cold War. They then predicted China would use the new technologies and the massive infusion of cash to rapidly build up their military power (check!), start settling old scores with neighboring nations (check), start throwing their diplomatic weight around (check), expand their territories (check!), and try to take over in S. China Sea while systematically attempting to evict the USA from their area of influence (check!).

            The result, was that the transfer of so many technologies massively accelerated China’s ascendancy, which otherwise would’ve taken them many decades. The actions of administrations can have long-lasting impact, not only on our national security – but those of other nations as well.

            Subsequent NIE’s have had a lot of value – but the 2008 one (given that point in time and the unfortunate actions of that administration) was especially important.

          • Curtis Conway

            Throw on top of that the fact that China has not taken part in SALT, in fact the Clinton administration and Loral helped them with their missiles and accuracy, and we have a problem of huge proportion, that has been ignored far too long.

          • PolicyWonk

            I am aware of the Clinton/Loral missile issue. The problem at the time was a lack of capacity in the US to launch sufficient satellites.

            While I certainly agree that was not a good development, it pales to what came after it.

          • Curtis Conway

            You think?! China’s accuracy on ICBMs went from hundreds of feet to hundreds of centimeters.

          • Curtis Conway

            It would seem that China does not see their own activities that are driving South Korea and Japan back into the Nuclear Club pursuit.

          • PolicyWonk

            An astute observation.

            But if you’ve studied Asian history – and Chinese history – they have a long held tradition of signing (or agreeing to) anything to get their foot in the door, after which they will do what they want (for example, look at the Russian experience selling them weapons: China bought them new, reverse engineered them, and now sells them as original military hardware. The Russians are furious – but still sell them weapons because they’re desperate for hard currency).

            The Chinese will push the limits and keep pushing them until they either achieve what they want, or in some cases, to the point to where it is detrimental their cause (relatively rare – but it happens: the Chinese are playing the LONG game – and we’re on a far shorter time frame). If they push Japan and/or the S. Koreans into the nuclear club, that clearly would be against their interests – and once that pony has left the barn there’s no going back.

            But given the history they share with Japan, if the Japanese buy F-35B’s and assign them to their “helicopter destroyers” that would (I’m guessing) represent a major national security problem/blunder for them. Since the Japanese are openly reviewing such an option – one would think the Chinese would start lightening up in a big way (something their own conservatives will resist).

          • Curtis Conway

            Nuclear wise the only thing China is got going for it at this time is (ACTUAL) prevailing winds . . . vice ‘Divine Winds’.

          • Secundius

            With a Bit of Luck on the side, the Flight IV “AB’s” will be a “DDH” Design…

    • El Kabong

      Wow…

      “Just put ONE AMDR-S (AN/SPY-6) radar on a big truck.”?

      Amateur.

      • Dwight Looi

        The 9-RMA EASR version of the SPY-6 will fit just fine. A catepillar generator will supply plenty of power too. So, yes.

    • Duane

      AEGIS is a fine system, but it’s designed to be a long range air and missile defense system, it’s not a mobile system like Patriot is.

      • Dwight Looi

        It can be… just tow an erectable Mk41VLS behind a HEMMT truck and put a EASR (Enterprise Air Surveilance Radar) on the the back of another HEMMT truck. The ESSM can be the 50km SAM, the SM-6 the 400km SAM, the SM-3 the ABM weapon. BTW, I am sure with a few updates you can launch the PAC-3 on cues and commands by the same EASR radar too.

        • Secundius

          Doable! During the Yom Kipper War the Israeli mounted General Dynamics AGM-78 Standard Missiles to a M809A1 Truck Chassis…

  • NavySubNuke

    My thoughts exactly — hopefully they put in enough VLS tubes to stuff some with SM-6s in addition to the SM-3s for BM defense.
    A few extra for TLAMs wouldn’t hurt either…..

  • Ed L

    Sounds great. Now an Aegis question In BMD mode an aegis system is blind to other threats. Would that constitute need for shore base to have Defense against sucide troops, attack aircraft

    • Nick

      What if N Korea fires half a dozen or dozen of their cheap IRCMs targeted on the Japanese Aegis Ashore fixed position to overwhelm it.

      Each Aegis Ashore is said to cost ~$1B and SM-3 Block IIA missiles $25M a pop. It’s a win win for N Korea using its cheap IRCMs.

      • Duane

        Any salvo of cruise missiles launched from NK will be instantly sensed on stationary IR sensors we have parked in geostationary orbit above NK and the Sea of Japan, and/or from patrolling aircraft equipped with synthetic aperture AESA look down radars. Cruise missiles are slow and very easy to shoot down with AAMs from patrolling Japanese and US fighters, or via our AEGIS air defense systems including SM-2 missiles and ESSM, both ashore and afloat. Any attack on Japan will unleash a full scale war on NK, while failing to take out AEGIS Ashore.

    • Duane

      AEGIS is an air and missile defense system, not just BM defense, so it is not “blind to other threats”. The AEGIS system includes the long range sensors, fire control systems, and missiles (interceptors and SAMs) to take out any kind of aircraft or missile.

  • Kenneth Millstein

    Merry Christmas! You learn something new every day. I didn’t know that Aegis was available as an onshore version. That comes as really great news. Carry on!

    • Vincent J.

      I seem to recall that land-based Aegis is part of Israel’s Iron Dome system ….. but I could be wrong.

      • Kenneth Millstein

        Thanks for trying to help. It sounds to me that you might be right.

      • Duane

        No, the Iron Dome, like Patriot, is designed, built, and operated as a mobile land based system intended only to handle short to medium range (4 to70 km) rocket defenses. The Israelis use other systems as part of a multi-layered air defense system, for defending against BMs of various ranges, including their newest, “David’s Sling”.

  • Duane

    Yup – we have a pretty comprehensive set of missile defense systems in CONUS, including our non-deployed CONUS homeported AEGIS cruisers and destroyers.

  • John B. Morgen

    We should do same, but also deploy the system in South Korea and Taiwan. And be damn about what the Chinese may protests.

    • Secundius

      If it’s a Land-Based Aegis System? I suspect we already are! Several Domestic Base “Modifications” in the Last Appropriations Budgets, but to “What” they actually are is anyone guess…

      • John B. Morgen

        Congress is a mystery place of magic stories…..

        • Secundius

          Back in the late ’60’s I was a Eagle Scout, and Given a chance to use a Computer Programming Facility at Ft. Belvoir in Northern Virginia. While there, I found out that there was a 2-Megawatt Nuclear Reactor on the Facility. Used to Train Nuclear Technicians ONLY. No other Function but to Train. Power from Reactor Didn’t even Power Anything, just used to Train Nuclear Technicians. Facility was shut down in the Early ’70’s…

  • El Kabong

    We don’t need you to announce your arrival.

    It’s obvious.

  • Secundius

    Construction started in Redzikowo, Poland in 13 May 2016…

  • El Kabong

    Dance monkey, dance!