Current Nuclear Weapons Development

news.usni.org

Hyten: U.S. 'Not In A Very Good Position' Due to Chinese and Russian Missile Capabilities - USNI News

China, Russia, North Korea and Iran’s continued investment in modernizing cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles has left the United States “not in a very good position,” the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs said Tuesday. Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking in a Center for Strategic and...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, speaking in a Center for Strategic and International Studies online forum, said “we need [to] have a strategic deterrence review” that examines “our strategic capabilities as an integrated whole” to address the threats posed by these four nations.
The deterrence review, in his estimation, would encompass sensors, command and control and other areas usually not considered in the existing required “stovepiped” Pentagon studies.
For example, “we don’t have an integrated sensor architecture” for hypersonic missile defense, but “the common thread for all missile defense systems is, can I see the threat, can I see the threat coming at me,” he said. Hyten added that “the big piece is not shooters but sensors. [However,] we just love to talk about the interceptors.”
As it stands now, the Pentagon is producing separate reviews on nuclear posture, space and missiles – and they often do not align easily. “We have to figure out what our priorities are,” he said.
During the forum, Hyten often returned to the need for integrated sensors in all domains, command and control and the development of “appropriate defeat technology,” including the Next Generation Interceptor
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.defensenews.com

With limited time, DoD to review five key investments for next budget

Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks has ordered a targeted review.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

The nuclear enterprise, which received a major focus increase under the Trump administration and saw the creation of two low-yield nuclear warheads. While it is unlikely the Biden administration would remove the low-yield W76-2 from service (it was first deployed in late 2019), future warhead developments could be paused or curtailed. There is also a major fight brewing about the future of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD, the replacement for the legacy Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile.

During their respective confirmation hearings, both Hicks and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin showed support for the nuclear triad and overall modernization of the nuclear arsenal, but they both stopped short of offering support for GBSD or other specific programs.
Click to expand...
 
www.aspistrategist.org.au

Biden must keep all nuclear options on the table | The Strategist

The US Navy’s new low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile, produced rapidly by the National Nuclear Security Administration, is intended to provide a proportional response to US adversaries’ concepts of ‘coercive, limited nuclear escalation’. Proposed in the ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au
 
www.defensenews.com

Biden’s first budget should reduce nuclear excess

Current U.S. nuclear weapons policies exceed what is necessary for a credible nuclear deterrent and their financial costs are taking a growing toll.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

www.pogo.org

Joe Biden’s Nuclear Triad

The world has lived under the shadow of nuclear war for 70 years. It’s time for President Biden to take some key steps to begin moving out of that darkness.
www.pogo.org www.pogo.org

www.defensenews.com

Lawmakers aim to prevent sea-based nuclear cruise missile

Two Democratic lawmakers are introducing legislation to kill the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile set to begin development next year and its associated warhead.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
rusi.org

Dependent Deterrent? US Support for the UK’s New Nuclear Warhead

New revelations about the links between the UK and US nuclear programmes raise as many questions as they provide answers., Last night, BBC Newsnight reported on a quiet but crucial drama playing out at the heart of UK–US defence relations. The UK has started a programme to build a new nuclear...
rusi.org rusi.org
 
Yes Heritage is “right wing” other perspectives are welcome on this thread.

www.heritage.org

Extending New START Makes U.S. Nuclear Modernization Imperative

The Biden Administration recently agreed to an unconditional five-year extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Russian Federation before it was scheduled to expire on February 5, 2021. New START restricts the number of strategic nuclear delivery systems and...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
bobbymike said:
rusi.org

Dependent Deterrent? US Support for the UK’s New Nuclear Warhead

New revelations about the links between the UK and US nuclear programmes raise as many questions as they provide answers., Last night, BBC Newsnight reported on a quiet but crucial drama playing out at the heart of UK–US defence relations. The UK has started a programme to build a new nuclear...
rusi.org rusi.org
Click to expand...
Hmmm....start way back under Blair various work and tests were conducted. Presumably validating refined modelling.

I like how this piece jumps to the classic 'uk not independent' in nukes but avoids the obvious implications that US efforts are equally 'not independent'.

And as I've been saying for decades, things can be done here beyond the scrutiny of the US politicians.

Intriguing.....
 
More stories

apnews.com

UK to lift nuclear stockpile cap; looks to Asia post-Brexit

LONDON (AP) — Britain's government said Tuesday the U.K. will prioritize diplomatic engagement with Asian countries in the coming decade and lift its own cap on the size of its nuclear stockpile, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled a major shift in the country's foreign policy and defense prior
apnews.com apnews.com

www.thedrive.com

The UK Says It Could Now Use Nuclear Weapons Against Threats From “Emerging Technologies”

The British government has announced it will change the terms of when it might use its submarine-based nuclear weapons.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
Another thought.....

I thought the new Dreadnoughts will have 12 tubes and each missile has upto 8 RVs, resulting in 96 at maximum available per SSBN.
Assuming double that number to sustain, implies 192.

While 260...... either implies more RVs per missile (10), more missiles per SSBN (16) or more SSBN (5?)or.....some other delivery system......presumably using the same nuclear device.

So what could that alternative system be?
 
zen said:
Another thought.....

