Current Nuclear Weapons Development

[Josh_TN]

If a country capable of ASAT suspected an opponent orbiter was carrying a nuke, yes I think it would be engaged, possibly even forcibly contacted by a satellite. The US, PRC, and Russia have all experimented with small satellite maneuvers around larger satellites, likely for the purposes of investigation and disabling.

China’s submarine force is predominantly SSKs Ill suited to hunting SSBNs in open water, both because of endurance/range and sensor suit. It’s SSN force is generally not considered as advanced as the Soviets before the Cold War ended, and in any case numbers a half dozen platforms. Trident II D5 is credited with anywhere from 7000-11,000km (numbers classified and variable with payload). Take a look at how much of the Pacific that would include.

 

[TR1]

However it does reflect the idiocy at the core tenants of missile defence advocates beliefs; they are now terrified by the counter they prompted into existence.

This point needs to be emphasized, hard.

 

[Forest Green]

If a country capable of ASAT suspected an opponent orbiter was carrying a nuke, yes I think it would be engaged, possibly even forcibly contacted by a satellite. The US, PRC, and Russia have all experimented with small satellite maneuvers around larger satellites, likely for the purposes of investigation and disabling.

China’s submarine force is predominantly SSKs Ill suited to hunting SSBNs in open water, both because of endurance/range and sensor suit. It’s SSN force is generally not considered as advanced as the Soviets before the Cold War ended, and in any case numbers a half dozen platforms. Trident II D5 is credited with anywhere from 7000-11,000km (numbers classified and variable with payload). Take a look at how much of the Pacific that would include.

If they know it's there, which they might not, and there's obviously a risk in attacking expensive enemy assets, especially if they decided to man them just to be annoying.

But you're firing on a depressed trajectory to get a less than 10 minute strike, so nowhere near that range anymore. And last I heard China was producing some very advanced submarines, they'll no doubt come as a surprise too and people will again play down the threat.

 

[Desertfox]

Considering how easily amateur space watchers have been able to track "secret" USAF space missions, it would be near impossible to hide an orbital nuke system, also anything in orbit follows very predictable tracks. If you want your orbital nuke to be able to hold every possible target at risk, it would have to be placed into a polar orbit which really limits your options for when a specific target can actually be hit. Of course you could put a lot of them into orbit, but that is a whole other can of worms.

Nothing China is doing will comes as a surprise, the intelligence community is quite aware of their efforts. Now if people are paying attention to their reports, well that is a different question. But China does not have the advanced early warning systems that the US and the Soviet Union had. You don't need a depressed trajectory to hit China. A Trident launch from the Indian Ocean or ALCMs from the Middle East could do the trick just as easily. Not that the US would actually do something like that, but they have sailed SSGNs right off the coast of China. Heck, you could even pull off a Soviet style "Bastion" in the Sea of Japan.

 

[Josh_TN]

Russia has a superior early warning net now, especially in terms of radar. Every direction is covered. I believe they just orbited the fourth Tundra early warning satellite as well.

 

[bobbymike]

Posted here as it will probably end up a stage on a new heavy ICBM (subscription needed)

China Tests 500-Metric-Ton-Thrust Solid-Rocket Booster | Aviation Week Network

The China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. has successfully tested what it is calling the world’s most powerful integral solid-rocket booster.

aviationweek.com

 

[Forest Green]

Considering how easily amateur space watchers have been able to track "secret" USAF space missions, it would be near impossible to hide an orbital nuke system, also anything in orbit follows very predictable tracks. If you want your orbital nuke to be able to hold every possible target at risk, it would have to be placed into a polar orbit which really limits your options for when a specific target can actually be hit. Of course you could put a lot of them into orbit, but that is a whole other can of worms.

Nothing China is doing will comes as a surprise, the intelligence community is quite aware of their efforts. Now if people are paying attention to their reports, well that is a different question. But China does not have the advanced early warning systems that the US and the Soviet Union had. You don't need a depressed trajectory to hit China. A Trident launch from the Indian Ocean or ALCMs from the Middle East could do the trick just as easily. Not that the US would actually do something like that, but they have sailed SSGNs right off the coast of China. Heck, you could even pull off a Soviet style "Bastion" in the Sea of Japan.

If they not launched from a usual military launch site, it wouldn't be very easy at all. Depends how many you have, this is the country who just built about 500 new silos we're talking about.

Consistent underestimation of the enemy. I don't think that was advised in Sun Tzu's Art of War. How do you know whether the subs were being tailed or not?

 

[Josh_TN]

The US DSP satellites were able to detect Scud launches in 1991. You don’t just launch a three stage rocket/ICBM without anyone noticing; the US and Russia will know and have tracking radar data. Google SBIRS, TUnDRA, and Space Fence. The name of the Russian ABM radars escapes me but they now have them established in every direction; they would track any launch from China that was high enough to reach orbit.

 

[Forest Green]

China’s hypersonic glider weapons test threatens to drive new arms race

Analysis: China recently tested a nuclear-capable manoeuvrable missile and Russia and the US have their own programmes Military vehicles carrying the DF-17 hypersonic ballistic missile, capable of flying at five times the speed of sound, are seen during a parade in Beijing in October 2019...

www.yahoo.com

The US DSP satellites were able to detect Scud launches in 1991. You don’t just launch a three stage rocket/ICBM without anyone noticing; the US and Russia will know and have tracking radar data. Google SBIRS, TUnDRA, and Space Fence. The name of the Russian ABM radars escapes me but they now have them established in every direction; they would track any launch from China that was high enough to reach orbit.

You can track the launch but if it gets launched as a civilian payload under secrecy then you're left to tracking everything that might be big enough to hide a nuclear warhead and you only really know what is what after it gets launched, by which time you have approximately 5 minutes or less. It's worse than 50:50 whether you can get ICBMs off in that time on a good day but bombers are certainly screwed.

 

[RyanC]

Regarding the failure of US hypersonics and success of Chinese hypersonics:

It's because the Chinese test, test, test, test and test.

We on the other hand, simulate, simulate, simulate, then test. If something goes wrong, wait two years and lots more simulations before trying again.

 

[Desertfox]

You can track the launch but if it gets launched as a civilian payload under secrecy then you're left to tracking everything that might be big enough to hide a nuclear warhead and you only really know what is what after it gets launched, by which time you have approximately 5 minutes or less. It's worse than 50:50 whether you can get ICBMs off in that time on a good day but bombers are certainly screwed.

You think the US doesn't already track everything in space?

One nuke isnt going to take down the US retaliatory capabilities. If you want to use FOBS as a first-strike weapon you need a hell of a lot of them (which makes their discovery all that much easier) and you need them in a bunch of synchronized tightly grouped orbits that will be extremely suspicious. Remember that the kind of polar orbits that are required for such a system only pass over the target every so often.

 

[Josh_TN]

China’s hypersonic glider weapons test threatens to drive new arms race

Analysis: China recently tested a nuclear-capable manoeuvrable missile and Russia and the US have their own programmes Military vehicles carrying the DF-17 hypersonic ballistic missile, capable of flying at five times the speed of sound, are seen during a parade in Beijing in October 2019...

www.yahoo.com

The US DSP satellites were able to detect Scud launches in 1991. You don’t just launch a three stage rocket/ICBM without anyone noticing; the US and Russia will know and have tracking radar data. Google SBIRS, TUnDRA, and Space Fence. The name of the Russian ABM radars escapes me but they now have them established in every direction; they would track any launch from China that was high enough to reach orbit.

You can track the launch but if it gets launched as a civilian payload under secrecy then you're left to tracking everything that might be big enough to hide a nuclear warhead and you only really know what is what after it gets launched, by which time you have approximately 5 minutes or less. It's worse than 50:50 whether you can get ICBMs off in that time on a good day but bombers are certainly screwed.

The USAF does track everything. One of its orbital tracks is literally a wrench. Anything launched from Russia or China I’m sure gets a thorough looking at across the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[In_A_Dream]

I wonder when the DOD is going to publicly & appropriately react to the growing nuclear missile fields in China. That news represents a major shift in the strategic calculus for nuclear deterrence. So far, nothing significant has been hinted at on behalf of the US. One can only imagine that maybe a US-UK-AUS nuclear deterrence planning effort is underway with Japan being a player in that down the road.

