Triad, Dyad, Monad?

[zukster]

This thread is about the nuclear triad and strategic defense.

This is in response to the recent Mitchell report published by associates with Northrop Grumman. Here are the conclusions from the report:

"Based on this analysis, we conclude that the US Department of Defense
should pursue an ICBM/SLBM Dyad as it moves to reshape its nuclear
force posture at lower warhead levels. Essentially, the US is already moving
in this direction: the ICBMs and SLBMs remain robust, with modernization
scheduled and funded, but the aging ALCM calls into question the value of
the B-52 fleet, while the modernized but very small B-2 force is assuming
a niche role. In short, the United States will soon field a de facto nuclear Dyad.

Rather than evolving to a Dyad by default, we believe that the following steps
should be taken as a way to hedge against force structure changes, policy
developments, and budgetary uncertainties.

For the near term, the United States should:
• Maintain the 450 ICBM force as a substitute for the declining bomber leg.
• Maintain the current SSBN fleet and continue plans to develop the Ohio-class
replacement.
• Maintain and modernize the B-2 force to retain the capability to conduct
nuclear strikes.
• Phase out the B-52 from a nuclear role as the ALCMs are retired from service.
• Divest any planned investments dedicated to keeping the B-52 in a nuclear
role and put them into a new conventional bomber that could be
manned or unmanned. This divestiture would also include R&D funding
of a new nuclear-capable ALCM. Although conventional long-range strike
capabilities will be even more important in the emerging security environment,
the research and development of a new nuclear cruise missile and
a new nuclear bomber do not appear to be prudent investments in an era
of nuclear force reductions."

I agree in most part with the report, but here is how I differ:

The United States should always retain a triad at all costs and no matter what future force levels require. Taking out one or two legs of the triad is dangerous to the national defense. By having a triad, we force any adversary to invest in three types of defenses. What is difficult in the near and future term is trying to structure our forces with cuts to both warheads and delivery vehicles. Let's guess that with the new treaty we are limited to 1,500 warheads and 700 delivery vehicles. Our triad might look like this:

19 B-2s that have a nuclear role only. Upgrade existing ACMs to a new enhanced ACM. This would give the B-2 gravity bombs and cruise missiles for a total of 243 warheads.

288 SLBMs on 14 Ohio-class subs. With 3 warheads per missile this would yield 864 warheads.

393 ICBMs with 1 warhead each for 393 warheads.

I agree with the Mitchell report by keeping the SSBNs and the B-2s intact and involved solely in the nuclear mission. How I differ from the Mitchell report is that I would make any necessary cuts to the ICBMs to keep within the delivery vehicle ceiling.

Another major difference I have with the Mitchell report is that I don't think the B-52 should be retired. I don't think we should divert money to a conventional 2018 bomber. If we make the B-52 a conventional only bomber like the B-1 then we don't have to worry about counting them as delivery vehicles for the START replacement treaty. I think we should maintain just the B-1s and B-52s because they offer more flexiblity than one new conventional bomber that will end up doing the same thing for an incredibly expensive amount of money. If we are to divert money to R&D it should be for a next-generation bomber that employs hypersonic technology. I also don't think UAVs should ever be involved in the nuclear role. It's too risky and dangerous for any mishaps.

The Department of Defense is looking for a conventional Global Strike capability. If we also convert the existing ALCMs to conventional warheads and also upgrade them to enhanced ALCMs then the B-52 armed with these can support this mission along with the B-1. Also, the four converted Ohio-class subs that use conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles can support this capability as well.

We have all of the delivery vehicles that we need for the missions on hand, both nuclear and conventional. We just need to continue to upgrade our bombers, subs, and missiles because they can last us for the next 40 years if we do this. As future cuts come to both warheads and delivery vehicles, we should always continue to field a triad and just make cuts to all legs if necessary to keep it intact. Along with upgrading our weapons systems, we also need to upgrade the weapons themselves, we need a reliable replacement warhead.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I agree in most part with the report, but here is how I differ:

You only need to maintain the triad, you don't need parity or yield similarity for each leg. ie each leg only has to be a viable respondent if things go tertiary because their survivability alone acts as a deterrent.

my 2c anyway

 

[Herodotus]

I haven't read the report so I am curious how it addressed the "new" triad; nuclear and non-nuclear responses, missile (and other) defenses, and responsive infrastructure. Also isn't the NPR coming out next month? I will be curious to see what changes, if any, are made.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also isn't the NPR coming out next month?

I will be curious to see what changes, if any, are made.

I haven't either, hence my rather "academic" response.

I do however think that conceptually what we're witnessing is an evolution against prev held "sacred cow" concepts

as an analogy, armour on a warship was previously regarded as a physical metal/resistant belt to buffer against any violent attack.

armour in real terms has transitioned to the a marriage of esensors, ewarfare management and respondent systems against an attack. the physical belt is no longer important - the detection, deterrence and capacity to flexibly stage a response prior to attack is now the priority.

similarly, I suspect that the old beliefs that triad ability meant equivalence in responsiveness and "yield" across all delivery capabilities has changed.

again, its a variation of the hard and soft power argument.

 

[zukster]

There's numerous ways to reconfigure our strategic defense under the future START replacement treaty. My main point is that a triad must remain. There are many reasons for this. It is not necessary to have equal number of warheads or delivery vehicles per leg. It is just necessary to have the ability to use each leg because they each offer something unique. Just because a nation like Great Britain has decided to rely solely on submarines doesn't mean they have the perfect model. In fact, without the US they would be quite vulnerable if pitted directly against a power like Russia or China. Even as governments begin to move us towards zero warheads, which I think will never happen, I would still favor having bombers, subs, and icbms as our defense.

 

[Herodotus]

There's numerous ways to reconfigure our strategic defense under the future START replacement treaty. My main point is that a triad must remain. There are many reasons for this. It is not necessary to have equal number of warheads or delivery vehicles per leg. It is just necessary to have the ability to use each leg because they each offer something unique. Just because a nation like Great Britain has decided to rely solely on submarines means they have the perfect model. In fact, without the US they would be quite vulnerable if pitted directly against a power like Russia or China. Even as governments begin to move us towards zero warheads, which I think will never happen, I would still favor having bombers, subs, and icbms as our defense.

Well that's assuming there is a future START treaty. The old triad as envisioned still, I assume, in the report (bombers, submarines, ICBMs) originated during the Cold War with one threat. Now there are multiple threats, or potential threats, with an imbalance of capabilities. The nature of threats and technology has rapidly changed. Now, as gf-aust points out "armor" on naval ships includes e-sensors and e-warfare systems, so no doubt our vision of the triad will change.

For Britain it makes more sense to have nuclear weapons based on submarines given that it is an island with a strong naval deterrent, and limited land. For the US a missile defense system may make sense to deal with rogue states that cannot be deterred by mutual assured destruction. A "triad" may remain, but it may incorporate other elements than just bombers, subs, and ICBMs, ala the new triad I referred to.

 

[zukster]

I understand about the revised triad that the Bush administration formulated. Having both a conventional and nuclear response to crisis is necessary as the world is changing and more powers are emerging. Again, I addressed this in my initial post. The cost of actually having a strategic nuclear deterrence is not that great. Upgrading existing systems is more economical than developing new ones. And my major point was that replacing B-1s and B-52s with a 2018 conventional manned bomer or UAV doesn't make much sense when they are also working on greater technologies that can come about before our existing warplanes need to be retired. Really what my fear that may happen with the current administration is too many cuts to the triad and the elimination of one or more legs. I know I'm being redundant. I just wonder how you could justify a dyad or monad?

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I understand about the revised triad that the Bush administration formulated. Having both a conventional and nuclear response to crisis is necessary as the world is changing and more powers are emerging. Again, I addressed this in my initial post. The cost of actually having a strategic nuclear deterrence is not that great. Upgrading existing systems is more economical than developing new ones. And my major point was that replacing B-1s and B-52s with a 2018 conventional manned bomer or UAV doesn't make much sense when they are also working on greater technologies that can come about before our existing warplanes need to be retired. Really what my fear that may happen with the current administration is too many cuts to the triad and the elimination of one or more legs. I know I'm being redundant. I just wonder how you could justify a dyad or monad?

The kicker here is politics.

While I agree with you that it is important for the US to keep a strong nuclear deterrent active and ready, the general trend of US public and political feeling seems to be sliding towards gradual nuclear reductions (I honestly don't think Obama's vision of a totally nuclearly disarmed world is going to happen, but reductions are certainly in the works).

The general military trends seems to also be moving towards "small war" counter-insurgency and counter-terror. The days of SAC are to put it bluntly, over. The action today is happening in Afghanistan, not in a bunker ar Minot. Resources from the two branches with strategic nuclear weapons (Navy and Air Force) are going to go more and more into conventional weapons to fight this war, rather than to nukes to prevent fighting a war we don't want to get into (MAD/nuclear holocaust).

The US will always have a significant deterrent, but things are changing.

