Military Review

Equipping US submarines with tactical nuclear warheads W76-2 considered an attempt to complacency

39

Discussions continue on equipping US submarines with W76-2 tactical nuclear warheads. In particular, the article considers expenditures in the US military budget for the year 2020, which envisages spending on the acquisition of W76-2 in the amount of $ 19,6 million.


The author Sebastien Roblin (Sebastien Roblin) in the publication The National Interest writes that for such an amount "you can buy only a quarter of the F-35A fighter." Based on the amount of the cost of purchasing W76-2 warheads for an American underwater fleet NI Browser concludes:

There is no reason to celebrate the receipt by the American submarines of tactical nuclear weapons W76-2. By and large, these warheads improve security more psychologically than technologically.

The author considers such weapons to be an attempt of complacency in the US Navy.

Roblin writes that the idea of ​​arming US submarines with tactical nuclear warheads was promoted by former Pentagon officials. Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis is also an example. According to him, W76-2 "will allow the United States to receive additional funds to quickly and proportionately repel the tactical nuclear weapons that Russia, for example, possesses."

The NI notes that opponents of such arguments counteract this by the fact that tactical nuclear warheads in submarines only increase the risk factor for a nuclear war.
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter April 23 2020 07: 45 New
    +1
    It’s like a knight before a tournament, instead of a full-fledged pike, they gave a dart without a tip ... The pipes sang loudly, it would have to be a duel ... and the opponent’s steel sparkles ... But they patted him on the shoulder - you fight, fight ... If what, we will avenge you ... But you have to be afraid of him, with a dart?
    1. Vita vko
      Vita vko April 23 2020 09: 09 New
      +1
      Equipping US submarines and aircraft with tactical nuclear weapons has one single goal - lowering the threshold for its use. Therefore, despite all skepticism, an increase in the likelihood of a nuclear conflict should be expected in the near future. Moreover, according to American military experts, a nuclear conflict with the use of tactical nuclear weapons could well be limited to third countries where there are American interests, but the massive use of diverse forces and means like Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan is too expensive. In such circumstances, a couple of dozen cruise missiles with tiaos are quite capable of destroying 90% of the infrastructure of such a country as Syria, Iran or Venezuela, which will throw the economy of these countries to the level of the Middle Ages.
  2. Amateur
    Amateur April 23 2020 07: 52 New
    -6
    Roblin writes that the very idea of ​​arming US submarines with tactical nuclear warheads

    It is interesting to which exactly the place of the submarine, the authors are going to fasten the warhead.
    Usually it is screwed to some sort of rocket. In an extreme case - as an aerial bomb. fool
    1. Sky strike fighter
      Sky strike fighter April 23 2020 09: 02 New
      +3
      But on submarines, are there not missiles to which you can fasten a warhead?
    2. venik
      venik April 23 2020 09: 53 New
      -2
      Quote: Amateur
      It is interesting to which exactly the place of the submarine, the authors are going to fasten the warhead.

      ========
      In fact, the amerskie nuclear submarines shoot the "Harpoon" and "Tomogavk" missile launchers through the torpedo tubes (as well as ours)! And "Tomogavki" - as you know, they can carry YABCh!
  3. Svetlana
    Svetlana April 23 2020 07: 55 New
    -1
    It is interesting to which exactly the place of the submarine, the authors are going to fasten the warhead.
    Usually it is screwed to some sort of rocket. In an extreme case - as an aerial bomb. fool

    These are translation problems. Do not find fault with the words.
    1. Amateur
      Amateur April 23 2020 09: 13 New
      -2
      These are translation problems. Do not find fault with the words.

      Why should I think about something. when I read an article. This should be thought of by the author, at worst the site editor. Well, if the author cannot intelligently express his thought or adequately translate the text, then why does he crawl into the information field.
      Graphomania (from the Greek. Γράφω - to write, draw, portray and Greek. Μανία - passion, madness, attraction) - the pathological desire for multi-writing, for writing works that claim to be published in literary publications, pseudo-scientific treatises, etc.
      ... Some researchers call hypercompensation of the inferiority complex one of the most common causes of graphomania, and part of the cases - the expression of a delusional or overvalued idea of ​​identifying yourself with an outstanding writer (Wiki)
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana April 23 2020 09: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Amateur
        These are translation problems. Do not find fault with the words.

        Why should I think about something. when I read an article. This should be thought of by the author, at worst the site editor.

        The head is given not only to wear a hat.
  4. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 23 2020 08: 04 New
    0
    Be that as it may, the boats will carry the tactics of W76-2.
  5. knn54
    knn54 April 23 2020 08: 10 New
    +1
    -means of air defense / missile defense
    -command points and communication centers
    aerodromes, ports
    strategic objects of civil infrastructure
    .
    For this, a cruise missile with TBNG is quite enough. Moreover, they can be placed on board much more than ballistic ones.
  6. KCA
    KCA April 23 2020 08: 17 New
    -1
    I don’t understand why so much noise? And is the SBN on our anti-ship missiles not a tactical nuclear weapon? RCCs work perfectly on land, which has been repeatedly demonstrated
    1. SVD68
      SVD68 April 23 2020 08: 46 New
      +2
      So the Americans put these warheads on strategic tridents. And the launch of a trident is the start of a retaliatory strike.
      1. KCA
        KCA April 23 2020 09: 21 New
        0
        On the "Trident" MIRV for 14 charges, even tactical, at least 100kT, the launch of a 99,9% probability of the 3rd World War, the Americans want to put on the "Axes" W76-2 and use them in limited conflicts
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. SVD68
          SVD68 April 23 2020 11: 02 New
          +2
          Quote: KCA
          Americans want to put on "Axes" W76-2 and use them in limited conflicts

          No, not with axes, but with tridents "to contain Russia."
    2. Bongo
      Bongo April 23 2020 08: 55 New
      +3
      Quote: KCA
      I don’t understand why so much noise? And is the SBN on our anti-ship missiles not a tactical nuclear weapon? RCCs work perfectly on land, which has been repeatedly demonstrated

      Which of our anti-ship missiles are now equipped with "special combat units"?
      1. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter April 23 2020 09: 03 New
        -2
        Yes, even the same Onyx.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo April 23 2020 09: 29 New
          +1
          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          Yes, even the same Onyx.

          Are you sure?
          1. Sky strike fighter
            Sky strike fighter April 23 2020 10: 50 New
            -3
            Quote: Bongo
            Quote: Sky Strike fighter
            Yes, even the same Onyx.

            Are you sure?

            In any case, there is such a technical possibility. And to be sure you need to know for sure, but who will officially disclose this secret to you? Just don’t say that the source of the information is not the same. The tape reprinted the information from the TASS agency, and more complete and accurate information now I don’t want to search the Internet. hi
            The range of upgraded supersonic universal anti-ship missiles P-800 Onyx (Onyx-M) is 800 kilometers, two sources in the military-industrial complex told TASS.

            According to the first interlocutor, the updated “missile is equipped with an advanced control system and will be able to hit both sea and ground targets with greater accuracy”, and also has increased protection from the effects of electronic warfare (EW).

            The second source added that Onyx-M flight design tests were planned for the first ten days of September at the Northern Fleet marine range (in the Barents Sea), “however, launches were not completed due to the need for additional verification of prototypes of the product,” as a result, similar missile tests will begin in the next one to two months. The interlocutor also said that Onyx-M, like Onyx, can be equipped with a conventional or nuclear warhead, and the mass-dimensional characteristics of the missiles coincide.

            https://m.lenta.ru/news/2019/09/25/oniks/
            1. Bongo
              Bongo April 23 2020 13: 39 New
              +3
              Quote: Sky Strike fighter
              It’s just not necessary to say that the source of information is somehow different.

              You said that. And why are you pouring this water?
              As for the "Onyx", then apparently you do not absolutely know the realities of our armed forces. It is highly unlikely that this extremely small anti-ship missile was equipped with an SBS.
              Quote: Sky Strike fighter
              Informal? So there is no such agreement. There were persistent rumors that we have nuclear weapons in the Navy. And what the Americans have is the Americans.

              One way or another, our marine TNW is stored on the shore, and the American liquidated.
      2. KCA
        KCA April 23 2020 09: 06 New
        -2
        P-700, no? In general, how do I know? But I think that for "Caliber-PL" there are also
        1. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter April 23 2020 09: 12 New
          0
          Yes, and on the P-700 Granite the same special units at least were.
        2. Bongo
          Bongo April 23 2020 09: 32 New
          +2
          Quote: KCA
          P-700, no? In general, how do I know? But I think that for "Caliber-PL" there are also

          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          Yes, and on the P-700 Granite the same special units at least were.

          Keyword "were". Until the agreement with the United States, tactical nuclear warheads intended for naval missiles, anti-ship missiles / missile defense systems, depth charges and torpedoes were removed from the carriers and stored on the shore.
          1. KCA
            KCA April 23 2020 09: 45 New
            0
            Arrangement? What is it like? In the bathhouse for beer agreed two admirals? An agreement between the USA and the USSR / RF has never happened
            1. Bongo
              Bongo April 23 2020 09: 50 New
              +1
              Quote: KCA
              Arrangement? What is it like? In the bathhouse for beer agreed two admirals? An agreement between the USA and the USSR / RF has never happened

              Apparently there was an informal arrangement. In the US Navy, tactical nuclear weapons are not there either.
              1. Sky strike fighter
                Sky strike fighter April 23 2020 10: 53 New
                -1
                Apparently there was an informal arrangement. In the US Navy, tactical nuclear weapons are not there either.

                Informal? So there is no such agreement. There were persistent rumors that we have nuclear weapons in the Navy. And what the Americans have is the Americans.
                1. rudolff
                  rudolff April 23 2020 11: 18 New
                  +6
                  The arrangement was, Maxim.
                  Do not believe the rumors. I have not seen weapons from the UBC on the submarine and NK since the beginning of the 90s.
                  On May 29, 1990, the presidents of the USSR and the USA agreed to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in Europe, while at the same time reducing the degree of its combat readiness. On September 17, 1991, George W. Bush (1989-1992) announced Washington’s concrete steps in this direction. The White House initiative included:
                  - the export to the United States of all artillery shells and warheads of tactical missiles with their subsequent elimination;
                  - the removal of nuclear weapons from surface ships and multipurpose submarines, as well as land-based naval aviation;
                  - removal of all nuclear cruise missiles of the Tomahawk type from ships and air bombs on aircraft carriers;
                  - the elimination of part of sea-based warheads;
                  - preservation in Europe of the potential of airborne nuclear weapons.
                  On September 27, 1991, USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev (19851991) announced Moscow’s readiness to implement symmetrical measures to reduce nuclear weapons. These measures were specified in a statement issued by Russian President Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999) on Russian policy in the field of arms limitation and reduction dated January 29, 1992. It stated that the production of nuclear artillery shells and missile warheads had been stopped in the Russian Federation. land-based, and all stockpiles of such warheads will be destroyed. Russia also pledged to remove TNW from surface ships and multipurpose submarines, eliminate them by one third and halve the number of anti-aircraft missile warheads and aerial bombs. The statement also noted the possibility of withdrawing the Russian TNW from combat positions.
            2. rudolff
              rudolff April 23 2020 11: 14 New
              +4
              The agreement was.
              1. Sky strike fighter
                Sky strike fighter April 23 2020 11: 28 New
                0
                Quote: rudolff
                The agreement was.

                Official?
                1. rudolff
                  rudolff April 23 2020 11: 30 New
                  +4
                  I personally painted everything for you above.
    3. mvg
      mvg April 23 2020 09: 54 New
      +1
      RCCs work perfectly on land, which has been repeatedly demonstrated

      Well, in a small city ≈500 thousand of population, at night, with lighting, they’ll definitely get there. And for a specific purpose, such as an air defense battery, I'm afraid not. And the range of 300-500 km is noticeably inferior to the Tomahawk CR with a nuclear warhead, with a range of 2500 km, and their programmed flight paths, various GOS and KVO of 0,5 meters.
      PS: If you mean 94A and Granite in Syria, then this is an amateurish example of an oturiyapatriot.
      1. KCA
        KCA April 23 2020 11: 27 New
        -2
        The progenitor of all types of "Caliber" "Granat" was exclusively in the version with TNBCH, probably, the TNBC "Granata" can be installed without problems on the "Caliber", and in the version of the anti-ship missile system, and in the version of the KRBD
        1. Sky strike fighter
          Sky strike fighter April 23 2020 11: 48 New
          -1
          Quote: KCA
          The progenitor of all types of "Caliber" "Granat" was exclusively in the version with TNBCH, probably, the TNBC "Granata" can be installed without problems on the "Caliber", and in the version of the anti-ship missile system, and in the version of the KRBD

          It’s possible. Although it’s business to change the nuclear warhead to a non-nuclear warhead.
          Information about the tender of the Russian Ministry of Defense for the disposal of 60 strategic cruise missiles 3M10 of the 3K10 Granat missile system in the Northern Fleet (in the tender documents, for some reason, apparently from some "conspiratorial" reasons, they are called "anti-ship missiles").
          Recall that the sea-based missile system 3K10 (S-10) "Granat" with a strategic cruise missile 3M10 (KS-122), designed for use from 533-mm torpedo tubes of submarines to destroy the administrative and industrial centers of the enemy with previously known coordinates , was developed by the Sverdlovsk machine-building design bureau "Novator" and adopted by the USSR Navy on December 31, 1983 (the actual arrival of serial missiles to the fleet, according to known data, began only in 1987). The 3M10 missile had a nuclear warhead and was in fact an analogue of the American shipborne strategic cruise missile BGM-109A Tomahawk TLAM-N. According to the informal "politically binding" Soviet-American agreements in the fall of 1991, all strategic cruise missiles with nuclear warheads were removed from ships of both sides by the mid-1990s and stored. It is believed that all US TLAM-N missiles since the late 1990s have been converted to non-nuclear versions.


          The 3M-10 anti-ship cruise missile is handed over for disposal without a warhead.

          https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1772748.html
          1. rudolff
            rudolff April 23 2020 14: 03 New
            +4
            "It is quite possible. Although the business is to change the nuclear warhead to a non-nuclear warhead."
            If it were so simple, they would have been changed for a long time, but not disposed of later. Yes, and initially would be released in two versions. The non-nuclear warhead has other dimensions and, most importantly, the weight. It is much heavier than UBC. There are questions of rocket launch, which must be addressed and the range is reduced. Therefore, in order to make the Grenade variant with a non-nuclear warhead and with an acceptable range, it was necessary to open separate OCD.
          2. Bongo
            Bongo April 23 2020 15: 54 New
            +1
            Quote: Sky Strike fighter
            Although the business is to change the nuclear warhead to a non-nuclear warhead

            I saw anti-ship missiles only in the museum, but I watched different types of missiles live. Anti-aircraft missiles with special warheads differed from conventional ones not only with their internal filling, but sometimes even externally. Look on the net how the 5V29 missile differs from the 5J23.
  7. Keeping
    Keeping April 23 2020 08: 23 New
    +1
    To discuss the opinion of one Sebastien Roblin is how to quote 90 percent of comments from VO in a serious society ...
  8. cniza
    cniza April 23 2020 08: 52 New
    +2
    By and large, these warheads improve safety more psychologically than technologically.


    If only against a nuclear power, but the point?
  9. sanik2020
    sanik2020 April 23 2020 09: 54 New
    0
    Equipping US submarines with tactical nuclear warheads W76-2 considered an attempt to complacency

    A suicide attempt is the number of nuclear charges already accumulated by mankind, but whether it happens or not depends on us all, though in different ways.
  10. Old26
    Old26 April 23 2020 13: 24 New
    +3
    Quote: Vita VKO
    Equipping US submarines and aircraft with tactical nuclear weapons has one single goal - lowering the threshold for its use. Therefore, despite all skepticism, an increase in the likelihood of a nuclear conflict should be expected in the near future. Moreover, according to American military experts, a nuclear conflict with the use of tactical nuclear weapons could well be limited to third countries where there are American interests, but the massive use of diverse forces and means like Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan is too expensive. In such circumstances, a couple of dozen cruise missiles with tiaos are quite capable of destroying 90% of the infrastructure of such a country as Syria, Iran or Venezuela, which will throw the economy of these countries to the level of the Middle Ages.

    The threshold will indeed be lowered. And about the possible scenarios for the use of such low-power BG 5 years ago was written in the Western press. Moreover, the initiative came not from the military, but from the Federation of American Scientists.

    Quote: venik
    In fact, the amerskie nuclear submarines shoot the "Harpoon" and "Tomogavk" missile launchers through the torpedo tubes (as well as ours)! And "Tomogavki" - as you know, they can carry YABCh!

    But not W-76, but W-80-0. And these are different mass and dimensional characteristics

    Quote: knn54
    -means of air defense / missile defense
    -command points and communication centers
    aerodromes, ports
    strategic objects of civil infrastructure
    .
    For this, a cruise missile with TBNG is quite enough. Moreover, they can be placed on board much more than ballistic ones.

    In principle, such low-power BGs as the W-76-2, according to the same scientists from the Federation of American Scientists, should have been used to deliver surgical strikes. They believed that 1,5-2 dozen strikes inflicted on key infrastructure facilities of countries could lead to the country capitulating .. True, later our media have already added here their weighty opinion that these BGs are intended specifically for us. As if besides us there are no opponents in the same England or the USA. On British boats on the OBD, one missile is equipped with ONE variable power warhead. Moreover, the regulator is set to minimum. It is this missile that is intended for a "show", "surgical" strike against the enemy. The Americans are doing the same now. On one or two missiles, 1-2 BG W-76-2 are installed. The purpose of such blows? For example, one missile with 1-2 BGs falls on Tehran and turns into steam a couple of government buildings, the second - one of the plants of the nuclear complex. And then, in a situation of chaos, other tasks are solved. And most importantly, after the use of such warheads, a deserted desert does not appear at the site of the strike by the same Tridents with normal warheads.
    Plus such a "philanthropic" act on the part of those who used nuclear weapons. For example, a power plant will be destroyed by such a charge, and a town of power engineers located at a distance of 5-7 km from the station will receive a minimum of damage and a minimum number of victims.

    Quote: KCA
    On the "Trident" MIRV for 14 charges, even tactical, at least 100kT, the launch of a 99,9% probability of the 3rd World War, the Americans want to put on the "Axes" W76-2 and use them in limited conflicts

    14 charges is a purely theoretical quantity. In reality, it was tested only with TWELVE GVM BG. The launch of SLBMs is not a priori a 99,9% probability of World War III. Most often, such launches provide notification to the interested party (Russia) about the launch. But even if such an alert fails for some reason, there are mechanisms for responding to a single launch ...

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Yes, even the same Onyx.

    Actually Sergey (Bongo) asked a question not which ones can be equipped, but
    Quote: Bongo
    Which of our anti-ship missiles are now equipped with "special combat units"?

    And he is absolutely right in this regard. None of the warships currently have cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.
    Cruise missiles equipped with SBS were removed from all ships (submarines) of the fleets of the USSR (RF) and the USA. Removed and disposed of. Purely theoretically, of course, both Onyx and Caliber can carry SBS. But for this, these missiles must be tested with such a SBS. The theoretical possibility "does not roll" here. It's the same with the American "axes". The nuclear KR 109A was removed from service and disposed of, and new ones with SBS (or at least with the SBC main computer) were not tested.

    Quote: Bongo
    The key word was "were". Until the agreement with the United States, tactical nuclear warheads intended for shipborne missiles, anti-ship missiles / anti-ship missiles, depth charges and torpedoes were removed from the carriers and stored on the shore.

    Not just stored, but gradually disposed of.

    Quote: KCA
    Arrangement? What is it like? In the bathhouse for beer agreed two admirals? An agreement between the USA and the USSR / RF has never happened

    Have you read all protocols and agreed statements of contracts? For example, OSV-2, START-1, or INF? Personally, I'm not all. Only open. And besides them there are also protocols and coordinated statements that have a signature stamp. As for the agreements, they were official. It is necessary to look only in the composition of agreements on the OSV-START-RSMD or separately. So tactical nuclear weapons were removed from the ships and submarines of both countries

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Apparently there was an informal arrangement. In the US Navy, tactical nuclear weapons are not there either.

    Informal? So there is no such agreement. There were persistent rumors that we have nuclear weapons in the Navy. And what the Americans have is the Americans.

    Precisely rumors. Only earlier, in the 70s, there were depth charges and anti-submarine missiles on the BOD for anti-submarine missiles, and after the beginning of the 90s, they were no longer there. And these are not rumors. Tasks were solved for remote monitoring of the presence of nuclear weapons on ships, tests were conducted. So no one will go to such violations. YES and on the same BOD-EM in the early 2000s they were no longer there.

    Quote: KCA
    The progenitor of all types of "Caliber" "Granat" was exclusively in the version with TNBCH, probably, the TNBC "Granata" can be installed without problems on the "Caliber", and in the version of the anti-ship missile system, and in the version of the KRBD

    If they remained, but were not disposed of. In addition, you will need to conduct a test cycle. It’s impossible to just fasten a certain BG to a certain rocket ...

    Quote: cniza
    If only against a nuclear power, but the point?

    We are not the only enemy of the United States. And the United States is not beneficial for the territory of its non-nuclear adversary to become a scorched desert with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of victims.
    1. rudolff
      rudolff April 23 2020 20: 29 New
      +3
      I described above, as a result of which and when there were no nuclear weapons on the NK and submarines, except for SLBMs. Although we still suspect the Americans that they still carry aircraft bombs on aircraft carriers.