 

[Josh_TN]

The US has several modernization programs pending. It seems doubtful anything meaningful can be done in the short term; the US isn’t currently producing warheads or delivery systems.

 

[RyanC]

This was posted on twitter by an arms controller (Ankit Panda -- Stanton Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) but I don't think he quite thought it through fully.

Reason why?

Without Missile Defense:

All anyone has to do is make a cheap and cheerful ICBM with 1960s RV technology (I think that's feasible for anyone outside of African nations at this point, honestly in 2020) and you're assured of a pretty reliable penetration to the target.

With Missile Defense:
The bar is raised for reliable penetration to require a hypersonic FOBS system, something that only big+++ countries like the US, China, and Russia currently can do -- though there may be inroads by middle weight countries with strong technical skills such as Israel, etc.

Virtual Attrition shows up!

 

[Forest Green]

You think the US doesn't already track everything in space?

One nuke isnt going to take down the US retaliatory capabilities. If you want to use FOBS as a first-strike weapon you need a hell of a lot of them (which makes their discovery all that much easier) and you need them in a bunch of synchronized tightly grouped orbits that will be extremely suspicious. Remember that the kind of polar orbits that are required for such a system only pass over the target every so often.

The USAF does track everything. One of its orbital tracks is literally a wrench. Anything launched from Russia or China I’m sure gets a thorough looking at across the electromagnetic spectrum.

But it doesn't know what it is.

As mentioned there's a lot of junk up there, what's a little bit more? Polar orbits are orbits that pass directly over the north and south pole, I can't see how that's relevant at all. Any circular orbit passing over (or close enough to) the targets would do. Even an elliptical orbit could be used that dips closest just over the targets, some of them dip below 100km altitude.

It doesn't necessarily need to wipe out all retaliatory capabilities, removing command and control would go a long way to neutralising the response.

 

[In_A_Dream]

China calls on nations to cut nuclear stockpile and backs ‘no first use’

Recent statement by former Chinese ambassador for disarmament suggests Beijing should rethink ‘no first use’ policy to counter US military presence in region.

www.scmp.com

 

[Forest Green]

Calls on nations to cut their nuclear stockpile whilst increasing its own.

 

[Forest Green]

Russian Project 955A Borei-A SSBN Knyaz Oleg test fires Bulava missile - Naval News

The Knyaz Oleg Borey-A-class SSBN of project 955A has successfully launched a Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from the White Sea to the Kura range in Kamchatka during acceptance trials, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Desertfox]

This was posted on twitter by an arms controller (Ankit Panda -- Stanton Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) but I don't think he quite thought it through fully.

Reason why?

Without Missile Defense:

All anyone has to do is make a cheap and cheerful ICBM with 1960s RV technology (I think that's feasible for anyone outside of African nations at this point, honestly in 2020) and you're assured of a pretty reliable penetration to the target.

With Missile Defense:
The bar is raised for reliable penetration to require a hypersonic FOBS system, something that only big+++ countries like the US, China, and Russia currently can do -- though there may be inroads by middle weight countries with strong technical skills such as Israel, etc.

Virtual Attrition shows up!

A grand total of 4 nations have ICBMs, a lot more nations have or had space launch capabilities that allow for FOBS, including African nations (South Africa in the 80's, Algeria in the future). FOBS is the easier of the two options to do reliably with less public out roar. Its also significantly easier to take out a satellite in orbit than an incoming RV.

 

[aonestudio]

Surface to Surface Ballistic Missile, Agni-5, successfully launched from APJ Abdul Kalam Island

Key Highlights: • Agni-5 capable of striking targets at ranges up to 5,000 kilometres with very h

pib.gov.in

 

[Forest Green]

A grand total of 4 nations have ICBMs, a lot more nations have or had space launch capabilities that allow for FOBS, including African nations (South Africa in the 80's, Algeria in the future). FOBS is the easier of the two options to do reliably with less public out roar. Its also significantly easier to take out a satellite in orbit than an incoming RV.

It isn't because you won't be taking out the FOBS, you'll be taking out the FOBS RVs, which are faster than ICBM RVs. FOBS is slightly more than your average satellite too.

 

[Desertfox]

Speed isnt an issue when targeting satellites/FOBS, they are both flying very predictable orbits, and most have zero capability to make defensive maneuvers. Altitude is a bigger issue and FOBS would be orbiting at very low LEO orbits making them even easier to target. Note also that unlike a regular ICBM RV which is released from its bus very early in its flight, a FOBS RV isnt released until very late in its flight, just before reentry. So you end up with a nice big bus as a target for the majority of the FOBS orbit. Any Arleigh Burke parked off Key West should be able to cover the entire East Coast from an over the South Pole attack.

 

[Forest Green]

North Korea Is Slapping Nukes Onto Submarines

It could be Kim Jong-un's life insurance policy.

us.yahoo.com

 

[Forest Green]

Speed isnt an issue when targeting satellites/FOBS, they are both flying very predictable orbits, and most have zero capability to make defensive maneuvers. Altitude is a bigger issue and FOBS would be orbiting at very low LEO orbits making them even easier to target. Note also that unlike a regular ICBM RV which is released from its bus very early in its flight, a FOBS RV isnt released until very late in its flight, just before reentry. So you end up with a nice big bus as a target for the majority of the FOBS orbit. Any Arleigh Burke parked off Key West should be able to cover the entire East Coast from an over the South Pole attack.

You won't be targeting the warhead bus though, the RVs can still be dropped off from very considerable distances. Heck, you might not even know where the bus is if it's put up there well in advance disguised as a civilian package. I'm sure there was also a report a while back about Chinese satellites making strange manoeuvres.

Surprise Chinese Satellite Maneuvers Mystify Western Experts

Posted: August 19, 2013 12:00 am ET | Last Updated: August 19, 2013 5:37 pm ET | Read about unexpected satellite maneuvers by a Chinese satellite, Shiyan 7 (SY-7, Experiment 7), launched in July 2013 that might be testing an antisatellite (ASAT) capability or some other space technology...

spacepolicyonline.com

China’s Mystery Satellite Could Be a Dangerous New Weapon

The SY-7 is one of three Chinese satellites doing some very strange things in orbit

medium.com

If a warhead is simply released with no downwards velocity from a FOBS it would continue in orbit, so depending on the downwards velocity imparted on it at launch (possibly by a rocket motor on the RV), it could be a very long or very short throw, then you have the possibility of HGV in atmosphere manoeuvres and skipping.

 

[Desertfox]

Just because the news doesn't know what those satellites are doing, doesn't mean the intelligence community don't know. In fact there's an entire branch of the services dedicated to keep an eye on suspicious stuff in orbit.

You do understand that RVs require very specific reentry angles in order to both survive reentry and accurately hit their target? HGVs are even more finicky. You don't just throw an RV into orbit and hope it eventually deorbits in the right location. Given enough orbits and without a bus the RV might end up missing the entire continent.

You can't do a FOBS system without an extensive testing program. Check out what the Soviets did: www.astronautix.com/r/r-36o8k69.html You can't hide that.

 

[jsport]

‘It Did Circle the Globe’: US Confirms China’s Orbital Hypersonic Test

“Maybe the nuclear game has just changed,” one analyst said.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Forest Green]

Just because the news doesn't know what those satellites are doing, doesn't mean the intelligence community don't know. In fact there's an entire branch of the services dedicated to keep an eye on suspicious stuff in orbit.

You do understand that RVs require very specific reentry angles in order to both survive reentry and accurately hit their target? HGVs are even more finicky. You don't just throw an RV into orbit and hope it eventually deorbits in the right location. Given enough orbits and without a bus the RV might end up missing the entire continent.

You can't do a FOBS system without an extensive testing program. Check out what the Soviets did: www.astronautix.com/r/r-36o8k69.html You can't hide that.

That must be why they're always like, "OMG!" when the Chinese suddenly test something. Suspecting something and keeping an eye on it, in the case of orbital warhead deployment vehicles, is no defence.

Depends how the RV is made, whether it skips etc. And for a powered RV there's nothing to stop it continuing in orbit and before descending.

Well I think this test is part of that surely.

 

[Desertfox]

Its all hyperbole by generals to get more money for their pet projects. Remember the bomber and missile gaps? Or maybe they just didn't read their intelligence briefing, because the IC knows whats up, they've known for years.

You know what you call the powered part of an RV? A bus...

It could be some Chinese FOBS or it could be a Chinese X-37B and I suspect its the second. Can you use an X-37B to deliver nukes? Yes you can, but it would be terribly inefficient and a waste of an X-37B.

 

[Forest Green]

The bomber and missile gaps are consigned to history. These days we can count what's going on through silos and tests.

Not necessarily, no reason you couldn't place a DACT system and axial thruster on an RV, just like on a KEV.

 

[sferrin]

The bomber and missile gaps are consigned to history. These days we can count what's going on through silos and tests.

Not necessarily, no reason you couldn't place a DACT system and axial thruster on an RV, just like on a KEV.

Or something like this (in the atmosphere anyway):

US6364248B1 - Articulated nose missile control actuation system - Google Patents

A missile nose is tiltable and rotatable relative to a missile body through the action of an actuator system. In an exemplary embodiment, the actuator systems uses two electro-mechanical actuators mounted co-axially and having the output shaft of one actuator fed through the shaft of the other...

patents.google.com

 

[jsport]

4 C’s Drive Biden Administration’s First Naval Strategic Guidance

“Expanded” posture is needed to focus on China, Navy Secretary Del Toro writes.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1451788800309579783

 

[Grey Havoc]

The US Is Installing New Power- and Accuracy-Increasing Sensors on Its Nuclear Weapons - Slashdot

new nukes "A sophisticated electronic sensor buried in hardened metal shells at the tip of a growing number of America's ballistic missiles reflects a significant achievement in weapons engineering that experts say could help pave the way for reductions in the size of the country's nuclear...

tech.slashdot.org

 

[jsport]

Zakaria: It’s Not a ‘Sputnik Moment’ and We Should Not Feed Cold War Paranoia

Share with friendsThe Financial Times has reported that China tested a hypersonic missile this summer. Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, compared the test to that pivotal event during the Cold War: “I don’t know if it’s quite a Sputnik moment,” he said, “but I think...

gvwire.com

More clown carnival from the romper room. The lack of technical awareness is beyond criminal.

 

[Forest Green]

Pentagon rattled by Chinese military push on multiple fronts

China's growing military muscle and its drive to end America predominance in the Asia-Pacific is rattling the U.S. defense establishment. “The pace at which China is moving is stunning,” says Gen. John Hyten, the No. 2-ranking U.S. military officer, who previously commanded U.S. nuclear forces...

us.yahoo.com

 

[sferrin]

Russian nuclear weapons stand out in defense budget request

The funding proposal to upgrade Russia’s nuclear arsenal comes as the military awaits new hypersonic missiles to replace its Soviet-era strategic weapons.

www.defensenews.com

But hey, at least we got us a Climate Czar in the DoD now. That should keep them in their place.

 

[Forest Green]

But hey, at least we got us a Climate Czar in the DoD now. That should keep them in their place.

Well, nukes are carbon neutral.

 

[kaiserd]

Russian nuclear weapons stand out in defense budget request

The funding proposal to upgrade Russia’s nuclear arsenal comes as the military awaits new hypersonic missiles to replace its Soviet-era strategic weapons.

www.defensenews.com

But hey, at least we got us a Climate Czar in the DoD now. That should keep them in their place.

Well climate change and nuclear weapons are similar in that unchecked they would both destroy the human race.
And even when checked they have serious knock on impacts (increased likelihood of regional conflicts triggered by the regional consequences of climate changes, impact on the nature and pattern of conflicts, etc.)
Hence only those deep in denial would see any issue with the US DoD giving both significant (if clearly not remotely equal) attention.

 

[Desertfox]

The bomber and missile gaps are consigned to history. These days we can count what's going on through silos and tests.

Not necessarily, no reason you couldn't place a DACT system and axial thruster on an RV, just like on a KEV.

It is nowhere near that simple. You do realize that a KEV is basically a bus? You still need the whole entire warhead/RV. And its not just about the propulsion system, you also need a robust guidance system that preferably dies not need external signals (ie no GPS).