Why no Western TEL ICBMs?

[Archibald]

Well worth a read when discussing COMAC airliners and chinese nuclear subs.

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/a-cycle-of-misery-the-business-of

I sometimes think about how the boundary of technological possibility is defined not just by mastery of the universe, but by the limits of the economy and the organizations that operate within it. If products are sufficiently complex, and demand is for such small quantities that there's a limited business case for them, we won’t get them, even if they’re physically possible to build.

Nuclear submarines seem close to this boundary: enormously complex weapons that only a tiny handful of organizations on the planet are capable of constructing. Jet airliners seem to be rapidly heading to this outer boundary, if they're not there already. Cost and level of technology required, along with the tremendous risk of developing them and the tiny number of sales on which costs can be recouped, have already whittled the number of providers down to essentially two (though perhaps China's COMAC might eventually add a third player), and there's no evidence that it's getting any easier.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The main issues that are corrigible are manufacturing. Until that improves, no matter how good the crews, the submarine force will be bad.

Manufacturing QA can be argued about. Let's say that a widget gets shipped out with a marginal component in terms of noise. Replace that component with a different one and retest for self noise.

Remember that scene from "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" where one of the names is in a gun store and swaps cylinders between two pistols? Same idea.

You need to have your crews out doing their things.

The U.S. started with F-117 and was able to produce a viable combat airframe in about half the time it took to make B-2. It took about 8 years from '75 to '83. Something like B-2 likely requires two to three times as long (15-25 years) to gestate fully. OTOH, H-20 has probably been in industrial work since the late oughties, so we can expect it within the next 5 years or so (including this year).

They're capable of doing it and my totally unbiased opinion is we'll see the first airframe within 30 months.

Agree on the timeline, I still think that the airframe is going to be more H-6 sized than B-2.

The question is whether war will come before then.

Hopefully war does not come at all, but I'm expecting it to happen.

 

[Josh_TN]

Is there really much range difference between H-6K/N/J and B-2?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is there really much range difference between H-6K/N/J and B-2?

Ignoring inflight refueling, an H-6 has a ~3200nmi range, while a B-2 has a published range of 6000nmi.

 

[Josh_TN]

Ignoring inflight refueling, an H-6 has a ~3200nmi range, while a B-2 has a published range of 6000nmi.

H-6K with the Russian turbofans? That seems a bit short.

ETA: though as I’ve said before, engines are key to range and the secret sauce to H-6K is “Russian turbofans “.

 

[Scott Kenny]

H-6K with the Russian turbofans? That seems a bit short.

ETA: though as I’ve said before, engines are key to range and the secret sauce to H-6K is “Russian turbofans “.

That's what Sinodefence says. D-30KP2 turbofans.

 

[ashnole]

Ignoring inflight refueling, an H-6 has a ~3200nmi range, while a B-2 has a published range of 6000nmi.

B-2's unrefueled combat radius is supposed to be somewhere around 3000 nmi with full payload (~35,000lb). B-21's expected to be more or less the same but with around 15,000lb payload.

 

[Josh_TN]

B-2's unrefueled combat radius is supposed to be somewhere around 3000 nmi with full payload (~35,000lb). B-21's expected to be more or less the same but with around 15,000lb payload.

We do not have any hard numbers, but that is not the expectation.

 

[ashnole]

We do not have any hard numbers, but that is not the expectation.

My apologies, I confused miles for nautical miles. This is from an old (2007ish) publication.

 

[Josh_TN]

My apologies, I confused miles for nautical miles. This is from an old (2007ish) publication.

That predates the B-21 program by roughly a decade; I do not see the relevance.

 

[Scott Kenny]

B-2's unrefueled combat radius is supposed to be somewhere around 3000 nmi with full payload (~35,000lb). B-21's expected to be more or less the same but with around 15,000lb payload.

B-2's full payload is more like 50-60klbs. B-21's payload is thought to be 25-30klbs, and it is said that the B-21 has a longer range than the B-2.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think 30,000 lbs at 5000 miles round trip is more likely, but there are other B-21 threads for that. Certainly anything under 20,000 lbs is unrealistic, and I personally cannot imagine GBU-57 is not a B-21 option.