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       6/5/2009 6:10:17 AM


tread softly, slowly, responsibly.  people need to pull back and pause on the spin generated from some in industry... 


Agree to disagree. This is definitely not spin. I say that from the "geek" point of view. If we want this, we can have it NLT 2020 and probably 3 to 5 years sooner. Also if necessary we could do it right now by integrating existing tech. I do agree though that it will be hard to get passed institutional resistance and even if they could make it, actual deployment would be hard to sell to some.  This is a good case for Black Program.

 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       6/5/2009 8:32:40 AM







Routes and plans can be pre-programmed with a pre-programmed RTB if the UCAV does indeed lose contact, it does happen.







and yet the US has lost a significant number of  UAV's ober afghanistan even with todays level of technology surety.




these losses have occurred on special operations as well as normal oversight, kill, persist and in unmolested space.  that includes benign space where there has been no enemy electronic molestation.  this was with  UAV's that did have RTB encoded or encoded to return to the last comms point.




its made the chinese happy, and its made afghani warlords wealthier....




there are still substantial practical issues to be addressed, no matter what spin the vendors put on it.








Yes and we lost enough money in B-2A and B-1B crashes to buy 2 dozen of these things. I've recovered crashed UAS so I understand how frequently this happens. But by the end of the next decade, these UA will be much more reliable and no more vulnerable to electronic molestation than any one of several dozen platforms that operates in hostile territory. You can plot out the UA failure rate over time. It's getting substantially better and by the timeframe of something like this at the current rate it would be likely to exceed even manned platforms class A mishap performance. Fact is you have Generals, Admirals and SecDefs all talking about this...SERIOUSLY. And to Congress no less. So it's not just me. The only real issue is will we trust these task to machines anymore than we do. THATS IT.

 

-DA















Really? You want to compare crashes of manned bombers to crashes of UCAS's? UCAS's that, oh by the way, you want to put nukes on? You might want to think about that for a minute. The loss rates of UAVs is much greater than manned aircraft, and now you want to put nukes on them all based on cost? Really?

I agree with gf, this is a lot of industry spin. With numbers being published by people with MBAs not with experience in actual nuclear operations. It's cost X if you lose a B-1B with a nuke, but it will only cost Y if you lose a UCAS with a nuke, see it saves you money. Nevermind the fact that you're more likely to lose the UCAS and have nuclear weapons out of your control. But hey, if it saves you money, it's good to go right?

 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       6/5/2009 8:37:57 AM
Oh and if you think they are no more vulnerable to "electronic molestation" then you really haven't been paying attention when it comes to SIOP comms exercises. I won't say anymore on that.

Congress  is talking about it! What is there expertise exactly?
SECDEF is talking about it! What is his expertise exactly?
Generals and Admirals are talking about it! Yep, and they "grew up" as O-5s to O-9s in a world where the importance of our nuclear arsenal wasn't stressed. In a time when we dismantled SAC. That's what I mean about a lack of experience/perspective.
 
Besides, I've seen what industry sells to the Stars and the difference of what is delivered to the "deck plates." Industry routinely overpromises and underdelivers. But hey the Stars don't care, because by the time their pet program has been delivered they're in another job or are retried.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/5/2009 12:54:08 PM

Oh and if you think they are no more vulnerable to "electronic molestation" then you really haven't been paying attention when it comes to SIOP comms exercises. I won't say anymore on that.

It's not necessary for you to. Notice I don't typically ask for elaboration. This is because I'm already familiar and I'm confident enough in my own knowledge based on my experience and profession that I'm confidently able to tell you a purpose built UCAV would not be any more vulnerable. I don't mean to imply that you have to accept or believe that. This is just my opinion and we simply differ. The way it stands now we have about 6 to 9 years before either of us can prove conclusively to each other one way or the other. However, as I mentioned earlier, as the systems I keep describing come online, and you have some of the most senior defense officials confirming the things I post about, you cannot say that it's just me. Either everyone that matters in defense is incapable of doing their job and making assessments, or there is some validity to the things I'm saying. It's up to you to decide which. Either way, this is doable and if it can get past the institutional bias against allowing unmanned aircraft that can RTB to carry nukes, you will see this by the end of next decade. Unmanned aircraft have carried nukes for a long time...

 

...just like now people squirmed and said no way ect ect and now its not even an issue.
 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Darth    6/5/2009 1:14:51 PM
It's not the UCAV per se.....it's the effect of the large-scale use of nuclear weapons upon the command & control SYSTEM that I worry about...
 
