A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs

[bobbymike]

Byeman - I would ask that you read these two Defense Science Board reports to determine whether your "do nothing ICBM related" for fifteen years seems like a good way to preserve the industrial base and technical skills necessary to build a next generation ICBM to replace the MMIII.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA487983.pdf
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA446218.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

Another reason why we cannot mess around with key defense technologies:

W78 Pit Corrosion - by Jeffrey Lewis

NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Don Cook has provided the first open-source confirmation of rumors that the W78 warhead has a pit corrosion problem. For some time, I have wondered why the Obama Administration wants to replace both the W88 and the W78 with a common warhead, utilizing newly manufactured W88 pits. The statement of work for the W78 LEP isn’t all that helpful.

Stephen Young has previously noted rumors of pit corrosion problems with the W78. The Jasons themselves noted that the 100 year estimate was only for “most” or “predominant” pit types. There were other pit types for which NNSA was undertaking or considering “mitigation paths.

http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3953/w78-pit-corrosion#comment-11931

 

[Byeman]

Jesus, would you stop with this garbage already?

Refurb isn't the same as design and manufacture. That should be obvious.

Garabage? Look no further than your posts.
What is obvious is that you are clueless about this topic.

Refurb of an ICBM or SLBM involves replacing the SRM's with new ones. It should be obvious that it would require some design and manufacturing. Refurb may also include avoinics and/or guidance upgrades.

So in the future know something before correcting me.

 

[sferrin]

Jesus, would you stop with this garbage already?

Refurb isn't the same as design and manufacture. That should be obvious.

Garabage? Look no further than your posts.
What is obvious is that you are clueless about this topic.

Refurb of an ICBM or SLBM involves replacing the SRM's with new ones. It should be obvious that it would require some design and manufacturing. Refurb may also include avoinics and/or guidance upgrades.

So in the future know something before correcting me.

You're telling us you think refurbing something is the same as taking a clean sheet to production and you're going to say *I* don't know what I'm talking about? Your problem is you don't know what you don't know but have convinced yourself you do.

 

[Byeman]

You're telling us you think refurbing something is the same as taking a clean sheet to production and you're going to say *I* don't know what I'm talking about? Your problem is you don't know what you don't know but have convinced yourself you do.

As far as maintaining industry skills, it does, which is what this discussion is about. Building new SRM's is clean sheet. Same goes for building new launch vehicles. It maintains the industry. But as far as the gov't management of ICBM development, it does nothing but that is not enough of a reason to spend billions. NASA tried this with Ares I and it was a waste.

As far as problems, I have none.

 

[Antonio]

Gentlemen, please avoid personal attacks...

 

[bobbymike]

Byeman did you read the Defense Science Board reports? This is a board of undisputed experts that looked into preserving the necessary skills to continue to produce strategic strike vehicles and nuclear deterrence (of which of course ICBMs are important)

Yet despite all their expertise I do not remember them discussing the commercial sector as being a viable alternative to ICBM production. If what you were saying is true the report would be one line, "No worries we'll use the commercial SRM and LV market for these things." Period end of report.

 

[Byeman]

Commercial SRM market is stronger now vs back then

 

[sferrin]

Commercial SRM market is stronger now vs back then

Which new, large, designs have made it to market recently?

 

[Byeman]

Commercial SRM market is stronger now vs back then

Which new, large, designs have made it to market recently?

Taurus II second stage.

 

[sferrin]

Commercial SRM market is stronger now vs back then

Which new, large, designs have made it to market recently?

Taurus II second stage.

One? That's it? Why right you are, the SRM market is stronger now than back when they were building SRBs, Titan III/IV boosters, Trident, and Peacekeepers - at the same time. : There are 3 ATK facilities in my neck of the woods (coincidentally the locations that built the SRBs, Trident, Titan, and Peacekeeper motors) wanna know what ATK employees refer to the company as? The Titanic.

