Military Review

US nuclear arsenal. Up the stairs leading down

22
Donald Trump loves to communicate with the nation and the world through Twitter. Capacious, short statements in this microblog, about which they often joke that it is very convenient for someone to “send” than to explain something to him, have become one of the characteristic features of the board of this bright, original, but highly overvalued politician ( he did not fulfill any of his promises). He also devoted more than one tweet to the topic of US nuclear power.




Among Mr. Trump's immortal statements on this topic, for example, one thing can be noted, from 9 last August, on Twitter, of course.

Our nuclear arsenal. It is now more stronger than ever before ...


This means: "My first order as president was about updating and modernizing our nuclear arsenal, and now it is much stronger and more powerful than ever." Experts, analysts, and just people who are able to sort out this issue even as a first approximation, then laughed loudly at Trump's given statements. He wrote at the same time that he hoped that "the United States will never have to use this power," and assured that his country "will always be the most powerful country in the world." He did, of course, without any proof whatsoever of the truth of his words, and rightly so: why, can a gentleman lie?

It turns out, how else can he, if he is Anglo-Saxon, and maybe twice, if he is a populist politician, like Trump. And he can do it more than once and on the same topic, all the same, as people like to say in the domestic show business, "People Shavayet". And Trump ate a dog in show business, after all, he organized beauty contests and conducted reality shows, and he knows perfectly well that the American people are even more unpretentious than the target audience of any House-2 or something. equally "quality and high-grade." Especially, in military-political issues, where from the childhood four-inch nails have been hammered into the brain since the childhood that America is above all and stronger than all.

So the other day, after more than half a year, Donald broke out with another speech on the topic of the steady growth of the nuclear power of the US Armed Forces and their ascending road into the bright day after tomorrow. He stated that the United States had, “the most powerful nuclear forces in the world,” and again expressed the hope that they would never use them.

We provide 654,6 billion dollars in defense. No one will say that our military will be forgotten, which they have been talking about for a long time. We spend a lot of money on nuclear systems to upgrade and in some cases create absolutely new ones, for example, nuclear submarines. So we will have the strongest nuclear forces on earth that will be in absolutely perfect form, and we hope we will never have to use them.


Trump then signed the US budget for 2018 year, on this occasion, he proclaimed it. So what did the great statesman and patriot of America do to increase nuclear power? And almost did nothing really.

Recently, another list of US Department of Energy documents was declassified, where, along with such “burning” information, such as the power of an explosion during sand stories tests 1957g. or 1958, or the B53 thermo-nuclear thermonuclear bomb (9Mt, the most powerful arsenal in the United States) was very old, and there was information on the number of nuclear munitions disposed of in recent years and on their total number in the arsenals.

Such information is published there regularly, in contrast to the Russian Federation, where the number of arsenals of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) in total (including unallocated charges and exchange and repair funds) is not disclosed, as is tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) - because there are no agreements between the superpowers that prescribe this. What is recorded in the agreements is regularly published by the parties, for example, data on the exchange of START-3 in the form of test warheads on carriers, the number of deployed and unplaced carriers, and so on. Moreover, by mutual agreement, the Americans do not publish the layout for our strategic nuclear forces - how many and what systems, only summary information. Although, of course, they have. And if such secrecy makes sense on TNW, as well as on the total number of SNF charges, then on carriers and placed charges - obviously not. For reference, there are no exact data on our arsenals, but estimated only for TNW begin, in serious specialists, from 4 thousands of charges and above (6-8). According to the SNF, they are at least not less, but rather more American. In terms of the placed charges on the SNF carriers, we had recently been ahead of the United States by almost five hundred charges, but by the beginning of 2018g. urgently completed the dismantling of a number of charges and fit into the limit of the START-3 Treaty - 1550 placed read charges. In reality, this is somewhat more, because the bomber taken into account as the 1 charge carrier actually carries 6, 8, 10, 12, and even 16-20 CR.

But back to our sheep, or rather, not to ours, but to the American. So, according to this document, for 2017g. (not for all, the information is given at the end of September, that is, by the beginning of the new fiscal year in the US, by October 1) American nuclear arsenals used nuclear weapons to 354, and made 3822 units of strategic and tactical charges, instead of 4018 a year earlier. There are about half a thousand tactical ones, and these are only B-61 tactical aerial power bombs that make up a number of modifications up to 170, and others up to 340ct - there is no other TNW in the US for a long time, so the last naval warheads of W80-0 to the sea-based KR (SLCM) TLAM-N ("Tomahawk") were disposed of before 31 in August. 2011. The remaining strategic B83 aerial bombs, up to 1.2Mt, can be considered conditionally tactical, but they are actively utilized, and according to plans, in a couple of years they will “finish” them completely (and by the way, this, along with B-61, is the only nuclear weapon of “toothless” flying wing, heavy bomber B-XNUMHA).

US nuclear arsenal. Up the stairs leading down


I must say that the 354 charge per year is, of course, not a record of recent years, and not a record with 1990. when, on 7, thousands per year were sometimes disposed of - but then in the USA the production capacities were not closed, and everything was fine with recycling and reloading. But it certainly surpasses the "achievements" of the United States in "strengthening" the nuclear arsenal for most of the "destroyer and weakling" presidency (according to Trump) of Obama - only in 2009-2010gg. In the first years of his reign, 352-356 charges were destroyed that is, as much as Trump’s “strong statist” in the first year, who “makes America great again” and, in general, they say, nuclear power raised the heights to previously unattainable heights. On Twitter. And in all other years, "Obamism" cut less than "sources of light and heat", approximately 100-300 per year. At this rate, if the Americans continue to "build up their nuclear power" in this way, in years the 10 will have nothing to build up. But, nevertheless, it’s not worth hoping for it, and at the state level, it’s even impossible to “pledge” these gifts from the enemy.

So, congratulations, Mr. Trump - you're lying. Although, maybe he, as a prominent "effective manager," meant something completely different, because in their terminology there are enough convenient euphemisms that can cover up failures. For example, "negative growth", or, say, "positive negative profit".

But, some will say, is it bad to cut the old charges? No, not bad, especially if it is not possible to re-equip them in time, this must be done. Nuclear weapons, if not serviced and re-equipped in time, not only become useless, but it also becomes dangerous. The authors of the tabloid fables and forum rumors from various underdeveloped countries and territories usually do not know this. They like to tell something like "we have 3-4 nuclear warheads stolen from the warehouses of the Soviet Army, hidden in secret cellars and caches, and if so, tremble, Russians. " If you do not take into account the fact that nuclear weapons can be stolen even from the warehouses of the USSR Armed Forces, even the Russian Federation, even the USA, and at least the DPRK is absolutely impossible, and the charge itself is useless.

The Americans have repeatedly eliminated their production of nuclear weapons (officially, the facilities were partially preserved, but in reality there is a lot to be re-created) and greatly reduced the capacity for reloading and servicing nuclear weapons, they encountered the fact that they had to rely on ammunition which did not disappear, but very necessary, but in time they didn’t succeed to re-equip them, because the lines had much more necessary charges, such as LEP (Life Extension Program) programs. and, we use the abbreviation PSE) SBShB W76 and W88 for the D5 "Trident-2" SLBMs and their minimal upgrades, talking about W76-1.

Trump loves to say that he, he says, does a lot for nuclear missile power, but, in fact, he does it more for military officials, corporate leaders and congressmen and senators who feed on it, allocating extra money for new programs. Moreover, if we compare again with the “peacemaker” Obama, his military expenses were again higher (especially considering the rise in prices in the US military-industrial complex and general inflation).

No, something is being done. Thus, a preliminary study of the GBSD new ICBM program has begun, the price of which is growing by leaps and bounds - in 2015. the total cost of the program from the 400 hosted monoblock ICBMs and 242 to the reserve and for testing was 61 billion. dollars, at the beginning of 2017. - in 140, but now it has grown. But at the same time, realizing that the program may not lead to success, the options are being worked out how to leave the MiniTen-3 ICBM in service with the 2030-2040. Exactly the same story with the bomber B-21 "Raider", which is, in fact, an attempt to resell the B-2A US Air Force in a new package. The price list of the program is already constantly growing, and there are fears that it will fail for this reason, therefore at the same time "straw is underlain at the place of the fall." It is about working out options, how to force at least some of the 36 currently used for the main purpose (some are somewhat larger, but the rest are used for testing or are used as a source of spare parts) of the old B-52H working men, the youngest of which are older than the Caribbean Crisis, fly to 2075g. A new Columbia-type SSBN is being developed, which will be commissioned in the 2030-x, and the missiles that will once be replaced with it are certainly very successful D5 (they will not be replaced immediately). But with her, not everything is smooth so far.

A new Nuclear Policy Review (Nuclear Post Review) was adopted - one of the key documents in the nuclear weapons field in the United States. Previous NPRs were accepted in 2010, 2002, 1994. Only this document raises serious doubts about the competence of its drafters, both in terms of considering the development of nuclear forces of potential adversaries (the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China or, say, the DPRK), and in part of the plans of the United States itself.

As applied to nuclear charges, the following can be noted in it. So, in our media and blogosphere strenuously relished news from this very NPR-2018 about “the beginning of the development of a new SBC for a new sea-based KR” (talking about the NGLAW program for replacing the “Tomahawk”, which, however, will last by itself until about 2040). By the way, talk of replacing the "Tomahawk" in the near-fleet circles of the United States intensified immediately after, to put it mildly, the ambiguous results of the strike on Shairat. And also about the ultra-low power BB for the Trident-2, which is planned to be developed, according to NPR. Why such a BB is needed for Americans is another question, but the fact is that the plans of the Department of Energy, also recently published, do not have either one or the other block. There are no new charges in the plans for the coming decade at all. Just because it is impossible to produce them, the production of a number of important components has been lost - the Americans are only planning to restore the production of nuclear weapons.

This is reflected in the same document of the Department of Energy (DoE_ and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). There are only all types of nuclear ammunition that are in the US now. These are BB ICBMs and SLBMs W78, W87, W76 (0 and 1 options) , W88, B61 bomb (options 3, 4, 7, 11, 10) and B83, special warhead W80-1 for the nuclear option KR air-launched AGM-86 bombers B-52H. appear and the tasks assigned to the nuclear weapons complex countries (well, what remains of it - there is no production, there is only possible reassembly, retransmission, partial retrofits, such as electronics, fuses and the charges themselves).

As for ammunition, this is: the completion of the alteration of W76-0 to W76-1 by next year, the alteration of the first working sample of the adjusted bomb B61-12 (400 bombs of the remaining modifications will be converted into it, the rest will be disposed of, its capacity is limited to 50ct), a number of works with W88, Creation of the first working model of SBP W-80-4 for the new CR LRSO (by reworking from W-80-1). There are no new naval warheads for sea-based missiles, and there are no new warheads for Trident-2 SLBMs either. And the pilots simply won’t give a single W80-4 warhead to the sailors - they probably won’t fit the new naval KP. And they themselves do not have enough of them, because the AGM-86B nuclear missiles are not enough even for a full salvo of the existing B-52H group used for their main purpose, including because there are not enough charges. Well, it’s worth recalling the traditionally “warm” relations between the types of US forces, especially the Air Force and Navy. What, in general, happens in any armed forces, the only question is the forms of this rivalry and the degree of its radicalism. Remembering General Curtiss LeMay, who said, "The Soviet Union is our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy" ("The USSR is only our rival, and our real enemy is the Fleet"). So do not see the sailors W80-4.

Why was it then necessary to enter into the nuclear doctrine clearly unrealizable elements? But there are plenty of other oddities, for example, such as completely fragmentary knowledge of the nuclear programs of the RF Armed Forces (much of what V. Putin’s sensational Message spoke about was not there, nor was it what he had forgotten about. tell), and not only that. It may, of course, in the closed part of the document, everything is different, but it is hard to believe in it.

But there are a number of activities that are likely to be able to return to America the possibility of creating nuclear ammunition from scratch, based on accumulated nuclear materials, but not earlier than the beginning of 2030-s, and most likely later. The fact is that similar plans were in previous NPR, but they were not implemented. In particular, to ensure the possibility of stuffing "plutonium cores" after 2030. order 50-80pcs. in year. These are elements of the plutonium "fuses" of thermonuclear charges. And even the numbers were similar. Do it now - time will tell.

If not, then the planned reduction of the nuclear weapons system to the "3 + 2" scheme may not take place. That is, two types of tactical charges - bombs V61-12 and SBCH W80-4 and three types of strategic BB (suitable SLBMs and ICBMs) - IW1, IW2 and IW3, which is planned to produce about mid-2030-x, and some with Xnumx's. So far, nothing irreparable has happened for America - well, they have lost a number of types of charges that they didn’t want to lose, they have greatly reduced their arsenals, but they still have charges for the SNF, this is the main thing to be disposed of - for the time being, too. But with TNW, everything is much worse and there is no chance of solving this problem in the foreseeable period. Another thing, if the "negative growth" and further continues at this rate, problems will appear.

But what will be next will be seen. The likelihood that the current plans for restoring the production of nuclear warheads in the same way "will leave to the right" on the timeline is quite high. In the meantime, Mr. Trump will continue to tell us fables about America’s steadily growing American nuclear power. Growing down on a couple of nuclear potentials Britain's a year. Or, if you want, on the potential of France (well, it’s not enough for Chinese). And then his successors will tell.
Author:
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sabotage
    sabotage 28 March 2018 06: 32
    +1
    Damantsev -2? A bunch of abbreviations ...
  2. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 28 March 2018 06: 42
    +5
    Why then was it necessary to include clearly unrealizable elements in the nuclear doctrine?
    To use them (or rather the promise to cover them up) as a trump card in one way or another, but the inevitable negotiations on strategic offensive arms. Emphasis will also be placed there on tactical nuclear weapons, in America there has long been talk that Russians have too much of it ...
  3. shinobi
    shinobi 28 March 2018 07: 12
    +1
    Actually, there is only one question, what, haven’t you heard about the unification of nuclear charges at all? Only non-standardized junk is being sent to us for processing. New charges can be shoved into any type of carrier, as long as they are placed in the internal volume and intellectual protection allows.
    1. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat 28 March 2018 08: 16
      +4
      Nuclear charges are degrading from time like the electronics surrounding them .... and all this must be reprocessed, reloaded and disposed of in general. The maintenance of nuclear warheads is a very laborious and expensive process that does not interrupt for a "minute" ...
  4. PSih2097
    PSih2097 28 March 2018 08: 37
    0
    "My first presidential order was to upgrade and modernize our nuclear arsenal, and now it is much stronger and more powerful than ever."

    probably parsley from parsley, alcohol with an independent special flight through the CIA began to deliver ... wassat
  5. d ^ Amir
    d ^ Amir 28 March 2018 09: 00
    +1
    oh something gentilmenmen really do not want to take a word !!! they have a whole map !!! and initially, in a printing way !!! if they started to destroy chemical weapons just then .... they are full of arsenals ... what is biological is not clear, only the military laboratories of Amer around the perimeter of our borders ... throw us with atomic bombs ??? but the meaning ... no minerals, no labor in this case ... for a long time ... so, everything is not so straightforward, nor does anyone want ... well, something is not right for me ... .
  6. Operator
    Operator 28 March 2018 09: 14
    +2
    The main thing is not the number of manned nuclear charges on carriers and in reserve, but the amount of weapons-grade plutonium accumulated in special storage facilities.

    According to this indicator, the Russian Federation is an order of magnitude ahead of the USA - 600 (according to some 900 data) tons versus several tens of tons from the USA. At the same time, the production capacities for producing weapons-grade plutonium in Russia not only exceed the capabilities of the United States, but are also in full working condition (a direct consequence of the Gor-Chernomyrdin transaction on dumping Russian unplaced plutonium in the American market is glory to Viktor Stepanovich bully ).

    For reference - in one two-stage thermonuclear explosive charge from 100 Ktn to 100 Mtn contains 6 (six) kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium. Translated into charges, the Russian Federation has the opportunity to produce up to 150 (one hundred fifty) thousand 100-Mtn “Kuzkin mothers”.

    From the situation that has arisen in the USA, it also follows that our partners cannot count on deploying analogues of the Russian Petrel and Poseidon, since energy plutonium is sorely lacking for American military nuclear reactors.
  7. Ascetic
    Ascetic 28 March 2018 09: 42
    +8
    At one time, the US leadership made a strategic miscalculation, relying on expensive exotic weapons instead of modernizing and updating the existing strategic nuclear forces. assuming that our delivery vehicles are critically outdated and the nuclear arsenal is degrading, and then it will be possible to dictate one’s will with the help of conventional non-conventional new-generation strike weapons, while saturating the layered missile defense system to intercept the remnants of our strategic nuclear forces.
    They had a margin of time, but they did not manage to really create a quick global strike weapon and a more or less adequate missile defense system stupidly dry out this time, allowing not only the moral and physical obsolescence of the nuclear potential, but also the loss of a number of key nuclear cycle technologies.
    And now Trump, we must pay tribute to him, seriously intends to solve this problem, no matter how extravagant character he may seem. But it’s always difficult to catch up like waiting, and the printing press will not solve many problems ... And so the fairy tale soon affects, but not soon the thing is done.
    1. V
      V 28 March 2018 12: 29
      0
      At this meeting, June 17, 2016, V.V. Putin chews everything in detail to representatives of foreign media:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&
      ;
      ; v = VVd0Mv_wqgE
  8. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 March 2018 09: 55
    +2
    The author apparently did not hear about the existence of the Treaty.
    on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons.
    America, like Russia, strictly abides by the treaty.
    But Trump did not allocate money to increase nuclear potential,
    and its modernization, which is quite reasonable.
    1. Yar_Vyatkin
      30 March 2018 00: 34
      +4
      The author has heard and read the Treaty, and not only him. But the number of charges in any way START-3 is not regulated, you did not know? Only the number of placed charges is regulated, and not counting the bombers (they are considered to be 1 charge, and how much CD you stuff there is your business). And it is not regulated how many charges the carrier can carry, by the way. There are limits. And you read the article through the line, apparently, because it says that money was allegedly allocated for the creation of new charges that are not possible to create, but the DoE does not know that he, it turns out, needs to create them, and in the program document about them - not a word. If you carefully read the text, then there will be fewer questions, I guarantee.
  9. BAI
    BAI 28 March 2018 13: 20
    +3
    were disposed of before August 31, 2011

    The author does not take into account one simple thing: in the USA and in Russia different methods of disposal. If Russia uses the technology of irretrievable destruction of nuclear weapons. In the USA, after their "disposal", weapons-grade plutonium is easily restored and there is an opportunity to immediately build up a nuclear arsenal. The problem was raised at the highest level, Putin voiced it at the time. Now - this is one of the main problems of all agreements on the reduction of nuclear weapons.
  10. Old26
    Old26 28 March 2018 15: 02
    +2
    Quote: sabotage
    Damantsev -2? A bunch of abbreviations ...

    But unlike Damantsev’s “frills” based on real materials ...

    Quote: shinobi
    Actually, there is only one question. Did they not hear about the unification of nuclear charges at all?

    They also recycle "ununified," as you say, charges. In the future, for missiles in general, there will be only three types of charges: IW-1, IW-2, and IW-3

    Quote: d ^ Amir
    oh something gentilmenmen really do not want to take a word !!!

    And you do not believe. Believe only what they say on channel 1 or on RTV ... Such materials do not appear alone. And besides, this is for their own. For Americans, where can I get and read what is happening with Plant X or how much the B-xx bomb was disposed of. We have top-secret data. again exclusively for us. There is an exchange with them

    Quote: BAI
    were disposed of before August 31, 2011

    The author does not take into account one simple thing: in the USA and in Russia different methods of disposal. If Russia uses the technology of irretrievable destruction of nuclear weapons. In the USA, after their "disposal", weapons-grade plutonium is easily restored and there is an opportunity to immediately build up a nuclear arsenal. The problem was raised at the highest level, Putin voiced it at the time. Now - this is one of the main problems of all agreements on the reduction of nuclear weapons.

    Do not distort. Both their and their warheads are utilized by the same method - the parsing method. But the fact that the development of plutonium utilization was underway and the Americans decided to "cheat" everyone by disposing of it, if you can say so "back" - here you are right. But this is only about 17 tons on each side, which, by agreement, each was disposed of. But on these 17 tons it was all over. All the plutonium that they have, that we have in storage. And now only warheads (their bodies, electronics, etc.) are being utilized. Both here and there
    1. Yar_Vyatkin
      30 March 2018 00: 36
      +1
      You are generally right. Except for one thing - there is no exchange of data on tactical nuclear weapons, the Americans publish data on their arsenals not for contractual reasons.
  11. Sars
    Sars 28 March 2018 16: 31
    +1
    In America, the nuclear industry, both civilian and military, is completely degraded
    Last IDZ 1991 release. There is no one to carry out routine maintenance, retired specialists, or have died of old age. Actual capacity of nuclear weapons is not more than 25% of the passport.
    The same story with the carriers of Yaz, except for the KR Tomogawk everything - a scrap of twenty years of age.
    So a red-haired German (and not Anglo-Saxon) can allocate at least a trillion of which will not change.
    1. Sergey985
      Sergey985 28 March 2018 19: 23
      +2
      If it were so! Routine specialists are fully loaded. They have them. All of this "junk" is constantly being finalized and modernized (and tested). Do not trust television and the Internet. This is the country's security. No need to think that full stupid people are sitting in the pentagon.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 29 March 2018 08: 47
      0
      All this is unfortunately a fairy tale - both the production and people involved in nuclear charges in the USA remain, and there are plenty of new carriers and bombs - they will be given the task and part of the Tomahawks, AGM-158 JASSM missiles
      tactical bombs AGM-154 JSOW, converted into nuclear equipment.
    3. Yar_Vyatkin
      30 March 2018 01: 12
      +1
      Tomahawk has been 8 for years as a non-SLC carrier. As for the decrepitude of the carriers of the SNF is not so. Minuteman outdated technically and morally (and the modernization of the nodes from the MX did not solve the issue, it was a backup), but physically it was not so, there the steps could be updated due to the outdated design. The Trident-2 is an excellent SLBM, almost a masterpiece, along with R-29RMU-2.1 or P-30, but in its own way. And physically still quite to myself, especially, it was modernized. But with nuclear charges - ass, which is shown in the article (in part, otherwise the article will swell in 3 times). But the allocation of money this ass can not be cured, then you are right.
  12. Old26
    Old26 29 March 2018 17: 20
    +1
    Quote: SarS
    In America, the nuclear industry, both civilian and military, is completely degraded
    Last IDZ 1991 release. There is no one to carry out routine maintenance, retired specialists, or have died of old age. Actual capacity of nuclear weapons is not more than 25% of the passport.
    The same story with the carriers of Yaz, except for the KR Tomogawk everything - a scrap of twenty years of age.
    So a red-haired German (and not Anglo-Saxon) can allocate at least a trillion of which will not change.

    Do not mix everything in one bottle
    So such an industry as the production of new nuclear munitions really degraded. Routine maintenance is underway, as is the modernization of existing warheads. There is no need to invent. W-80-4 will not appear from nowhere, only as a result of modernization under the LEP extension program from W-80. There are experts, do not think that everything, a big and fat cross, is put up at the US nuclear weapons complex
    Old ones are disassembled (disposed of), newer ones are modernized. So leave your 25% of the passport data for simpletons who will be happy to hear how Americans are lousy ...
    The same is with nuclear weapons carriers. All have completed the LEP Life Extension Program. At the Minutemans everything was replaced - the aiming system, control system, platforms and BG, the engines were replaced, the fuel was completely replaced (where it was impossible to replace the fuel - whole steps were replaced, all the more so in their storage tanks almost 300 pieces.
    "Tridents" periodically buy. The last materials I saw on purchases were from 2012-2013. Every year EMNIP bought 12 rockets (in total 25). Although it may be wrong, and bought 25 a year. But in any case, this is not rubbish
    The question is now different. Giant money can be allocated, but the time factor remains. They will not be able to receive new BZ until 2030. Upgrade - no problem
  13. Old26
    Old26 30 March 2018 09: 01
    +1
    Quote: Yar_Vyatkin
    You are generally right. Except for one thing - there is no exchange of data on tactical nuclear weapons, the Americans publish data on their arsenals not for contractual reasons.

    But did I write somewhere that the data on TNW are published?

    Quote: Yar_Vyatkin
    But with nuclear charges - ass, which is shown in the article (partially, otherwise the article will swell every 3 times). But donating this ass cannot be cured, here you are right.

    Well ass only in the production of new charges. Modernization of the old is coming. By allocating money, the ass can be cured, but not in a year or two. In the same DoE report it is written that they will be able to release new ones no earlier than from 2030. So here the most important factor of time is how much money do not allocate. This is the same as in the old example: If you bring together 9 pregnant women, they still will not give birth in a month
    The American will have to rebuild the nuclear weapons complex for a single year ....
  14. Fedor egoist
    Fedor egoist 31 March 2018 14: 59
    0
    An extremely interesting article, which is worthy of being in the "Analytics" section. I was aware that the Americans lost the possibility of producing nuclear weapons from scratch, but I saw the specific numbers, both temporary and in terms of the number of charges, just now. Many thanks to Yaroslav V. both for the material presented and for his entire work as a whole - I have been reading his articles in “Arguments of the Week” for a long time and with pleasure.
    I’m wondering: if by the middle of the 20-s, the US strategic nuclear forces will begin to experience a shortage of warheads, will it be possible to close this shortage by means of tactical nuclear weapons by “fitting” the warhead to ICBMs? Because, in fact, their TNW in the event of a global conflict with the same RF will be practically useless.
    In any case, I believe that the extension of START-3 or a similar treaty based on it is the only way for the United States today to maintain nuclear parity in terms of strategic nuclear weapons with the Russian Federation. By the way, China is not bound by any treaties on this score and it is quite possible that it has nuclear capabilities that are many times greater than (quantitatively) officially declared.
    1. Yar_Vyatkin
      April 1 2018 22: 21
      +2
      Quote: Fedor Egoist
      Yaroslav V. Thank you very much both for the presented material and for all his work as a whole - I have been reading his articles in “Arguments of the Week” for a long time and with pleasure.

      Good word and cat nice. thank


      Quote: Fedor Egoist

      I’m wondering: if by the middle of the 20-s, the US strategic nuclear forces will begin to experience a shortage of warheads, will it be possible to close this shortage by means of tactical nuclear weapons by “fitting” the warhead to ICBMs? Because, in fact, their TNW in the event of a global conflict with the same RF will be practically useless.
      .

      No, I do not think that B-61 can be easily converted into a charge for an ICBM. That is, to disassemble and use fissile materials, say - yes. But the question arises, where to get a number of important components that need to be produced, and not produced. And since the physical package is never interchangeable with the packages in the BB ICBM or SLBM.


      In any case, I believe that the extension of the START-3 or a similar agreement based on it is the only way for the United States to maintain nuclear parity with the Russian nuclear weapons. China, by the way, is not bound by any treaties on this subject, and it is quite possible that it possesses nuclear capabilities that are several times superior (quantitatively) officially declared. - Yes, you are right about START. In some ways, it is also unprofitable for us to blow up the contract, we are quite happy with it, but is it possible at the current inadequate degree to expect to be renegotiated in 2021? A new treaty or an extension of this? Americans are very similar now to people who cheerfully and with dances pierce their eyes to annoy their mother-in-law. More precisely, their behavior is similar to the behavior of some of our neighbors))). As for our Chinese friends, the ratings of our specialists and not only ours (I’m talking about specialists, and not about storytellers) do not go beyond 460-500 units. total capacity. Yes, China is not bound by anything, but there are internal restrictions. Technological, for example. With the miniaturization of charges, problems have more or less been raked in recent years. So, they have mastered 40 split up years and have not mastered any more 2 or 3 BB on MSS (there was no more testing, but on the Internet they have someone to write about 14 BB, everyone suffers, but the more so the Internet). And it is not known whether they themselves have mastered. Tactical nuclear weapons they have, but also not to say that much. And then there are different versions of hypersound. Well, there is no particular need to keep up with the two superpowers in the nuclear potential of the Chinese. What is more important to them is to create a RELIABLE retaliatory strike potential. On the counter and return-counter, they do not brandish. This is what they do. This work is far from complete. And they also have a problem that their ICBMs, except for one, and SLBMs never flew at a real maximum range. Yes, conditions can be partly modeled during such a launch, and we sometimes deal with this when launching a new BW from Cabbage, but we also have our standard launches on the Kuru, let's say, also at an almost intercontinental range, and not at 24, like theirs. Different conditions at all. Why the Chinese do not allow new rockets into the ocean - I don’t know. But this is stupid, because no “modeling” is enough. Neither we, nor the Americans, nor the Franks - not bypassed. Koreans bullet up strongly and close into the distance due to the lack of “ships of science” of the required type to send to the test area. Build, like. The Chinese have such a ship, maybe not one. We have Marshal Krylov recently returned to the system and modernized - we have to experience Sarmat, and not only him. And the Chinese do not shoot at "remote areas in the Pacific Ocean," as TASS reported. In general, these friends have a lot of beautiful things in appearance, but inside everything is a bit less rosy. They just do not discuss this in print, like us, where, after each video, astrologers announce the rocket men week in the press)))).