Forest Green
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 14,543
- Reaction score
- 31,622
No I don't think so. Ukraine reactors are fueled w./ LEU, and Energoatom doesnt have any enrichment programs nor re-processing facilities. Under current circumstances is truly hard for them to pursue & accomplish a succesful weapon option ( & even so, that would not change the bigger picture; probably that proliferation - or its attempt - would escalate the war to apocalyptic levels)The Times at least, I cannot post the article as it’s behind a paywall, are claiming Ukraine are months away from the bomb. I imagine there’s more to the story than the headline suggests.
I rather take a look at Ukrainian research reactors. Those use high enriched uranium and Ukraine have at least 2 of them.No I don't think so. Ukraine reactors are fueled w./ LEU, and Energoatom doesnt have any enrichment programs nor re-processing facilities. Under current circumstances is truly hard for them to pursue & accomplish a succesful weapon option ( & even so, that would not change the bigger picture; probably that proliferation - or its attempt - would escalate the war to apocalyptic levels)
Their fuel used to be supplied by Russia, nowadays it's fabricated by Westinghouse at Västerås plant in Sweden... so they dont even have control over the fuel cycle and are subject to strict safeguards.
Still requires a fuel reprocessing system to get plutonium.I rather take a look at Ukrainian research reactors. Those use high enriched uranium and Ukraine have at least 2 of them.
Everything in that just screams slow-walking a program the brass don't like in the hopes of getting it canned. You can't start making nuclear Tomahawks again because it would "overload production", but the Navy has a hundred or so to fling at Syria/Yemen/Libya whenever the local insurgencies start causing trouble. So either the replacement rate is atrocious and you'd already run out on day one of a real war, or someone wants this project dead, probably to fund their own.
I suspect the key word there is "nuclear."Everything in that just screams slow-walking a program the brass don't like in the hopes of getting it canned. You can't start making nuclear Tomahawks again because it would "overload production", but the Navy has a hundred or so to fling at Syria/Yemen/Libya whenever the local insurgencies start causing trouble. So either the replacement rate is atrocious and you'd already run out on day one of a real war, or someone wants this project dead, probably to fund their own.
Another FOGBANK kind of situation, you think? The article seems to push against that though:I suspect the key word there is "nuclear."
As in, the warheads is the limiting factor in production, not the missile airframe.
Wolfe, however, was emphatic at the submariners’ conference that he couldn’t just recreate the Cold War nuclear-tipped Tomahawk.
“We can’t reconstitute that, okay?” he said. “It’s not that easy.”
Why not? Wolfe didn’t divulge details, but a Navy spokesperson told Breaking Defense on Friday that the admiral’s concern was not about finding a workable nuclear warhead — which is the Energy Department’s job, not the Navy’s, in any case — but about ramping up production of an appropriate missile.
“Vice Adm. Wolfe was referring to the industrial base required for producing the SLCM-N delivery system when he made that comment, not the warhead portion,” the spokesperson said. “The requirement to deliver SLCM-N would increase the capacity requirement amongst industry to a level that had not previously been accounted for.”
Uhm, yikes.
Emphasis mine.Effectuating the 2022 NPR decision to rely on non-nuclear overmatch to deter regional aggression by Iran as long as Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon;1
1 The United States remains resolved to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and is prepared to use all elements of national power to ensure that outcome.
When Israel attacked Iran last month, there was a secret mission: to attack a site connected to Iran's nuclear program. This video examines what Iran appears to have been working on, how it connects to nuclear weapons acquisition, and what it says about Israel's future intentions in the region.
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
US Navy submarines to re-arm with nuclear cruise missiles after 3 decades
The SLCM-N would fulfill a critical role as a sea-based nuclear deterrent below the strategic level on the nuclear escalation ladder.
Updated: Nov 22, 2024 01:46 PM EST
![]()
Kapil Kajal
a day ago
0
![]()
Representative image.
Alexyz3d/iStock
In a surprising development, the US Navy has released a Request for Information (RFI) regarding the development of a Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N).
The initiative aims to establish a modular and resilient cruise missile system that delivers a proportional response while ensuring essential adversary targets remain vulnerable.
The goal is to deploy an operational system by fiscal year 2034, with prototype tests anticipated within the next three years.
Not really. WW-R reactor at Kiev's Institute for Nuclear Research was converted to LEU in 2008. Kharkov's Institute of Physics and Technology Neutron Source Research Reactor was put in deep subcritical state (shutdown) when the invasion started in Feb 2022.... also fueled by LEU. Not to mention both (as all nuclear installations in Ukraine) are under safeguards.I rather take a look at Ukrainian research reactors. Those use high enriched uranium and Ukraine have at least 2 of them.
Do NOT like this, it's using the "escalate to de-escalate" theory the Russians have mentioned.I just stumbled across this article on the US Congress bringing back the TLAM-N cruise-missiles to the USN:
Do NOT like this, it's using the "escalate to de-escalate" theory the Russians have mentioned.
Doesn't the Russian navy already have nuclear-armed submarine launched cruise-missiles?
They do, but it still doesn't make it a good idea. (Also, some of those are AShMs, not land-attack)Doesn't the Russian navy already have nuclear-armed submarine launched cruise-missiles?
And neither does the incoming POTUS...SLCM-N is a bad idea. There are other better ways to do that specific mission, pity Congress doesn't understand the issue.
India marked a major milestone in its strategic capabilities with the first test of the K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from an operational SSBN on November 27. Viewers may note that prior to this, the missile had undergone at least two tests, both conducted using an underwater pontoon.
The nuclear-capable missile, boasting a range of 3,500 km or around 2,175 miles, was launched from INS Arighaat Ballistic Missile Submarine, which entered service earlier this year.
This advancement significantly enhances India’s nuclear triad, bolstering its second-strike capability to deter adversaries while overcoming operational challenges.
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes why K-4 SLBM is a game changer for India ?