 

[elgatoso]

Washington deploys approximately 2,200 strategic warheads and 500 tactical warheads and maintains about 2,500 warheads in reserve.
U.S. submarine-launched and land-based long-range missiles are now undergoing life-extension programs.
The air force will soon complete a 10-year, $6 billion sustainment effort to increase missile reliability and extend the life of the Minuteman III missile to 2030.
From 1997 to 2001, the United States also produced and deployed a new variant of the B61 gravity bomb. Known as the B61-11, it functions as an earth-penetrating weapon.
Washington has chosen to maintain and refurbish its nuclear warheads through science-based efforts to retain confidence in the safety and reliability of its arsenal absent nuclear testing. A recent non-nuclear refurbishment of the W76 warhead fitted it with a new arming, firing, and fusing mechanism that gives it a hard-target kill capability.
The two types of submarine-launched warheads deployed today (the W76 and W88) can destroy a hardened missile silo 90 percent and 98 percent of the time respectively.
Washington also has plans to develop a new class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBM) and a new long-range nuclear bomber. The new submarine, dubbed the SSBN-X, would replace the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines. In its 2010 budget request, the Obama administration requested $700 million for research and development for the SSBN-X. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2019.

 

[elgatoso]

Washington preserves and refurbishes its existing nuclear arsenal through a variety of stockpile stewardship and life-extension programs that have lengthened the life span and increased the lethality of its existing forces.
There is a strong chance that the bomber will reemerge in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
A new, limited capability to remanufacture plutonium pits, the core of thermonuclear weapons, also has been initiated. Along these lines, in June 2007, Los Alamos National Laboratory delivered a newly manufactured W88 pit--constructed with new materials via a new process--that was certified to be interchangeable with pits first produced in 1988.
Due to remarkable advances in stockpile stewardship capabilities and life-extension efforts, the U.S. nuclear stockpile and its supporting infrastructure remain the most sophisticated and modern in the world..

 

[Bonza]

Washington deploys approximately 2,200 strategic warheads and 500 tactical warheads and maintains about 2,500 warheads in reserve.
U.S. submarine-launched and land-based long-range missiles are now undergoing life-extension programs.
The air force will soon complete a 10-year, $6 billion sustainment effort to increase missile reliability and extend the life of the Minuteman III missile to 2030.
From 1997 to 2001, the United States also produced and deployed a new variant of the B61 gravity bomb. Known as the B61-11, it functions as an earth-penetrating weapon.
Washington has chosen to maintain and refurbish its nuclear warheads through science-based efforts to retain confidence in the safety and reliability of its arsenal absent nuclear testing. A recent non-nuclear refurbishment of the W76 warhead fitted it with a new arming, firing, and fusing mechanism that gives it a hard-target kill capability.
The two types of submarine-launched warheads deployed today (the W76 and W88) can destroy a hardened missile silo 90 percent and 98 percent of the time respectively.
Washington also has plans to develop a new class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBM) and a new long-range nuclear bomber. The new submarine, dubbed the SSBN-X, would replace the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines. In its 2010 budget request, the Obama administration requested $700 million for research and development for the SSBN-X. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2019.

All of this information and the information contained in the next post is just copy-pasted from Nuclear weapons: The modernization myth | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you're going to do that it would be good if you stated the source and added your own thoughts on the matter.

 

[elgatoso]

All of this information and the information contained in the next post is just copy-pasted from Nuclear weapons: The modernization myth | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. If you're going to do that it would be good if you stated the source and added your own thoughts on the matter.

I know for the next time,was never my intention to make anybody think that were my toughts.

 

[zukster]

That's funny... hey, it's good reading though! Give him credit. Also, I understand completely that the current trend is toward conventional weapons and away from nuclear weapons. I know they have been going back and forth about the 2018 bomber. Again, I think it's a mistake to spend so much R&D on a subsonic conventional bomber. We have the B-2 with its stealth for a nuclear deterrent. I don't think we should use the B-2 for conventional missions at all because it is too expensive to risk losing. Furthermore, our conventional war going on right now is against enemies that have no air power what so ever! The B-1B and B-52H are way more than enough to take care of our conventional bombing needs whether right now or in the near future. Like the current stewardship going on in modernizing our nuclear forces, Congress and the Department of Defense need to just keep upgrading the B-1B and the B-52H. The beauty about airplanes is that the shell of them, the airframe, are very basic. As long as they haven't had too much stress over time, they are good to go. It's not a really complex design needed. Also, the important part is to update the guts of the planes: the engines, the avionics, the weapon systems. Upgrading our current conventional warplanes would keep them current and at the cutting edge. Some interesting ideas have been to refit both bombers with new engines. This could really give us some interesting options. Read about the B-1R regional bomber. And could you imagine the B-52H with new fuel efficient turbofans out there on some airliners? I think sometimes the warplanners are into the most complex and technologically advanced weapon options available.

 

[Bonza]

I know for the next time,was never my intention to make anybody think that were my toughts.

No worries mate, just letting you know.

 

[elgatoso]

IMHO,with respect to aircraft,some black project like Switchblade could be the NGB,and another idea in consideration should be some hypersonic vehicle.Something about NGB.
Classified Bomber Under Consideration | AVIATION WEEK Bomber Under Consideration

 

[Kilo 2-3]

That's funny... hey, it's good reading though! Give him credit. Also, I understand completely that the current trend is toward conventional weapons and away from nuclear weapons. I know they have been going back and forth about the 2018 bomber. Again, I think it's a mistake to spend so much R&D on a subsonic conventional bomber. We have the B-2 with its stealth for a nuclear deterrent. I don't think we should use the B-2 for conventional missions at all because it is too expensive to risk losing. Furthermore, our conventional war going on right now is against enemies that have no air power what so ever! The B-1B and B-52H are way more than enough to take care of our conventional bombing needs whether right now or in the near future. Like the current stewardship going on in modernizing our nuclear forces, Congress and the Department of Defense need to just keep upgrading the B-1B and the B-52H. The beauty about airplanes is that the shell of them, the airframe, are very basic. As long as they haven't had too much stress over time, they are good to go. It's not a really complex design needed. Also, the important part is to update the guts of the planes: the engines, the avionics, the weapon systems. Upgrading our current conventional warplanes would keep them current and at the cutting edge. Some interesting ideas have been to refit both bombers with new engines. This could really give us some interesting options. Read about the B-1R regional bomber. And could you imagine the B-52H with new fuel efficient turbofans out there on some airliners? I think sometimes the warplanners are into the most complex and technologically advanced weapon options available.

The heavy bomber fleet has actually been worked pretty hard recently. With the integration of JDAMs, cruise missiles, etc. they've been flying more and more conventional missions. While nuclear deterrent is still an important mission, it's becoming less-and-less of their stock-in-trade.

As for the prohibition of B-2s flying anything other than nuke missions... It doesn't make since to parse out your bomber force with little packets of certain aircraft for certain missions (for example, saying that B-2s should only carry nukes, and B-52s should only fly Arc Lights, but the low-level mission should only be flown by B-1s). While the need to shepherd the valuable B-2 force is important, not using it at all isn't an option.

Crews need to train and be ready to fly every type of mission. When you're deployed in combat, you need operational flexibility, you need to know your B-1 crews can do more or less the same job that your B-2 and your B-52 crews can. They might choose to do it differently from the others, but at the end of the day, the bombs will get on target.

As for buying a subsonic bomber, I don't really have an issue with it. LO or reduced RCS would be pluses so that it would have better penetration capability. But even a subsonic aircraft can do standoff nuke missions with ALCMs, and it's better suited for the demands of today's conventional warfare.

 

[zukster]

The first reason to make the B-2 nuclear only is because of reductions to delivery vehicles under the new START replacement treaty. We are going to have to make deep cuts soon. And removing the B-52 makes the most sense. And if the B-2 has a nuclear only role and the B-52 has a conventional only role, the Russians become more pacified like they are now with the B-1. Another reason why I think the B-2 should be nuclear only is because it is too valuable for conventional operations. It is not worth losing. It is still important as ever to retain a strong nuclear deterrent. In fact, it's becoming more important than ever. B-1s and B-52s can handle all of our conventional operations alone. Our current wars are being fought against adversaries that have no air forces, no air defenses. Our bombers can make runs without risk of loss. What happens is we send B-2s out on missions thinking there are no air defenses and all of a sudden batteries of anti-aircraft missiles are there and shoot them down. $2 billion bye bye! Just like the F-117 in Kosovo. Also, having bombers operate dual roles of nuclear and conventional is not a good idea. The Defense Department is recognizing this. Crews are not as proficient running both missions. Ground crews are not as proficient in handling more and more weapon systems and having to change between the two roles. They are really different operations with different requirements. The storage and handling of the warheads alone is vastly different. If the B-2 was made a nuclear bomber only, it would have it's time used up devoted to this mission because they would be the only bombers assigned to this with the B-52 now a conentional only bomber. Look at the B-1. 19 planes on alert would require shifts, rotations, etc. The B-2s can carry 16 warheads per plane. This is 304 warheads. This is a great number considering the current reductions going on. So the B-2 could perfectly fit in a nuclear only niche role. Just like the assessment in the Mitchell report. Again, having a 2018 conventional bomber is duplicating what we already have. The money should go to a NGB that has hypersonic technology. If we need better conventional bombers, we can upgrade the B-1 to a B-1R. Fitted with F-22 engines it could cruise at high mach speeds and out-run fighters because of greater fuel capacity. Give the B-52 new turbofan engines and it can loiter over targets longer. We have such great and awesome weapon systems now. We can keep the defense industry employed by having them do upgrades while also keeping our forces at the cutting edge of technology and with the added benefit of saving money.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

The first reason to make the B-2 nuclear only is because of reductions to delivery vehicles under the new START replacement treaty. We are going to have to make deep cuts soon. And removing the B-52 makes the most sense. And if the B-2 has a nuclear only role and the B-52 has a conventional only role, the Russians become more pacified like they are now with the B-1.

The Buff is an aging aircraft, true, but getting rid of it entirely will place more stress on the B-1 crews and on the B-2 crews, since they will have to pick up the slack.

Another reason why I think the B-2 should be nuclear only is because it is too valuable for conventional operations. It is not worth losing. It is still important as ever to retain a strong nuclear deterrent. In fact, it's becoming more important than ever. B-1s and B-52s can handle all of our conventional operations alone.

What happens is we send B-2s out on missions thinking there are no air defenses and all of a sudden batteries of anti-aircraft missiles are there and shoot them down. $2 billion bye bye! Just like the F-117 in Kosovo. Also, having bombers operate dual roles of nuclear and conventional is not a good idea.

Okay....Your point in the last paragrpah is confusing. You argue that sending a B-2 into an unexpectedly fierce IADS is a bad idea, and that the B-2 is going to get downed a la the Kosovo F-117...But in the same breath you argue that the Bone and the Buff should take over the conventional mission as if somehow they wouldn't get shot down just as quickly doing the same thing...

Not all stealthy penetration missions will be nuclear ones. The B-2 offers excelent flexibility and it is the best fit for flying conventional or nuclear penetration missions. It can do things that B-52 and B-1s cannot do, and buttonholing it in the nuclear role is going to put the lives of B-52 and B-2 crews at risk.

The Kosovo shootdown was an issue of tactics and bad luck, the B-2 and the F-117 flew and fly different mission profiles and face different types of risks, so in my mind the comparison is not a valid one.

Also, having bombers operate dual roles of nuclear and conventional is not a good idea. The Defense Department is recognizing this. Crews are not as proficient running both missions. Ground crews are not as proficient in handling more and more weapon systems and having to change between the two roles. They are really different operations with different requirements. The storage and handling of the warheads alone is vastly different.

Uhh...multirole aircraft have been around for most of the last 4 to 5 decades.

As for the fact the crews can't switch. Consider the fact SAC crews in Vietnam were able to go from the nucelar deterrent role to the Arc Light and Linebacker roles very quickly and with great success. Look at the cruise missile strikes with B-5s in the Gulf. Nuclear bombers flying a whole new type of conventional mission.

Saying air and ground crews cannot multiple missions is an insult to both their professionalism and skill.

 

[elgatoso]

A interesting article about the topic
NTI: Global Security Newswire - Global Strike Command Set to Take Control of Dual-Capable Bombers
In my opinion,hypersonic technology,and UAV are being developed in some black program (remember the Kandahar beast),and we gonna know about it in twenty years.

 

[zukster]

Here are some interesting excerpts from the article mentioned, exactly what I've been mentioning:

Yet, "the biggest problem," according to nuclear expert Hans Kristensen, "is not whether [nuclear and conventional training is] similar or not, it's the total workload." Maintaining two distinct combat roles for B-2 and B-52 bombers has meant that performance in "both missions [is] half as good," said Kristensen, who heads the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

Command leaders insist otherwise. Service members assigned to the dual-capable aircraft will continue to receive training and be ready to deploy worldwide in either a conventional or nuclear role, Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, head of the Global Strike Command, told a House panel last week.

"It's a huge operational burden" that should be reconsidered, he said. "We have to ask ourselves as a nation: What do we get from this [nuclear bomber mission] that is of such importance, [when it] steals quality from the conventional mission?"

So why not then just take the bombers out of the nuclear role entirely and just rely on a dyad of ICBMs and SLBMs?