Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Not sure why NATO feels the need to make such a statement over a class of weapons that don’t exist and for which there is no program of record?
 
I fear that there will be a lot more of this switch and baiting, at the very least.
 
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
 
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
My complaint wouldn’t be with the efficacy of the weapon but a unilateral decision by the SecNav that has global strategic implications. He’s a high ranking civmil bureaucrat but this is way above his pay grade.
 
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
The more you have the more targets you can hit. This shouldn't need to be said. As for killing the B83, by all means, let's ditch our only megaton-range weapon. What could possibly go wrong? You can be certain neither China nor Russia will destroy theirs.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
The more you have the more targets you can hit. This shouldn't need to be said. As for killing the B83, by all means, let's ditch our only megaton-range weapon. What could possibly go wrong? You can be certain neither China nor Russia will destroy theirs.
Click to expand...
There isn't really a useful target set I can think of for a free bomb with that yield. The B-61-12 seems to handle all ends of the spectrum with precision and limited ground penetration. I'm not about disarmament, I'm about saving money. We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
 
bobbymike said:
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
My complaint wouldn’t be with the efficacy of the weapon but a unilateral decision by the SecNav that has global strategic implications. He’s a high ranking civmil bureaucrat but this is way above his pay grade.
Click to expand...
Fair criticism.
 
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
Naval war and stealthy pre-emptive strike option.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
The more you have the more targets you can hit. This shouldn't need to be said. As for killing the B83, by all means, let's ditch our only megaton-range weapon. What could possibly go wrong? You can be certain neither China nor Russia will destroy theirs.
Click to expand...
There isn't really a useful target set I can think of for a free bomb with that yield. The B-61-12 seems to handle all ends of the spectrum with precision and limited ground penetration. I'm not about disarmament, I'm about saving money. We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
Click to expand...
The B83s are bought and paid for. Upkeep should be minimal I'd think.
 
Hello, so i found this article, pretty old from 2010 :

www.globalresearch.ca

Double Standards? Europe's Five "Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States". Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey - Global Research

Are Turkey, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands & Italy Nuclear Powers? These nuclear B61 could be launched “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran”
www.globalresearch.ca www.globalresearch.ca

In this article, Michel Chossudovsky claimed that "While Germany is not categorized officially as a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy." and "The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying France’s M51 nuclear missile. Germany imports and deploys nuclear weapons from the US. It also produces nuclear warheads which are exported to France."

From what i knew, Germany did contribute to the Ariane Program, which also helped in the development of the M51 SLBM. But i can't recall that Germany had ever developed any MIRV nor had any experience to be able to "produce and export" warheads, which i assume is for those missiles to France ?

This book claimed that Global Research (above source) is funded by the Russian government :

The Third Way: The Nazi International, European Union, and Corporate Fascism

So is the claim by the Russian have any basis in reality or just a "propaganda attempt" ?
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
The more you have the more targets you can hit. This shouldn't need to be said. As for killing the B83, by all means, let's ditch our only megaton-range weapon. What could possibly go wrong? You can be certain neither China nor Russia will destroy theirs.
Click to expand...
There isn't really a useful target set I can think of for a free bomb with that yield. The B-61-12 seems to handle all ends of the spectrum with precision and limited ground penetration. I'm not about disarmament, I'm about saving money. We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
Click to expand...
The B83s are bought and paid for. Upkeep should be minimal I'd think.
Click to expand...
Mount Yamantaw could certainly soak up some W53's and B83's..nice warhead sponge.
 
brownt62 said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
The more you have the more targets you can hit. This shouldn't need to be said. As for killing the B83, by all means, let's ditch our only megaton-range weapon. What could possibly go wrong? You can be certain neither China nor Russia will destroy theirs.
Click to expand...
There isn't really a useful target set I can think of for a free bomb with that yield. The B-61-12 seems to handle all ends of the spectrum with precision and limited ground penetration. I'm not about disarmament, I'm about saving money. We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
Click to expand...
The B83s are bought and paid for. Upkeep should be minimal I'd think.
Click to expand...
Mount Yamantaw could certainly soak up some W53's and B83's..nice warhead sponge.
Click to expand...
Finding myself wishing we'd hung on to some 25 Mt B-41Y1s.
 
freebeacon.com

GOP Probes Biden Admin for Lifting Iran Sanctions

GOP lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are probing the Biden administration for lifting sanctions last week on Iran’s terrorism enterprise without first consulting Congress, a decision they say was meant to keep lawmakers in the dark and skirt oversight.
freebeacon.com freebeacon.com
 
bmpd.livejournal.com

Разработка нового стратегического ракетного комплекса 15П182 по ОКР «Осина-РВ»

Как сообщает Телеграм-канал Военно-болтовой со ссылкой на открытую документацию на объект государственной экологической экспертизы, 5 сентября 2019 года был заключен государственный контракт № 1922187308021452210002616 на проведение ОКР Осина-РВ по созданию нового…
bmpd.livejournal.com bmpd.livejournal.com

Development of a new strategic missile system 15P182 according to the development work "Osina-RV"​



As reported by the Voenno-boltovoy Telegram channel with reference to the open documentation for the object of the state environmental examination, on September 5, 2019, a state contract No. "Corporation" Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering "(MIT) is the lead developer. The basis for the development of the 15P182 missile system is the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 26, 2018 and the tactical and technical task of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation of February 17, 2019.

The 15P182 missile system is being created as a modernization of the existing versions of the Yars-M combat missile system with the 15P180 and 15P181 indices.

Source: documentation for the object of the state ecological expertise. Interested persons can familiarize themselves with the documentation in the department of road and transport infrastructure, entrepreneurship and labor protection of the administration of the MO "Plesetsk district" at the address: Arkhangelsk region, Plesetsk district, p. Plesetsk, st. Lenin, 33, office. 52. Reception hours: from 9-00 to 17-00 on weekdays.

Public hearings on the object of the state ecological expertise will be held on June 28, 2021 at 15:00 at the address: Arkhangelsk region, Plesetsk district, p. Plesetsk, st. Lenin, 33, office. 40.


The documentation for the Osina-RV ROC indicates that the need to create a 15P182 missile system is determined by a number of factors of a political, military-technical and economic nature, including:

- objectively increased requirements for the nomenclature and quality of solving target tasks in the interests of ensuring the defense capability and security of the state;

- technical wear and tear of the operated complexes and their components, up to the element base.

Compared with the existing complexes, the expected effect from the creation and operation of the 15P182 complex is:

- increasing the level of solving individual problems in accordance with modern requirements through the use of new design solutions, technologies, hardware components, software and methodological support;

- expanding the range of tasks to be solved due to the inclusion of additional tasks and the integration of tasks solved by the predecessor complexes;

- improving the operational characteristics of the complex;

- achieving parity at the level of solving target problems with similar foreign products.

As part of the stationary launcher of the 15P182 missile complex, it is envisaged to use several modifications of the silo launcher (silo), obtained as a result of the conversion of launchers of existing complexes that are being decommissioned in accordance with the treaty obligations of the Russian Federation. The complex being created should provide the ability to deliver various payload options to the trajectory. The tactical and technical assignment provides for the widespread use of proven technical solutions, assemblies, systems and assemblies of solid-propellant missiles and ground equipment of missile systems.

The composition of the 15P182 complex (at the stage of flight tests):

- a flight product for delivering various payload options to the trajectory;

- stationary control center of the 15V242 type;

- mobile communication complex as a part of units on the Kamaz-6350 chassis;

- transport and loading unit, consisting of an active semitrailer with a KZKT-74284 tractor (probably, unit 15Т414 - author's note);

- technical complex;

- stationary launcher;

- security system;

- educational and training means.

Flight tests of the 15P182 rocket complex will take place at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in 2021-2022. The flight test program announced at least two launches along the Mirny - Kura route. Presumably, the first launch as part of flight tests will take place no earlier than August 2021.

Flight tests of the 15P182 complex are planned to be carried out in a stationary version.

Silo silos 15P765-35 at the Yuzhnaya launch site will be upgraded to silos 15P782-35, revision will be carried out using resource-saving technology with the preservation of the protective roof, barbet, drum, shaft with a bottom and reuse of most of the starting equipment - protective roof drives, depreciation systems , elevators and other equipment.

The insignificant amount of modifications to the launcher means that any of the existing missile regiments of the Strategic Missile Forces with missile systems developed by MIT can subsequently be re-equipped on the 15P182 complex: starting with the already obsolete Topol-M and ending with the newest Yars-M, whose tests were supposed to end last year.
 
bobbymike said:

Production completed on the W80-1 Alt 369 at Pantex | Pantex Plant

pantex.energy.gov
Click to expand...
Do you know exactly what was the Alt369 change?

Josh_TN said:
We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
Click to expand...
That would likely cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to rebuild these W-53s.

On another note is there a thread on US nuclear testing and if not which forum would be the appropriate one to create such a thread?
 
NMaude said:
bobbymike said:

Production completed on the W80-1 Alt 369 at Pantex | Pantex Plant

pantex.energy.gov
Click to expand...
Do you know exactly what was the Alt369 change?

Josh_TN said:
We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
Click to expand...
That would likely cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to rebuild these W-53s.

On another note is there a thread on US nuclear testing and if not which forum would be the appropriate one to create such a thread?
Click to expand...
If it cost billions somebody needs to be shot.
 
sferrin said:
brownt62 said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
The more you have the more targets you can hit. This shouldn't need to be said. As for killing the B83, by all means, let's ditch our only megaton-range weapon. What could possibly go wrong? You can be certain neither China nor Russia will destroy theirs.
Click to expand...
There isn't really a useful target set I can think of for a free bomb with that yield. The B-61-12 seems to handle all ends of the spectrum with precision and limited ground penetration. I'm not about disarmament, I'm about saving money. We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
Click to expand...
The B83s are bought and paid for. Upkeep should be minimal I'd think.
Click to expand...
Mount Yamantaw could certainly soak up some W53's and B83's..nice warhead sponge.
Click to expand...
Finding myself wishing we'd hung on to some 25 Mt B-41Y1s.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you'd want to use them on or how you think they'd get there safely.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
brownt62 said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
The more you have the more targets you can hit. This shouldn't need to be said. As for killing the B83, by all means, let's ditch our only megaton-range weapon. What could possibly go wrong? You can be certain neither China nor Russia will destroy theirs.
Click to expand...
There isn't really a useful target set I can think of for a free bomb with that yield. The B-61-12 seems to handle all ends of the spectrum with precision and limited ground penetration. I'm not about disarmament, I'm about saving money. We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
Click to expand...
The B83s are bought and paid for. Upkeep should be minimal I'd think.
Click to expand...
Mount Yamantaw could certainly soak up some W53's and B83's..nice warhead sponge.
Click to expand...
Finding myself wishing we'd hung on to some 25 Mt B-41Y1s.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you'd want to use them on or how you think they'd get there safely.
Click to expand...
Anything that required one and you could put several in a B-2/21 or use the components for a warhead. The bangy part of a GBU-57 comes to mind.
 
I think you'd have to make a case why a single B-61-12 wouldn't work. Or a dozen of them, given the weight difference.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think you'd have to make a case why a single B-61-12 wouldn't work. Or a dozen of them, given the weight difference.
Click to expand...
Well there's one reason right there: it only takes one instead of a dozen. If numbers weren't constrained by treaty I might agree with you. They are so you only want to use one warhead per target if you can possibly manage it.
 
Numbers *aren't* constrained by treaty. Every bomber counts as a single warhead regardless of payload.*

The fact that the B-41 was retired in place of the B-53, and the fact that the B-53 was retired once the B-61-mod11 came online, I think should tell you everything you need to know about what the USAF thinks about the effectiveness of carting around (and maintaining) five ton free fall weapons.

EDIT: and the B-61-12 technically is a 'tactical' weapon, despite being able to hold more deeply buried targets at risk than most any other previous weapon.
 
Josh_TN said:
Numbers *aren't* constrained by treaty. Every bomber counts as a single warhead regardless of payload.*

The fact that the B-41 was retired in place of the B-53, and the fact that the B-53 was retired once the B-61-mod11 came online, I think should tell you everything you need to know about what the USAF thinks about the effectiveness of carting around (and maintaining) five ton free fall weapons.

EDIT: and the B-61-12 technically is a 'tactical' weapon, despite being able to hold more deeply buried targets at risk than most any other previous weapon.
Click to expand...
They retired the Peacekeepers too. Maybe they don't like effective ICBMs. Also, the retirement of the B53 wasn't universally well received. Lastly a weight of 8900lbs vs 10,600 for over double the yield, is barely worth mentioning. It's not like you'd be able to carry more B53s than B41s.
 
The B-61 however is I think in the thousand pound range. Ten or twenty megatons made sense when your CEP was a mile; now adays even if your goal is to kill as many civilians as possible, numerous small weapons are more useful than single large warheads. And when your goal is a point target, as most nuclear planning actually is, being able to hit ten targets instead of one has some obvious advantages. Multi megaton weapons were phased out because they weren't practical weapons of war, not because the USAF was getting 'woke'. It happened half a century ago.
 
sferrin said:
brownt62 said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I honestly question the necessity of a nuclear sea launched cruise missile. Seems redundant to the strategic deterrent and unresponsive as a tactical option. It along with the B-83 are definitely the first to the wall. I don't think the administration or Congress at large will cut the air launched weapon though.
Click to expand...
The more you have the more targets you can hit. This shouldn't need to be said. As for killing the B83, by all means, let's ditch our only megaton-range weapon. What could possibly go wrong? You can be certain neither China nor Russia will destroy theirs.
Click to expand...
There isn't really a useful target set I can think of for a free bomb with that yield. The B-61-12 seems to handle all ends of the spectrum with precision and limited ground penetration. I'm not about disarmament, I'm about saving money. We could certainly put a handful of B-53s back in service (their parts are stored for 'asteroid defense') but I don't consider it a useful or cost effective measure in ensuring deterrence.
Click to expand...
The B83s are bought and paid for. Upkeep should be minimal I'd think.
Click to expand...
Mount Yamantaw could certainly soak up some W53's and B83's..nice warhead sponge.
Click to expand...
Finding myself wishing we'd hung on to some 25 Mt B-41Y1s.
Click to expand...

Don't worry the plutonium was probably recycled into a B-61 or B-83 or something.

If there's a doomsday bunker underneath the iron mine in Mount Yamantaw then it would probably barely notice a 25 megaton blast going off several hundred meters above it and half a mile away, not the least of which is basically all the energy of a B41 is wasted on a surface burst (ditto B53), and because Yamantau's underground complex isn't built inside the mountain but rather beneath it, as mines generally are. There's quite a bit of rock shielding it, and parachute retarded gravity bombs are pretty inaccurate.

A B61 or MOP might actually cause some damage though, because they actually go inside the ground, are guided, and detonate with their blasts tamped, which tends to transmit a lot more energy to a target. This makes them more effective per pound of plutonium. Given how expensive strategic metals like HEU and plutonium have always been, minimizing the wastage and maximizing efficiency of each pound you use seems rather prudent. And I suppose the ultimate minimization of wastage of plutonium is not requiring it in the first place to defeat a target.

But all that's pretty obvious.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Numbers *aren't* constrained by treaty. Every bomber counts as a single warhead regardless of payload.*

The fact that the B-41 was retired in place of the B-53, and the fact that the B-53 was retired once the B-61-mod11 came online, I think should tell you everything you need to know about what the USAF thinks about the effectiveness of carting around (and maintaining) five ton free fall weapons.

EDIT: and the B-61-12 technically is a 'tactical' weapon, despite being able to hold more deeply buried targets at risk than most any other previous weapon.
Click to expand...
They retired the Peacekeepers too. Maybe they don't like effective ICBMs. Also, the retirement of the B53 wasn't universally well received. Lastly a weight of 8900lbs vs 10,600 for over double the yield, is barely worth mentioning. It's not like you'd be able to carry more B53s than B41s.
Click to expand...
I’m still hoping the proposed new W93 and future ICBM warhead is the 800kt Munster warhead originally proposed for MX
 
Alas, in the times we live in, logic is seen as an afterthought at best, much like in the 1970s.
 
NMaude said:
Josh_TN said:
The B-61 however is I think in the thousand pound range.
Click to expand...
The B61 is ~700 (Depends on the exact Mod) so weight wise it's between the Mk-82 and Mk-83.
Click to expand...
Consider that back in the day they had nukes for things as small as Little John. Imagine a GMLRS with nukes. :eek:
 
breakingdefense.com

Chinese Nuke Modernization Prompts Shift In DoD Strategy - Breaking Defense

"The growing diversity of the Chinese nuclear threat and its mixing in with conventional forces creates complexity for US commanders. It is also unclear what conditions would lead to PRC nuclear use, since their arsenal is growing and creating more options," Bryan Clark of the Hudson Institute says.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
apnews.com

Hard-line judiciary head wins Iran presidency in low turnout

Iran’s hard-line judiciary chief has won the country’s presidential election in a landslide victory.
apnews.com apnews.com


www.wsj.com

WSJ News Exclusive | U.S. Military to Withdraw Hundreds of Troops, Aircraft, Antimissile Batteries From Middle East

The Pentagon is pulling antimissile batteries, aircraft and hundreds of troops from the Mideast as it focuses the armed services on challenges from China and Russia, administration officials said.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom