Current Nuclear Weapons Development

Scott Kenny said:
SSBNs are expensive, and there's a small number of usable bases to station them.
Click to expand...
Jip. Also the amount one could get with out having problems for national security for existing user (meaning only old subs) would give ous 8 SSBNs. 4 of them would need to me modefied for M51 as i think Trident isn't available so those likely wont even be really usable as subs but more "tactical" silos. Same could be said about the other 4 french ones. Or atleast budget and person wise this would be the cheapest solution.
Scott Kenny said:
Air-launched or surface launched would be more viable for most of Europe.
Click to expand...
Which is where we end with buying Rafales as its doubtful for france to integreate ASMP in EF.
 
Any European solution likely means new production over a long timeframe. I doubt any NATO member has the stomach for it. Maybe Poland.
 
If Europe wants its own ICBM then it shouldn't hard to derive a missile variant of Arianespace's Vega rocket.
 
NMaude said:
If Europe wants its own ICBM then it shouldn't hard to derive a missile variant of Arianespace's Vega rocket.
Click to expand...
*wikidive*

Huh, mostly solid rockets with a UDMH/N2O4 top stage for orbital insertion? Yeah, that'd work as the base for an ICBM. I'd want to dump the 4th stage entirely, just because UDMH/N2O4 sucks to deal with. Install a warhead bus on top of the third stage.

Frack, I need to dig back into the staging formulas on Atomic Rockets to get an idea for top speed and max range/payload of this beast.
 
NMaude said:
I would've thought that a modified AVUM could be used as a MIRV bus.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, a MIRV bus is a very different thing than a satellite bus. different guidance, different release, a lot more strongly built to handle shifts in balance with large masses, then it has a weird "nudge to slightly change vector then a significant mass loss before adjusting vector again to kick out another big chunk of mass" operating cycle that is nothing like a satellite bus...

So while it might still have 4 stages, it shouldn't have the AVUM at all.

Something that can throw some 3200lbs into low orbit can throw more like 5000lbs over 12,000km. Assuming French warheads are in the same weight class as US warheads (M51 does have 6-10 warheads capability), that's at least 10 warheads, if not 12 or more.
 
Grey Havoc said:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK reaffirms commitment to nuclear weapons ahead of review

The Strategic Defence Review will assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Click to expand...
It did not elaborate on its objections to Britain's behaviour prior to the two World Wars.
While Moscow has singled out Britain for particularly severe opprobium, it has ramped up its rhetoric against the European Union and French President Emmanuel Macron in particular too, whose talk of France's nuclear arsenal as a counterpoint to a perceived Russian threat has angered the Kremlin.
Click to expand...
 
www.twz.com

France To Expand Its Nuclear Deterrent With New Air Base

Luxeuil Air Base will receive 40 new Rafales and hypersonic missiles at a time when Europe looks for ways to expand its own nuclear protections. Luxeuil Air Base will receive 40 new Rafales and hypersonic missiles as NATO nations in Europe look at ways to expand their nuclear deterrence.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Scott Kenny said:
*wikidive*

Huh, mostly solid rockets with a UDMH/N2O4 top stage for orbital insertion? Yeah, that'd work as the base for an ICBM. I'd want to dump the 4th stage entirely, just because UDMH/N2O4 sucks to deal with. Install a warhead bus on top of the third stage.

Frack, I need to dig back into the staging formulas on Atomic Rockets to get an idea for top speed and max range/payload of this beast.
Click to expand...
It might suck, but its what the Minuteman uses for its post-boost vehicle. Well kinda, MMIII uses MMH instead of UDMH.
 
Scott Kenny said:
*wikidive*

Huh, mostly solid rockets with a UDMH/N2O4 top stage for orbital insertion? Yeah, that'd work as the base for an ICBM. I'd want to dump the 4th stage entirely, just because UDMH/N2O4 sucks to deal with. Install a warhead bus on top of the third stage.

Frack, I need to dig back into the staging formulas on Atomic Rockets to get an idea for top speed and max range/payload of this beast.
Click to expand...
I mean one could just Take the M51 stuff for it. Should do the trick for a quick and dirty 1th Gen ICBM to just have the ability.
 
Desertfox said:
It might suck, but its what the Minuteman uses for its post-boost vehicle. Well kinda, MMIII uses MMH instead of UDMH.
Click to expand...

I think Peacekeeper did as well; it allows for a wider MIRV dispersal for a given mass. USN SLBMs however were all solid motor warhead bus because the USN was not about to let hypergolics on its boats.
 
Last edited:
www.airandspaceforces.com

STRATCOM Chief: Air Force Needs 145 B-21s and More New Strategic Systems

STRATCOM commander Gen. Anthony J. Cotton thinks the Air Force needs 145 B-21s, and both USAF and the Navy need more strategic systems.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Yup the precursor to the GBSD/Sentinel was the Bush era LBSD [land not ground] that was to be ready in 2018. We’d have had a fully modernized, deployed and paid for ICBM force today.

We may never recover from the so called peace dividend amounting to about $2-3 trillion of missing weapons modernization funding the last 30+ years.
 
bobbymike said:
www.airandspaceforces.com

STRATCOM Chief: Air Force Needs 145 B-21s and More New Strategic Systems

STRATCOM commander Gen. Anthony J. Cotton thinks the Air Force needs 145 B-21s, and both USAF and the Navy need more strategic systems.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Yup the precursor to the GBSD/Sentinel was the Bush era LBSD [land not ground] that was to be ready in 2018. We’d have had a fully modernized, deployed and paid for ICBM force today.

We may never recover from the so called peace dividend amounting to about $2-3 trillion of missing weapons modernization funding the last 30+ years.
Click to expand...
Trial them all please Elon

We could only hope Trump and the DoE brings back nukes together. Else I see no hope and we may live with decades old bombs refit with JDAM wing kits for the next 20 years.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I could maybe see France willing to discuss Dual-Key nukes with NATO. More likely to discuss that with Poland than Germany, however.

Still too much bad blood from the 20th Century.




London currently only has Trident nukes under their control. No other nuclear weapons unless they decide to rebuild WE.177s and offer those to NATO as the replacement for US Dual-Key.

So Germany would either 1) get British Trident RBAs that could possibly get put on various-sized ballistic missiles (as small as ATACMS size), or 2) the UK gets back into the bomb-building business by reprocessing however much German spent fuel and going to town!
Click to expand...
How easy is it to process reactor grade plutonium into weapons grade? The UK apparently has shed loads of the former.
 
Pixelbrick said:
How easy is it to process reactor grade plutonium into weapons grade?
Click to expand...
Desertfox said:
Not easy at all.
Click to expand...

To turn reactor-grade Plutonium into weapons-grade Plutonium would require the construction of an isotopic enrichment facility which would be large and use a LOT of electric-power although the latest AVLIS, MLIS or SILEX separation tech might make that a lot easier and cheaper to do.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom