Which is why instead of SLCM, I would have converted the Zumwalts to nuclear strike platforms with a nuclear IR-CPS, giving them a clear mission and the ability to use them for signaling, which you can't do with a submarine.
What's not to like with NORI's and NSI's (AF speak, don't know what the squids call them)Got to correspond with a former Leahy class XO before he died. They hated the nuclear Terrier for exactly that reason. I suspect that might have changed had they actually had to use them though.
Even their rocket science is wrong at the moment.
Espionage is a very intricate affair. Reminds me of this:![]()
CNN Exclusive: FBI investigation determined Chinese-made Huawei equipment could disrupt US nuclear arsenal communications
On paper, it looked like a fantastic deal. In 2017, the Chinese government was offering to spend $100 million to build an ornate Chinese garden at the National Arboretum in Washington DC. Complete with temples, pavilions and a 70-foot white pagoda, the project thrilled local officials, who hoped...www.cnn.com
And there are parties who are actively seeking the elimination of the Sentinel lol.![]()
US military ‘furiously’ rewriting nuclear deterrence to address Russia and China, STRATCOM chief says
The United States is "furiously" writing a new nuclear deterrence theory that simultaneously faces Russia and China, said the topamericanmilitarynews.com
Some people live in a world which doesn't exist.And there are parties who are actively seeking the elimination of the Sentinel lol.
Almost zero.What are the odds that the conclusion of said new strategy will be: "we have to have as many nukes as Russia and China combined."
What are the odds that the conclusion of said new strategy will be: "we have to have as many nukes as Russia and China combined."
You need as many for China as for Russia approximately. So it would need to be at least twice the minimum amount required to deter one, which means 2 x 2,000 strategic warheads (not including slow bomber delivered ones), and they need to be MaRVs. Beyond that point there is no point pursuing an arms race unless the ABM factor becomes considerable. 1996 deployed levels would be reasonable. Not too interested in stockpiling beyond what is deployed.What are the odds that the conclusion of said new strategy will be: "we have to have as many nukes as Russia and China combined."
Aside from our inability to produce them, I'm having trouble seeing the problem with that strategy.What are the odds that the conclusion of said new strategy will be: "we have to have as many nukes as Russia and China combined."
You can make 240 SLBMs and 450 silos work.The current plan probably would probably see a net drop in SLBMs, a similar number of ICBMs (though likely of greater throw weight) and an increase in nuclear cruise missiles. Though presumably so long as new launch platforms were in production (and there should be new bomber, ICBM, and SSBN lines by the end of the decade) more could be purchased if necessary. An ICBM force larger than 450 missiles would require new silo construction (or some other deployment method).
The current ICBM force is 400 single warhead missiles, half W78 and half W87. The W87 missiles were apparently heavily re-engineered and more or less permanently de-MIRV'd; the W78 missiles could accept two more warheads. The 50 empty silos could presumably be filled with MMIIIs with three more W78s a piece. So roughly 650 additional warheads could be fielded, with 200 missiles retaining single warheads. The Sentinel likely will also have up to three warheads, though we could hold out hope for more.
The SLBM force is 14 boats with 12 "deployed" at any given time for 240 deployed missiles and roughly 900-1000 warheads at any given time. This works out to ~4 warheads on average, so that number could be almost doubled (presumable some missiles would still be down loaded to provide alternate strategic options; if nothing else the W-76 mod 2 is likely loaded only 1-2 warheads per missile). The Columbia class would reduce this to twelve boats of 16 launchers, though perhaps since it will be fueled for life it won't have 1-2 boats in years long overhauls to help alleviate the downward trend. Additional boats could always be purchased if necessary, though there would probably be a capability gap at this point as Ohio's were retired.
The B-52 force is to remain at 76 (only 11 spares are available at AMARG). Only around ~48 of these are cleared for nuclear weapons currently; the rest count as "undeployed". The only actively deployed strategic weapons are at Minot and are suspected to be some ~250 AGM-86s, with a similar number in storage at Kirtland. B-52s apparently don't train to deploy nuclear free fall bombs any more so none are stored at Minot (best OSINT guess). The B-2s would have access to B-61/83 stored at Whiteman. The B-1s have completely denuclearized for some time. Presumably post New START the rest of the B-52s could be re-nuclearized and B-21s will be as well, though I believe I've read that the first planes will not have this capability initially. But certainly the US bomber fleet will eventually grow, especially in terms of nuclear capable bombers. The AGM-181 LRSO I believe is to be a purchase of up to 1,000 (vs ~500 surviving AGM-86 now) and apparently will be compatible with the B-21 as well as B-52.
