Triad, Dyad, Monad?

[DIREWOLF75]

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.

You´re mixing up passive and active defenses here. Passive defenses have moved away from the "armored belt" indeed, but what has replaced it is mostly improved internal architechture designed to limit damage caused, because outer armour cant stop a hit from a modern weapon anyway.

Just a nitpick...

 

[DIREWOLF75]

I also don't think UAVs should ever be involved in the nuclear role. It's too risky and dangerous for any mishaps.

Now there i can totally agree.

My main point is that a triad must remain. There are many reasons for this.

Why? Im not seeing any realistic reasons from you to justify it.

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.

SSBNs tend to be extremely hard to hunt down and if UK has any "problems" in a nuclear conflict it would only be in the magnitude of destruction they could cause, not if they could cause it or not.
SSBNs are by far the most reliable vs economical choice.

Another major difference I have with the Mitchell report is that I don't think the B-52 should be retired.

Thats a strange viewpoint i think.
Any country that you might find yourself in "need" of using B-52s against, have the ability to defend quite well against them. The exception would be if you were to conduct a first-strike attack with strategic surprise.
And against the countries where the B-52s are truly useful, you´re better off without nukes anyway.
Also, B-52s are getting old meaning the costs to keep them running will just keep increaseing while an ever larger portion of them will be grounded for maintenance.

I agree with the Mitchell report by keeping the SSBNs and the B-2s intact and involved solely in the nuclear mission.

Those B-2s have become a bit of a white elephant. Too valuable to risk loosing except during "over the top" missions, while at the same time, their greatest advantage would be if used for what its meant for, penetration pinpoint strikes as part of massed air operations(allowing them to blend into the background).
While far superior to the B-52s, its still an aircraft that is still vulnerable to pre-launch interception.

By having a triad, we force any adversary to invest in three types of defenses.

Thats not true.
Modern nukes are delivered by missiles, ergo you need a high coverage missile defense, regardless if the warhead is an incoming ballistic or cruise missile.
Missile defense is best handled with a combination of ground and air assets. Those air assets will however also be highly effective against approaching aircrafts regardless if those are carrying nukes or not.
So essentially, by concentrating on ONE kind of defense, you get ok defense against two parts of the triad and GOOD defense against the third, aircrafts. Which makes that part of it more wasteful than useful as its most likely to prove least effective while at the same time being the most expensive part.

The improvements over the last 30 years in ability to (at best) detect stealthy aircrafts ever closer to normal detection distances is also limiting the airlaunch part more and more.

My expectation for the future is that "total stealth"(ie as stealthy as can be built at the time) aircrafts will be few and far between because the tradeoffs are too great compared to the advantage, while semistealthy will be the norm, because it can be achieved much easier and still give most of the benefit against less advanced sensor coverage.

 

[zukster]

The B-52 and B-1 can handle current conventional missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. UAVs are also effective. Even having a wing of prop aircraft would be good for counter-insurgency warfare. The B-2 is not needed for this. The B-52 can also attack a more advanced country with ALCMs. The B-1 can fly in low and fast. B-2 doesn't have to do conventional missions. Having the B-2 in a nuclear role only doesn't make it a white elephant. You're not understanding how the Cold-War was fought. It's called DETERRENCE. Deterrence still exists, it's now different in that we have more adversaries than just the Soviet Union.

Having 3 legs of the triad DOES make any adversary invest in 3 types of defenses: 1. air defenses against aircraft 2. missile defenses against ICBMs 3. naval defenses against subs.

You all are missing the point. Having only a monad means you only have to invest in anti-sub warfare technology. It would be too easy to advance technology in only one defense for any adversary. And the day will come when the SSBNs no longer have their great ability to stay undetected. Satellite technology and anti-sub technology will advance where we will be able to see enemy subs at all times.

A triad makes any adversary have to invest in more defenses, thus it makes our strategic defense most effective. Currently our nuclear defenses are not that expensive in comparison to the rest of our Defense Department budget. So the cost of peace among superpowers is very affordable.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

The B-52 and B-1 can handle current conventional missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. UAVs are also effective. Even having a wing of prop aircraft would be good for counter-insurgency warfare. The B-2 is not needed for this. The B-52 can also attack a more advanced country with ALCMs. The B-1 can fly in low and fast. B-2 doesn't have to do conventional missions. Having the B-2 in a nuclear role only doesn't make it a white elephant. You're not understanding how the Cold-War was fought. It's called DETERRENCE. Deterrence still exists, it's now different in that we have more adversaries than just the Soviet Union.

Having 3 legs of the triad DOES make any adversary invest in 3 types of defenses: 1. air defenses against aircraft 2. missile defenses against ICBMs 3. naval defenses against subs.

You all are missing the point. Having only a monad means you only have to invest in anti-sub warfare technology. It would be too easy to advance technology in only one defense for any adversary. And the day will come when the SSBNs no longer have their great ability to stay undetected. Satellite technology and anti-sub technology will advance where we will be able to see enemy subs at all times.

A triad makes any adversary have to invest in more defenses, thus it makes our strategic defense most effective. Currently our nuclear defenses are not that expensive in comparison to the rest of our Defense Department budget. So the cost of peace among superpowers is very affordable.

I understand the need for a strong nuclear deterrent, but having the ability to deliver nuclear weapons from all three platforms is by no means a lif-eor death matter. Like it or not, the current administration is pushing for international and national nuclear reductions. While less than ideal, we may end up only having certain nuclear delivery capabilities or no longer have specific platforms for certain missions.

Your position on bombers is contradictory. You say the other bombers can do the nuke role well and then advocate making the B-2 nuke only...redundancy? Could you elaborate on this point, please?

You're also giving subs too little credit. Hiding under the polar icepack is a well-accepted boomer tactic and once which is darn hard to defeat. Detecting subs via satellite? How? Radar? Cameras? Thousand mile-ranged MAD? Ultrasensitive IR? The oxymoronical sonar from space?

If a sub stays deep and knows what its doing its going to be hard to find. It's what subs do best and it's what they will continue to do.

 

[zukster]

I said the B-2 should be a nuclear only bomber.

I said the B-52 and B-1 should be conventional only bombers.

Yes, nuclear reductions are happening. But I would never agree with removing any of the legs from the triad.

If we relied on just subs, Russia or China would be able to focus a tremendous amount of research dollars to defeat them and then our subs would be very vulnerable. The triad works because you have to defend against 3 different delivery vehicles. It's a beautiful and simple formula.

I agree that the subs are our most important leg of the deterrent. I've said it before.

I think we have a strong conventional Global Strike deterrent already. The 4 Ohio-class subs that were converted to use tomahawk cruise missiles can strike almost anywhere by surprise. The B-52s can stay out of defended airspaces by launching conventional alcms. And the B-1s can fly under radar to drop precision smart bombs.

I don't see the value in a new conventional bomber to replace the B-1, B-2, B-52 because we don't have a next generation technology available. The Air Force just started testing hypersonic cruise missiles.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I said the B-2 should be a nuclear only bomber.

I said the B-52 and B-1 should be conventional only bombers.

Yes, nuclear reductions are happening. But I would never agree with removing any of the legs from the triad.

If we relied on just subs, Russia or China would be able to focus a tremendous amount of research dollars to defeat them and then our subs would be very vulnerable. The triad works because you have to defend against 3 different delivery vehicles. It's a beautiful and simple formula.

I agree that the subs are our most important leg of the deterrent. I've said it before.

I think we have a strong conventional Global Strike deterrent already. The 4 Ohio-class subs that were converted to use tomahawk cruise missiles can strike almost anywhere by surprise. The B-52s can stay out of defended airspaces by launching conventional alcms. And the B-1s can fly under radar to drop precision smart bombs.

I don't see the value in a new conventional bomber to replace the B-1, B-2, B-52 because we don't have a next generation technology available. The Air Force just started testing hypersonic cruise missiles.

Fair enough. I'm still of the mind we're going to see reductions in all three legs of the stool for politcal and budgetary reasons however. As for sub detection, until China, Russia et al. get a credible SOSUS-type sonar network set up and build up their attack sub capability, I'd say the boomers look like they're going to be fairly secure for the immediate future.

But the ultimate decision will rest upon the Pentagon and the White House. What they decide are the priorities for the future will affect policy. The opinions of a couple of armchair commentators like you and I will not.

That said, I guess we should sit back and see what Obama and Gates decide to do.

I've enjoyed discussing this subejct with you.

 

[zukster]

Kilo 2-3, I've enjoyed this discussion with you as well. I just wonder if others even know what's going on. I'm sure many people aren't even aware that we are in discussions with Russia over a new nuclear treaty.

I agree that cuts to all 3 legs of the triad are coming. Which is fine. A strong deterrent could exist even now with 500 warheads. But I would still opt for options.

And there is no question that the subs are our main defense. Their stealth, firepower, accuracy are unmatched. If push came to shove and we were in economic straights, subs by themselves may offer enough defense.

But with a growing number of adversaries our options would be more limited if we relied solely on subs. For instance, we may decide in the near future that we have to take out an underground facility manufacturing nuclear weapons. Perhaps we may decide to take out an Iran or North Korea and their nuclear ambitions. We may even decide to use an earth-penetrating nuclear bomb dropped from a B-2. Or if we have exact co-ordinates of a taliban hq that heisted a nuke from Pakistan. Perhaps a Minuteman III might do the trick?

Yes, we are both just a couple of armchair generals. But so are all those members in Congress and the Senate. And often our voices can persuade their decisions. I think the Obama administration will be in a difficult situation soon to get a new treaty ratified.

 

[DIREWOLF75]

The B-52 and B-1 can handle current conventional missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure, but "can handle" isnt the same as "suitable" or "good value for the money spent".

UAVs are also effective.

No they´re not. Unless you count getting the wrong people killed as "effective", because that´s what most attacks by UAV has ended up with, a lot of "wrong people" dead or injured aside from any real target. And thats one of the main reasons for the increased troubles there.

IF you meant effective in their recon role, then no disagreement.

Even having a wing of prop aircraft would be good for counter-insurgency warfare.

Well what are you waiting for then, you already have the Bronco flying for that reason, and if you want a better(at least in my opinion) plane there´s the Pucara.

The B-52 can also attack a more advanced country with ALCMs.

And any decent opposition will have a turkey shoot at those -52s. Oh i know their ECM is great and all, but in reality, they´re not much less defenseless than the Tu-95s. Sure they can do stand-off attacks, but those CMs can be launched by any aircraft that can carry them for a much better pricetag, and with better chance to get away if spotted early and a MUCH better chance to launch before being spotted.

Having the B-2 in a nuclear role only doesn't make it a white elephant. You're not understanding how the Cold-War was fought. It's called DETERRENCE. Deterrence still exists, it's now different in that we have more adversaries than just the Soviet Union.

Ah, in case you missed it, the cold war sort of ended when USSR said it quits.
I know VERY well how the cold war deterrence worked. The deterrence of my own country was to have enough defence that it would simply take too much troops for USSR to bother unless it really had to.

And no, "you" dont have more adversaries now(that you really NEED strategic deterrence against at least). In another 20-30 years, then you WILL have more adversaries however.

Having 3 legs of the triad DOES make any adversary invest in 3 types of defenses: 1. air defenses against aircraft 2. missile defenses against ICBMs 3. naval defenses against subs.

Again that is entirely incorrect. The navy still fires its nukes via missiles, which can increasingly effectively be intercepted by both surface to air and air to air defences, which at the same is exactly whats needed against both other "legs". With air to air having a chance to intercept aircraft before launch.
Again, this is what makes the air launched part the weakest one, and since its also the most expensive one, its just not worth it for the deterrance effect.

You all are missing the point. Having only a monad means you only have to invest in anti-sub warfare technology. It would be too easy to advance technology in only one defense for any adversary. And the day will come when the SSBNs no longer have their great ability to stay undetected. Satellite technology and anti-sub technology will advance where we will be able to see enemy subs at all times.

No, that simply wont happen. And you also fail to realise that SSBNs doesnt need to be close to the target to launch which means that the amount of ocean you need to search to even have a chance to find the SSBN is excessive.

You need to realise that there are subs that today can infiltrate to within 500m of the centerpiece of a USN carrier battlegroup, ie the carrier itself, go to periscope depth and take a nice little picture and then get away from the carrier group again without getting caught.
Yes, an SSBN is "far more"(relatively) noisy than a Gotland class AIP sub, but that doesnt really matter because the SSBN can keep its distance far far away from any potential enemies and stay at minimal speed because it doesnt have to do fancy maneuvering to get into a good firing position.
Even the now long out of service older USSR SSBNs are capable of staying hidden if it has a good enough crew! And USN SSBNs are waaaay better than those.

If we relied on just subs, Russia or China would be able to focus a tremendous amount of research dollars to defeat them and then our subs would be very vulnerable. The triad works because you have to defend against 3 different delivery vehicles. It's a beautiful and simple formula.

Incorrect, you only have to defend against the missiles(which of course is craptacularly hard but still getting more realistic if ever so slowly).
SSBNs+landbased gives the best ability for the money, and adding airlaunched to the mix doesnt really add any capability. Landbased missiles can be made as secure as possible and will be very hard to hit even though their location will soon be found out, meanwhile the subs can be sunk if the opposition gets REALLY lucky but that is very unlikely.

In short it gives you a combination of well protected but easy to find and poorly protected but exceptionally hard to find missiles. In contrast, airlaunched is relatively easy to BOTH find and destroy, and they can even be targeted on their home bases for example as part of any attempt at destroying the landbased missiles, but also by covert means like those Spetznas once trained for(one of which was placing packs of light SAMs below the takeoff route outside an airbase, randomly firing at one size of planes taking off once activated)...

Perhaps a Minuteman III might do the trick?

Exceptionally bad idea. Setting another precedent that nukes are ok to use...
How would you like it if suddenly China decided that Israel needed a nuke on DImona for interfering Sudan or Chad? Or India put a nuke on Pakistan?
Even worse would be to setting such a precedent now while USA is slowly loosing its dominance of power just perfectly in time for China or India to begin having imperial troubles, and allow them to say "aaw shucks, but you know, USA used nukes against X so we did it against Y so why should you care"...
Well, thats simplified but hopefully you get my point.

 

[zukster]

Direwolf75, I don't see you making any good points really.

The B-52 and B-1 can handle conventional missions now and into the future, better than strike fighters due to larger payload. B-52s or B-1s against a stronger adversary would not be flying alone, they would have fighter escort and they would not penetrate airspace until we achieved air superiority and took out SAMs. The B-52 can strike up to 1,500 miles away and is still effective. There is not one adversary that can shoot down all of the potential cruise missiles. The B-2 can penetrate and deliver gravity bombs for precision strikes. This is why it is so useful and must be kept in the triad.

UAVs are having civilian damage just as any other aircraft would because of the nature of the warfare where civilians are used as shields against our targets. It wouldn't matter which plane is used. And if it is so bad, why is the Air Force acquiring more UAVs?

I only agree with you on potential COIN aircraft. The Bronco is outdated and should be replaced. AT-6B is a good choice.

We have more nuclear adversaries than during the Cold War and it is more unstable now so you don't have any point here.

Again, a monad of subs is not a strong deterrent. Just because you love the navy and subs doesn't make it right. The triad provides the most flexibility and lethality otherwise it would have been scrapped long ago. You entirely miss the point about defenses. If we only have subs then Russia, China, whoever only has to hunt subs to take out our deterrent. You obviously make no connection with technology and future advancements. If you take out the subs before they launch missiles you don't have to worry about missile defense.

My comment about the Minuteman III was hypothetical. It was just considering a potential strike and it's potential effectiveness. I don't forsee America using nukes against anyone. We are continually moving towards more conventional methods and this will continue into the future.

Again, it is obvious you are a Navy lover. And because of your one-branch love affair, you are blinded and trying to oversimplify things.