No one has fought a nuclear war, ever...we have NO idea what the effects of EMP and atmospheric and space burst of nuclear weapons will be on anyone's ability to effectively command weapons in a nuclear war.
 
All I can say is that nuclear WEAPONS design has had more than a few "surprises."  One weapon that yielded far more than it's expected yield because the designers underestimated the neutron capture cross section...the Poseidon warhead that would NOT explode because of a faulty arming switch, the W-80 warhead of the ALCM that would "fizzle" because it was subject to prolonged freezing temperatures on the B-52's.  None of these were foreseen...and yet you rather blithely assert/assume that an entire SYSTEM is going to function, in one of the most hostile electronic and transmission environments possible.
 
I am simply not that confident.  And I certainly don't believe an AI is going to be able to perform nearly as well as you think or that one can be written for anything less than a huge amount of money, or that the entire SYSTEM, warhead, AI, communications link(s), airframe, engines, avionics, and support material can be produced for 1/20th the cost of the B-2....
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/5/2009 1:43:13 PM

It's not the UCAV per se.....it's the effect of the large-scale use of nuclear weapons upon the command & control SYSTEM that I worry about...

 

No one has fought a nuclear war, ever...we have NO idea what the effects of EMP and atmospheric and space burst of nuclear weapons will be on anyone's ability to effectively command weapons in a nuclear war.

 

All I can say is that nuclear WEAPONS design has had more than a few "surprises."  One weapon that yielded far more than it's expected yield because the designers underestimated the neutron capture cross section...the Poseidon warhead that would NOT explode because of a faulty arming switch, the W-80 warhead of the ALCM that would "fizzle" because it was subject to prolonged freezing temperatures on the B-52's.  None of these were foreseen...and yet you rather blithely assert/assume that an entire SYSTEM is going to function, in one of the most hostile electronic and transmission environments possible.

 

I am simply not that confident.  And I certainly don't believe an AI is going to be able to perform nearly as well as you think or that one can be written for anything less than a huge amount of money, or that the entire SYSTEM, warhead, AI, communications link(s), airframe, engines, avionics, and support material can be produced for 1/20th the cost of the B-2....



JFKY,

Fear of EMP are greatly exaggerated and there are well established methods for protecting against it. When I referenced cost I was comparing the 100 to 150 million dollar cost of the unit cost of the ND-UCAV itself vs the unit cost of a B-2. It goes without saying a modern UCAV will be cheaper to operate than a B-2.

Also, you are factually incorrect when you say no one has fought a nuclear war. In fact if anything the USA and Japanese have actually fought a nuclear war and have a ton of data on the matter. Not to mention an entire Cold War where the Earth had no less than 2000 detonations from subkiloton to greater than 50 megatons. Does this mean everything is perfect? No. But we have enough data to make this a reliable weapons system. Again, I already showed you a C2 aircraft that can remotely launch ICBMs that cannot be recalled and take a mere half hour to reach their targets. I showed CMs that carry nukes as well over friendly territory and people trust that. What's the hang up here?
 

With regard to AI, no question it's mature enough for this role. You have to remember about AI. It's written for specific task. We aren't trying to write code that can raise a child, grill chicken or have a personality. We are simply needing to cover the proper if then conditions that will allow the ND-UCAV to carry out it's mission or abort and RTB if the proper conditions aren't met for weapons release. It's something you test and refine. We do this all the time and I'm intimately familiar with the porting process. It can be as simple as your cars GPS and upon arrival at a specific point release a weapon or much more complicated and able to avoid IADs, compensate for damage and destroy/disarm it's payload if necessary to prevent compromise.

The reason people aren't comfortable with this is because of the destructive potential associated with nuclear weapons and newness of UCAV's, associated reliability and inability of direct supervision. Valid concerns but certainly not insurmountable and certainly not within IMMEDIATE grasp. It like any other new technology simple requires reliable program managment and development to insure the design meets intent and works as advertised.