Very true, and the UK and France have some scope to do the same. But ultimately I think the US needs to aim for about 4,000 warheads deployed on SLBMs and ICBMs, and about 500 each for France and UK. That would leave 1,250 each for Russia and China assuming that 50% get intercepted or fail. That's a workable deterrent, without competing on numbers.I don't think there is a shortage, at least not yet. The US will have new SSBNs, ICBMs, and bombers in production soon...that should put it in a good position to expand the nuclear deterrent if needed. In the short term it is bound by New START until Feb 2026, and there after it could fairly drastically increase it's deployed warheads just with existing inventory and launchers (short short version of my previous post).
Titan II silos are long gone. And mobile launchers? In the US? Democrats would never allow that.You can make 240 SLBMs and 450 silos work.The current plan probably would probably see a net drop in SLBMs, a similar number of ICBMs (though likely of greater throw weight) and an increase in nuclear cruise missiles. Though presumably so long as new launch platforms were in production (and there should be new bomber, ICBM, and SSBN lines by the end of the decade) more could be purchased if necessary. An ICBM force larger than 450 missiles would require new silo construction (or some other deployment method).
The current ICBM force is 400 single warhead missiles, half W78 and half W87. The W87 missiles were apparently heavily re-engineered and more or less permanently de-MIRV'd; the W78 missiles could accept two more warheads. The 50 empty silos could presumably be filled with MMIIIs with three more W78s a piece. So roughly 650 additional warheads could be fielded, with 200 missiles retaining single warheads. The Sentinel likely will also have up to three warheads, though we could hold out hope for more.
The SLBM force is 14 boats with 12 "deployed" at any given time for 240 deployed missiles and roughly 900-1000 warheads at any given time. This works out to ~4 warheads on average, so that number could be almost doubled (presumable some missiles would still be down loaded to provide alternate strategic options; if nothing else the W-76 mod 2 is likely loaded only 1-2 warheads per missile). The Columbia class would reduce this to twelve boats of 16 launchers, though perhaps since it will be fueled for life it won't have 1-2 boats in years long overhauls to help alleviate the downward trend. Additional boats could always be purchased if necessary, though there would probably be a capability gap at this point as Ohio's were retired.
The B-52 force is to remain at 76 (only 11 spares are available at AMARG). Only around ~48 of these are cleared for nuclear weapons currently; the rest count as "undeployed". The only actively deployed strategic weapons are at Minot and are suspected to be some ~250 AGM-86s, with a similar number in storage at Kirtland. B-52s apparently don't train to deploy nuclear free fall bombs any more so none are stored at Minot (best OSINT guess). The B-2s would have access to B-61/83 stored at Whiteman. The B-1s have completely denuclearized for some time. Presumably post New START the rest of the B-52s could be re-nuclearized and B-21s will be as well, though I believe I've read that the first planes will not have this capability initially. But certainly the US bomber fleet will eventually grow, especially in terms of nuclear capable bombers. The AGM-181 LRSO I believe is to be a purchase of up to 1,000 (vs ~500 surviving AGM-86 now) and apparently will be compatible with the B-21 as well as B-52.
240x8 warheads and 450x5 warheads, plus a total of 1,000 (ALCMs, nuclear-tipped ARRWs and LRHWs). There is the option of renovating Titan II silos or mobile launchers.
There's still one that's used for tours I think. It's probably large enough to quad pack sentinels.Titan II silos are long gone. And mobile launchers? In the US? Democrats would never allow that.
One silo? I doubt they'd bother. That'd almost be like rolling the XB-70 out of the Air Force museum to put into service.There's still one that's used for tours I think. It's probably large enough to quad pack sentinels.Titan II silos are long gone. And mobile launchers? In the US? Democrats would never allow that.
I'd prefer silos with a short range ABM co-located.If there end up being more than 450 sentinels (which I doubt) then they would dig new silos. Mobile basing won't be a secure option by the time the new missile comes online. Better to at least force a double tap of every silo. Also much cheaper operational costs. SSBNs are the primary leg of the triad anyway.
If there end up being more than 450 sentinels (which I doubt) then they would dig new silos. Mobile basing won't be a secure option by the time the new missile comes online. Better to at least force a double tap of every silo. Also much cheaper operational costs. SSBNs are the primary leg of the triad anyway.
Yep. Half a dozen VERY easy to sink baskets when located. And I guarantee you they'd be much more willing to sink an SSBN than attack 24 missile silos on US soil.If there end up being more than 450 sentinels (which I doubt) then they would dig new silos. Mobile basing won't be a secure option by the time the new missile comes online. Better to at least force a double tap of every silo. Also much cheaper operational costs. SSBNs are the primary leg of the triad anyway.
How many resources do you think China has invested in keeping tabs of where US Boomers are? That's the frightening part with over-reliance on the boomers and where I disagree with those looking to tear down the ICBM arm of the Triad. We want to live in a world where the boomers are virtually undetectable but if the Fat Leonard scandal showed us anything, it's how compromised Navy leadership and some of our contractors can be. And that's not even counting the dedicated subsurface resources that China has tasked with tracking them down. The best comfort most Americans have right now is truly not knowing how compromised a lot of things are, we just take for granted that since we are a dominant power, that everything is peachy and we are untouchable.
Probably very few, given that almost nothing they have is suitable to the task. The PacFleet Ohios outnumber PLAN's SSNs, even were they acoustically and technically up to the task.If there end up being more than 450 sentinels (which I doubt) then they would dig new silos. Mobile basing won't be a secure option by the time the new missile comes online. Better to at least force a double tap of every silo. Also much cheaper operational costs. SSBNs are the primary leg of the triad anyway.
How many resources do you think China has invested in keeping tabs of where US Boomers are? That's the frightening part with over-reliance on the boomers and where I disagree with those looking to tear down the ICBM arm of the Triad. We want to live in a world where the boomers are virtually undetectable but if the Fat Leonard scandal showed us anything, it's how compromised Navy leadership and some of our contractors can be. And that's not even counting the dedicated subsurface resources that China has tasked with tracking them down. The best comfort most Americans have right now is truly not knowing how compromised a lot of things are, we just take for granted that since we are a dominant power, that everything is peachy and we are untouchable.
The key being destroyed with conventional weapons.Yep. Half a dozen VERY easy to sink baskets when located. And I guarantee you they'd be much more willing to sink an SSBN than attack 24 missile silos on US soil.If there end up being more than 450 sentinels (which I doubt) then they would dig new silos. Mobile basing won't be a secure option by the time the new missile comes online. Better to at least force a double tap of every silo. Also much cheaper operational costs. SSBNs are the primary leg of the triad anyway.
How many resources do you think China has invested in keeping tabs of where US Boomers are? That's the frightening part with over-reliance on the boomers and where I disagree with those looking to tear down the ICBM arm of the Triad. We want to live in a world where the boomers are virtually undetectable but if the Fat Leonard scandal showed us anything, it's how compromised Navy leadership and some of our contractors can be. And that's not even counting the dedicated subsurface resources that China has tasked with tracking them down. The best comfort most Americans have right now is truly not knowing how compromised a lot of things are, we just take for granted that since we are a dominant power, that everything is peachy and we are untouchable.
Exactly.The key being destroyed with conventional weapons.Yep. Half a dozen VERY easy to sink baskets when located. And I guarantee you they'd be much more willing to sink an SSBN than attack 24 missile silos on US soil.If there end up being more than 450 sentinels (which I doubt) then they would dig new silos. Mobile basing won't be a secure option by the time the new missile comes online. Better to at least force a double tap of every silo. Also much cheaper operational costs. SSBNs are the primary leg of the triad anyway.
How many resources do you think China has invested in keeping tabs of where US Boomers are? That's the frightening part with over-reliance on the boomers and where I disagree with those looking to tear down the ICBM arm of the Triad. We want to live in a world where the boomers are virtually undetectable but if the Fat Leonard scandal showed us anything, it's how compromised Navy leadership and some of our contractors can be. And that's not even counting the dedicated subsurface resources that China has tasked with tracking them down. The best comfort most Americans have right now is truly not knowing how compromised a lot of things are, we just take for granted that since we are a dominant power, that everything is peachy and we are untouchable.
Given global geopolitics if the US lost its subs, sunk by conventional torpedoes, could they even contemplate using nukes in response?