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

Current Nuclear Weapons Development

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
190
Reaction score
314
Graham Spinardi's From Polaris to Trident states that originally planned two-stage clear-deck Trident D5 was intended to carry 14 Mk4s/W76s (with SSPOs accuracy goal being "to achieve at 6000 nautical miles the CEP of Poseidon at 2000 nm", but the pursuit of greater accuracy for counterforce led to the three stage Trident D5 that actually entered service (with the third stage protuding through the warhead bus to provide the required range when carrying heavier, larger warheads), which was intended to carry 8 Mk5s/W88s with adaptors for 8 Mk4s/W76s to hedge against cancellation of the new warheads.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,825
Reaction score
2,072
Can carry 14. Doesn't mean they HAVE to carry 14. As others have pointed out, they're outfitted for mission/treaty compliance. Even with no treaty you might not put all 14 on every missile to trade payload for range on some. Or warhead count for warhead size.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
764
Reaction score
396
I think it’s pretty clear the UK is only talking about Trident missiles being uploaded, not new system development.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,270
Reaction score
974
I think it’s pretty clear the UK is only talking about Trident missiles being uploaded, not new system development.
They wouldn't reveal that they are thinking of such an option yet. First comes capacity.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,128
Reaction score
3,949

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,128
Reaction score
3,949

Iran concealing elements of nuclear activities, officials fear
Iran is deliberately concealing key components of its nuclear programme from UN inspectors that can be used for producing nuclear weapons, according to the latest reports received by Western intelligence officials.

The equipment being hidden from UN inspectors includes machinery, pumps and spare parts for centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
In addition, materials such as carbon fibre, which can be used in the production of advanced centrifuges, are also being stored at secret sites in Iran administered by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has overall responsibility for Iran’s nuclear programme.

Intelligence officials believe the material, which is supposed to be declared to UN inspectors under the terms of Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal, is being stored in 75 containers.

The containers are regularly transported around the country to sites administered by the Atomic Energy Agency of Iran (AEOI). According to recent images collected by intelligence satellites, some of the containers were stored at the AEOI’s uranium conversion facility at Isfahan.

Under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal that former US President Barack Obama negotiated with Tehran, Iran is required to make a full disclosure of all the equipment and materials related to Iran’s nuclear activities.

But UN inspectors, who are supposed to make regular assessments of Iran’s nuclear facilities, have accused Iran of deliberately concealing key elements of its nuclear activities.

Last year Britain joined the US, Germany and France in condemning Iran for denying access to two key nuclear sites.

Since then the Iranian majlis, or parliament, has passed a resolution ordering Iran’s nuclear scientists to begin enriching uranium to 20 percent, far beyond the four percent limit agreed under the JCPOA. They have also banned inspectors from making further inspections.

“The new revelations that Iran is trying to conceal vital elements of its nuclear programme from the outside world shows that Tehran has no intention of complying with its international obligations under the terms of the nuclear deal,” commented a senior Western intelligence source.

“It is yet another indication that the regime remains committed to acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Tehran has consistently denied accusations that it is trying to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal, although US intelligence officials have concluded that Iran had an active nuclear weapons programme until 2003.

With tensions mounting between Washington and Tehran in the wake of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal, there are now serious concerns that Iran has resumed work on developing nuclear weapons.

A senior Iranian official last month said that Iran was prepared to recommence work on its nuclear programme unless punitive US economic sanctions were lifted.

US President Joe Biden has indicated he is keen to revive the nuclear deal, but only on condition that Iran stops breaking the terms of the nuclear accord.

Accusations that Iran has deliberately concealed key elements of its nuclear programme have been circulating in intelligence circles since the early 2000s, when the existence of the Natanz enrichment facility was first revealed by Iranian dissidents.

Intelligence officials believe some of the equipment now being held in the storage containers was already in Iran’s possession prior to the 2015 nuclear deal, while other components have been acquired on the black market in violation of the accord.

Much of the equipment was being stored at warehouses in Isfahan until recently, when it was moved to other, unknown facilities operated by the Revolutionary Guard.

Iran has been identified as one of several countries posing a threat to Britain’s security in the Government’s latest review of defence and foreign policy, which was published last week.

Tensions between London and Tehran have increased in recent weeks over the regime’s treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the British-Iranian woman who has just completed a five year jail term imposed for what are widely regarded as trumped up spying charges.

Despite finishing her sentence earlier this month, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now facing fresh charges of spreading anti-regime propaganda, which could result in another prison sentence if she is found guilty.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has denounced Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s “cruel and intolerable” treatment at the hands of the ayatollahs, and called for her immediate release.
 
Last edited:

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,752
Reaction score
1,832
The US has spent $4 Trillion on COVID relief measures IN THE LAST 12 months with no media oversight other than stories it’s not enough. Now watch in wonder as $1.7 Trillion over 30 years is an unfathomable amount of money that will bankrupt the nation.

Also precovid spending trends would have total government spending over that same 30 years in excess of $200 Trillion making this 85/100th of one percent. Finally modernization is estimated to be only $700 billion of this (you’d still have to maintain the unmodernized Triad) or 35/100th of one percent of total spending.
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,128
Reaction score
3,949

 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,752
Reaction score
1,832

I still stand by my prediction, at some point in the near future China will announce its intent to be “an equal partner” amongst the leading nuclear nations and will seek “only to match, for our own self defense” the arsenals of Russia and the US.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,752
Reaction score
1,832
Russia is arguably the country that is most actively developing new nuclear weapons and delivery systems. With at least six strategic projects unveiled in recent years, including a new intercontinental ballistic missile, three hypersonic vehicles, a nuclear-powered underwater drone, and a nuclear-powered cruise missile, Russia poses a number of new challenges for the United States, NATO, and international security.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,825
Reaction score
2,072

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
249
Reaction score
210

The source said that work on the creation of the Kedr rocket will begin in 2023-2024

According to him, the missiles will come to replace the Yars complexes in service with the Strategic Missile Forces.

MOSCOW, April 2. / TASS /. Development work (R&D) on the creation of the newest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) "Kedr" will begin at the turn of 2023-2024. A source in the military-industrial complex told TASS about it.

"Research work (R&D) on Kedr is funded under the current state armaments program until 2027. R&D will begin in 2023-2024," he said.

According to him, the Kedr solid-propellant missiles will replace the Yars complexes in service with the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces) at the turn of 2030. The new ICBMs, like the Yars, will be both mobile and stationary (mine), the agency's source added.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
764
Reaction score
396

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,752
Reaction score
1,832
As part of their campaign to agitate for intensified rivalry with the Chinese government, China hawks are feigning interest in arms control so that they can engage in reckless fearmongering about a mostly imaginary Chinese nuclear buildup.

According to U.S. government estimates, China possesses fewer than 300 nuclear weapons, and there is no reason to think that they are looking to increase that number significantly
——————
No reasons at all? None? Can’t think of a single reason they may increase their arsenal? :rolleyes:
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,825
Reaction score
2,072
As part of their campaign to agitate for intensified rivalry with the Chinese government, China hawks are feigning interest in arms control so that they can engage in reckless fearmongering about a mostly imaginary Chinese nuclear buildup.

According to U.S. government estimates, China possesses fewer than 300 nuclear weapons, and there is no reason to think that they are looking to increase that number significantly
——————
No reasons at all? None? Can’t think of a single reason they may increase their arsenal? :rolleyes:
Wow. Well they're currently producing two new mobile ICBMs, which will need new warheads. (Both MIRVed of course.) They've already said most of their ASBMs are nuclear capable as well as I recall. They're also working on a new SSBN/SLBM combo, but of course, no new nukes there needed. :rolleyes: But anybody who questions the approved narrative, or the motives of the peddlers of fake news, gets a trip to Room 101, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
 

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
254
Reaction score
112
Seeing as how they are trying to supplant the US, China will need a sizeable nuclear deterrent to at least match the US.

The writer, Daniel Larison, is an editor @ AntiWar.com, seems to downplay China based on his Twitter: Here
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,825
Reaction score
2,072

"Adding in China, which is expected to at least double its nuclear weapons stockpile in a decade, as well as North Korea and possibly Iran, Payne said,”the threat context is becoming more and more challenging.” The threat includes mobile intermediate-range cruise missiles to sophisticated air defense systems and dual-use, supposedly simple weapons like mines.

Heinrichs put the Russian advantage over the United States in tactical nuclear weapons at 10 to 1. Kyl said the Russians have achieved more than 85 percent of the nuclear platform and weapons system modernization, and China could be aiming to triple its nuclear stockpile to 600 weapons in the next few years.

Moscow and Beijing are ignoring the Cold War “balance of terror” argument – that any nuclear exchange would be suicidal – when they ratchet up the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons. Russia calls the policy “escalate to de-escalate.”"
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
764
Reaction score
396
I don’t think Chinese first use would be practical...they are strategically inferior and will remain so through the medium term. Any escalation ultimately favors the US. Even a tactical first use doesn’t favor them because they’ve built a series of static, tactical targets inside the nine dashed line. Nuclear weapons would be the easiest way to wipe non sovereign, military personnel only land masses from the sea.

The Russians are far more problematic with shear number and variety of tactical weapons, a equal or near equal strategic deterrence to control escalation, and perhaps most disturbingly a seeming doctrine of first use as a mechanism of intimidation. The US needs a new class of stand-off tactical nuclear missile, or at a minimum the new strategic missile utilized in a tactical role. Is the AGM-86 DAY enabled? I think the tomahawks did have a low yield option but I think the ALCM didn’t. The replacement should have DAY.
 

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
254
Reaction score
112
I don’t think Chinese first use would be practical...they are strategically inferior and will remain so through the medium term. Any escalation ultimately favors the US. Even a tactical first use doesn’t favor them because they’ve built a series of static, tactical targets inside the nine dashed line. Nuclear weapons would be the easiest way to wipe non sovereign, military personnel only land masses from the sea.

The Russians are far more problematic with shear number and variety of tactical weapons, a equal or near equal strategic deterrence to control escalation, and perhaps most disturbingly a seeming doctrine of first use as a mechanism of intimidation. The US needs a new class of stand-off tactical nuclear missile, or at a minimum the new strategic missile utilized in a tactical role. Is the AGM-86 DAY enabled? I think the tomahawks did have a low yield option but I think the ALCM didn’t. The replacement should have DAY.
When looking at the maintenance costs of maintaining our sizeable nuclear arsenal, do you think the Russian Federation has that kind of money? Perhaps their ability to respond is relatively degraded.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
764
Reaction score
396
I don’t think Chinese first use would be practical...they are strategically inferior and will remain so through the medium term. Any escalation ultimately favors the US. Even a tactical first use doesn’t favor them because they’ve built a series of static, tactical targets inside the nine dashed line. Nuclear weapons would be the easiest way to wipe non sovereign, military personnel only land masses from the sea.

The Russians are far more problematic with shear number and variety of tactical weapons, a equal or near equal strategic deterrence to control escalation, and perhaps most disturbingly a seeming doctrine of first use as a mechanism of intimidation. The US needs a new class of stand-off tactical nuclear missile, or at a minimum the new strategic missile utilized in a tactical role. Is the AGM-86 DAY enabled? I think the tomahawks did have a low yield option but I think the ALCM didn’t. The replacement should have DAY.
When looking at the maintenance costs of maintaining our sizeable nuclear arsenal, do you think the Russian Federation has that kind of money? Perhaps their ability to respond is relatively degraded.
I think some of their weapons systems are older but they are maintaining the same strategic posture as the US via New START: 700 deployed launchers and 1550 warheads. One could argue those Delta IVs are really showing their age compared to the Virginia class that would be assigned to hunt them, but tube for tube, warhead for warhead Russia is an equal and is continuing to modernize its force, along with attempting to introduce several new types of strategic weapon.

Long term, the Russian economy is a lot smaller than that of the US and it has to be a drain to recapitalize their strategic forces. Maintenance is also likely a bit of an issue for some parts of the force.
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
249
Reaction score
210
I don’t think Chinese first use would be practical...they are strategically inferior and will remain so through the medium term. Any escalation ultimately favors the US. Even a tactical first use doesn’t favor them because they’ve built a series of static, tactical targets inside the nine dashed line. Nuclear weapons would be the easiest way to wipe non sovereign, military personnel only land masses from the sea.

The Russians are far more problematic with shear number and variety of tactical weapons, a equal or near equal strategic deterrence to control escalation, and perhaps most disturbingly a seeming doctrine of first use as a mechanism of intimidation. The US needs a new class of stand-off tactical nuclear missile, or at a minimum the new strategic missile utilized in a tactical role. Is the AGM-86 DAY enabled? I think the tomahawks did have a low yield option but I think the ALCM didn’t. The replacement should have DAY.
When looking at the maintenance costs of maintaining our sizeable nuclear arsenal, do you think the Russian Federation has that kind of money? Perhaps their ability to respond is relatively degraded.
What are the maintenance costs? Do they test fly them?
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
764
Reaction score
396
I don't have that information broadly speaking, but I saw footage of four Bulava missiles being ripple fired in the last couple months as an example.
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
249
Reaction score
210
They must have high hopes for the Arctic and Nordstream 2, well whatever those maintenance costs are.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,128
Reaction score
3,949
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,128
Reaction score
3,949
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top