Nuclear Forces Thread

[BLUEJACKET]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US can nuke all of Russia and China and still have plenty of nukes left over for the rest of the world. The US has 10,000 active warheads.

Following your logic, it's then possible to nuke all of the South China & Philippine Seas where PLAN SSBNs are most likely to patrol, and their bases (with some SSBNs pierside) on Hainan/Mainland as well!

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1389&highlight=type

Today I asked a former USN P-3 pilot if it was possible to find a USN SSBN if its position was known in 500mi radius- his responce: yes, and it would take 8-10 hours to be able to drop a torpedo on it!

c.1,000,000 sq mi (2,590,000 sq km), between the SE Asian mainland and Taiwan, the Philippines, and Borneo. It is connected with the East China Sea by the Taiwan Strait. The Gulf of Tonkin and the Gulf of Thailand are its chief embayments. The southwestern part of the sea from the Gulf of Thailand to the Java Sea is an enormous submerged plain called the Sunda Platform; water is generally shallow (less than 200 ft/61 m) throughout this vast area. In contrast, the northeastern part of the sea is a deep basin, reaching depths of up to c.18,000 ft (5,490 m).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So, even if a Chinese SSBN wasn't followed by USN SSN, the air over the deepwater area of that sea could be filled with ASW assets and in a matter of hours the prosecuted submarine will be history! For the US, Russian, French, and British Navies SSBN force make sense, but not for the PLAN. It's a big waste of money & resources, considering that large naval/air forces will have to be allocated to protect it.

In early 2005, the PLA deployed a Type 091 Han class nuclear attack submarine to its South Sea Fleet base at Yulin, on the southern end of Hainan Island. Some Asian military officials believe that in 2006 the PLAN will begin operations at a new nuclear-submarine base beside Yulin that will become a new base for PLAN SSBNs and SSNs. This base was constructed to give near-immediate access to waters for deep water patrols, which is not possible in the shallow Bohai Gulf, the current base area for the solitary Type 092. But to hit targets in the United States with their new 5,000-plus-nautical-mile-range JL-2 SLBMs, these SSBNs will have to travel between the Philippines and Taiwan. This will mean that the PLAN’s focus of operations will shift to the south to support SSBN access, requiring that additional ship and aircraft resources be deployed south.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Taiwan to boost submarine force with Harpoon anti-ship missiles: Jane's
TAIPEI (AFP) Sep 25, 2005
Taiwan plans to equip its two Dutch-built submarines with Harpoon anti-ship missiles that could be used to attack key Chinese naval bases, Jane's Defence Weekly said.
If all goes smoothly, the two Sea Dragon diesel electric submarines would be armed with UGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, the defence weekly said in an article to be published Wednesday.
It said the US navy had awarded McDonnell Douglas Corp, a Boeing subsidiary, a contract to coordinate and execute an on-site survey of the submarines for this purpose.
Submarine-launched Harpoons are pre-loaded into a capsule and launched from a torpedo tube. The capsule rises to the surface and launches the missile.
"If Taiwan procures the Block 2 Harpoons with coastal target suppression, Taiwan's submarines will have the capability of attacking coastal, in-harbour and land targets," Jane's said.
"This will place China's key naval bases of Shantou, Xiamen, Sandu, Xiazhen, Shanghai and Zhoushan in Taiwan's crosshairs," it said.
The Harpoon missile deal, following Russia's sale of Kh-41 anti-ship missiles to China, was part of a 2001 US arms package. ..

Taiwan already has air and ship-launched Harpoons. ..
'A Taiwan F-16 fighter jet has successfully launched a Harpoon antiship missile during an ongoing joint forces exercise in what will greatly expand the Air Force's capability to intercept attacking Chinese warships long before they approach the island, military officials were quoted as saying Wednesday. ..'The combination of F-16s with Harpoon missiles will greatly expand our combat range and enhance our capability to intercept hostile warships as far away as Hainan Island or Qingdao,'' ..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Not quite. Only SSBNs have true second and third strike capability. Nations like the US and Russisa have the capability to completely incinerate every single square mile of territory in any nation in the world with their nuclear arsenals. In that case, these trains would be incinerated too.

Even during the 1st strike, before the detonation some trains will launch a retaliatory strike of their own. I doubt that any SSBN on patrol could be contacted in time to do the same, and those pierside will be out of range!
In the '91 Gulf War, none of the mobile Iraqi SCUDs were located, even in the open desert. So, I won't be surprised if the PLA gets mobile ICBMs on trucks too!
Update:

China's sole nuclear-ballistic-missile submarine has never gone on patrol. As a result, the crews of the new Jin-class subs currently under construction will need to start almost from scratch to develop the operational and tactical skills and procedures that are essential if a sea-based deterrent is to be militarily effective and matter strategically.
China may be able to build two or three new missile subs over the next decade, but they would be highly vulnerable to anti-submarine forces; the US Navy has 14 missile-bearing subs and has moved the majority of them into the Pacific.
China may have a small number of aircraft with a secondary nuclear capability, but they would be severely tested by US and allied air-defense systems or in air-to-air combat. The United States operates 72 long-range bombers assigned missions with nuclear gravity bombs and land-attack cruise missiles.
China does not have nuclear-armed cruise missiles, although US intelligence suspects it might develop such a capability in the future. The United States has more than 1,000 nuclear cruise missiles for delivery by aircraft and attack submarines.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[IDonT]

Following your logic, it's then possible to nuke all of the South China Sea where PLAN SSBNs are most likely to patrol (they won't risk going to the Phillipine Sea/open Pacific via straits to avoid detection), and their bases on Hainan/Mainland as well!
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/SouthChinaSea.png[/qimg]

IF the US want to they can. But a MK48 Adcap from USS Virginia is much cheaper.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

QUOTE=IDonT;47193]IF the US want to they can. But a MK48 Adcap from USS Virginia is much cheaper.[/QUOTE]
Then those SSBNs are no good (werever they may patrol), which agrees with my assessment!

According to this plan, by the year 2010, China's Navy will have had three second-generation strategic nuclear missile submarines. If that proves to be true, then China's nuclear missile submarines will be able to operate freely over the waterways of the West Pacific Ocean including the Philippines, and to aim at and reach any target within the Russian and U.S. territories.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Easier said then done! The few SSBNs China will deploy (probably <10) will be easy to track- unlike their SSKs. As they get quieter (which takes years), the ASW gets better. The purpose of SSBN force is to have credible 2nd strike capability. But unless the PLAN deploys an Ohio class-like top-of-the line sub that can pass undetected through the straits (and/or secures permament basing on Russian Kamchatka peninsula, which is unlikely at this point) & patrol in the open ocean, in the event of the 1st nuclear and/or large scale conventional strike on China her SSBNs will be disabled/destoyed - even those on patrol in the seas surrounding the PRC. If not enemy SSNs like Virginia/Seawolf/LA classes, a few nukes detonated in those closed seas will knock them out. So, for the forseeble future PLAN will not be able provide a credible 2nd strike capability with its SSBNs.
On the other hand, mobile land based ICBMs are protected by their mobility, camouflage, and the PLA/AF units on approches and in their operating areas! Like the USN & RN, PLAN will eventually have to convert them to SSNs and/or SSGNs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...all 'Yankee' discarded or converted by the end of 1993. ..The three 'Yankee Notch' SSGNs (converted SSBNs) were laid up by the end of 1997. ..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In addition, the USN will rearm its SSBNs with conventional missiles, thus decreasing their survivability and strategic value.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The navy is converting four older SSBNs to non-nuclear operations as delivery platforms for Tomahawk cruise missiles and special operation forces. The Ohio began conversion at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in 2002 and will begin operating from Bangor in 2005. The Florida is undergoing conversion at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and will be based at Kings Bay in 2006. The Michigan and Georgia off-loaded their Trident I missiles in October 2004 and began conversion at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, respectively. After their conversion is complete in 2007, the Michigan will be based at Bangor and the Georgia at Kings Bay. ..
The navy is in the early stages of planning to develop a Submarine-Launched Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM). Officials invited industry proposals in August 2003, and this year the navy plans to conduct two full-scale static test-firings of an "affordable, high performance SLIRBM" prototype rocket engine. The missile is intended to carry both nuclear and conventional payloads.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Conventional Trident
The Pentagon developed the Conventional Trident Modification program in 2006 to diversify its strategic options. The US $503 million program would have converted existing Trident II missiles (presumably those scheduled for decommissioning of their warheads) into conventional weapons. It offered the promise of accurate conventional strikes with little warning and flight time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In addition to trains/truck launchers, PLAAF could probably adopt cargo airlifters to carry/launch ICBMs like the USAF had done for trials-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Among the possible cadidates are IL-76 variants and AN-124 that China may buy later.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=197

 

[coolieno99]

Japan has about 50 civilian nuclear reactors. These reactors produced a great deal of plutonium byproducts. Japan has just finished building one of the world's largest plutonium reprocessing plant early this year. It is estimated Japan will produced enough plutonium by 2010 to make about 7,000 nuclear weapons(this probably includes the current plutonium reserve).

Modern ICBMs use solid fuel. The following list is solid-fueled launch vehicles. It gives size comparison in weight.

U.S. Minuteman 3 [38 tons]
China DF-31A [50 tons]
Russia Topol-M [50 tons]
U.S. Trident D-5 [65 tons]
U.S. Peacekeeper [97 tons]
Japan M-5(space launch vehicle) [150 tons]

Japan planned to make a smaller M-5. It is also one of the most advanced solid-fueled launch vehicle.

 

[coolieno99]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US can nuke all of Russia and China and still have plenty of nukes left over for the rest of the world. The US has 10,000 active warheads.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Pentagon has custody of approximately 10,000 stockpiled warheads, of which about 5,735 are considered active or operational. The remaining are categorized as reserve or inactive. Details from an Energy Department 2004 stockpile plan indicate that some 4,000 warheads will eventually be retired, returned to Energy's custody, and disassembled at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, though that task could take many years to accomplish. Refurbishments and upgrades to existing warheads will take priority over disassembly in terms of man-hours for the foreseeable future.

Of the more than 70,000 warheads produced by the United States since 1945, more than 60,000 have been disassembled by mid-2006. More than 13,000 of these warheads have been taken apart since 1990, but Energy retains more than 12,000 intact plutonium pits from dismantled warheads and stores them at Pantex.

It is estimated by most analysts Russia had about 34,000 nuclear warheads during the height of the Cold War ( mid-1980's). Russia may had less nuclear warheads than the U.S., but they made up for the lesser quantity by making them bigger. Russia suppose to scrapped all 300 SS-18 ICBMs(Satan) under the START treaties. Russia did scrapped about 200 SS-18s but partially reneged on the treaty and kept about 100 SS-18s in operational status. The SS-18 comes in many versions. One version is armed with a single 20 MT warhead. 20 MT is equivalent to 1,000 Hiroshima A-bombs.
Sometimes Less is More ... Lao Tzu

 

[BLUEJACKET]

And I forgot to mention that The Chinese could also outfit their IL-86s and IL-76s (or any large transport) with hundreds of conventional/nuclear ALCMs- like the proposed USAF C-17 Arsenal aircraft. please see my posts #196 & #211 & #221

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Missile Defense Briefing Report No. 212, November 10, 2006
American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, DC
Editor: Ilan Berman
RUSSIA'S SHIFTING NUCLEAR STRATEGY
Amid growing concern in Moscow about the potential impact of a U.S. missile defense deployment in Europe, Russian strategists are retooling their country’s nuclear posture and warfighting strategy. "NATO is so close to the Russian borders nowadays that strategic bombers cannot hope to take off in case of a sudden attack (the order will take too long reaching them, and besides, they will have to be fuelled and outfitted first)," writes analyst Aleksei Vaschenko in the November 10th edition of Defense and Security. Likewise, although "[r]ailroad missile complexes posed a bona fide threat to the Americans," these systems have been largely dismantled over the past two decades thanks to the policies of Presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
The result, Vaschenko concludes, is that Russia must rely on asymmetric weapons in the event of a confrontation with the United States – chief among them the use of "Super-EMI [electromagnetic impulse]." "Powerful electromagnetic impulse released by explosions affected electronic equipment, lines of communications, power networks, and radars" in previous nuclear detonations, and specialists "claim that explosion of such a device (10 megatons 300-400 kilometers above the surface) over Nebraska which is the geographic center of the United States will render all electronic gear all over the country inoperable for the period of time sufficient to prevent nuclear retaliation." Not surprisingly, writes Vaschenko, “[t]he Russian nuclear component includes Super-EMI" as a “response to American nuclear blackmail.”
A BUMPY ROAD FOR THE “BULAVA”
Not all is well in the Russian strategic arsenal, however. Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozrenie writes in its November 7th issue that a key component of the Russian strategic arsenal – the “Bulava” ship-launched ICBM – has experienced a string of test failures and mechanical mishaps that threaten to undermine the Russian military’s plans for the next-generation missile. “It was originally intended [for the military] to adopt it for operational service in 2005. Then 2007 began to be mentioned. Finally the Moscow Thermotechnical Institute's director and general designer, Yuriy Solomonov, declared that the Bulava ICBM will enter service with the Navy in 2008,” the military paper notes. “The Bulava project is no longer saving either money or time,” and continued failures with the program could render the new nuclear submarines the Kremlin plans to acquire “useless.”..

Russia grapples with further Bulava missile setback
By Doug Richardson
Russia's troubled Bulava (SS-NX-30) submarine-launched ballistic missile has failed for the third time in four months.
These continued teething troubles are a setback for the programme and Anatoly Perminov, chief of the Russian Space Agency (Roskosmos), was quoted on 27 December as stating that the system will require 12 to 14 launches before it can be cleared for service.
The launch is reported to have been made with the submarine surfaced, as it was during the first launch on 27 September 2005. The intervening three firings were all made from underwater and the recent decision to launch from the surface may have been intended to allow improved monitoring of the missile's behaviour on leaving the launch tube.
© 2006 Jane's Information Group

See my new post #59 here.

Russian technology may also help the PRC, for the first time, to achieve a truly reliable nuclear second-strike capability. Inasmuch as the new Type 094 SSBN will be an elongated version of the Type 093 SSN, it follows that the 094 will also benefit from Russian technology. This year the Pentagon noted, “The Type 094-class SSBN will be similar to the Type 093-class, but with a missile bay to carry the JL-2 SLBM.”[166] The Pentagon estimates that the Type 094 will enter service toward the “end of the decade.”[167] Regarding the final number of Type 094s to be built, estimates range from 3 to 6. If the later, it is possible that the PLA may build a second SSN/SSBN base to compliment the Northern Fleet base near Qingdao. Were this base to be built for the South Sea Fleet, then the PLA would be seeking an assured second strike capability against India. Deep Southern patrols by Type 094 SSBNs might also allow the PLA to consider South Polar SLBM strike avenues that would avoid planned U.S. missile defenses.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

All this doesn't mean that they'll be involnurable to USN ASW efforts- "to achieve truly reliable nuclear second-strike capability" (as far as the US, not India is concerned) they'll have to build not less than 20-30 SSBNs, for the reasons I pointed out already.

 

[goldenpanda]

Not quite. Only SSBNs have true second and third strike capability. Nations like the US and Russisa have the capability to completely incinerate every single square mile of territory in any nation in the world with their nuclear arsenals. In that case, these trains would be incinerated too. In that respect, these trains are inferior to ICBMs hidden in deep mountain bunkers.

I made a quick calculation. I assume USA can successfully deliver 5000 warheads, ALL of which are the most modern 475 kiloton W88's. According to this calculator:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Light damage to buildings can occur up to 9 kilometers. So I will allow 80 square kilometers of destruction against road missiles, per warhead. This comes out to 400,000 square kilometers destroyed, out of 9,600,000 sq km of Chinese territory, or about 4%.

It's possible to eliminate parts of country as unlikely to host road vehicles. But on the other hand even light protection, for example parking between buildings or inside valleys, will reduce the destruction radius considerably. Over all if 50% of missiles can expect to survive, I'd say they remain a credible threat.

SLBM's are survivable if they can escape the 1st island chain. But China's safe ocean territory is actually much smaller than the land territory.

Air launch is least survivable of all. All the airfields will be destroyed.

It would be incredibly hard to track a mature SSBN force. Now, I am not saying the USN today couldn't easily track any SSBN force the Chinese may field in the next few years, but after a few generations of SSBN development, I'm sure even the USN will be unable to track the Chinese SSBN force. Just think about it- a SSBN could hide in any part of the any ocean anywhere in the world. It would be more difficult than finding a needle in a hay stack.

Especially when you consider submarines can escape under cover of civilian traffic, such as a tanker. Even the old Xia SSBM can hide under a noisy propeller. Once it's out to open ocean it only needs to sit quiet, somewhere inside 361 million sq km of seas.

The Han SSN made it all the way inside Japan territorial waters before being detected. There is huge amount of heavy ship traffic in western pacific belonging to different nations. This is a kind of concealment Soviets didn't have with the northern fleet, which operated out of much more restricted waters.

Japan has about 50 civilian nuclear reactors. These reactors produced a great deal of plutonium byproducts. Japan has just finished building one of the world's largest plutonium reprocessing plant early this year. It is estimated Japan will produced enough plutonium by 2010 to make about 7,000 nuclear weapons(this probably includes the current plutonium reserve).

Hmm if you're trying to say Japan is as good as having 7000 nukes, you underestimate the need to weaponize into an effective strike capability. All the nuclear powers went through years of testing and refinement. Many nations have large plutonium stocks. But none of them can make up for 50 years of weaponization work overnight.

 

[BLUEJACKET]

I agree with your asessment- even with huge arsenal, it's impossible to destroy all mobile ICBMs! That's why china is better off investing in those, as her acess to open ocean is restricted, plus few other factors I pointed out in other posts.

The Han SSN made it all the way inside Japan territorial waters before being detected.

I heard that it was detected from the time it left base, and certainly near Guam.

.. from October to early November 2004, U.S. and Japanese naval forces monitored the voyage of a Type 091 SSN, which circumnavigated Guam, before making a brief but high-profile incursion into Japanese territorial waters.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[bd popeye]

I heard that it was detected from the time it left base, and certainly near Guam.

BLUEJACKET you heard correctly. I'm happy you posted that. Those PLAN nuke boats probally are shadowed by LA class SSNs generally without detection evertime they put to sea.

Those Russian nuke boats are well know in sonar tech circles for their noise and lack of noise dampening technology. This according to a close associate of mine.

 

[zachjeli]

I figure we need to thread to discuss the classical (Coldwar) strategies of nuclear warfare. From Strategic to Tactical to MAD. Perhaps it may teach us the fallacy of "using a nuke to sink a carrier" argument.

let me start

In the US, the missile silos are designed primarily as the first strike of the nuke triad. They are much more accurate than SSBN's due to the fact they are fixed and know exactly where their launch points are. As a result, their primary targets were military facilities not population centers.

SSBN's are still the best way to ensure survival of your nuke assets than just hardening them.

Manned bombers are the third leg of the triad. They offer the leadership "call back" capability in a nuke war. They are usually scrambled once an inbound nuke is detected. At the height of the cold war, the US had nuke armed bombers airborne 24 hours a day. The bombers today no longer have nuke deterrance as their main mission.

For those who don't know the size of the nukes we are talking about here is rough guideline.

20 kilotons - Hiroshima bomb
0.5 kilotons - bomb tested by North Korea
300 kilotons - average yeild size of US nuke MIRV warhead
50,000 kilotons (50 megatons) - largest ever nuke detonated (USSR - the Tsar Bomba)

Estimated Russian Nuke arsenal

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

USA

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

France

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

UK

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As for China, it appears that the strategy is minimal deterrance with zero first strike capability vis-a-vis the US. From the above link:

The only true intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in China's arsenal is the liquid-fueled DF-5, which is capable of targeting the entire continental United States. The exact number of DF-5s is unclear, but Chinese Military Power 2005 states that 20 missiles are deployed in 20 launchers, a number that has remained steady over the past six years or so. The missiles are deployed in silos at two locations, and their nuclear warheads are stored separately nearby.[/I]

So these missiles are not on "push-button" launch readiness. But those warheads are big suckers. 3-5 megatons.

stange that china does not care as much for nukes, but more for conventional forces. but if they want to be a superpower they should but an efective nuclear force.