Current Nuclear Weapons Development

sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
From the Wiki page - a thousand warheads of that single type produced in seven years 1984-90 at the same time hundreds of W87s W88s and other warhead types, incredible.
Click to expand...
Rookie numbers. 2,500+ W31s produced just for the Nike Hercules force at the same time they were kicking out 25 MT W41s and nukes for every other missile in the inventory. :D
Click to expand...

Sort of irrelevant. The U.S. has no capability to produce any new nuclear warheads, not entirely unlike Russia.

PRC and France have the most developed and complete nuclear industrial complexes nowadays.
 
Kat Tsun said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
From the Wiki page - a thousand warheads of that single type produced in seven years 1984-90 at the same time hundreds of W87s W88s and other warhead types, incredible.
Click to expand...
Rookie numbers. 2,500+ W31s produced just for the Nike Hercules force at the same time they were kicking out 25 MT W41s and nukes for every other missile in the inventory. :D
Click to expand...

Sort of irrelevant. The U.S. has no capability to produce any new nuclear warheads, not entirely unlike Russia.

PRC and France have the most developed and complete nuclear industrial complexes nowadays.
Click to expand...
Don’t think those comments were trying to be relevant to today’s nuclear enterprise which we’re all aware isn’t even a shadow of itself more like a whisper in a wind storm (to wax poetic) but rather just a historical reminder of what once was…
 
Josh_TN said:
As an ABM early warning radar, it assumes a very high altitude target. US BMEWS and other ABM radars have similar ranges assuming the target is hundreds or even thousands of mi/km above the earth.
Click to expand...
The object would need to be at nearly 4,000km altitude to be seen from 8,000km away.

 
...the posts in that twitter account are unsettling. Joking that their nukes probably dont work and we have nothing to worry about. So corrupt all their systems have failed.

We are playing nuclear chicken and a sizable minority here on both the left and right side of the political spectrum are cheering on the escalation. Wtf
 
TMA1 said:
...the posts in that twitter account are unsettling. Joking that their nukes probably dont work and we have nothing to worry about. So corrupt all their systems have failed.

We are playing nuclear chicken and a sizable minority here on both the left and right side of the political spectrum are cheering on the escalation. Wtf
Click to expand...
You can be certain that isn't an issue with China.
 
I know it's off-topic is there a thread open for the discussion of the US nuclear weapons tests specifically for the atmospheric testing pre-1963?
 
bobbymike said:
Tangential to the topic

www.defenseone.com

Inside the fight over alternative sub fuel

A handful of lawmakers want the Navy to research low-enriched uranium fuel to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation. But funding bans are on the horizon.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
Click to expand...
LEU is a terrible idea for submarine fuel in particular, because it increases how many times you need to refuel the sub.
 
NMaude said:
It also dramatically increases the size of the reactor as the critical mass is inversely proportional to the level of enrichment.
Click to expand...
And, the other fear about potential proliferation?

Who all is able to build a naval sized reactor that doesn't already have nukes? Japan? Maybe? Pretty sure SK already has some, and they don't even have a nuclear navy. Israel is in the same boat (pardon the pun).
 
NMaude said:
The spent fuel from a nuclear-reactor using LEU can be reprocessed to extract all of the plutonium created from the irradiation of the U-238 in it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there's already a cutout in the NPT to allow weapons grade uranium for naval nuclear propulsion.

HEU lets you use a physically smaller reactor, but more importantly means you can get 20-40 years of life out of the fuel in the reactor instead of 5-10 years before you must refuel. That allows at least one additional deployment cycle every decade, and saves the cost of the refueling(s) you skipped. Refueling overhauls are easily $500mil each...
 
bobbymike said:
www.atlanticcouncil.org

Congress should fund the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile

The deployment of SLCM-Ns would send a clear message to adversary and ally alike that the United States maintains the resolve and capabilities to respond to any foe’s nuclear use.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org
Along with an Antares sized super heavy ICBM :oops:;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sold on nuclear cruise missiles for attack boats. It takes away from conventional capability and it was apparently a huge workload for the crew to have special weapons on board. I think it would detract from an SSNs primary missions for very little strategic gain. If the USN needs more nuclear deterrent, build more boomers.
 
Josh_TN said:
I'm not sold on nuclear cruise missiles for attack boats. It takes away from conventional capability and it was apparently a huge workload for the crew to have special weapons on board. I think it would detract from an SSNs primary missions for very little strategic gain. If the USN needs more nuclear deterrent, build more boomers.
Click to expand...
Can confirm that working with and around nuclear weapons is a pain in the ass. Personnel Reliability Program random interviews, security training, weekly required drills, massive required reading, extra security clearance work (people needing TS instead of S, makes for a much deeper background check)...
 
Josh_TN said:
I'm not sold on nuclear cruise missiles for attack boats. It takes away from conventional capability and it was apparently a huge workload for the crew to have special weapons on board. I think it would detract from an SSNs primary missions for very little strategic gain. If the USN needs more nuclear deterrent, build more boomers.
Click to expand...
Yes I would trade for more SSBNs with W76-2s or maybe the W93 will be DaY capable?

I see why they could potentially fit 14+ of these on the D5.
 

Attachments

  • 69912365-146B-4ADD-BA5A-2F27BBF4E9A2.jpeg
    69912365-146B-4ADD-BA5A-2F27BBF4E9A2.jpeg
    82 KB · Views: 21
bobbymike said:
Yes I would trade for more SSBNs with W76-2s or maybe the W93 will be DaY capable?

I see why they could potentially fit 14+ of these on the D5.
Click to expand...
IMO, strategic nuclear weapons don't need to be DAY. I'm all for the W76-2 as a quick and dirty way to create a prompt strike tactical weapon, but tactical weapons shouldn't be the focus of the nuclear arsenal. You only need a few dozen before any conceivable situation is strategic anyway.
 
Josh_TN said:
I'm not sold on nuclear cruise missiles for attack boats. It takes away from conventional capability and it was apparently a huge workload for the crew to have special weapons on board. I think it would detract from an SSNs primary missions for very little strategic gain. If the USN needs more nuclear deterrent, build more boomers.
Click to expand...
I should add that if the USN builds something like SUBROC again, with nuclear depth charges as the long range ASW weapon, then the Fast Attacks are going to be dealing with all the nuclear weapons program BS anyway. So giving them a couple of nuclear SLCMs is no additional overhead, other than the potentially reduced conventional strike per boat. Not sure if the 688 VLS boats kept their TLAM-Ns in the VLS or in the Torpedo Room with the SUBROCs.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom