• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
Could end up being a very expensive cul de sac indeed.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
960
Reaction score
269
It’s not a cul de sac - it’s the only game in town.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
Under the Nuclear Shadow new CSIS report

 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
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
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
178
Reaction score
72
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.
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
178
Reaction score
72
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?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
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?
I’m assuming one bomber equals one warhead no matter the load out
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,896
Reaction score
969
I thought it was the foam that holds the "physics package" in position inside the bomb casing?
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
218
Reaction score
73
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?
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.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
From Inside Defense pay site

Global Strike Command: Nuclear triad modernization still needed in post-COVID world
The potential long-term budget implications of the novel coronavirus pandemic are beginning to shape thinking about what weapon system programs to defend should military spending face dramatic reductions, according to the top Air Force general in charge of Global Strike Command
———————————————————-
1) Close the economy down
2) Pump $2.2 trillion (plus more coming) of new spending to “rescue” economy we shut down
3) Cut future key defense program that represent a very small percentage of government spending to “save” money
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240

The committee had also planned to hold a paper hearing on the Energy Department’s nuclear budget Thursday. But late Wednesday it was postponed due, the panel said Thursday, to the decision to put the paper hearings in general on hold.

“The issues associated with production of nuclear warheads remains central to modernization of the nuclear triad, and as such, the committee expects to address these critical questions in the future,” Hernandez said.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
Sorry subscription required but headline has the gist

 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
The Test Ban treaties have been teetering on the edge for quite some time now, even before it was revealed that Russia had compromised much of the monitoring network.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
135
Reaction score
46
If they did I wonder if its posturing to prevent in their minds a preemptive strike.
 

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
130
Reaction score
32
If they did I wonder if its posturing to prevent in their minds a preemptive strike.
You always have to consider the games that go on in the black world. We have no idea what kind of toys the US or China may use to poke and prod one another.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
960
Reaction score
269
If they did I wonder if its posturing to prevent in their minds a preemptive strike.
I would ask what type of preemptive strike, by whom, and on what basis. but that’s drifting way off topic - as was your comment.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
Somehow I doubt his sincerity here...
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
960
Reaction score
269
Unfortunately not a lot of apparent sincerity or trustworthiness to be found from the current administrations of Russia, China or the US at the moment...
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
413
In one of those 3, a real election will test whether the majority would agree with your opinion. Unless you wish to believe there is no difference there either.
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
178
Reaction score
72
Somehow I doubt his sincerity here...
New START works for the Russians. They would be hard pressed to keep up with the US if it decides to heavily MIRV existing missiles. The US could pretty easily introduce an additional thousand W76 and nearly as many W78s without building a single new launch platform. The Russians also enjoy a much larger tac nuke inventory that is unregulated. I suspect Putin honestly has no interest in leaving the treaty, though the current administration has voiced a desire to leave and most certainly will if there is a second term.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
They would be hard pressed to keep up with the US if it decides to heavily MIRV existing missiles. The US could pretty easily introduce an additional thousand W76 and nearly as many W78s without building a single new launch platform.
Given the state of disrepair of America's industrial infrastructure, would they be actually able to do any of that?
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
178
Reaction score
72
These would be warheads in storage mated to already deployed missiles, with the addition of 50 MM3s that were withdrawn for New START. I think it is an achievable goal, though personally I’m in favor of renewing START.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
757
 
Top