AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

Rickshaw said:
Sounds pointless to me as we all know that US Navy surface ships do not have nukes on board any more. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But NCND makes it possible to change that fact without any immediate indication. Especially on attack subs but also potentially on surface ships. Modern AT/FP security probably doesn't look too different from nuke security outside the skin of the ship.
 
TomS said:
But NCND makes it possible to change that fact without any immediate indication. Especially on attack subs but also potentially on surface ships. Modern AT/FP security probably doesn't look too different from nuke security outside the skin of the ship.
Click to expand...

Are there any operational nuclear weapons in inventory that could be even be used with currently deployed launchers? Blk1 nuclear toms? Depth bombs? Was there ever a nuclear SM-2?
 
TomS said:
But NCND makes it possible to change that fact without any immediate indication. Especially on attack subs but also potentially on surface ships. Modern AT/FP security probably doesn't look too different from nuke security outside the skin of the ship.
Click to expand...
I was in before 9/11, missile sub exterior Force Protection measures greatly increased after that day.
 
There are also still nuclear "devices" carryable by USN aircraft (F/A-18E/Fs, F-35C) in US inventory.
The Super Hornet is equipped for the current versions of the B61 (-3, -4, -7, -11), but will not be cleared for the new B61-12 intended to replace most of the old ones (all but the -11).

Yes, in 1994 the B61s (and remaining B57s) were removed from the carriers and supply ships... but they could be put back on pretty quickly and quietly.

This image shows F/A-18Cs and B61 (left) and B57 (right, depth charge type) nuclear bomb trainers on the deck of USS America (CV-66) during the 1991 Gulf War. Image: US Navy.
 

Attachments

  • B61 & B43 FA-18C CV-66 CruiseBook 1991.jpeg
    B61 & B43 FA-18C CV-66 CruiseBook 1991.jpeg
    927.4 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:
TomS said:
TLAM-N is probably gone. In 2013, the list of responsibilities for it were deleted from SECNAVINST 8120.1A (Department of the Navy Nuclear Weapons Responsibilities and Authorities)

https://fas.org/publication/tomahawk/
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be particularly difficult to turn TLAM-unitary back into a nuclear warhead, and you'd have zero external notice or appearance with the weapons loaded in VLS. Now, it'd be obvious during loading that something was up, due to all the extra guards around and double trucks delivering stuff.
 
Josh_TN said:
Does B-57 exist anymore even in a non active disassembly?
Click to expand...
The last of the 3,100 B57s built was retired in June 1993.
I have no idea of when they were dismantled, but their triggers likely became inop years ago if any were left assembled.
The components were almost certainly recycled for other use in the late 1990s/2000s.

As for their use - The B57 could be deployed by most U.S. fighter, bomber and Navy antisubmarine warfare and patrol aircraft (S-3 Viking and P-3 Orion), and by some U.S. Navy helicopters including the SH-3 Sea King. The B57 was also deployed with Canada's CF-104s in Germany, and the Royal Air Force's Nimrod from RAF St Mawgan and RAF Kinloss in the United Kingdom and Malta in the Mediterranean.
 
Unfortunately looks like delays for Australia with the US government repeatedly failing to pass the defence bill that funds the increase to submarine construction and maintenance infrastructure. Unless they pass something quick Sequestration will kick in (automatic 1% cuts across the board and no new defence projects authorised until the following year)
 
The current situation in the U.S. House is all but certain to persist until the next election. The 1% cut will happen.
 
Indeed theyve already only pencilled in ordering 1 sub (plus additional long lead items) in the draft 2025 budget rather than the usual 2 to allow industry to catch up a little, if the 2024 budget fails to pass that puts further strain.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
why would australia need nuclear weapons i mean there in the middle of the ocean and why would they need nuclear weapons the enemy would a be eaten by all the animals die of heatstroke or run out of water even if the got there and not to mention australia is the middle of the ocean so good luck getting there anytime soon I do not get why the would want to buy nuclear weapons the do not have a need besides if nuclear weapons really could prevent attack then what about 911 or any attack on a nation that has nuclear weapons by a nation that does not have them the most that they can do is just a 5 million or whatever huge amount of money firecracker to just show strength in a simple term so I have no idea why the would make them, or buy them.
 
quinn whitsitt said:
why would australia need nuclear weapons i mean there in the middle of the ocean and why would they need nuclear weapons the enemy would a be eaten by all the animals die of heatstroke or run out of water even if the got there and not to mention australia is the middle of the ocean so good luck getting there anytime soon I do not get why the would want to buy nuclear weapons the do not have a need besides if nuclear weapons really could prevent attack then what about 911 or any attack on a nation that has nuclear weapons by a nation that does not have them the most that they can do is just a 5 million or whatever huge amount of money firecracker to just show strength in a simple term so I have no idea why the would make them, or buy them.
Click to expand...
AUKUS has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
 
quinn whitsitt said:
why would australia need nuclear weapons i mean there in the middle of the ocean and why would they need nuclear weapons the enemy would a be eaten by all the animals die of heatstroke or run out of water even if the got there and not to mention australia is the middle of the ocean so good luck getting there anytime soon I do not get why the would want to buy nuclear weapons the do not have a need besides if nuclear weapons really could prevent attack then what about 911 or any attack on a nation that has nuclear weapons by a nation that does not have them the most that they can do is just a 5 million or whatever huge amount of money firecracker to just show strength in a simple term so I have no idea why the would make them, or buy them.
Click to expand...
First of all, AUKUS treaty is not about nuclear weapons. It's about submarines.

Second - Australia is essentially a big empty place with a narrow rim of populated areas. Any opponent willing to took over Australia need only to control the seas around to make the whole continent almost impossible to defend. It would be able to achieve decisive local superiority everywhere it wished.
 
GTX said:
AUKUS has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
I was talking about a post that was made and about the hypothetical situation austrialia getting nuclear weapons I really believe there is no need however for Australia to get nuclear weapons
 
quinn whitsitt said:
I was talking about a post that was made and about the hypothetical situation austrialia getting nuclear weapons I really believe there is no need however for Australia to get nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
Read that again.

The NZ law prohibits the docking of nuclear powered ships. Which means that no SSNs will ever dock there.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom