Current Nuclear Weapons Development

bobbymike said:
kaiserd said:
bobbymike said:
I could be wrong but I believe this is the first test in awhile with three warheads. Potentially re-uploading after the NST expires?
————————————————————-
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...MB6vIXVtT0KYY1Py8ToVt2l4WyXm-Xejqs6hN47CwoOKg
Click to expand...
The article give no indication of warhead load - and in any case as it was a test firing it would be carrying at most a test warhead and/ or ballast.....
Click to expand...
“The missile blasted off at 12:21 a.m. from Vandenberg Air Force Base and its three reentry vehicles traveled 4,200 miles (6,759 kilometers) to the Kwajalein Atoll“
Click to expand...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-vehicles-sure-seems-like-a-warning-to-russia
 
Well, the China definitely can use more warheads. I wonder why they didnt start earlier. Plus considering they are not bound by any treaty, they can and would build any numbers they want.
 
stealthflanker said:
Well, the China definitely can use more warheads. I wonder why they didnt start earlier. Plus considering they are not bound by any treaty, they can and would build any numbers they want.
Click to expand...

Exactly why it would be foolish for the US to allow itself to be bound by any treaties once they expire.
 
China's military/political strategy is heavily reliant on deception, of course one shouldn't take them for face value.
 
One thing is clear however is that there is nothing to stop them from actually make more nukes. Not even any diplomatic pressure as China doesnt even have any treaty to comply with.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Very short sighted, I fear.
Click to expand...

"The Air Force did not respond to a query about whether it plans to develop additional low-yield weapons as part of its new “conventional-nuclear integration” strategy, which looks at both types of weapons on the same spectrum of conflict instead of in separate categories altogether. That document aims to prepare the service to fight battles where nukes may be used to seize a city or in other, typically non-nuclear scenarios."
 
I saw that, but for the moment I'm reading it as an attempt to try and preserve some ambiguity about the USAFs near future plans.
 
Grey Havoc said:
I saw that, but for the moment I'm reading it as an attempt to try and preserve some ambiguity about the USAFs near future plans.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I know the public deserves disclosure of destabilizing weapons and such, but I think we're going to see DOD as a whole become much more opaque with the future, especially given how fast information can be disseminated. Not to mention China's general opaqueness and them viewing the US's military establishment's openness as a large weakness.

China's full steam ahead right now, they know their window for capitalizing on the post-GWOT/2008 lull in US dominance is closing.
 
I suspect, as the article mentions, it was W-76-2, which depending on the time frame of the interview wasn’t public knowledge. It’s already been deployed on SSBNs, which points to development efforts that predate its announcement. Not that the modification seems that extreme. I’m guessing it just replaces the fusion fuel with ballast. The Brits have long been rumored to do the same thing, since they lack any tactical/low yield system like B-61.
 
Couple that with the comments he made during the period of increased tension with NK and you may think there's a new destructive weapons concept we may not be aware of.
 
I doubt it. I think the US is just responding to the fact that the Russians have publicly envisioned using low yield nukes as a demonstration of will and intent, and the US is responding by making it clear that low yield will be met by low yield. The USAF is also talking about integrating tactical nukes with conventional planning, so there's a doctrine to match the modified weapons being introduced (the other being B-61 mod 12). So I think it isn't a secret concept, it's a new publicized doctrine aimed specifically at deterring Russia.
 
The cost of recapitalizing the nuclear force is gong to be along the lines of a trillion. Even the new ICBM force is apparently going to be astronomical. I suspect the planned forces ultimately suffer deep cuts - possibly entire boats or the entire land based force. I'd thought the GBSD would be a relatively easy and cheap program with no new tech that could slot into existing infrastructure but the numbers being thrown out there don't seem to jive with that assessment.
 
Josh_TN said:
The cost of recapitalizing the nuclear force is gong to be along the lines of a trillion. Even the new ICBM force is apparently going to be astronomical. I suspect the planned forces ultimately suffer deep cuts - possibly entire boats or the entire land based force. I'd thought the GBSD would be a relatively easy and cheap program with no new tech that could slot into existing infrastructure but the numbers being thrown out there don't seem to jive with that assessment.
Click to expand...

Do you think GBSD will include new capabilities to evade future ABM threats?
 
The only thing that I've seen regarding details is that the warhead will be based on the W87. I don't believe any of the requirements are public. I would think that it would have to incorporate some kind of maneuvering capability given the time frame they expect it to be operation (2075!), but on the other hand they may start with a conventional RV and later upgrade to something else as a new program. Avangarde for instance had its initial deployment on a Soviet vintage booster. So long as there is enough diameter and throw weight, presumably other RVs could be substituted after the fact. I assume that existing silos limit the dimensions and weight of the system. I haven't heard anything concerning a mobile launcher.

Concerning price, while I thought the initial cost was extreme I then remembered that the B-61 mod 12 program ballooned into like 7 billions dollars and counting for ~400 free bombs that were rebuilds, so 13 billion would be a relative bargain if it were achievable.
 
Josh_TN said:
The cost of recapitalizing the nuclear force is gong to be along the lines of a trillion. Even the new ICBM force is apparently going to be astronomical. I suspect the planned forces ultimately suffer deep cuts - possibly entire boats or the entire land based force. I'd thought the GBSD would be a relatively easy and cheap program with no new tech that could slot into existing infrastructure but the numbers being thrown out there don't seem to jive with that assessment.
Click to expand...
The trillion figure is the cost of the entire existing triad, warhead infrastructure and modernization over the next 30 years. Modernization itself is around $400 billion.
 
Flyaway said:
Very hard to know what exactly he’s referring to here, but I guess that’s the point.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ret-new-nuclear-weapon-system-to-bob-woodward
Click to expand...
If you read the whole transcript and take into account how Trump speaks, he's not talking about nuclear weapons that china and Russia can't even imagine, he's talking about other weapon systems they can't imagine which actually clears up the confusion over his statements. When it comes to nukes there isn't a lot of variety in possibilities for weapons that other nations "can't imagine". Nukes go boom, that's it. He is clearly talking about other things. Maybe we have supersonic stealth helicopters piloted by terminator 101s with phased plasma rifles... Who knows. I like the guy but he talks too much.
 
Last edited:
rooster said:
If you read the whole transcript and take into account how Trump speaks, he's not talking about nuclear weapons that china and Russia can't even imagine, he's talking about other weapon systems they can't imagine which actually clears up the confusion over his statements. When it comes to nukes there isn't a lot of variety in possibilities for weapons that other nations "can't imagine". Nukes go boom, that's it. He is clearly talking about other things. Maybe we have supersonic stealth helicopters piloted by terminator 101s with phased plasma rifles... Who knows. I like the guy but he talks too much.
Click to expand...

Or a nuclear-powered particle beam hanging out in orbit.
 
In_A_Dream said:
rooster said:
If you read the whole transcript and take into account how Trump speaks, he's not talking about nuclear weapons that china and Russia can't even imagine, he's talking about other weapon systems they can't imagine which actually clears up the confusion over his statements. When it comes to nukes there isn't a lot of variety in possibilities for weapons that other nations "can't imagine". Nukes go boom, that's it. He is clearly talking about other things. Maybe we have supersonic stealth helicopters piloted by terminator 101s with phased plasma rifles... Who knows. I like the guy but he talks too much.
Click to expand...

Or a nuclear-powered particle beam hanging out in orbit.
Click to expand...
Zero residual radiation pure fusion weapons ;)
 
bobbymike said:
Zero residual radiation pure fusion weapons ;)
Click to expand...

SoupyCarelessKagu-small.gif
 
STRATCOM preparing for China to join Russia as U.S. nuclear peer adversary
China's military modernization -- particularly development of its strategic forces -- is driving the U.S. military to begin preparing for the advent of Beijing as a nuclear competitor on par with Russia, a development that will require a different deterrence strategy from the playbook the Defense Department has long maintained to counter Moscow, according to a senior U.S. military official
__________________________________________
Been saying this since New START was signed. Our disarmament opened the door to China being able to, on the “relatively” cheap, match our nuclear capabilities.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom