SM-64 NAVAJO... 

 

Today with our better technology it will work.

 

Or the SM-62 SNARK... 

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

Gee you mean like ALCM and SLCM...already in the inventory, not requiring a multi-BILLION dollar development program?

 

 

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

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 

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

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. 

 

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.



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...