Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Josh_TN said:
bobbymike said:
Seeing that they probably “borrowed” and added/improved on any “super hard” silo research we’ve done decades ago my guess is they won’t be shy about ultra-hardening their brand new silos.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any weird tech to hardening an ICBM silo. And the US and Russia probably have a lot more practical knowledge after all of their various above and below ground tests. At a certain point a big enough/close enough hit simply excavates the structure even if it could somehow otherwise go undamaged. AFAIK a W76 mod1 with the 'smart fuse' can still hold a US or Russian missile silo at risk with a high degree of confidence, just because of the low CEP and the ability of the fuse to compensate for an overshoot. If nothing else, a W88 will do the job.
Click to expand...
The US did specific testing back in the 70s/80s for superhardening silos and then did large tests. The silos were tough enough that they were sticking up out of the bottom of the crater the explosives had excavated.



There aren't nearly enough W88s. People always say "just use W88s" as if there is an infinite supply. (There would need to be to handle all the situations people claim they'll be used for.) Maybe we could buy some from China.
 
Last edited:
Like I’ve mentioned before the GBSD should get a new RV/warhead like the 800kt “Munster” developed as a peacekeeper alternative warhead. From the limited information I’ve read (very limited) it was well along in its development before they opted for the smaller yield W87.
 
bobbymike said:
Like I’ve mentioned before the GBSD should get a new RV/warhead like the 800kt “Munster” developed as a peacekeeper alternative warhead. From the limited information I’ve read (very limited) it was well along in its development before they opted for the smaller yield W87.
Click to expand...
Better yet a BGV (or five) with a W83 ;)
 
Missed this a couple of days ago:
www.thedrive.com

American Ballistic Missile Submarine Makes Rare Stop In Gibraltar

USS Alaska's highly unusually port visit in the Mediterranean is just the most recent curiously public appearance by one of the Navy's 'boomers.'
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

www.thedrive.com

U.S. Navy Ballistic Missile Submarine's Gibraltar Visit Is First In Over Two Decades

The Navy has shared some additional details about USS Alaska's very rare stopover, which comes amid a flurry of naval activity in the region.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com


Supposedly a pre-planned visit.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Like I’ve mentioned before the GBSD should get a new RV/warhead like the 800kt “Munster” developed as a peacekeeper alternative warhead. From the limited information I’ve read (very limited) it was well along in its development before they opted for the smaller yield W87.
Click to expand...
Better yet a BGV (or five) with a W83 ;)
Click to expand...
That would only work if the design had been ruggedised to take the acceleration and deceleration loads found in an RV.
 
Forest Green said:
bobbymike said:
Like I’ve mentioned before the GBSD should get a new RV/warhead like the 800kt “Munster” developed as a peacekeeper alternative warhead.
Click to expand...
Never heard of this before.
Click to expand...

The W-87 was selected over three other options: the W78 used on the Minuteman III, and two higher yield warheads -- the 500-600 Kt CALMENDRO warhead (developed at LANL but transferred to LLNL), and the 800 Kt MUNSTER. The W-87 is more efficient than the W-78, using less fissile material for a similar yield
 
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Like I’ve mentioned before the GBSD should get a new RV/warhead like the 800kt “Munster” developed as a peacekeeper alternative warhead. From the limited information I’ve read (very limited) it was well along in its development before they opted for the smaller yield W87.
Click to expand...
Better yet a BGV (or five) with a W83 ;)
Click to expand...
That would only work if the design had been ruggedised to take the acceleration and deceleration loads found in an RV.
Click to expand...
Could be done. B53/W53 for example.

edit: Hell, don't know why I didn't think of this. The B83 can be dropped in a lay-down profile. It's already as tough as it would ever need to be:

"The heavy steel weapon case is subdivided by four internal bulkheads into four compartments. The forward case, behind the shock-mitigating nose, contains the heavy W-83 nuclear warhead. Immediately aft of this compartment is a bulkhead separating the mid-case from the forward case. The mid-case contains the electrical firing set and fuzing controls; these units are surrounded by fiberglas-reinforced phenolic honeycomb to minimize mechanical shock. Behind a following bulkhead is the aft case; separated by a final internal bulkhead is the afterbody. The aft case and afterbody house components that do not need to survive impact, including the weapon's arming system and power sources and the parachute system (the firing system is charged before impact).

The external case and internal support structures were designed to absorb shock and to keep the bomb intact after "laydown" delivery. The cross-sectional bulkheads presented a special problem, in that they had to be rigid enough to resist longitudinal displacement of components, but yet not so stiff that they would break through the casing during lateral (side-on) impacts.'
 
Last edited:
B-83s were at least capable of a lay down attack. IIRC they were considered for the deep penetrator mission that ultimately the B-61 was developed into in the B-61 mod 11. I'm not sure why they picked the older design (perhaps just wanted something lighter?) but both weapons were hardened for deceleration enough to survive super sonic separations and lay down attacks. Though for now, Russia's ABM system is sufficiently localized I'm less concerned about equipping a missile with a hypersonic glider and more concerned that the US just manufacture new missiles and warheads. Given a large enough throw weight and diameter, other flavors of RV can be added to the new ICBM as needed.
 
www.exchangemonitor.com

COVID Could Spell Delay for W80-4, NNSA Says – But ‘A Lot of Margin’ Remains - ExchangeMonitor

WASHINGTON — COVID-19-related delays at the Department of Energy and its vendors might delay refurbishment of a warhead intended for next-generation
www.exchangemonitor.com www.exchangemonitor.com
www.nytimes.com

China Bolsters Its Nuclear Options With New Missile Silos in a Desert (Published 2021)

Satellite images of construction could fuel the debate over American nuclear modernization and the future of arms control negotiations.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
www.reuters.com

U.S. calls build-up of China's nuclear arsenal 'concerning'

The United States said on Thursday China's rapid build-up of its nuclear forces was concerning and called on Beijing to engage with it "on practical measures to reduce the risks of destabilizing arms races."
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Forest Green said:
stealthflanker said:
Yeah and i guess nothing actually prevent China from expanding.


and someone is angry.

www.globaltimes.cn

WashPost-quoted researcher amateur to say suspected silos are for DF-41 - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

I'm curious why the author insist on silo is for liquid fueled ICBM while.. Russians deploy Topol missiles in Both silo and road-mobile variant.
Click to expand...
Silos have had solid rockets in them for donkey's years. Minuteman, Peacekeeper....
Click to expand...
Yeah, which kinda makes me wonder why the defensive nature of the Globaltimes author.
 
stealthflanker said:
Forest Green said:
stealthflanker said:
Yeah and i guess nothing actually prevent China from expanding.


and someone is angry.

www.globaltimes.cn

WashPost-quoted researcher amateur to say suspected silos are for DF-41 - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

I'm curious why the author insist on silo is for liquid fueled ICBM while.. Russians deploy Topol missiles in Both silo and road-mobile variant.
Click to expand...
Silos have had solid rockets in them for donkey's years. Minuteman, Peacekeeper....
Click to expand...
Yeah, which kinda makes me wonder why the defensive nature of the Globaltimes author.
Click to expand...

Reading it, it seems like Hu is defensive because the article is being read as a way to put pressure on China in regards to whatever its nuclear strategy is, in context of the current overall disparity in nuclear balance between China and the US and Russia.


As for the silos themselves... I think both Lewis and Hu are right and wrong. Currently China's silo based ICBMs are the DF-5 variants (liquid fuelled). While DF-41 could be appropriate for an expansion of a new silo based ICBM fleet, at the end of the day, DF-41 is ultimately still primarily a road mobile system, and pursuing a robust silo strategy may better warrant a clean sheet design...
 
Forest Green said:
chinapower.csis.org

How Are China’s Land-based Conventional Missile Forces Evolving? | ChinaPower Project

The rapid development of China's conventional missile forces is contributing to a transformation of the Indo-Pacific security landscape.
chinapower.csis.org chinapower.csis.org
Click to expand...
History may not repeat itself in Asia but it will possibly rhyme.

Will China’s massive conventional and growing nuclear missile fleets cause Japan, Australia and maybe other Asian countries to rethink deploying IRBM ranged systems a la Pershing II/GLCM? Korea is boosting their missile ranges now.
 
www.realcleardefense.com

China Is Preparing for Nuclear War

Recently released satellite imagery reveals that China has embarked on what the Washington Post termed “a building spree that could signal a major expansion of Beijing’s nuclear capabiliti
www.realcleardefense.com www.realcleardefense.com
The silos appear designed to take the DF-41 missile, which has a maximum range of 9,300 miles and can carry 10 warheads apiece. The 145 silos, if fully stocked, would pack a punch against continental American targets.

“Just this deployment alone will provide China over one thousand new on-alert warheads—1,450—almost double the day-to-day U.S.A. on-alert force and by itself a nuclear force roughly equal to the entire current U.S. nuclear-deployed force of 1,490 sea- and land-based missile warheads,” said Peter Huessy of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies to 1945.
———————
We better rethink GBSD if it’s anything smaller than MX.
 
The pic I saw of PRC silo placement has them seemingly close together - are the employing the dense pack strategy?
 
Again I ask why the deception or as time goes by is it safe to call it a flat out lie?
www.businessinsider.com

Spending $2 trillion on new nuclear weapons is a risk to more than just your wallet

As the US, Russia, and China rush to modernize their nuclear arsenals, the world is witnessing a new, dangerous nuclear arms race.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
We are not spending $1.7 trillion on new nuclear weapons over the next 30 years. I believe the cost to not do anything and just maintain today’s arsenal is around $1.1 trillion.

Are they afraid to say modernization will cost around $20 billion per year for 30 years or around 25/100th of one percent of total government spending over that same time frame because people might say “hey that pretty cost effective way of defending the country”
 
www.aip.org

FY22 Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration

Within a flat overall budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Biden administration proposes to ramp up funding for plutonium production while paring back certain stockpile R&D activities, such as inertial confinement fusion.
www.aip.org
We should accelerate rebuilding and expanding the nuclear warhead infrastructure giving us the ability to ramp up new warhead production if needed due to future geostrategic developments.
 
bobbymike said:
www.realcleardefense.com

Talking About 'Strategic Stability'

“Consistent with these goals, the United States and Russia will embark together on an integrated bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue in the near future…Through this dialogue, we hope t
www.realcleardefense.com www.realcleardefense.com
Click to expand...
Without China in the mix this is a waste of time, and actually detrimental to the US.
 
I don't think either Russia or the US will seriously consider strategic arms limitations without China by the time New START expires. And outside the B-21, the US probably won't be able to produce new warheads or launch platforms until then. At that point, I think there will be no arms limitation - I think the China will increase their weapons with no transparency and the US will be obliged to do likewise, and Russia will struggle to keep up with a much smaller economy. That in of itself could ultimately be destabilizing for a couple reasons, but given China's outlook, it seems unavoidable.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
The pic I saw of PRC silo placement has them seemingly close together - are the employing the dense pack strategy?
Click to expand...
Dense pack is easier to defend with terminal defenses. A 20-barrel 30mm cannon comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is easier defensively but I don't see how a 30mm cannon would be useful in this context. Presumably a Chinese ABM deployment at the site is in the future.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
The pic I saw of PRC silo placement has them seemingly close together - are the employing the dense pack strategy?
Click to expand...
Dense pack is easier to defend with terminal defenses. A 20-barrel 30mm cannon comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is easier defensively but I don't see how a 30mm cannon would be useful in this context. Presumably a Chinese ABM deployment at the site is in the future.
Click to expand...
It was actually looked at by the US way back in the day using the 30mm Avenger. I (or someone else) posted a picture of it on this site somewhere. I'd read about it years ago and then a picture finally popped up a while back. Phalanx was shooting down 5" dia shells back in the 80s. Hitting a much larger RV doesn't seem impossible (they're not going Mach 20+ by the time they're near ground level).
 
It seems like a particularly difficult target set for a gun. Also I'd think an air burst would soften up any defenses that were that short ranged. On the other hand if it worked at all it would be comparatively cheap compared to ABM missiles.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems like a particularly difficult target set for a gun. Also I'd think an air burst would soften up any defenses that were that short ranged. On the other hand if it worked at all it would be comparatively cheap compared to ABM missiles.
Click to expand...
Even it it worked well enough to require 2 warheads per silo to guarantee a hit it would pay for itself.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom