Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[Desertfox]

Back in the day the Soviets also had alot more nukes and nuke capable platforms.

 

[zen]

Back in the day, we had Underground Tests to prove such bombs worked.

 

[Josh_TN]

Hundreds...

Back in the day Tomahawk was loaded up on ships, submarines and land based mobile launchers.

But back then Pershing also complicated the defence.

Not nuclear tomahawks to the best of my knowledge. I’ll see if I can find a production figure. But in any case, tying down your conventional platforms with strategic weapons when you have strategic parity or superiority seems like an own goal to me.

Also to nitpick, tomahawk was never deployed on land.

 

[Josh_TN]

Back in the day, we had Underground Tests to prove such bombs worked.

That seems like a completely different subject and moreover a liability the US, China, and Russia all suffer from.

 

[sferrin]

@sferrin (don’t want to requote everything and I’m on a phone):

Tomahawk may have been scored as tactical but their top yield option was strategic-ish, their guidance system was only good for static targets, and their flight time was such that they were useless against anything that would relocate. Any modern version would likely have all those liabilities.

I don’t know where you are getting “hundreds” of missiles from unless you intend to fill all SSGNs completely with nukes. Even that wouldn’t be hundreds on station at any one time or place.

Neither Russia nor China have any significant capability to hunt US SSBNs, so there already are hundreds of warheads neither can deal with.

I’m unclear what your point was in regards to Oscars and Backfires in this context.

In summary, sub launched cruise missiles seem like a waste of development money and VLS tubes to me. We’ll agree to disagree on the issue.

Strategic/Tactical is not determined by yield but range.

 

[sferrin]

Hundreds...

Back in the day Tomahawk was loaded up on ships, submarines and land based mobile launchers.

But back then Pershing also complicated the defence.

Not nuclear tomahawks to the best of my knowledge. I’ll see if I can find a production figure. But in any case, tying down your conventional platforms with strategic weapons when you have strategic parity or superiority seems like an own goal to me.

Also to nitpick, tomahawk was never deployed on land.

"Gryphon" was Tomahawk deployed on land. 464 of them. 367 TLAM-Ns were built for the USN.

 

[Josh_TN]

"Gryphon" was Tomahawk deployed on land. 464 of them. 367 TLAM-Ns were built for the USN.

Fair enough; I had thought only Pershing II was deployed in Europe. I think it is safe to say no part of Europe will host US missiles in the future outside the relic that is the dual key B-61s. My arguments against the cost effectiveness of a sea launched weapon I've completed.

 

[Josh_TN]

Strategic/Tactical is not determined by yield but range.

We'll agree to disagree. I would argue that the type of target being engaged describes the usage. AGM-86 is, as far as I know, considered a strategic weapon despite the low yield option. If you shot it at a tank brigade I think one could argue that's tactical pretty reasonably; if you shot it at a the North Fleet's SSBN base at any yield setting its hard to argue that is not a strategic exchange.

 

[bobbymike]

Strategic/Tactical is not determined by yield but range.

We'll agree to disagree. I would argue that the type of target being engaged describes the usage. AGM-86 is, as far as I know, considered a strategic weapon despite the low yield option. If you shot it at a tank brigade I think one could argue that's tactical pretty reasonably; if you shot it at a the North Fleet's SSBN base at any yield setting its hard to argue that is not a strategic exchange.

It’s not for you to disagree as it’s not open to debate. Tactical is range related. Soviets had the SS-4 IRBM for example with a 2 Mt yield

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm unaware of range being the deciding factor in the definition of tactical vs strategic. Presumably the platform that delivers the weapon has some bearing on the range in this context? Otherwise a B-41 is a tactical nuclear bomb.

 

[bobbymike]

So a D5 with W76-2 is a tactical system and is no longer counted under treaty limits?

 

[sferrin]

"Gryphon" was Tomahawk deployed on land. 464 of them. 367 TLAM-Ns were built for the USN.

Fair enough; I had thought only Pershing II was deployed in Europe. I think it is safe to say no part of Europe will host US missiles in the future outside the relic that is the dual key B-61s. My arguments against the cost effectiveness of a sea launched weapon I've completed.

Yeah, it even had the same BGM-109 designation, BGM-109G Gryphon.



We'll just have to agree to disagree on utility.

 

[sferrin]

I'm unaware of range being the deciding factor in the definition of tactical vs strategic. Presumably the platform that delivers the weapon has some bearing on the range in this context? Otherwise a B-41 is a tactical nuclear bomb.

Range is the only thing that matters when it comes to "strategic" or "tactical". Just read the details of any strategic arms agreement.

 

[sferrin]

So a D5 with W76-2 is a tactical system and is no longer counted under treaty limits?

Hell yeah! Fill them tubes back up.

 

[zen]

Pershing and Cruise where the terms used in the media a lot back then. These systems become subject to an intermediate arms limitation treaty. The USSR was deeply worried about the threat these systems delivered.

 

[sferrin]

Pershing and Cruise where the terms used in the media a lot back then. These systems become subject to an intermediate arms limitation treaty. The USSR was deeply worried about the threat these systems delivered.

They're directly responsible for getting rid of the SS-20s. (Among others.)

 

[Josh_TN]

So a D5 with W76-2 is a tactical system and is no longer counted under treaty limits?

If you are defining tactical and strategic by the New START treaty explicitly then I understand your definitions now. SLBMs would fall into strategic by that context and basically all air launched weapons are tactical, since none of them count towards New START totals*. I wouldn't use that legal framework as the absolutely meaning of "tactical" and "strategic"; that is just how that particular treaty defines those terms as they are used throughout. Kinda the same way an apartment lease will explicitly declare what it considers the be "the lessor" for the sake of that contract. That isn't a dictionary definition of the word "lessor", that is the meaning of the term as it is used in that document only.

While W76-2 would be "strategic" under New START, its use could easily be tactical in my opinion. Though one couldn't blame another country for assuming it was the beginning of a strategic exchange, which was one of the reasons some people opposed the deployment.


*EDIT: theoretically this could even include air launched ballistic missiles, unless New START explicitly precludes them or explicitly defines allowable air launched weapons. I'm unfamiliar with the exact language on this point; I just know that all bombers are considered a single launcher and a single warhead for the purposes of deployed launcher/warhead limits.

 

[bobbymike]

Depending on your audience one could make the case the detonation of a 200kt SLCM warhead or a Mt yield SS-4 (I think the SS-20 had three X 200Kt warheads) has “strategic” implications but at the same time the weapon system delivery vehicle itself would still be accurately called tactical.

You have to have agreed upon technical definitions for many reasons especially treaty related.

 

[bobbymike]

Let’s Correct a Misperception About Nuclear Modernization

An article left the impression that a new fuze would vastly increase the capability of our nuclear arsenal. It’s simply not the case.

www.defenseone.com

 

[sferrin]

So a D5 with W76-2 is a tactical system and is no longer counted under treaty limits?

If you are defining tactical and strategic by the New START treaty explicitly then I understand your definitions now. SLBMs would fall into strategic by that context and basically all air launched weapons are tactical, since none of them count towards New START totals*. I wouldn't use that legal framework as the absolutely meaning of "tactical" and "strategic"; that is just how that particular treaty defines those terms as they are used throughout. Kinda the same way an apartment lease will explicitly declare what it considers the be "the lessor" for the sake of that contract. That isn't a dictionary definition of the word "lessor", that is the meaning of the term as it is used in that document only.

While W76-2 would be "strategic" under New START, its use could easily be tactical in my opinion. Though one couldn't blame another country for assuming it was the beginning of a strategic exchange, which was one of the reasons some people opposed the deployment.


*EDIT: theoretically this could even include air launched ballistic missiles, unless New START explicitly precludes them or explicitly defines allowable air launched weapons. I'm unfamiliar with the exact language on this point; I just know that all bombers are considered a single launcher and a single warhead for the purposes of deployed launcher/warhead limits.

Redstone had a 3.8 megaton warhead and 200 mile range. I take it you think it was a strategic weapon?

 

[Forest Green]

Biden’s Nuke Review Omits ‘No First Use’, Kills Naval Cruise Missile

The president, who pledged during the campaign to use nuclear weapons only in response to a similar attack, declined to set that as U.S. policy.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Forest Green]

But the sub launched missile isn't any more stealthy than the air launched missile, so again I'm not seeing the benefit. Why not just buy more air launched missiles instead?

Because people can see a bomber coming but not a sub. Therefore less reaction time. I think sub-sonic cruise missiles are a relatively poor delivery mechanism in the modern age anyway. Hypersonic weapons are the way forward.

 

[Forest Green]

Only if you accept that to avoid ambiguity, LRHW would only be armed with nuclear warheads.
Which arguably they should since packaging large conventional warheads inside such is inefficient considering the likely numbers of such missiles and the limitations on their size for launch from aircraft, ship or submarine.

China doesn't eliminate such ambiguities and neither did Russia back in the day. Neither did the US either for that matter.

 

[Forest Green]

Tomahawk may have been scored as tactical but their top yield option was strategic-ish, their guidance system was only good for static targets, and their flight time was such that they were useless against anything that would relocate. Any modern version would likely have all those liabilities.

There was an anti-ship version 30 years back.

 

[zen]

China doesn't eliminate such ambiguities and neither did Russia back in the day. Neither did the US either for that matter.

Which is frankly.....a problem.

But one they create.

 

[zen]

The problem of definition of strategic is ultimately range/effect.

If your 'tactical weapons' can reach the bulk of population of the enemy state. Then their threat is strategic.

Tactical must logically define as usable in tactical context and unable to achieve strategic effect save by repeated tactical engagements working across strategic space. Bite by bite.

It just this sort of issue that lurks behind the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Intermediate Forces Issue.

To an American a weapon like Pershing doesn't threaten American Civilisation, so it isn't conceived of as strategic.
But to Europeans including European Russia, which is where the bulk of the population live.......it is.

 

[Forest Green]

Yeah, it even had the same BGM-109 designation, BGM-109G Gryphon.

View attachment 676221

We'll just have to agree to disagree on utility.

Yes, Gryphons were deployed in the UK amongst other places. Big hoohaa about that at the time. TLAM-N was also simply known as TLAM-A, B was anti-ship conventional, C was land attack conventional, D was cluster munitions and G was Gryphon. Whether G was actually different to A is a good question. The warhead was different though, A used W80 (5-150kT, mass 130kg) and G used W84 (0.2-150kT, mass 176kg). The mass is odd since G was actually rated for a longer range. I now note that they had slightly different engines too, A used F107-WR-402 and G used F107-WR-400. So theoretically a -A with the -400 could have made near 3,000km.

 

[Forest Green]

Which is frankly.....a problem.

But one they create.

When an enemy creates a problem, the least we should do is duplicate it until they agree to fix it.

 

[Josh_TN]

Redstone had a 3.8 megaton warhead and 200 mile range. I take it you think it was a strategic weapon?

I think tactical and strategic are subjective definitions that only have explicit meanings in the context of a treaty and that I personally tend to describe the target instead of the weapons as being tactical vs strategic. Feel free to state your own definition in the context of this discussion.

Lets avoid the semantics and just go with this: a new sea launched nuclear cruise missile would be almost exclusively limited to attacking fixed targets an hour or two after launch, and as such I see them redundant with both SLBMs and air launched cruise missiles.

 

[Josh_TN]

But the sub launched missile isn't any more stealthy than the air launched missile, so again I'm not seeing the benefit. Why not just buy more air launched missiles instead?

Because people can see a bomber coming but not a sub. Therefore less reaction time. I think sub-sonic cruise missiles are a relatively poor delivery mechanism in the modern age anyway. Hypersonic weapons are the way forward.

I'd argue that if your air launched missile has a 2000km range, no one is going to see it coming anyway. What is the functional difference between a B-52 or a sub launching a cruise missile a couple hundred miles off the coast of a country like Russia or China?

 

[Josh_TN]

Tomahawk may have been scored as tactical but their top yield option was strategic-ish, their guidance system was only good for static targets, and their flight time was such that they were useless against anything that would relocate. Any modern version would likely have all those liabilities.

There was an anti-ship version 30 years back.

Which was non-nuclear and generally regarded by crews as being near impossible to utilize from what I've heard anecdotally.

 

[Forest Green]

I'd argue that if your air launched missile has a 2000km range, no one is going to see it coming anyway. What is the functional difference between a B-52 or a sub launching a cruise missile a couple hundred miles off the coast of a country like Russia or China?

Radar doesn't work under water.

Which was non-nuclear and generally regarded by crews as being near impossible to utilize from what I've heard anecdotally.

Greater range over Harpoon would mean that you have to see your target from further away. That might have been a problem then, but less of a problem now, in fact the capability has been re-introduced on latter variants.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOfNNyvplWk

 

[Desertfox]

Which is frankly.....a problem.

But one they create.

When an enemy creates a problem, the least we should do is duplicate it until they agree to fix it.

Just because someone else is screwing up doesn't mean we have to screw up as well.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'd argue that if your air launched missile has a 2000km range, no one is going to see it coming anyway. What is the functional difference between a B-52 or a sub launching a cruise missile a couple hundred miles off the coast of a country like Russia or China?

Radar doesn't work under water.

Which was non-nuclear and generally regarded by crews as being near impossible to utilize from what I've heard anecdotally.

Greater range over Harpoon would mean that you have to see your target from further away. That might have been a problem then, but less of a problem now, in fact the capability has been re-introduced on latter variants.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOfNNyvplWk

Radar can't see through the earth either.

The major problem with the TASM as I understand it was that not only did the target info have to come from offboard, also you had to account for target movement for flight time of up to an hour. So you needed precise location, course, and heading and then you would need the target to hold that course. Not especially useful. Modern tac toms talk to satellites and can be redirected in flight, alleviating that problem. But that is not something the USN, or US more generally, is going to allow with a nuclear weapon. Even the B-61 mod 12s are INS only; they do not receive/accept corrections from GPS.

 

[Forest Green]

Just because someone else is screwing up doesn't mean we have to screw up as well.

I wouldn't say the DF-21 and DF-26 are screwing up.

 

[Forest Green]

The major problem with the TASM as I understand it was that not only did the target info have to come from offboard, also you had to account for target movement for flight time of up to an hour. So you needed precise location, course, and heading and then you would need the target to hold that course. Not especially useful. Modern tac toms talk to satellites and can be redirected in flight, alleviating that problem. But that is not something the USN, or US more generally, is going to allow with a nuclear weapon. Even the B-61 mod 12s are INS only; they do not receive/accept corrections from GPS.

Oh sure, re-direction in-flight of nukes from external sources is likely a bad idea unless you're absolutely sure you can do it completely securely, which I'm not sure you can.

 

[sferrin]

Redstone had a 3.8 megaton warhead and 200 mile range. I take it you think it was a strategic weapon?

I think tactical and strategic are subjective definitions that only have explicit meanings in the context of a treaty and that I personally tend to describe the target instead of the weapons as being tactical vs strategic. Feel free to state your own definition in the context of this discussion.

Lets avoid the semantics and just go with this: a new sea launched nuclear cruise missile would be almost exclusively limited to attacking fixed targets an hour or two after launch, and as such I see them redundant with both SLBMs and air launched cruise missiles.

Redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing. It gives you options.

 

[sferrin]

But the sub launched missile isn't any more stealthy than the air launched missile, so again I'm not seeing the benefit. Why not just buy more air launched missiles instead?

Because people can see a bomber coming but not a sub. Therefore less reaction time. I think sub-sonic cruise missiles are a relatively poor delivery mechanism in the modern age anyway. Hypersonic weapons are the way forward.

I'd argue that if your air launched missile has a 2000km range, no one is going to see it coming anyway. What is the functional difference between a B-52 or a sub launching a cruise missile a couple hundred miles off the coast of a country like Russia or China?

A sub can sit out there for weeks at a time undetected. Also, if you're using the B-52, you have to USE the B-52. Maybe you want it for other things.

 

[Josh_TN]

But the sub launched missile isn't any more stealthy than the air launched missile, so again I'm not seeing the benefit. Why not just buy more air launched missiles instead?

Because people can see a bomber coming but not a sub. Therefore less reaction time. I think sub-sonic cruise missiles are a relatively poor delivery mechanism in the modern age anyway. Hypersonic weapons are the way forward.

I'd argue that if your air launched missile has a 2000km range, no one is going to see it coming anyway. What is the functional difference between a B-52 or a sub launching a cruise missile a couple hundred miles off the coast of a country like Russia or China?

A sub can sit out there for weeks at a time undetected. Also, if you're using the B-52, you have to USE the B-52. Maybe you want it for other things.

If it's an SSN, it has all of a dozen VLS tubes for all missions. A B-52 can carry twenty any given sortie. How hard would it be to simply have a couple B-52s on airborne alert like the bad old days if a crisis warranted it? That would be the equivalent of 3+ SSNs on station even if we assume they all carry nothing but nukes in their VLS. Unless the intent is to fill up the SSGNs with nukes to actually have some kind of persistent, tangible capability, I don't see the point of having an entire new missile program for the minimal redundancy a few nukes on an SSN will provide. And I personally think the SSGNs VLS tubes need to be retained for conventional weapons.

 

[sferrin]

But the sub launched missile isn't any more stealthy than the air launched missile, so again I'm not seeing the benefit. Why not just buy more air launched missiles instead?

Because people can see a bomber coming but not a sub. Therefore less reaction time. I think sub-sonic cruise missiles are a relatively poor delivery mechanism in the modern age anyway. Hypersonic weapons are the way forward.

I'd argue that if your air launched missile has a 2000km range, no one is going to see it coming anyway. What is the functional difference between a B-52 or a sub launching a cruise missile a couple hundred miles off the coast of a country like Russia or China?

A sub can sit out there for weeks at a time undetected. Also, if you're using the B-52, you have to USE the B-52. Maybe you want it for other things.

If it's an SSN, it has all of a dozen VLS tubes for all missions. A B-52 can carry twenty any given sortie. How hard would it be to simply have a couple B-52s on airborne alert like the bad old days if a crisis warranted it? That would be the equivalent of 3+ SSNs on station even if we assume they all carry nothing but nukes in their VLS. Unless the intent is to fill up the SSGNs with nukes to actually have some kind of persistent, tangible capability, I don't see the point of having an entire new missile program for the minimal redundancy a few nukes on an SSN will provide. And I personally think the SSGNs VLS tubes need to be retained for conventional weapons.

You're seriously suggesting matching the persistence of an SSN with an airplane?