Nuclear Triad: Pentagon Taking Steps to Modernize Global Strike Weapons

A forum to report and analyze technological progress in the military sector.
Post Reply
User avatar
Drumboy44
DWS Staff
DWS Staff
Posts: 3464
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:29 pm
Contact:

Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:49 pm

As potential adversaries enhance their long-range weapons, the United States is moving forward with plans to bolster its own global strike capabilities. The stakes are high as officials try to keep their programs on time and on budget.

Russia, China and North Korea are modernizing their strategic weapon systems, defense officials and independent analysts have noted. At the same time, tensions are boiling in the Asia-Pacific following Pyongyang’s recent tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads that could potentially reach the U.S. homeland.

Image

To bolster deterrence and assure anxious allies, the Air Force has flown long-range bombers such as the B-52 near the Korean Peninsula and conducted an ICBM test without a warhead. The Navy has deployed ballistic missile submarines to the region, and allowed officials from allied nations to tour the USS Pennsylvania while it was docked in Guam.

“A lot of that diplomatically is just a show of force,” Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, said during a meeting with reporters at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland. It signaled that “we’re ready to fight tonight,” he added.

However, the United States’ global strike systems are aging, and the Pentagon is pushing to modernize its arsenal.

Continue reading here:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... ke-weapons
" man fears time, but time fears the pyramids "

rudemarine
Regular contributor
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:48 pm

Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:05 am

Getting full nuclear capability back in all our bombers would quickly put a lot of people and allies at ease. Having the B52. Old, with the largest radar cross section plane out there being our only advertised nuclear bomber is just plain dumb. B2s and B1s with nuclear tipped AGM-86 ALCM, LRASMs and JASSM-ERs would keep me all warm and fuzzy at night.

User avatar
Gen Jack D. Ripper
Regular contributor
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 4:25 pm

Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:15 am

rudemarine wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:05 am
Getting full nuclear capability back in all our bombers would quickly put a lot of people and allies at ease. Having the B52. Old, with the largest radar cross section plane out there being our only advertised nuclear bomber is just plain dumb. B2s and B1s with nuclear tipped AGM-86 ALCM, LRASMs and JASSM-ERs would keep me all warm and fuzzy at night.
I think the B2 is still in the nuclear delivery business, but 20 airframes, that's not a lot.

User avatar
RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2171
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:13 pm

Gen Jack D. Ripper wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:15 am
rudemarine wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:05 am
Getting full nuclear capability back in all our bombers would quickly put a lot of people and allies at ease. Having the B52. Old, with the largest radar cross section plane out there being our only advertised nuclear bomber is just plain dumb. B2s and B1s with nuclear tipped AGM-86 ALCM, LRASMs and JASSM-ERs would keep me all warm and fuzzy at night.
I think the B2 is still in the nuclear delivery business, but 20 airframes, that's not a lot.
Personally, I think the role of strategic bombers is dead and gone, and no longer serves a purpose in 21st century nuclear doctrine, other than to keep Americans employed through DoD spending. When an sub can launch an SLBM or Tomahawk right off the coast of a target and hit that target with pinpoint accuracy and then slip away, all without being detected, I see no point in putting pilots at risk to accomplish the same thing. And why are we spending billions on the B-21 when we could build a dozen nuclear-armed drones for the same price?
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

User avatar
Gen Jack D. Ripper
Regular contributor
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 4:25 pm

Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:29 am

RiffRaff wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:13 pm
Gen Jack D. Ripper wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:15 am
rudemarine wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:05 am
Getting full nuclear capability back in all our bombers would quickly put a lot of people and allies at ease. Having the B52. Old, with the largest radar cross section plane out there being our only advertised nuclear bomber is just plain dumb. B2s and B1s with nuclear tipped AGM-86 ALCM, LRASMs and JASSM-ERs would keep me all warm and fuzzy at night.
I think the B2 is still in the nuclear delivery business, but 20 airframes, that's not a lot.
Personally, I think the role of strategic bombers is dead and gone, and no longer serves a purpose in 21st century nuclear doctrine, other than to keep Americans employed through DoD spending. When an sub can launch an SLBM or Tomahawk right off the coast of a target and hit that target with pinpoint accuracy and then slip away, all without being detected, I see no point in putting pilots at risk to accomplish the same thing. And why are we spending billions on the B-21 when we could build a dozen nuclear-armed drones for the same price?
I think the B-21 is not that bad of an idea, they won't exclusively do nuclear delivery, they will have some kind of conventionnal role too.

B1 and B52 can do a good job with stand-off weapons, but they won't be eternal. F-35 doesn't have the range and the payload. F15E are important planes with their speed and range, but sometimes you need LO and longer range.

rudemarine
Regular contributor
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:48 pm

Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:57 am

Gen Jack D. Ripper wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:15 am
rudemarine wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:05 am
Getting full nuclear capability back in all our bombers would quickly put a lot of people and allies at ease. Having the B52. Old, with the largest radar cross section plane out there being our only advertised nuclear bomber is just plain dumb. B2s and B1s with nuclear tipped AGM-86 ALCM, LRASMs and JASSM-ERs would keep me all warm and fuzzy at night.
I think the B2 is still in the nuclear delivery business, but 20 airframes, that's not a lot.

The only free fall bomb which as of now can be on the B-52 or B-2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B83_nuclear_bomb

This is the only thing that keeps the B-52 a viable strike platform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

Supposedly the B1 still has its wings clipped but Trump might have just stopped that without telling Russia yet. It wouldn't be hard to make them drop the B-83 at all.
"It isn't so much the cost of converting the plane to carry nukes; that would be relatively minimal," added Richard Aboulafia, vice president and analyst at the Teal Group, a defense consultancy in Virginia
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... bombs.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeIBnqYxA5M I can see Tex sitting in the bomb bay as we speak lol.

The great white hope for the B-1, current and the future airframes. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... uise-22044

Post Reply