 

[Byeman]

[One? That's it? Why right you are, the SRM market is stronger now than back when they were building SRBs, Titan III/IV boosters, Trident, and Peacekeepers - at the same time. : There are 3 ATK facilities in my neck of the woods (coincidentally the locations that built the SRBs, Trident, Titan, and Peacekeeper motors) wanna know what ATK employees refer to the company as? The Titanic.

SRB's and titan SRM's are not applicable to ICBM technology and were designed decades ago.

Taurus II second stage is directly applicable.

ATK needed some downsizing anyway. The nation doesn't need segmented SRM technology.

 

[Grey Havoc]

SRB's and titan SRM's are not applicable to ICBM technology and were designed decades ago.

Taurus II second stage is directly applicable.

ATK needed some downsizing anyway. The nation doesn't need segmented SRM technology.

That statement may well come under the heading of 'famous last words'. And, IIRC, the Tarurus hasn't been that successful.

 

[bobbymike]

Byeman - You pick and choose only the points that fit your narrative and dismiss everything else. Not with well researched and reasoned arguments but by simply stating you disagree. I provided outside resources by experts who are employed to provide detailed and future oriented analysis (the Defense Science Board doesn't assess critical industrial base concerns just for the year of the report in question but take future decades into account) and yet you persist in dismissing everything in order to conform to your point of view.

As an example you say there is too much industrial capacity just a couple of posts after saying that extra industrial capacity will be available to build ICBMs in 2025. Of course you said "some downsizing". I guess in your infinite wisdom and ability to predict the world in 2025 you would leave the exact amount of extra capacity in order to start building ICBMs in fifteen years.

So if I get this straight your entire argument that the US will have the necessary future industrial base for building ICBM's in 2025 (your time frame) "is that Orbital is using ATKs Castor 30B for the 2nd stage of their Taurus II launcher"?

 

[sferrin]

[One? That's it? Why right you are, the SRM market is stronger now than back when they were building SRBs, Titan III/IV boosters, Trident, and Peacekeepers - at the same time. : There are 3 ATK facilities in my neck of the woods (coincidentally the locations that built the SRBs, Trident, Titan, and Peacekeeper motors) wanna know what ATK employees refer to the company as? The Titanic.

SRB's and titan SRM's are not applicable to ICBM technology and were designed decades ago.

Taurus II second stage is directly applicable.

ATK needed some downsizing anyway. The nation doesn't need segmented SRM technology.

Guess I'll stop wasting my time since you already know everything. :

 

[sferrin]

Byeman - You pick and choose only the points that fit your narrative and dismiss everything else. Not with well researched and reasoned arguments but by simply stating you disagree. I provided outside resources by experts who are employed to provide detailed and future oriented analysis (the Defense Science Board doesn't assess critical industrial base concerns just for the year of the report in question but take future decades into account) and yet you persist in dismissing everything in order to conform to your point of view.

As an example you say there is too much industrial capacity just a couple of posts after saying that extra industrial capacity will be available to build ICBMs in 2025. Of course you said "some downsizing". I guess in your infinite wisdom and ability to predict the world in 2025 you would leave the exact amount of extra capacity in order to start building ICBMs in fifteen years.

So if I get this straight your entire argument that the US will have the necessary future industrial base for building ICBM's in 2025 (your time frame) "is that Orbital is using ATKs Castor 30B for the 2nd stage of their Taurus II launcher"?

I wouldn't waste my time.

 

[stew3]

I think it is a legitimate question. Sometimes I think the US is in a perpetual state of disarmament through neglect of what are in this case, our crown jewels of deterrence and defense. Can we rescue the situation? Of course, but it will take a lot of effort and money which are both in short supply for the cause.

The Russians don't seem to have that problem

 

[bobbymike]

Two new Rand Studies coming out in FY11 (I am contacting the researchers to see if they are for public release or not)

Long Range Strike

Project Leaders: James Chow
Sponsors: AF/CV*; AF/A8

This follow-on study will examine issues coming out of the OSD long-range strike (LRS) study and panels, including the kinds of systems the Air Force should design, develop, produce, and operate to deter adversaries and conduct long-range strikes. LRS continues to be an issue at the forefront of OSD’s and the Air Force’s modernization agenda. In FY10, RAND examined important facets of LRS issues for the Air Force and conducted the large OSD study, “Future Long Range Strike Force Mix.” This effort should support informed decisions regarding LRS investments and help the Air Force to address issues that emerge from OSD studies and panels.

