Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: UNMANNED NUCLEAR BOMBER
DarthAmerica    6/3/2009 1:10:05 PM
Unmanned and nuclear Is America ready for a UAV bomber? BY ADAM B. LOWTHER In the wake of the August 2007 incident in which six air-launched cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads were mistakenly flown from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., and the August 2006 incident ? acknowledged in March 2008 ? that saw top-secret nuclear fuses mistakenly shipped to Taiwan as battery packs for UH-1 Huey helicopters, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley. Gates also formed a task force to study nuclear weapons management, which led to former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger?s publication of the ?Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management: The Air Force Nuclear Mission.? The report, along with other recent Pentagon publications, played a role in the creation of Global Strike Command ? a major command dedicated to the nuclear mission. The mistakes had a positive outcome in that they led to the leadership?s re-examination of the entire nuclear enterprise, which served to stimulate a renaissance of thought on nuclear deterrence and the role of nuclear weapons in national security policy. As part of that renaissance, this article examines the delivery systems upon which the nuclear arsenal relies, with a focus on nuclear-capable bombers. One issue the Schlesinger report and others like it do not discuss is the possible development of a nuclear-dedicated unmanned combat aerial vehicle (ND-UCAV) as a replacement for nuclear-capable bombers. Yet the Air Force should seriously consider replacing its nuclear-capable bombers with a ND-UCAV based on the X-47B UCAV demonstrator, which the Navy began funding in 2007. While Navy requirements focus on carrier-based ISR operations, the Air Force could take advantage of the more than $800 million previously invested in the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) program and the $635 million currently dedicated to X-47B development and rapidly develop a ND-UVAC capable of penetrating defended air space with a small nuclear weapons payload. To understand why the ND-UCAV is an attractive option for the future, a brief look at the current condition of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and bomber legs of the nuclear triad illustrates the serious need for modernization. Three points highlight the threat to their continued credibility. First, today?s entire Air Force bomber fleet of B-52Hs, B1-Bs and B-2s, not just nuclear-capable bombers, is 90 percent smaller than it was at its peak in 1959, when Strategic Air Command (SAC) consisted of 1,366 B-47s and 488 B-52s. Placed within a proper context, the dramatic reduction in the bomber fleet diminishes a very visible and psychologically significant element of a credible deterrent that cannot be achieved with unseen ballistic-missile submarines or ICBMs. Of the current bombers in service, all three airframes are aging and in need of costly repair and upgrades. With the entire fleet of 67 B1-Bs dedicated to conventional operations, as well as a majority of the remaining 62 B-52Hs and 20 B-2s primarily dedicated to conventional operations, the nuclear bomber fleet has dwindled to a record low. Second, down from a 1969 peak of 1,054, the nation?s 450 remaining ICBMs are in a similar condition and, like the bomber fleet, aging rapidly even as they undergo periodic maintenance and upgrades through a number of life extension programs. Additionally, designed in the mid-1960s and fielded between the late 1960s and early 1970s, the nation?s Minuteman IIIs are housed in underground silos, which are in need of replacement. Silo replacement is cost-prohibitive and may lead to further reductions in ICBM numbers or, as some internal debate suggests, movement of Minuteman IIIs above ground. Third, with planning for the Next-Generation Bomber (NGB) still in its early stages within the Pentagon, the current fleet of B-52Hs will be approaching 60 before the NGB is expected to enter service in about 2018. The high development costs, underwhelming performance and high maintenance costs of the B1-B are a primary reason the B-52H remained in service after a smaller-than-expected number of B1-Bs were procured. A second attempt at replacing the B-52H led to the B-2, which cost $44 billion to develop and build 21 aircraft, making the B-2 the most expensive aircraft ever built. Even if the NGB can be developed for half the cost of the B-2, each aircraft will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion. In a constrained fiscal budget, procuring an expensive weapons system may prove to be a difficult proposition. Thus, there may be an opportunity to replace an aging bomber fleet with an advanced weapons system that is affordable ? $150 million per aircraft ? and capable of providing a credible air breathing nuclear deterrent. The ND-UCAV can meet the nation?s 21st century nuclear deterrence requi
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
DarthAmerica       6/3/2009 9:07:06 PM

you miss the point...a CVN or an SSBN have a man making the decision to launch or not, but the CM, or Trident are UNMANNED,,,they do NOT have a man-in-the-loop....the ND-UCAV, as it appears, in this article, will be "flown" to the target by a man-in-the-loop lose that satcom capacity; lose the delivery system.

Lose satcom with a CVN and the system can compensate, lose satcom and the SSBN can launch, or could....

again the systems you have posited, still operate without outside input once launched....

 
That isn't true. Tridents have been flight tested with GPS guidance. They also use INS and star sighting which is outside input. Also, this would not be the only tier in the nuclear arsenal. This is one of several systems and has backups. And again, taking down our SATCOM is not a trivial task. Even then AI is advanced enough to deal with that.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    NAVAJO.   6/3/2009 9:41:58 PM

Can't we achieve the same thing with 2 Cruise Missiles?  I mean they're drones too, and we don't have to develop new ones...

 

An Unmanned but man-in-the-loop UCAV for the nuclear mission is a non-starter.  Once the nuclear war starts we're going to lose the satellite communications that will make it work and therefore it won't work, right?

 

So it will have to be an unmanned, pre-programmed drone, kind of like the ALCM or SLCM so rather than fund a multi-billion dollar follow-on to ALCM or SLCM....let's just build a few more ALCM or SLCM.

 

Seriously, no sarcasm, no irony I'd be interested in Herald's "take" on this as he SEEMS to have a grasp of the technical in's and out's of aviation and electronics....I don't see an UCAV for the Nuclear Delivery mission.

 
Today with our better technology it will work.
 
 
Take your pick.
 
In any event the USAF doctrine remains the same since LeMay formed SAC.  The land-based missile force blasts access corridors open for the MANNED bombers, which are the weapon systems  that do the real actial killing in the event of total war.(they can reload and reattack post BDA.). Adam Lowther thus like so many would be commentators doesn't even know HOW the war machine fights or what the USAF use doctrine is. 
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Then let me be more specific Darth...   6/3/2009 10:49:03 PM
INS and star sighting which is outside input.
 
as you seem wedded to this concept...stellar navigation involves outside inputs, yes...OUTSIDE INPUTS FROM THE LOCATION OF STARS.  Stars will not be moved by the explosion of nuclear weapons here on Earth....GPS and SatCom WILL BE!
 
INS uses the outside input of the FORCES GENERATED BY THE VEHICLE ITSELF  to provide information as to current location!
 
Neither of these things is subject to nuclear attack or the effects of nuclear weapons on electronics.  Satcom is; as is GPS...what about nuclear explosions in space and their effects on satellites?
 
Or high altitude air bursts and their effects on radio wave propagation?  Or how about high altitude air bursts and EMP and its effects on communications devices, i.e., satcoms?  Or how about the destruction of the satellite control centres by nuclear weapons, ("The best ECM is a 500 pound bomb on the radar van.")?  All these seem quite reasonable vulnerabilities in a nuclear conflict....it may have been a while since we thought about MAD and "Bolts Out of the Blue/Gray".  It might be time to dust off your RAND Wheel and begin to re-examine some of the nuclear debates of the 1950's-80's.
 
Even then AI is advanced enough to deal with that.
Really is it?  It's NON-EXISTENT right now, it's even less than vapourware...whereas TerCom isn't....whereas the AI will require billions to write, Tercom has already been developed...it works...on SLCM and ALCM....on a 200 Kt weapon metres of CEP is NOT necessary.
 
And again, taking down our SATCOM is not a trivial task.
 
Really, so when there are a large number of electrons and stripped nuclei from explosions in outer space, those satellites are just going to keep on keeping on....want to bet the safety of the US on it?  We are talking about Nuclear Conflict here, not trading cruise missiles with some Third World Nation...Nuclear COnflict means very little room for error, because errors yield-pardon the pun- MILLIONS OF DEAD AMERICANS
 
ways to ensure reliable communications with the UCAV and they can be as simple as carrying out preprogrammed attacks on specific targets in the event of certain input or lack thereof.
 
Gee you mean like ALCM and SLCM...already in the inventory, not requiring a multi-BILLION dollar development program?
 
BWT, there is no more SAC
 
Yeah, Darth I know...I celebrated its death, for a host of reasons....HOWEVER, for all its flaws and its pernicious effects on the US military; SAC had a number of cardinal virtues...for one thing it was FANATICAL ABOUT NUCLEAR SECURITY (something today's ACC might have taken to heart, but apparently fighter pilots and the wing support units can't be bothered with anything as trivial as nuclear security.)!  For another it was fanatical about getting bombs onto their targets and understood that in nuclear conflict you can't expect ICBM's/SLBM's/SRAM's/ALCM/or gravity bombs or bombers to receive any outside support for their nuclear missions as the world will be in the process of ending...and Deterrence based on the continued existence of communications or navigation support is NOT deterrence at all. 
 
So when I say "SAC" I mean the good ole' days of Curtis LeMay and SAC...not some unmanned UCAV posited by someone who may or may not have thought thru the implications of nuclear combat (by which I mean the author not you), who assumes that nuclear combat will be initiated by the US or will involve very few nuclear weapons...because Curtis LeMay would be asking ole' Adam here the EXACT same questions I'm asking, I believe...and I can only assume that Ole Adam thinks this is a viable approach because the US will be initiating the combat, not responding to nuclear strikes designed to disable US C4I as much as humanly possible, a la the Russians or the PRC.  Further, the proposal seems predicated on the fact that only a few nuclear weapons will be used, that our opponent will not employ hundreds of weapons to DIASABLE the US command and nuclear force structure, prior to any counter-value strikes.  In short this unmanned UCAV  is built on an ASSUMPTION that the US will hold the iniative and that few weapons will be used, mostly by the US on its opponent...whereas once we start talking aobut Nuclear Deterrence it MUST be predicated on a Bolt Out of the Blue on the US forces and robust enough to withstand such an attack....again, we are talking aobut returning to the debates of the 1950's...not the RMA of the 21st Ce
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    JFKY reply   6/4/2009 3:36:20 AM
Allow me to be more specific and sum this issue up. The question you are really asking is how to mitigate against nuclear induced scintillation and associated Reyleigh fading. IOW how to stop the nuke effects on the atmosphere from screwing with the uplink/downlnk. You have to manage signal transmission BW and rate and when you demod you need to be able to integrate the signals at the receiver to make out the data. This is something to DSWA formerly known as the DNA and others work on all the time. As long as the platform is hardened, obviously, and integrated into the NCCS system it will be as robust and survivable as all of the other platforms except it will have the additional capability to carry out it's instructions autonomously in the event of a catastrophic attack that destroys the C2 prior to release. This isn't anything more complicated than the Unmanned option for a NGB.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    No Darth   6/4/2009 6:46:52 AM
Noty just the uplink/downlink...but the entire system...from the control room, to the satellite control room, to the satellite itself.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    JFKY reply   6/4/2009 11:07:52 AM

Noty just the uplink/downlink...but the entire system...from the control room, to the satellite control room, to the satellite itself.

I did discuss the satellites. The critical nodes and spacecraft are all hardened against these effects and have been since the Cold War. That's why their are huge price differences in nuclear capable systems and infrastructure to secure against the threat of EMP. Read about the NCCS. The C2 facilities/systems are double and triple redundant as are the platforms themselves which represent only one part of a triad so that the deterrent is not dependent on one specific delivery system. With regard to physical security is it protected as well. This does not increase vulnerability. It would add to our capability. I can expand on the circumstances if necessary. This is mature deployable technology by next decade.

 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

LB    The Cold War is Over   6/4/2009 5:41:20 PM
Given the end of the Cold War it might be worth examining exactly how important the Triad is.  It might have been USAF doctrine to use ICBM strikes to open the way for bombers during GTNW but the notion there would be any base to return to in order to drop more nukes the next day after BDA is rather incredible given the numbers of warheads we're talking about during the Cold War.
 
It's a matter of opinion that any potential adversary we seek to deter that would not be so deterred by our ICBMs and SLBMs would however be deterred by his perception of our strategic bomber force as viable or not.
 
Frankly developing a new nuclear bomber requires a new generation of nuclear cruise missiles and bombs.  It's not at all clear given trends in numbers of nuclear weapons that we would have very many of these given a minimum number of missile warheads.
 
It's rather surprising that someone who thinks we do not need more F-22s because they are so expensive wants to fund a new nuclear penetrating bomber given current existing redundant capability that is superior do the manned bomber in most respects.  There is no platform nearly as competitive as the F-22, much less superior, and yet for air superiority we should rely on less capable platforms while for nuclear war we suddenly have a compelling rationale to fund the Cold War Triad.  
 
All this aside the notion that the US is going to remove the added redundancy and safety of a human being in the loop with an unmanned nuclear bomber is unrealistic.  It's politically a non starter.  Good luck getting Congress to fund it as they will certainly not.  Moreover, I can not possibly a imagine any weapon system that would be lower on Gate's priority list than a new nuclear penetrating bomber. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/4/2009 7:18:33 PM

Given the end of the Cold War it might be worth examining exactly how important the Triad is.  It might have been USAF doctrine to use ICBM strikes to open the way for bombers during GTNW but the notion there would be any base to return to in order to drop more nukes the next day after BDA is rather incredible given the numbers of warheads we're talking about during the Cold War.

 That we are all still alive, and that nuclear threats still exist, there is no question about the viability of a nuclear triad.

It's a matter of opinion that any potential adversary we seek to deter that would not be so deterred by our ICBMs and SLBMs would however be deterred by his perception of our strategic bomber force as viable or not.

 No, fact actually. Bombers are more flexible and can be FWD deployed publicly as visible warning invisible missiles and SSBNs can't do that. 

Frankly developing a new nuclear bomber requires a new generation of nuclear cruise missiles and bombs.  It's not at all clear given trends in numbers of nuclear weapons that we would have very many of these given a minimum number of missile warheads.

The trend is that we don't test or develop new nukes. This takes EXISTING weapons such as B61 and mates it to a long range delivery systems.
 

It's rather surprising that someone who thinks we do not need more F-22s because they are so expensive wants to fund a new nuclear penetrating bomber given current existing redundant capability that is superior do the manned bomber in most respects.  There is no platform nearly as competitive as the F-22, much less superior, and yet for air superiority we should rely on less capable platforms while for nuclear war we suddenly have a compelling rationale to fund the Cold War Triad.  

 LOL strawman. It's not just because of expense, we don't need them in those numbers. That means buying even one more is not a good idea if you have enough, which we do, and other things are neglected.

All this aside the notion that the US is going to remove the added redundancy and safety of a human being in the loop with an unmanned nuclear bomber is unrealistic.  It's politically a non starter.  Good luck getting Congress to fund it as they will certainly not.  Moreover, I can not possibly a imagine any weapon system that would be lower on Gate's priority list than a new nuclear penetrating bomber. 

No it's not. Men will be in the loop. The AI is an additional option. Do you think the ICBMs have to be launched from the ground personnel manning the sites? There is nothing different except in this case the weapons can move prior to being deployed. For your reference...

E-6B Mercury airborne command post
 
Description
Communications relay and strategic airborne command post aircraft. Provides survivable, reliable, and endurable airborne command, control, and communications between the National Command Authority (NCA) and U.S. strategic and non-strategic forces. Two squadrons, the "Ironmen" of VQ-3 and the "Shadows" of VQ-4 deploy more than 20 aircrews from Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma to meet these requirements.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    1/20th the cost of the B-2?   6/4/2009 7:44:39 PM
Sure, dood tell yourself anything that makes you happy, but there is no way this a/c is going to cost so little....
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/4/2009 7:52:20 PM
No, fact actually. Bombers are more flexible and can be FWD deployed publicly as visible warning invisible missiles and SSBNs can't do that. 

Not so sure its as finite as that.

aircraft, be they manned or unmanned have a basing issue, from that base is calculated their range of operation. it means that there is the basis to start calculating where they are likely to deploy from, and as such likely points of attack.   the very reason why aircraft carriers have validity is that they provide the US with a mobile base where the guarantee of foreign base or overflight access may be at risk (Turkey being a recent valid example).  

The principle advantage of the SSBN and SSGN fleet is that the enemy has to deploy disproportionate force to track and find - and that at any given point they are within 11 minutes of copping a ballistic missile on their territory.  Look at North East Africa as an example.  68 military vessels to police an area of more than 1m sq miles and they cannot cover it off properly.  McMullen has indicated that it would probably need over 1000 military vessels - and thats entering the aspirational 1000 vessel international navy touted 3 years ago (and a long ways off)

also bear in mind that the most powerful single asset in the US military  is the SSGN, more throw, more variety of throw, range, persistence, discretion, projection etc than any other single US military asset' also bear in mind that recent tests have resulted in (real) UAV launches from subs - and an SSGN now does enter the world of becoming an underwater UAS manager as well as ballistic and cruise manager
 
The issue is balance of capability. Unmanned is a long way off from being able to pick up some of the responsibility of mission delivery currently employed by direct man managed assets.  They're not ready to supplant some of the other delivery systems by a long shot.  Unmanned - like every other weapons delivery platform - should be seen as a complimentary weapons delivery system - not as a replacement for systems that at this point in time - and certainly in the proposed US delivery time frames for system and platform "fusion" - the near future.  

 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy