New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)
- Thread starter zukster
- Start date
ltdanjuly10
New Member
Until the United States has viable replacements for its current strategic forces, a treaty such as this is premature and potentially dangerous.
The Current US Strategic Deterrent is based on
76 Active and 20 reserve B-52H Strategic Bombers Carrying up 20 AGM-129 ALCM with 1 W80 Nuclear Warhead with a Maximum yield of 150kt
Problem: The Youngest B-52H is over 50 Years Old with all the associated reliability issues. The aircraft is large, slow and has a large radar cross section, thus it is vulnerable to long-range interceptors. The cruise missiles, while stealth, are likely to become vulnerable to 21st century weapons. Vulnerable to First Strike
20 B-2A Stealth Bombers Carrying 16 B83 Nuclear Gravity Bombs with a Yield of around 150kt
Problem: Limited number of B-2s means that many would likely be on conventional duty in the event of a war. High use means airframes are wearing out quickly. Large size and subsonic speed makes it vulnerable to visual interception or anti-aircraft fire (presuming low level penetration) Vulnerable to First Strike
250 LGM-30G with 3 MIRV W78 warheads with a Maximum Yield of 350kt and 200 LGM-30G with 1 W87 of 300kt to possibly 475kt Yield. (Missiles are spread across three Strategic Missile Wings)
Problem: Missiles are old, thus potentially unreliable. They sit silently in damp underground silos and require constant maintenance due to their age. Although the silos are hardened there positions are known and are Vulnerable to a First Strike. Once launched the Missiles can’t be recalled.
14 Ohio Class SSBNs with 24 UGM-133 SLBMs with (under SORT) up to 5 W88 475kt warheads
Problem: Sub class is small (14 units) thus only a certain number can be at sea at one time. Class will soon require replacements. Warhead accuracy limits SLBMs to large targets (Cities, Industrial centers, naval yards) Once launched the Missiles can’t be recalled.
Note 1: All US warhead types require testing to prove their reliability (they are old). Computer testing would not suffice; live testing is unlikely to happen due to current political climate
Note 2: The Strategic nuclear equation is no longer that of US Vs Russia. China must also be taken into the equation; the “Cold War Mindset” that the current administration talks about trying to avoid has clearly afflicted them in regards to this treaty.
The Current US Strategic Deterrent is based on
76 Active and 20 reserve B-52H Strategic Bombers Carrying up 20 AGM-129 ALCM with 1 W80 Nuclear Warhead with a Maximum yield of 150kt
Problem: The Youngest B-52H is over 50 Years Old with all the associated reliability issues. The aircraft is large, slow and has a large radar cross section, thus it is vulnerable to long-range interceptors. The cruise missiles, while stealth, are likely to become vulnerable to 21st century weapons. Vulnerable to First Strike
20 B-2A Stealth Bombers Carrying 16 B83 Nuclear Gravity Bombs with a Yield of around 150kt
Problem: Limited number of B-2s means that many would likely be on conventional duty in the event of a war. High use means airframes are wearing out quickly. Large size and subsonic speed makes it vulnerable to visual interception or anti-aircraft fire (presuming low level penetration) Vulnerable to First Strike
250 LGM-30G with 3 MIRV W78 warheads with a Maximum Yield of 350kt and 200 LGM-30G with 1 W87 of 300kt to possibly 475kt Yield. (Missiles are spread across three Strategic Missile Wings)
Problem: Missiles are old, thus potentially unreliable. They sit silently in damp underground silos and require constant maintenance due to their age. Although the silos are hardened there positions are known and are Vulnerable to a First Strike. Once launched the Missiles can’t be recalled.
14 Ohio Class SSBNs with 24 UGM-133 SLBMs with (under SORT) up to 5 W88 475kt warheads
Problem: Sub class is small (14 units) thus only a certain number can be at sea at one time. Class will soon require replacements. Warhead accuracy limits SLBMs to large targets (Cities, Industrial centers, naval yards) Once launched the Missiles can’t be recalled.
Note 1: All US warhead types require testing to prove their reliability (they are old). Computer testing would not suffice; live testing is unlikely to happen due to current political climate
Note 2: The Strategic nuclear equation is no longer that of US Vs Russia. China must also be taken into the equation; the “Cold War Mindset” that the current administration talks about trying to avoid has clearly afflicted them in regards to this treaty.
ltdanjuly10
New Member
Russia on the other hand has
84 TU-22M Medium Strategic Bombers with 1-3 (with in flight refueling) Nuclear Cruise Missile(s) or? # Of Nuclear free fall bombs.
Problems: Aging aircraft with limited range and limited payload
64 TU-95MS with 16 Kh-55 Cruise Missiles with 200kt Warheads
Problems: Aging aircraft with low top speed and virtually no chance of survival in contested airspace
18 TU-160 with 12 Kh-55 Cruise Missiles with 200kt Warheads
Problems: Aging aircraft with huge radar cross section.
Totals 166 Strategic Bombers compared with 116 American Bombers (Note: does not take into account nuclear capable strike fighters)
Russia’s solution: Design a new bomber to replace them all (PAK DA) one that is stealth, Supersonic and probably effective.
75 SS-18 ICBMS, 3 warheads 20Mt (megatons not kilotons AKA good for hard targets)
Problems: Aging
136 SS-19 ICBMs, 1 550kt to 5Mt Warhead
Problems: Aging
189 SS-25 with single 550kt warhead
Problems: accuracy (mobile launcher)
67 SS-27 with 1-6 550kt warheads
Problems: accuracy (mobile launcher)
Note: while Russia’s and Americas silo based ICBMs are both old and vulnerable to first strikes, Russia has rather new mobile launched missiles that are nearly impossible to track and thus are proof against first strike or counter force retaliation.
Russia’s Solution: Build a new generation of mobile and silo based ICBMs starting with the RS-24 a powerful and more importantly reliable missile (once all the bugs are worked out)
3 Delta III and 5 Delta IV with 16 SS-N-23 SLBMs with 4-10 100kt warheads
Problems: Aging, noisy platforms
1 Typhoon with 20 SS-NX-30 SLBMs with 6 150kt warheads
Problems: single, aging, noisy platform
Note: Russia’s SSBNs typically operate in bastions protected by other vessels and aircraft; this eliminates many of the problems with noise and thus vulnerability. They would be very vulnerable if on a first strike mission (sit off the American coast so as to lob nukes at targets with minimal reaction time about 5 minutes)
Note: Does not take into account Submarines that can carry nuclear armed cruise missiles.
Russia’s Solution: Build a new Class (Borei) one that can provide a similar (though not as likely as effective) deterrent as the Ohio Class.
Note: Most of Americas solutions are barely into the concept stage while Russia’s are either in the design, testing or deployment stages.
84 TU-22M Medium Strategic Bombers with 1-3 (with in flight refueling) Nuclear Cruise Missile(s) or? # Of Nuclear free fall bombs.
Problems: Aging aircraft with limited range and limited payload
64 TU-95MS with 16 Kh-55 Cruise Missiles with 200kt Warheads
Problems: Aging aircraft with low top speed and virtually no chance of survival in contested airspace
18 TU-160 with 12 Kh-55 Cruise Missiles with 200kt Warheads
Problems: Aging aircraft with huge radar cross section.
Totals 166 Strategic Bombers compared with 116 American Bombers (Note: does not take into account nuclear capable strike fighters)
Russia’s solution: Design a new bomber to replace them all (PAK DA) one that is stealth, Supersonic and probably effective.
75 SS-18 ICBMS, 3 warheads 20Mt (megatons not kilotons AKA good for hard targets)
Problems: Aging
136 SS-19 ICBMs, 1 550kt to 5Mt Warhead
Problems: Aging
189 SS-25 with single 550kt warhead
Problems: accuracy (mobile launcher)
67 SS-27 with 1-6 550kt warheads
Problems: accuracy (mobile launcher)
Note: while Russia’s and Americas silo based ICBMs are both old and vulnerable to first strikes, Russia has rather new mobile launched missiles that are nearly impossible to track and thus are proof against first strike or counter force retaliation.
Russia’s Solution: Build a new generation of mobile and silo based ICBMs starting with the RS-24 a powerful and more importantly reliable missile (once all the bugs are worked out)
3 Delta III and 5 Delta IV with 16 SS-N-23 SLBMs with 4-10 100kt warheads
Problems: Aging, noisy platforms
1 Typhoon with 20 SS-NX-30 SLBMs with 6 150kt warheads
Problems: single, aging, noisy platform
Note: Russia’s SSBNs typically operate in bastions protected by other vessels and aircraft; this eliminates many of the problems with noise and thus vulnerability. They would be very vulnerable if on a first strike mission (sit off the American coast so as to lob nukes at targets with minimal reaction time about 5 minutes)
Note: Does not take into account Submarines that can carry nuclear armed cruise missiles.
Russia’s Solution: Build a new Class (Borei) one that can provide a similar (though not as likely as effective) deterrent as the Ohio Class.
Note: Most of Americas solutions are barely into the concept stage while Russia’s are either in the design, testing or deployment stages.
Sasquatch972
New Member
I didn't think the Tu-160 had a Huge Radar cross section? well at least not as big as the B-52H. Its an Aging aircraft in the ways of technology like most strategic bombers of today but they are still currently being built and the Russian air force plans to have 36+ by 2025 i think they have stated?Russia on the other hand has
84 TU-22M Medium Strategic Bombers with 1-3 (with in flight refueling) Nuclear Cruise Missile(s) or? # Of Nuclear free fall bombs.
Problems: Aging aircraft with limited range and limited payload
64 TU-95MS with 16 Kh-55 Cruise Missiles with 200kt Warheads
Problems: Aging aircraft with low top speed and virtually no chance of survival in contested airspace
18 TU-160 with 12 Kh-55 Cruise Missiles with 200kt Warheads
Problems: Aging aircraft with huge radar cross section.
Totals 166 Strategic Bombers compared with 116 American Bombers (Note: does not take into account nuclear capable strike fighters)
Russia’s solution: Design a new bomber to replace them all (PAK DA) one that is stealth, Supersonic and probably effective.
75 SS-18 ICBMS, 3 warheads 20Mt (megatons not kilotons AKA good for hard targets)
Problems: Aging
136 SS-19 ICBMs, 1 550kt to 5Mt Warhead
Problems: Aging
189 SS-25 with single 550kt warhead
Problems: accuracy (mobile launcher)
67 SS-27 with 1-6 550kt warheads
Problems: accuracy (mobile launcher)
Note: while Russia’s and Americas silo based ICBMs are both old and vulnerable to first strikes, Russia has rather new mobile launched missiles that are nearly impossible to track and thus are proof against first strike or counter force retaliation.
Russia’s Solution: Build a new generation of mobile and silo based ICBMs starting with the RS-24 a powerful and more importantly reliable missile (once all the bugs are worked out)
3 Delta III and 5 Delta IV with 16 SS-N-23 SLBMs with 4-10 100kt warheads
Problems: Aging, noisy platforms
1 Typhoon with 20 SS-NX-30 SLBMs with 6 150kt warheads
Problems: single, aging, noisy platform
Note: Russia’s SSBNs typically operate in bastions protected by other vessels and aircraft; this eliminates many of the problems with noise and thus vulnerability. They would be very vulnerable if on a first strike mission (sit off the American coast so as to lob nukes at targets with minimal reaction time about 5 minutes)
Note: Does not take into account Submarines that can carry nuclear armed cruise missiles.
Russia’s Solution: Build a new Class (Borei) one that can provide a similar (though not as likely as effective) deterrent as the Ohio Class.
Note: Most of Americas solutions are barely into the concept stage while Russia’s are either in the design, testing or deployment stages.
ltdanjuly10
New Member
The Russians have supposedly decided to cancel plans to restart TU-160 Production in favor designing and building an entirely new Stratigic Bomber
Sasquatch972
New Member
as far as i knew they had already restarted production? i know there are 17 un accounted for Tu-160's so i guess they are modernising them as its been stated there are 35 completed airframes yet the russians have only 18 in service.The Russians have supposedly decided to cancel plans to restart TU-160 Production in favor designing and building an entirely new Stratigic Bomber
Nukes in the 21st Century . . .
The differences in the US and Russian nuclear arsenals are definently uncomforting when quickly scanned over. However, the actual impact that a single 100kt~ range nuclear weapon would have when compared to what both nations have waiting to be launched is scary. The US ICBM and SLBM platforms are extremely reliable and constantly upgraded and maintained. The SSBN option is the most stealthy and the most difficult to defend against. The US seems to put most of their deterant capital into submarine launched warheads. Russian SSBNs are aging and are really in a different class when compared to the modernity of Western SSBNs. The single Typhoon, 4 Delta IIIs and 6 Delta IVs get nowhere near the amount of time at sea compared to the US fleet, are much noisier and cruder and less dependable. Some of the Russian subs do not have a full contingent of missiles. The development of the new Borei class is running into major problems. The solid-fuel Bulava SLBM is on the verge of cancellation due to a huge failure rate and the inability to get the program on track and to perform well. The entire design of the Borei class subs might have to be redesigned to accomodate the older liquid-fuel R-29 SLBM if the Bulava does not come through. The Russians plan on a future fleet of 8 Boreis and a few Delta IVs. The failure rate for test launches of the Bulava is 50%, on the other hand there has been 129 consecutive successful test launches of the US Trident II SLBM. The other two parts of the nuclear triad are the bomber and ICBM forces. The bomber option, in most scenarios, would seem to be the first to take off since they can be recalled. The US fleet of B-1B, B-2A and B-52H bombers is usually the focus of the aircraft delivery option when discussing nuclear weapons. The F-15E, F-22A, F-16C/D, Tornado and a few other fighters can carry the B61 bomb. There are B61s stationed in 6 NATO countries, one example is Turkish F-16 pilots who train to deliver B61s, another is RAF Tornado pilots who do the same thing. Air launched cruise missiles and gravity bombs delivered from a variety of aircraft provide a very good deterant. The Russian nuclear bomber force is more contained geographically when compared to the US force. The US has a wider selection of aircraft, including stealth fighters and bombers. The Russians have invested into mobile ballistic missiles such as Topol-M which are very difficult to track. The Russian strategic rocket forces are made up of silo based and mobile missiles, compared to only silo based in the US. The Russian ICBMs also have a higher yield and more MIRVs compared to US, but are less reliable and accurate. The US missile defense system, obviously not an offensive weapon, is also part of the nuclear force when viewed as a whole. The ability to negate an enemies ability to strike is a key element in the myriad of theories about nuclear war. The US is surrounded by oceans, most of our population is on the coasts. Our capital, our two biggest cities and alot of our other major cities are on the coasts. The urban stretch known as Bos-Wash contains tens of millions of people. Russian population centers are further inland and potential SSBN launch spots are more difficult to operate in. The US defensive priorities should be continued investment in missile defense technology, space based sensors, ocean based sensors such as SOSUS/IUSS and especially in defense against nuclear assymtrical threats. US offensive priorities should be the survivability and reliability of the ICBM force, a new generation of SSBNs to replace the Ohios, maneuverable missiles and MIRVs to counter enemy missile defense systems of the future, a new stealthy nuclear tipped cruise missile, continued integration of nuclear weapons onboard F-22 and F-35 aircraft and eventually the B-3 and a possible UCAV loitering nuclear system that can reach the target quickly, yet be recalled if needed. Our attention must be on all of our nuclear armed advesaries, not just Russia. China is building their arsenal, their technology is maturing and their power is increasing. The number of countries with nuclear weapons will only increase as the technology spreads and the perceived need to have nukes follows.
The differences in the US and Russian nuclear arsenals are definently uncomforting when quickly scanned over. However, the actual impact that a single 100kt~ range nuclear weapon would have when compared to what both nations have waiting to be launched is scary. The US ICBM and SLBM platforms are extremely reliable and constantly upgraded and maintained. The SSBN option is the most stealthy and the most difficult to defend against. The US seems to put most of their deterant capital into submarine launched warheads. Russian SSBNs are aging and are really in a different class when compared to the modernity of Western SSBNs. The single Typhoon, 4 Delta IIIs and 6 Delta IVs get nowhere near the amount of time at sea compared to the US fleet, are much noisier and cruder and less dependable. Some of the Russian subs do not have a full contingent of missiles. The development of the new Borei class is running into major problems. The solid-fuel Bulava SLBM is on the verge of cancellation due to a huge failure rate and the inability to get the program on track and to perform well. The entire design of the Borei class subs might have to be redesigned to accomodate the older liquid-fuel R-29 SLBM if the Bulava does not come through. The Russians plan on a future fleet of 8 Boreis and a few Delta IVs. The failure rate for test launches of the Bulava is 50%, on the other hand there has been 129 consecutive successful test launches of the US Trident II SLBM. The other two parts of the nuclear triad are the bomber and ICBM forces. The bomber option, in most scenarios, would seem to be the first to take off since they can be recalled. The US fleet of B-1B, B-2A and B-52H bombers is usually the focus of the aircraft delivery option when discussing nuclear weapons. The F-15E, F-22A, F-16C/D, Tornado and a few other fighters can carry the B61 bomb. There are B61s stationed in 6 NATO countries, one example is Turkish F-16 pilots who train to deliver B61s, another is RAF Tornado pilots who do the same thing. Air launched cruise missiles and gravity bombs delivered from a variety of aircraft provide a very good deterant. The Russian nuclear bomber force is more contained geographically when compared to the US force. The US has a wider selection of aircraft, including stealth fighters and bombers. The Russians have invested into mobile ballistic missiles such as Topol-M which are very difficult to track. The Russian strategic rocket forces are made up of silo based and mobile missiles, compared to only silo based in the US. The Russian ICBMs also have a higher yield and more MIRVs compared to US, but are less reliable and accurate. The US missile defense system, obviously not an offensive weapon, is also part of the nuclear force when viewed as a whole. The ability to negate an enemies ability to strike is a key element in the myriad of theories about nuclear war. The US is surrounded by oceans, most of our population is on the coasts. Our capital, our two biggest cities and alot of our other major cities are on the coasts. The urban stretch known as Bos-Wash contains tens of millions of people. Russian population centers are further inland and potential SSBN launch spots are more difficult to operate in. The US defensive priorities should be continued investment in missile defense technology, space based sensors, ocean based sensors such as SOSUS/IUSS and especially in defense against nuclear assymtrical threats. US offensive priorities should be the survivability and reliability of the ICBM force, a new generation of SSBNs to replace the Ohios, maneuverable missiles and MIRVs to counter enemy missile defense systems of the future, a new stealthy nuclear tipped cruise missile, continued integration of nuclear weapons onboard F-22 and F-35 aircraft and eventually the B-3 and a possible UCAV loitering nuclear system that can reach the target quickly, yet be recalled if needed. Our attention must be on all of our nuclear armed advesaries, not just Russia. China is building their arsenal, their technology is maturing and their power is increasing. The number of countries with nuclear weapons will only increase as the technology spreads and the perceived need to have nukes follows.