I thought the new Dreadnoughts will have 12 tubes and each missile has upto 8 RVs, resulting in 96 at maximum available per SSBN.
Assuming double that number to sustain, implies 192.

While 260...... either implies more RVs per missile (10), more missiles per SSBN (16) or more SSBN (5?)or.....some other delivery system......presumably using the same nuclear device.

So what could that alternative system be?
Click to expand...

The D5 can take up to 14 Mk4A reentry vehicles, which is the type used by the RN. So that's potentially 336 embarked warheads (assuming 2 SSBNs operational) -- obviously they still plan to download at least some missiles.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
zen said:
Another thought.....

I thought the new Dreadnoughts will have 12 tubes and each missile has upto 8 RVs, resulting in 96 at maximum available per SSBN.
Assuming double that number to sustain, implies 192.

While 260...... either implies more RVs per missile (10), more missiles per SSBN (16) or more SSBN (5?)or.....some other delivery system......presumably using the same nuclear device.

So what could that alternative system be?
Click to expand...

The D5 can take up to 14 Mk4A reentry vehicles, which is the type used by the RN. So that's potentially 336 embarked warheads (assuming 2 SSBNs operational) -- obviously they still plan to download at least some missiles.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.....
I've not heard of using all 14, so I wonder why? The obvious is not needing it, but not able to cut missile and tube numbers down. Due to target dispersion.
The next is that there's a rumour of one missile having only one RV. Possibly there is a spectrum of load outs and only a few are fully loaded.
Another is to maximise range, expanding the possible launch locations.
And yet another is to further reduce flight time on a depressed trajectory to try to get under the Moscow ABM defence.
Then there could be differences in the RV body. Or additional decoys.....
 
zen said:
TomS said:
zen said:
Another thought.....

I thought the new Dreadnoughts will have 12 tubes and each missile has upto 8 RVs, resulting in 96 at maximum available per SSBN.
Assuming double that number to sustain, implies 192.

While 260...... either implies more RVs per missile (10), more missiles per SSBN (16) or more SSBN (5?)or.....some other delivery system......presumably using the same nuclear device.

So what could that alternative system be?
Click to expand...

The D5 can take up to 14 Mk4A reentry vehicles, which is the type used by the RN. So that's potentially 336 embarked warheads (assuming 2 SSBNs operational) -- obviously they still plan to download at least some missiles.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.....
I've not heard of using all 14, so I wonder why? The obvious is not needing it, but not able to cut missile and tube numbers down. Due to target dispersion.
The next is that there's a rumour of one missile having only one RV. Possibly there is a spectrum of load outs and only a few are fully loaded.
Another is to maximise range, expanding the possible launch locations.
And yet another is to further reduce flight time on a depressed trajectory to try to get under the Moscow ABM defence.
Then there could be differences in the RV body. Or additional decoys.....
Click to expand...
I wonder if the UK will adapt the Mk-7 RV body with warhead modernization?
 
zen said:
Hmmm.....
I've not heard of using all 14
Click to expand...

Yeah, so I may be wrong on that figure. It came from Wiki and the footnotes don't match what the text says.

Grr...
 
TomS said:
zen said:
Hmmm.....
I've not heard of using all 14
Click to expand...

Yeah, so I may be wrong on that figure. It came from Wiki and the footnotes don't match what the text says.

Grr...
Click to expand...
I think it's 12 from what I see online, and 12 being four sets of three would make sense. As previously with Polaris three were used to straddle the target.
Hang on....Wikipedia now says 8?
Is someone messing that around?

Wish I had my books on me but they are all going to storage.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
zen said:
Hmmm.....
I've not heard of using all 14
Click to expand...

Yeah, so I may be wrong on that figure. It came from Wiki and the footnotes don't match what the text says.

Grr...
Click to expand...

It’s generally quoted as eight mk4/mk5 RVs, though some sources indicate it might be as high as twelve mk4s, which I believe are smaller/lighter (W76 vs W88 in US service). I think the official number is eight, and IIRC there was some arms control controversy over that number.
 
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
zen said:
Hmmm.....
I've not heard of using all 14
Click to expand...

Yeah, so I may be wrong on that figure. It came from Wiki and the footnotes don't match what the text says.

Grr...
Click to expand...

It’s generally quoted as eight mk4/mk5 RVs, though some sources indicate it might be as high as twelve mk4s, which I believe are smaller/lighter (W76 vs W88 in US service). I think the official number is eight, and IIRC there was some arms control controversy over that number.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see that 8 is the number in one of the START understandings, which is probably where the idea arose that this limit applies to the UK missiles as well, even though the UK is not a signatory. (Since the Trident missiles are pooled, having different numbers of warheads for the US and UK missiles would be a treaty verification problem).

To go back to the original question, my guess is that raising the max number of warheads is more intended to imply that the RN could load up a third SSBN in an emergency than to suggest the existence of some unknown non-SLBM delivery platform.
 
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:
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.
 
I think it’s pretty clear the UK is only talking about Trident missiles being uploaded, not new system development.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it’s pretty clear the UK is only talking about Trident missiles being uploaded, not new system development.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't reveal that they are thinking of such an option yet. First comes capacity.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom