Current Nuclear Weapons Development

From Inside Defense pay site


Top House defense Dem plans to 'claw back' billions in nuke, wall funds
The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said today he has plans to "claw back" billions of defense dollars the Trump administration has slated for modernizing nuclear weapons and building a southern border wall
——————————
Who’s surprised? :rolleyes:
 
For the people not knowledgeable on nuclear weapons, why does it cost to make the f35 nuclear capable? A bomb is a bomb, right?
 
It's primarily down to security concerns and protocols (along with associated bureaucracy) some of which date back to McNamara's time. In the United States and by extension NATO (with the exception of France), aircraft that can carry and deploy nuclear weapons, whether they be tactical or strategic, must have certain DOD mandated physical interfaces and software interlocks in order to be able to use such weapons. The situation with regard as to the F-35 is further complicated by it's on-going issues, in particular it's avionics and software woes. To say that IOC was declared prematurely would be putting it mildly.
 
Inside Defense pay site

Navy reveals six-year, $700M plan to design second Trident SLBM life extension
The Navy is proposing a $700 million, six-year project to define a second life extension of the Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile to keep the 27-year old strategic weapon system in service for the life of the new Columbia-class submarine fleet through 2083, potentially stretching the life of the Trident across a century
 
It’s not a cul de sac - it’s the only game in town.
 
Under the Nuclear Shadow new CSIS report

ontheradar.csis.org

Under the Nuclear Shadow

Informed by research and eight tabletop exercises conducted with nearly 150 participants overall, this two-year study examines implications of the emerging strategic situational awareness ecosystem and its impact on crisis decisionmaking.
ontheradar.csis.org ontheradar.csis.org
 
From Inside Defense pay site

ICBM reentry vehicle program passes system requirements review
The Air Force completed a key milestone last month in the development of a new reentry vehicle that will deliver the W87-1 warhead from the military's next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile system, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
————————————————————
The Navy’s new W93 is getting the Mk-7 now the GBSD is getting a new RV. Make Deterrence Great Again
 
I presume all the mission requirements are classified, so we don't know what changes are being made vice W-88/87/78/76 warheads? I think I read somewhere else in this thread that the W-87 is getting the 'super quick' fusing that was retrofitted to the W-76s that allowed for extremely low level airburts. This allowed the weapon to detonate as soon as it passed over the target, with the aim point being just beyond the target. With the new fuse this allowed a very large increase in CEP even though the actual CEP of the RV remained the same; detonating at exactly the right time with a slight offset further from the launch point allowed the warhead to detonate on impact if it fell short of the aimpoint or airburst as it passed overhead.
 
That's a rather large number of undeployed launchers for the Russians. I wonder what fills that category? SSBNs? Also the Russian force must be pretty heavily MIRV'd to still reach a similar level of warheads. The US has a pretty low level of this - 400 MMIIIs with single warheads and an average of just ~4 warheads per Trident.

Does anyone know if AGM-86s count as individual deployed strategic warheads or are they part of the 'one warhead per bomber' arrangement?
 
Josh_TN said:
That's a rather large number of undeployed launchers for the Russians. I wonder what fills that category? SSBNs? Also the Russian force must be pretty heavily MIRV'd to still reach a similar level of warheads. The US has a pretty low level of this - 400 MMIIIs with single warheads and an average of just ~4 warheads per Trident.

Does anyone know if AGM-86s count as individual deployed strategic warheads or are they part of the 'one warhead per bomber' arrangement?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming one bomber equals one warhead no matter the load out
 
I thought it was the foam that holds the "physics package" in position inside the bomb casing?
 
Josh_TN said:
That's a rather large number of undeployed launchers for the Russians. I wonder what fills that category? SSBNs? Also the Russian force must be pretty heavily MIRV'd to still reach a similar level of warheads. The US has a pretty low level of this - 400 MMIIIs with single warheads and an average of just ~4 warheads per Trident.

Does anyone know if AGM-86s count as individual deployed strategic warheads or are they part of the 'one warhead per bomber' arrangement?
Click to expand...
Retired silos, retired TELs, retired SSBNs all scheduled to be scrapped and new SSBNs stills working up. Russia has been replacing single warhead Topols with MIRVed Yars. So yes most of Russia's force is probably MIRVed.

In New START one bomber equals one warhead, no matter now many missiles it carries.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom