US Nuclear Posture Review (2018)

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Actually securing funds will be a different kettle of fish.
Exactly, show me the money. The flashy stuff like the Columbia program and B-21 will proceed but many of less glamorous items will require some heavy lifting to get the necessary funding IMO.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member

Despite the contract, seems according to the article there's doubt the Democrats will continue the project, if they win November election.

I don't want to go into US Politics, but the Politicians should now that Russian and Chinese continue improving both sea based and land based nuclear missile. While US land based ICBM still relied on Minuteman III.
Or perhaps they think land based ICBM is not important anymore ? Just relied with Trident in the SSBN.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The overall upgrade for ground based ICBMs is estimated at $63 billion over 20 years which isn’t going to break the budget but nevertheless taking that money and investing it in SSBN and B-21 raiders might be a better option. Not sure how much of this program is devoted to hypersonic options which are definitely required.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
Well, the question right now is whether the concept of Triad nuclear deterrence will be maintain in the future.
Minuteman III is just simply already a dated technology. Can US nuclear deterrence be maintain only on Sea and Air Based ?

If the technology including hypersonic air and sea based missile can make all land based ICBM redundant, then perhaps the Triad Deterrence concept can be scrap.
Just thinking at the same time Russian and Chinese continue to modernising all their triad based nuclear Deterrence.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The Russians can’t really produce a decent bomber fleet that can penetrate like a B-2 or the forthcoming B-21. The Chinese H-20 is an unknown so continued ground launched ICBMs make sense for them at this time. If the US were to actually build 200 plus Raiders and are prepared to keep a certain number in the air at all times like the early days of SAC then maybe ground launchers can be dropped. SSBNs for all players remain the most viable deterrent.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Minuteman ICBM launch complex is a fixed, known, location and as such is vulnerable to an enemy strike; be it, conventional, SF, or nuclear. The airborne leg is slightly less vulnerable, and the SLBM on a SSBN is the least vulnerable of the three.

@John Fedup I don't think it's so much that the Russians don't have the technical expertise to produce a decent bomber fleet with the penetrative capabilities similar or better to that of the B-2, but the lack of having sufficient funds to pursue such a program.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The Minuteman ICBM launch complex is a fixed, known, location and as such is vulnerable to an enemy strike; be it, conventional, SF, or nuclear. The airborne leg is slightly less vulnerable, and the SLBM on a SSBN is the least vulnerable of the three.

@John Fedup I don't think it's so much that the Russians don't have the technical expertise to produce a decent bomber fleet with the penetrative capabilities similar or better to that of the B-2, but the lack of having sufficient funds to pursue such a program.
Agree, it is the financial limitations that prevent a new Russian bomber not their technical expertise. Unfortunately the Chinese don’t have the financial limitations and in fact may be better able to fund a 200 bomber fleet. Questionable as to their expertise to do this but they have surprised on more than one occasion.
 
Top