Yup and if they take some warheads out of storage they could add another 400 to the MMIIIs. At the moment there's only 800 warheads between 400 missiles, could be 1,200, which would give 3,120 and nicely balance out Russia and China.@ Forrest Green, thanks for the details...surprised there are any public numbers for W76-2. So it sounds like the entire force could be roughly doubled if necessary.
I *think* that the changes made to the 200 MMIIIs with W87 precludes easy uploading (presumably with enough effort they could be restored to MIRV). So there might only be +400 W78s and +150 additional W78s for reactivating the 50 non deployed MMIII silos.Yup and if they take some warheads out of storage they could add another 400 to the MMIIIs. At the moment there's only 800 warheads between 400 missiles, could be 1,200, which would give 3,120 and nicely balance out Russia and China.@ Forrest Green, thanks for the details...surprised there are any public numbers for W76-2. So it sounds like the entire force could be roughly doubled if necessary.
EDIT TO ADD: is it definitely confirmed that D5 can carry 12 W76? I've seen it reported both ways. I assume some confusion is due to the W88 being an option and also reported as having up to eight warheads per bus, despite being a significantly larger RV. But I've never seen it definitely settled either way.
Not on my phone I don't!Officially.It's not just remanufacture, it's regular sustainment that is key.
And the answer is potentially that no one actually can answer with certainty.
We (UK) should certainly consider increasing sustainable warheads to allow for max loadout.
The country had previously been reducing its nuclear weapons stockpile, and in 2010, the government set a cap of 180 warheads for the mid-2020 period. Johnson scrapped the earlier limit and said the number would now rise to a maximum of 260.
500 always seemed like a nice sensible number for me, or maybe 512 (64x8).
Don't know, it's a British designed warhead.Is the British RV for the D5 of a similar size to W76? Presumably up to eight could be carried? If the force is just 180 warheads that makes for on average 2-3 warheads per missile...which is a very light load. Are missiles cross decked from boat to boat when one returns?
I think it's more intriguing to ponder the spectrum of weapons at the moment.500 always seemed like a nice sensible number for me, or maybe 512 (64x8).
TBH I like the French tactical system, the ASMP-A, or the ASMPA-R (getting replaced with a Mach 8, 1000+km ASN4G in the future). Bombs are difficult to deliver over target, even with stealth aircraft, unless the stealth aircraft is doing Mach 18 or something.I think it's more intriguing to ponder the spectrum of weapons at the moment.
For example, the US keeps a number of big Megaton warheads available to my understanding. Presumably for a specific reason.....
While at the moment we (UK) have no tactical system since retirement of WE.177 free fall bombs. Though briefly a successor was being studied prior. At the time using a common warhead with the Trident System.
This lack also applies to submarine environment.
All that said 500 warheads is maybe 300 actually getting to target and working.......
A risk on our part considering the past.....The British are teaming with the US on the W93 future FBM warhead.
The B53s are all gone. The only warheads, of any type, the US has left that are a megaton are the B83s. Russia still has some of the 25Mt weapons left.I think it's more intriguing to ponder the spectrum of weapons at the moment.500 always seemed like a nice sensible number for me, or maybe 512 (64x8).
For example, the US keeps a number of big Megaton warheads available to my understanding. Presumably for a specific reason.....
Nothing "really" big, not in the open sources at least. Biggest in the current acknowledged arsenal is the B83, with a max yield of about 1.2Mt, and those are set up as plain gravity bombs for use on the B-2 Spirit (and one presumes probably the B-21 Raider). What exactly they'd be useful for is...unclear to me, since the B61 is/was being developed into a bunker buster warhead.For example, the US keeps a number of big Megaton warheads available to my understanding. Presumably for a specific reason.....
I'm assuming something probably lurking from the R-36M/SS-18 Satan single-warhead variants, the Russians release a lot less data on what they've got and what the designations are from what I've seen. Likely candidate, the ten or so 20Mt warheads built for the R-36M2 Voevoda that was retired in 1991.What 25 MT weapon does Russia have?
The US has explicitly stated in documents that it retains the physics packages/"CSAs" for "planetary defense", in addition to being a source of nuclear pits for future weapons, a hedge against aging out of assemblies in deployed assets, and as a stockpile of HEU material for future development.Nothing "really" big, not in the open sources at least. Biggest in the current acknowledged arsenal is the B83, with a max yield of about 1.2Mt, and those are set up as plain gravity bombs for use on the B-2 Spirit (and one presumes probably the B-21 Raider). What exactly they'd be useful for is...unclear to me, since the B61 is/was being developed into a bunker buster warhead.For example, the US keeps a number of big Megaton warheads available to my understanding. Presumably for a specific reason.....
Big is relative, of course, when I say the B83 is small I'm talking in comparison to the multi-megaton beasts of the Cold War era. The last of the B53/W53 (Titan II warhead) 9Mt hard site killers were disassembled in 2011 - with the interesting possibility that several physics packages ("canned sub-assemblies") are being retained for reasons unknown, the lead speculation being asteroid defense. And of course the biggest American nuke was the B41, with a three-stage design comparable to the Tsar Bomba and an estimated yield of 25Mt (retired in 1976).
And of course the biggest American nuke was the B41, with a three-stage design comparable to the Tsar Bomba and an estimated yield of 25Mt (retired in 1976).
I think they are developing a global PGM capability that happens to be sub orbital for part of its flight path. The difference from the SS-18 based FOBS is that it likely will be a precision guided projectile that impacts the ground as opposed to a high altitude detonation and also that it wouldn’t necessarily be exclusively a nuclear delivery system - it would potentially put targets in the US at risk of conventional attack. As it stands now, the US could probably volley off a hundred cruise missiles from a half dozen bombers or alternatively a single SSGN at targets inside China and the PRC would be limited to engaging allied bases and units in theatre while the bulk of US forces and infrastructure was safely out of range.As regards the alleged test last year do people think China is genuinely developing a FOBS system or was it more a proof of concept test?
It's all good. At least we're unilaterally stopping any ASAT development.
SLCM it says. I was never even aware of a new program to put nukes on sub-launched cruise missiles.Funds zeroed out for SLBM-N warhead
Yes thanks for the correction I meant SLCMSLCM it says. I was never even aware of a new program to put nukes on sub-launched cruise missiles.Funds zeroed out for SLBM-N warhead