Nuclear circumcision (part of 2)
But what is the deal with these ideas about the transformation of the most common type of nuclear weapon in the US Armed Forces into a "nuclear eunuch." Given the irreplaceableness (of course, not forever, of course) for the US nuclear weapons and decent wane rates (for the first year of Trump's rule - 354 charge, or 9%), it is clear that in the next decade the decline will not stop. And somewhere around the end of the decade, the “pit” will be quite deep already. In 2030 (s) (supposed), production will be restored to one degree or another. Unless, of course, the dates do not "float" again.
There is also such an interesting point. Americans have the bulk of warheads traditionally placed on the SSBN. And the Ohio-type SSBNs, and they will gradually begin to be written off from 2026. This is despite ongoing resource extension programs and the upgrading of these very good missile carriers with excellent missiles (the Trident-2 can be considered one of the masterpieces of underwater ballistic missile engineering along with 29RMU-2.1 "Blue-2" / "Liner" or, say, P-30 "Mace").
As we see from the schedule, after repairs and reloading of the active zones to 2020, the number of missile carriers in the ranks will be maximum, 14, but after 2026, the ship will fall to 1 a year, and so on until 2031, when it is planned to enter The construction of the first SSBN type "Columbia" in a series of 12 pieces. The schedule is designed so that the number of missile carriers does not fall below 10, but already now there are very serious concerns in the United States that it will be sustained. The program has traditionally been for the US military-industrial complex growing in price, and the terms threaten to move.
Schedule for the replacement of American SSBNs. The squares with numbers are the submarines of the Ohio type and the numbers of the ships, the squares with the X are the submarines of the type Columbia
At the same time, it’s not at all the fact that the START-2021 Treaty, which ends at 3, which provided for the levels of carriers and charges, both superpowers reached this year only, will be extended. Despite the obvious profitability of his Russia, he, in general, is beneficial to both parties, because neither the Russian Federation, which has a formal reason to make START-3 a handle even tomorrow (the US missile defense policy), will not leave it before the deadline, nor the US, who likes to grumble about almost "enslavement" of the contract. It can be seen, since Russia didn’t allow any inconvenient moments for itself, the contract immediately became inert. But the fact that in 2021, it will be extended or will be a new START-4 or otherwise known as a proxy agreement, is very hard to believe, with the current relations and trends of their development. Relationships are developing as positively as the American nuclear arsenal. Although, of course, sudden warming should not be excluded.
That is, Russia can be a never-related numerical limits of the contract. And if 15 years ago, we would speak about it from every angle that we cannot afford to increase our arsenals, but the United States - at least as much as you like, very quickly (remember these speeches, probably), now the situation is somewhat opposite. The reasons for this and the previous reading this material does not need to explain the topic. Of course, we don’t draw money, but Russia has both production and financial capabilities to increase its arsenals, of course, if necessary. And the United States has the second, but the problems with the first and second can not be solved quickly.
And there are already the first bells to the fact that Russia is already planning the development of its strategic nuclear forces based on the non-renewal of the START regime, but also leaving room for the preservation of the treaty regime. Recent news about "canceling" the construction of SSBN Ave.955B (4 number), and replacing them with 6 SSBX of an additional series 955A Ave (955B efficiency was not so much higher than the upgraded 955А than the price) - from the same series. As a result, by the end of 2020's we get the grouping of “Boreev” in 3 pieces and “Boreev” in 11 pieces, with 224 SLBM “Bulava” with 1344 BB (6 per rocket), that is, almost the entire START-3 limit can be selected only these submarine-missile. It is clear that it is possible to place a smaller number of charges per rocket to get into the limit, but they really want to have a lot of ships, obviously they don’t hope for the Treaty. It would be enough and 11-12. Or they are hoping for another new treaty, with higher limits, for which the United States will be extremely difficult to handle with their situation.
And the recent news that soon the group of monoblock old Topol type PGRKs will be finally replaced by the Yars series ICBM, and this, by the way, if we deduct two regiments now being transferred to Yars, there will be 7-8 regiments, that is, before the 72 MBR. A "Yars" is, as you know, to 6 BB, even if it is on duty, as it is supposed, with 4 BB. And there may come the turn and monoblock Topol-M in the mine and mobile versions, and this is 78 missiles. In general, along with the upcoming deployment of "Sarmats" instead of "Governor" (if everything works out with 2020) and other unpleasant news for Americans like ICBMs 15 and XXNXX-35 with Avgard (in 71) will be officially announced deployed, it seems that Americans will not be up to experiments with the castling of thermonuclear warheads for political reasons.
When I read the news about low-capacity warheads on one of our news resources for the first time, this phrase, which was pretty surprising, rushed to my eyes too. And with reference to Christensen.
After reading this phrase, for some reason I immediately thought that Mr. Christensen completely lost his hold and forgot or didn’t know that the nuclear warhead W80-1 for airborne artillery systems of the AGM-86 type cannot be used on the Trident-2 SLBM "and even if we take the actual" physical package ", then the combat unit will have to be recreated. And the QUO does not depend on the charge, but on the carrier, nevertheless, and if on a cruise missile it was such, then in a ballistic missile it will be completely different. But reading the original source convinced that Mr. Christensen is still not completely bad, and our translators have a problem understanding the text. Christensen writes a completely different story. The fact is that in the unrealizable plans announced by the military-political leadership there is also the development of a naval cruise missile with a nuclear charge. It is theoretically possible to release a series of nuclear "Tomahawks", not so long ago finally turned into non-nuclear ones, although why, even if purchases of conventional "Tomahawks" are temporarily suspended (apparently, due to their "success" in strikes against Syria, they took a pause for modernization)? Especially since there are no charges for them - they have long been destroyed. And for a promising sea-based CD, there is also nowhere to take charges - they are not there. Americans will develop a rocket.
So, Christensen believes, and this is clearly his personal opinion that the charge of W80-1 from aviation KR can be adapted to marine KR. There are doubts about this - missiles are very different, and it was not for nothing that at one time aviation missiles had nuclear warheads developed only for them, while naval and ground-based missiles were essentially charged with closely related charges. But even if such an alteration were possible, then this would be another "Trishkin kaftan" in a nuclear fashion. There are relatively few charges of this type, and air-based nuclear missile systems are now in arsenals somewhat less than is necessary even for a full salvo of B-52N bombers, and not all of them, namely those used as carriers (there are also testing and training vehicles). And all these charges are intended, according to official documents of the NNSA and the US Department of Energy, to be converted to the W80-4 modification for the promising air-launched missile launcher. And the US Air Force simply will not allow the US Navy to "squeeze" such a valuable resource, and their political influence "at court" will completely allow them. Even if the Navy had more influence, and it would have been possible to take away a few charges (they simply won’t give much, there aren’t any), such a castling of charges would only reduce the number of charges in the US strategic nuclear forces, because naval missiles are not strategic forces.
But this is unlikely to happen, although in the current realities, when the “unwinding” of some powerful military-political action in the mass media is more important than its real geopolitical effect, anything is possible.
In the meantime, it became known that the US Congress rejected the amendment by a majority vote, drastically cut funding for the development W76-2. Obviously, this "difficult" feeds a lot of development right people.
There is also such an interesting point. Americans have the bulk of warheads traditionally placed on the SSBN. And the Ohio-type SSBNs, and they will gradually begin to be written off from 2026. This is despite ongoing resource extension programs and the upgrading of these very good missile carriers with excellent missiles (the Trident-2 can be considered one of the masterpieces of underwater ballistic missile engineering along with 29RMU-2.1 "Blue-2" / "Liner" or, say, P-30 "Mace").
As we see from the schedule, after repairs and reloading of the active zones to 2020, the number of missile carriers in the ranks will be maximum, 14, but after 2026, the ship will fall to 1 a year, and so on until 2031, when it is planned to enter The construction of the first SSBN type "Columbia" in a series of 12 pieces. The schedule is designed so that the number of missile carriers does not fall below 10, but already now there are very serious concerns in the United States that it will be sustained. The program has traditionally been for the US military-industrial complex growing in price, and the terms threaten to move.
Schedule for the replacement of American SSBNs. The squares with numbers are the submarines of the Ohio type and the numbers of the ships, the squares with the X are the submarines of the type Columbia
At the same time, it’s not at all the fact that the START-2021 Treaty, which ends at 3, which provided for the levels of carriers and charges, both superpowers reached this year only, will be extended. Despite the obvious profitability of his Russia, he, in general, is beneficial to both parties, because neither the Russian Federation, which has a formal reason to make START-3 a handle even tomorrow (the US missile defense policy), will not leave it before the deadline, nor the US, who likes to grumble about almost "enslavement" of the contract. It can be seen, since Russia didn’t allow any inconvenient moments for itself, the contract immediately became inert. But the fact that in 2021, it will be extended or will be a new START-4 or otherwise known as a proxy agreement, is very hard to believe, with the current relations and trends of their development. Relationships are developing as positively as the American nuclear arsenal. Although, of course, sudden warming should not be excluded.
That is, Russia can be a never-related numerical limits of the contract. And if 15 years ago, we would speak about it from every angle that we cannot afford to increase our arsenals, but the United States - at least as much as you like, very quickly (remember these speeches, probably), now the situation is somewhat opposite. The reasons for this and the previous reading this material does not need to explain the topic. Of course, we don’t draw money, but Russia has both production and financial capabilities to increase its arsenals, of course, if necessary. And the United States has the second, but the problems with the first and second can not be solved quickly.
And there are already the first bells to the fact that Russia is already planning the development of its strategic nuclear forces based on the non-renewal of the START regime, but also leaving room for the preservation of the treaty regime. Recent news about "canceling" the construction of SSBN Ave.955B (4 number), and replacing them with 6 SSBX of an additional series 955A Ave (955B efficiency was not so much higher than the upgraded 955А than the price) - from the same series. As a result, by the end of 2020's we get the grouping of “Boreev” in 3 pieces and “Boreev” in 11 pieces, with 224 SLBM “Bulava” with 1344 BB (6 per rocket), that is, almost the entire START-3 limit can be selected only these submarine-missile. It is clear that it is possible to place a smaller number of charges per rocket to get into the limit, but they really want to have a lot of ships, obviously they don’t hope for the Treaty. It would be enough and 11-12. Or they are hoping for another new treaty, with higher limits, for which the United States will be extremely difficult to handle with their situation.
And the recent news that soon the group of monoblock old Topol type PGRKs will be finally replaced by the Yars series ICBM, and this, by the way, if we deduct two regiments now being transferred to Yars, there will be 7-8 regiments, that is, before the 72 MBR. A "Yars" is, as you know, to 6 BB, even if it is on duty, as it is supposed, with 4 BB. And there may come the turn and monoblock Topol-M in the mine and mobile versions, and this is 78 missiles. In general, along with the upcoming deployment of "Sarmats" instead of "Governor" (if everything works out with 2020) and other unpleasant news for Americans like ICBMs 15 and XXNXX-35 with Avgard (in 71) will be officially announced deployed, it seems that Americans will not be up to experiments with the castling of thermonuclear warheads for political reasons.
When I read the news about low-capacity warheads on one of our news resources for the first time, this phrase, which was pretty surprising, rushed to my eyes too. And with reference to Christensen.
"On the other hand, instead of W76-2, W80-1 could be used, the circular probable deviation of which is equal to 30 meters ..."
After reading this phrase, for some reason I immediately thought that Mr. Christensen completely lost his hold and forgot or didn’t know that the nuclear warhead W80-1 for airborne artillery systems of the AGM-86 type cannot be used on the Trident-2 SLBM "and even if we take the actual" physical package ", then the combat unit will have to be recreated. And the QUO does not depend on the charge, but on the carrier, nevertheless, and if on a cruise missile it was such, then in a ballistic missile it will be completely different. But reading the original source convinced that Mr. Christensen is still not completely bad, and our translators have a problem understanding the text. Christensen writes a completely different story. The fact is that in the unrealizable plans announced by the military-political leadership there is also the development of a naval cruise missile with a nuclear charge. It is theoretically possible to release a series of nuclear "Tomahawks", not so long ago finally turned into non-nuclear ones, although why, even if purchases of conventional "Tomahawks" are temporarily suspended (apparently, due to their "success" in strikes against Syria, they took a pause for modernization)? Especially since there are no charges for them - they have long been destroyed. And for a promising sea-based CD, there is also nowhere to take charges - they are not there. Americans will develop a rocket.
So, Christensen believes, and this is clearly his personal opinion that the charge of W80-1 from aviation KR can be adapted to marine KR. There are doubts about this - missiles are very different, and it was not for nothing that at one time aviation missiles had nuclear warheads developed only for them, while naval and ground-based missiles were essentially charged with closely related charges. But even if such an alteration were possible, then this would be another "Trishkin kaftan" in a nuclear fashion. There are relatively few charges of this type, and air-based nuclear missile systems are now in arsenals somewhat less than is necessary even for a full salvo of B-52N bombers, and not all of them, namely those used as carriers (there are also testing and training vehicles). And all these charges are intended, according to official documents of the NNSA and the US Department of Energy, to be converted to the W80-4 modification for the promising air-launched missile launcher. And the US Air Force simply will not allow the US Navy to "squeeze" such a valuable resource, and their political influence "at court" will completely allow them. Even if the Navy had more influence, and it would have been possible to take away a few charges (they simply won’t give much, there aren’t any), such a castling of charges would only reduce the number of charges in the US strategic nuclear forces, because naval missiles are not strategic forces.
But this is unlikely to happen, although in the current realities, when the “unwinding” of some powerful military-political action in the mass media is more important than its real geopolitical effect, anything is possible.
In the meantime, it became known that the US Congress rejected the amendment by a majority vote, drastically cut funding for the development W76-2. Obviously, this "difficult" feeds a lot of development right people.
Information