Next Generation ICBM — Maintaining Stability Using a New Land-based Deterrent Force

Project Leaders: Lauren Caston
Sponsors: AF/A10*; AFGSC/CC*

This study will develop a concept for a new system of a land-based strategic deterrent. This system will incorporate enhancements to C2 architecture, required capabilities and modes of basing that allow the AF to attain the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) goal of maintaining strategic stability while providing the President more decision time to respond to an attack. Additionally, integration of any potential commonalities with the prompt global strike mission and the US Navy’s part of the nuclear triad ensures the AF meets NPR and DoD policy while in a fiscally constrained budget environment.

 

[bobbymike]

Is the nuke triad ‘on the table?’ By Philip Ewing Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 2:38 pm

Secretary Gates did not rule out eliminating one leg of the nuclear triad as he wound up a news conference at the Pentagon on Wednesday, saying that nothing can be “off the table” as Washington begins the Mother of All Reviews to determine how to cut $400 billion in defense spending. Which leg would he keep? Earlier in the session, he told reporters there were things the Pentagon must buy no matter what — and one them was replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. His must-buy list did not include the Air Force’s nuclear-capable, next-generation bomber.

Gates has said before that he’d be open to phasing out one of the legs of the triad — which also consists of the Air Force’s nuclear bomber fleet and its ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles — but there was no forward movement. Today, however, the U.S. is almost broke and anti-spending elements in Congress want to cut, cut, cut, which could reawaken a debate over America’s nuclear posture. President Obama is a lifelong anti-nuclear activist, and if Gates were on board, cutting the triad could become a big part of the pending mega-review.

If a debate does take place, it won’t be pretty — congressional lawmakers from strategic weapons districts guard them jealously. And the Obama administration just went through a bruising political fight over the New START treaty last year in the Senate, where Republicans took every opportunity to attack the president for what some said was a willingness to weaken America’s strategic position in the world. There’s a Washington school of thought, in fact, that the U.S. should begin building new nuclear weapons, not just preserving or recapitalizing what it has — although in Austerity America, that is almost certainly off the proverbial table.

The other important factor is that Gates is a short-timer, and he won’t be around even to see the end of his mega-review, let alone to argue for cutting a leg of the nuclear triad. So the next questions are what incoming Secretary Panetta will think of all this, and which battles he’ll pick with Congress as a part of these budget cuts.

 

[bobbymike]

GD Awarded $34 M for Development of Advanced Submarine Technologies

Groton, Conn. - General Dynamics Electric Boat has been awarded a $33.5 million contract modification by the U.S. Navy to develop advanced submarine technologies for current and future undersea platforms. Electric Boat is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD).

Under the terms of the modification, Electric Boat will perform advanced submarine research and development studies in support of a wide range of technology areas including manufacturability, maintainability, survivability, hydrodynamics, acoustics and materials. Electric Boat also will conduct research and development work in additional areas including manning, hull integrity, performance, ship control, logistics, weapons handling and safety. Additionally, the contract supports near-term Virginia-class technology insertion, identification of Ohio-class replacement technology options, future submarine concepts and core technologies.
---------------------------------------
They should have similar programs (maybe they do have not heard of them) for ICBMs, SLBMs and nuclear warheads. Three system that don't get replaced often but in which the US must stay on the leading edge.
---------------------------------------

Shipyard Pursuing Cost-Cutting Measures For Next-Generation Ballistic Missile Submarine

June 2011

By Grace V. Jean
One of the Navy’s most expensive purchases — the next-generation ballistic missile submarine — is still years away, but a shipyard is working on the preliminary design with an eye towards shaving close to $1 billion off the expected $5.7 billion price tag. The Navy currently operates 14 ballistic missile submarines capable of carrying up to 24 Trident II D-5 missiles each. Designed for a 30-year service life, the first submarine of the Ohio-class fleet will retire in 2027 after more than 40 years of service. Beginning this decade, the Navy will initiate a program to replace the submarines. The service’s long-term shipbuilding plan reflects a total buy of 12 boats, with the first new boomer to be procured no later than 2019. The second boat will be bought in 2022 followed by the next seven submarines starting in 2024. The final three will be acquired in the early 2030s. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the total cost for the entire class is $99 billion. While detailed design work for the new ballistic missile submarine commences in 2015, the initial research and development effort is under way at General Dynamics Electric Boat, which designed and developed the 560-foot Ohio-class submarine in the 1970s.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/June/Pages/ShipyardPursuingCost-CuttingMeasuresForNext-GenerationBallisticMissileSubmarine.aspx

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

Not sure if I misheard statements on BBC News, but I think I heard mention of combining the UK & US SSBN replacement programs to lower costs. Anyone else hear this news or am I just hearing things?

 

[bmdefiant]

Not sure if I misheard statements on BBC News, but I think I heard mention of combining the UK & US SSBN replacement programs to lower costs. Anyone else hear this news or am I just hearing things?

I did read somewhere last week that the UK had settled on the design of the next-gen UK SSBN but tried in vain to find the link..

 

[bobbymike]

Not sure if I misheard statements on BBC News, but I think I heard mention of combining the UK & US SSBN replacement programs to lower costs. Anyone else hear this news or am I just hearing things?

Because it is assumed both subs will use a common missile the UK and US SSBN replacements will have similarities due to this aspect. My understanding is that the actual platforms will be unique, however.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I did read somewhere last week that the UK had settled on the design of the next-gen UK SSBN but tried in vain to find the link..

Not quite, the UK has decided upon the reactor type. However the programme will remain vulnerable until main-gate in 2016.

 

[bobbymike]

Quote from the Office of the Secretary of Defense:

...In recent years, manufacturers worked on programs such as the Minuteman III and NASA’s Ares rocket (until its cancellation). Now the large solid rocket motor base is at risk again and limping along with slow D5 missile procurement. No new programs are in sight. The Navy is committed to stretching out D5 motors through 2042. But, as OSD notes, this approach "does not adequately address maintaining the design and development skills required for developing our next generation strategic systems."........
------------------------------------------------------------
Is it so hard to plan these things that are so critical to national security?

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

It is when you have a small but disproportionally loud group of people calling to immediate nuclear disarmament and a Govt. that can never keep it's eye on the ball save the Re-Election ball. :

 

[bobbymike]

US, Russia nuclear arsenal data released
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) June 1, 2011

The United States has 30 percent more deployed long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads than former Cold War foe Russia, according to new data released Wednesday by the State Department. Both countries are required to report key figures from their nuclear weapons arsenals as part of the landmark new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) adopted by Moscow and Washington on February 5. The United States has 882 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers, compared with 521 for Russia, according to the State Department, which published the new START aggregate numbers. The United States also has 1,800 deployed warheads and 1,124 launchers, as well as deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers, compared with Russia's 1,537 deployed warheads and 865 launchers and heavy bombers, according to the figures.

The figures are current as of February 5, 2011, "as drawn from the initial exchange of data by the parties" that was required within 45 days of the treaty coming into force. The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and heavy bombers, meaning the United States would still need to reduce its arsenal under the terms of the treaty.

The first nuclear pact in two decades has been feted as vital to global security because it reduces old warhead ceilings by 30 percent from a limit set in 2002, and establishes a streamlined new inspection procedure designed to eliminate cheating. In October 2009, two months before the end of the original START treaty, the State Department issued strategic offensive arms figures that showed the United States possessed 5,916 "attributed" warheads, compared to Russia's 3,897. A person familiar with START described it as a "totally different counting system" than the new START, which uses a more accurate counting in listing 1,800 actually deployed US warheads on ICBMs, SLBMs or heavy bombers. A more realistic comparison, the person told AFP, would be with the approximately 2,150 operationally deployed strategic US nuclear warheads listed as of last December.

In May 2010, after extensive debate within President Barack Obama's administration, the Pentagon revealed the extent of its nuclear arsenal for the first time. It said the US stockpile of nuclear weapons consisted of 5,113 warheads, including active warheads ready for deployment at short notice, as well as "inactive" warheads maintained at a depot in a non-operational status.

The new START accord limits still allow for enough weaponry to blow up the world many times over. Obama has described the treaty as a modest step toward "a world without nuclear weapons," but stressed he knew the goal would not be reached quickly and would take "patience and persistence."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So according to this story (and the State Department numbers) the New Start Treaty could also be called the "Only America Disarms Treaty"?

Or another way to look at this treaty is that Russia can actually build up its forces and be compliant with a DISARMAMENT treaty.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force funds future ICBM studies

Posted 6/8/2011

by Vicki Stein
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

6/8/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The first of several studies to determine the best options for maintaining or replacing the nation's 450 Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile weapons systems after 2030 is underway, Air Force officials said here recently. "The Air Force is strongly committed to the ground-based leg of the nation's nuclear triad and we're taking all actions appropriate -- the analysis, the assessment, the planning -- for this capability, in 2030 and beyond," said Maj. Gen. William Chambers, the assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. As part of that commitment, the Air Force is making a $28 billion investment in nuclear deterrence operations across the Future Years Defense Program, the general said in statements provided to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittees April 5 and 6.

That investment and planned studies will ensure that the Air Force retains or procures systems and capabilities that are best for our nation's strategic deterrence, he said. Options for a new GBSD capability, he added, range from upgrading the current ICBM force to the possibility of a new system. "Although a decision on a follow-on ICBM is not needed for several years, the Nuclear Posture Review recognized the need for studies to inform a decision on ground-based strategic deterrence beyond 2030," he said, explaining that the results of these studies will inform and help clarify the costs and benefits of a follow-on ground-based strategic deterrent capability. Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 6 that the command is working with headquarters Air Force on the capabilities-based assessment of a ground based strategic deterrent. The $1 million initial study, internally funded by AFGSC, is expected to be complete by July 2011 and will establish the requirements baseline for the missile's desired speed, range, payload capacity and other requirements. During FY12, Air Force officials are planning to internally source funds in the amount of $4.6 million to develop the Analysis of Alternatives study guidance and use the guidance to build the AOA study plan, officials said. This funding will also fund initial pre-AOA concept characterization and technical descriptions. These efforts will produce a recommendation regarding the best ICBM follow-on options from a broad range of alternatives -- from full replacement to sustainment of the current ICBM beyond 2030. Approximately $26 million will be required, in total, during FY12-14 to complete the entire Materiel Solutions Analysis phase, which includes the AOA and other activities leading to the initial acquisition milestone and a Program of Record.

While Air Force officials are conducting these studies, the Minuteman III ICBM, first deployed in the 1960s continues to undergo Life Extension Programs to ensure the weapon system is viable through 2030 as mandated by Congress. Minuteman III ICBMs are located at missile wings headquartered at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., Malmstrom AFB, Mont. and Minot AFB, N.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And some Conventional Prompt Global Strike News as well:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF Seeks Industry Input on Prompt Global Strike:

The Air Force issued a draft request for information to industry for ideas on conventional prompt global strike systems. "The Air Force desires to understand the concepts, architectures, and designs that will provide the capability to strike globally, precisely, and rapidly with conventional kinetic and non-kinetic effects against high-payoff, time-sensitive targets in a single or multi-theater environment," reads the solicitation, which is posted at the Federal Business Opportunities website. A CPGS could be a long-range ballistic missile that releases a boost-glide vehicle that flies a non-ballistic trajectory to deliver weapons to the target. The industry input will help Air Force officials to prepare "realm-of-the-possible" options for a material development decision in Fiscal 2012 by the Pentagon's acquisition executive, states the document. The Pentagon has proposed spending approximately $2 billion from Fiscal 2011 through Fiscal 2016 for research and development of CPGS capability.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=c405f7367697748a0488de7077054cba&_cview=0

 

[bobbymike]

And some Boomer news:

From June 2011 Seapower Magazine (please see page 30 to 32)

http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/spsample/#pg32

 

[stew3]

US, Russia nuclear arsenal data released
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) June 1, 2011

...
The new START accord limits still allow for enough weaponry to blow up the world many times over.

Enough to harm the other country significantly, but not to "blow up the world" once, much less several times over. Exaggerations like this are dangerous because they are so mis-informative to a very gullible and misinformed US public.

The world could arguably survive a fully armed Cold War arsenal sized nuclear exchange, and today with such drawn down levels Missile and air defenses could arguably create a "winner".

We seem to have a dangerous tendency to think of nuclear war as checkers, or tick-tack-toe, while the Russians are playing to win (chess)... Remember, Russia has the ABM system around Moscow, and is widely deploying the S-400 and soon the S-500 SAM/ABMs nationally, and still have a robust SAM defense compared to the US. (the US has no SAMs defending the continental US).

 

[bobbymike]

US, Russia nuclear arsenal data released
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) June 1, 2011

...
The new START accord limits still allow for enough weaponry to blow up the world many times over.

Enough to harm the other country significantly, but not to "blow up the world" once, much less several times over. Exaggerations like this are dangerous because they are so mis-informative to a very gullible and misinformed US public.

The world could arguably survive a fully armed Cold War arsenal sized nuclear exchange, and today with such drawn down levels Missile and air defenses could arguably create a "winner".

We seem to have a dangerous tendency to think of nuclear war as checkers, or tick-tack-toe, while the Russians are playing to win (chess)... Remember, Russia has the ABM system around Moscow, and is widely deploying the S-400 and soon the S-500 SAM/ABMs nationally, and still have a robust SAM defense compared to the US. (the US has no SAMs defending the continental US).

Another annoying tendency of the media is never to give a historic perspective about how much the US has already disarmed when writing about arms control and it shows in the comments with literally 60+% of them saying things like, "about time we reduced nukes the Cold War is over.....etc." As if our arsenal is still at Cold War levels. I don't think I am being conspiratorial when I say this is on purpose to support the disarmament movement. We are still living with a "Vietnam" and "Nuclear Freeze" era press that does not believe in Peace through Strength.

When a defense website (escapes my memory) actually had a survey that told people how old many of our nuclear systems were and how much we have disarmed about 70% said New Start was either not needed or went too far.

 

[stew3]

I may sound paranoid, but just what if???

The Soviet Union violated every treaty it signed with the US. Not positive, but I think it was just about every single one of them. The Russians have the Russian Mafia mixed in their leadership today with the same people who ran the Soviet Union. They are corrupt. They are still Very secretive. (for example, what exactly is going on in Yamantau Mountain??)

The Russians have a large lead in tactical nuclear inventory levels and won't discuss them. The line between the strategic and tactical is very blurred, especially withe the Backfire, which can refuel to strategic ranges, which has a very large variety of nuclear weapons, and is not addressed in the new treaty.

The Soviets led in particle beam technology, laser technology, ABM deployment and had a SAM network which had a limited ABM capability. They then threaten the very treaty that cuts our forces to 1950's levels if we pursue advanced anti-missile technology which plays to the pants wetting liberals who think it better Red than dead.

And defectors from Yuri Bezmenov, Sergei Tretyakov, Anatoliy Golitsyn, and many more have given dire warnings for us regarding Russia, as the Russian's "Glavni Vrag" ('the main enemy'). As a matter of fact, have any defectors claimed otherwise???

And we sign a treaty drastically reducing our capabilities? Another one? With them???? Are we frigging NUTS???

 

[stew3]

And I didn't mention the Russian/Soviet Civil Defense network, which the Us simply doesn't have. (any more) The Russians continue to spend lots of scarce money on deep and intense civil defense facilities.

Explain it away, make excuses for the Russians as poor paranoid backward Russians, but it is there and for a reason.

 

[bobbymike]

And I didn't mention the Russian/Soviet Civil Defense network, which the Us simply doesn't have. (any more) The Russians continue to spend lots of scarce money on deep and intense civil defense facilities.

Explain it away, make excuses for the Russians as poor paranoid backward Russians, but it is there and for a reason.

The one I don't understand is the supposed SS-18 replacement with a 9,000kg payload apparently (19,800lbs, Peacekeeper was 8,800lbs) When you can only deploy 700 launchers and 1550 warheads under New Start this seems like real overkill.

 

[stew3]

The one I don't understand is the supposed SS-18 replacement with a 9,000kg payload apparently (19,800lbs, Peacekeeper was 8,800lbs) When you can only deploy 700 launchers and 1550 warheads under New Start this seems like real overkill.

Damn. Why?? That could carry 10 large warheads, which wouldn't make sense given warheads are the limited factor at 1550. Redundancy would dictate spreading those warheads out on the maximum number of launchers.

So what do you think they have in mind? One of those 25 MT warheads they had as a single warhead on the SS-18 and SS-9? You don't even have to be close to hit your target with one of those.

 

[zen]

Hmmmm....big warheads dig deeper? Or is it the idea they can cause more civilian destruction?
I mean 'hard' targets like burried military bases need groundbursts to dig them out, and things like railway junctions take a lot more than you'd think to reliably destroy.
So the preference there would seem to support more small highly accurate RVs toting smaller warheads.
But if your going to smash a city center and cause mass panic. Collapse civilian buildings and generaly turn civilian cities 'off'. Then you might favour nice big bombs.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Collapse civilian buildings and generaly turn civilian cities 'off'. Then you might favour nice big bombs.

Naw. Big bombs are really only useful for taking out hardened targets when your accuracy isn't so good. Cities are soft targets, and hard to miss. You are better off plastering a city with a handful of nukes in the 50kt range rather than one big one in the megaton range. Remember, nukes in the 15 to 20 kt range were perfectly adequate for trashing whole cities at the end of Japan's little excursion into world domination.

 

[stew3]

I seem to remember reading something about "equivalent megatons", which claimed that a bomb twice a big doesn't cause twice the destruction because energy is wasted, and diminishing returns and so on. This resulted, if I recall correctly, in the mid range size bombs being most useful, most efficient with the nuclear fuel, and most deliverable.
With this in mind, those huge Russian missiles seem to most likely be bus carriers for many warheads. Possibly for "upload potential" to 'break out' of a treaty in a crisis??? A 25 megaton warhead seems useless and inefficient unless you are going after Cheyenne Mountain, and even then accuracy is probably more important than raw megatonage.

 

[zen]

Thing is its small nukes that are accurate really allow a lot of 'hard' infrastructure to be taken out.
The only logic for a big one would be 'digging' out burried infrastructure, and even then I have my doubts on it. Better to straddle the target with smaller ones and let the multiple shockwaves do the job.
One big bomb is no use for railway shunting yards or junctions, and overkill for bridges and roads.
I could see a big one for 'shock and awe' reaons being used. But its more a psyhological weapon.
An alternative thought is they're looking at heavier RVs or a lower trajectory. Heavier RVs imply something extra is being done by them (agility?), and lower trajectories imply an need for speed (fear of ABM?).
Another thought....has there been a change in the bomb itself? I mean in theory some of the modern explosive materials maybe sufficient to trigger fusion without using fission.

 

[sferrin]

Collapse civilian buildings and generaly turn civilian cities 'off'. Then you might favour nice big bombs.

Naw. Big bombs are really only useful for taking out hardened targets when your accuracy isn't so good. Cities are soft targets, and hard to miss. You are better off plastering a city with a handful of nukes in the 50kt range rather than one big one in the megaton range. Remember, nukes in the 15 to 20 kt range were perfectly adequate for trashing whole cities at the end of Japan's little excursion into world domination.

That works great when numbers aren't treaty limited. When they are, would you rather spend 6 warheads on a city or just one?