 


-DA
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Darth, you are far more sanguine about this than I am...   6/5/2009 2:57:39 PM

Fear of EMP are greatly exaggerated and there are well established methods for protecting against it.
Really, considering that EMP wasn't thought about until well into the 1950's with some the high altitude bursts, IIRC Star Fish, Star Fish Prime, and Star Fish Double-Prime...and was discovered when Honolulu lost electrical power after the air bursts at altitude; you are confident that we understand it and can protect against it?  On what empirical basis, some testing on the world's largest balsa wood structure?  Some theoretical work, and some safeguards put into place.  That's like saying we have thought about the threat of chemical weapons and we understand them...in 1914.  I'm sorry this is one where we will simply have to agree to disagree....I simply do not buy the airy dismissal of the threat, a threat we have NEVER faced and so have NO WAY OF ASCERTAINING THE PROTECTIONS, IF ANY, OUR COUNTER-MEASURES OFFER.


When I referenced cost I was comparing the 100 to 150 million dollar cost of the unit cost of the ND-UCAV itself vs the unit cost of a B-2. It goes without saying a modern UCAV will be cheaper to operate than a B-2.
Again, you are more sanguine than I.  Why would the unit cost, to include R&D be so low?  This is going to be the next generation bomber, not just the next generation nuclear delivery system.  I think you seriously underestimate TOTAL cost, to be distinguished from the cost per a/c to produce.  Will a modern UAV be cheaper to operate?  You still have personnel costs and maintenance costs.
 
Also, you are factually incorrect when you say no one has fought a nuclear war. In fact if anything the USA and Japanese have actually fought a nuclear war and have a ton of data on the matter.
Uh, no Darth the US and Japan did NOT fight a nuclear war...two nuclear weapons were employed by the United States.  A "war" would be where the Japanese employed nuclear weapons, in response to or in pre-emption of, the US use of nuclear weapons.  Augst 1945 was a "nuclear agression" by the US against the Japanese.  It was no more a "war" thant he Holocaust was a German-Jewish "War."  When ony one side fights, it's not a war.
Not to mention an entire Cold War where the Earth had no less than 2000 detonations from subkiloton to greater than 50 megatons.
Many of which occured underground, not in the air, certainly not at high altitude.  And as a nuclear war might well see the explosion of 2,000 such weapons in a day, rather than over decades I'm not sure that that is an adequate example.

Does this mean everything is perfect? No. But we have enough data to make this a reliable weapons system. Again, I already showed you a C2 aircraft that can remotely launch ICBMs that cannot be recalled and take a mere half hour to reach their targets.
 And people such as Kosta Tsipis wondered if the Looking Glass a/c or the silo's would be able to withstand the EMP, then....it was always ASSUMED/HOPED they would...but there was never any certainty.  And Looking Glass was the back-up...the launch crews and their hard wired launch keys were always the PRIMARY launch initiator.

I showed CMs that carry nukes as well over friendly territory and people trust that. What's the hang up here?
Quote    Reply

Monkeysee099    JFKY, DA   6/5/2009 3:21:34 PM
-DA is right in that this could actually be done now.  An MQ-9 could conceivably carry a nuke right now.  The UCAV, and I prefer to not use the term AI, its really basic programming logic (if - then), will be more survivable, its logic will be more robust, and its technology more reliable. 
 
-JFKY brought very valid concerns about comm integrity in a nuke environment.  Even without a nuke environment  comms get lost.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Invalid    6/5/2009 5:37:20 PM
It must be wonderful being able to create a set of questions where "all challenges" and "all questions" become "invalid" by your mere assertion.  You'll forgive me, or anyone else, for thinking what purpose is served by attempting to discuss anything with you since have all the answers .  You'll further forgive me for my incredulity that someone that works at DOD would ever even imagine that "all questions of cost are invalid" given that 'all costs rise' is almost a truism at DOD. 
 
 
 Other than that, all challenges with regard to technological feesibility are invalid, all challenges with regards to COMMS architecture vulnerability are invalid, all questions of cost are invalid ect. Not that I don't respect those of you who disagree, but in my opinion you are clearly wrong. In fact, in a hurry, the DoD could put a nuclear armed UCAV in the air before the end of summer if necessary. Maybe faster. It would be crude, but could be done. Extend that timeline out to 2018 or so and a fully functional feature complete N-UCAS could be operational. Of course that assumes the funding is there. Any doubters should refer to the fact that the USAF is already looking into something just like this.




-DA

 
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       6/5/2009 6:27:24 PM
Well, one person here thinks an ALCM with a range of 1500miles fired from a manned bomber on a one way mission is somehow equivalent to a nuclear armed UCAS. We didn't launch ALCMs and SRAMs and other nuclear armed cruise missiles except to test them. We don't launch a cruise missile as a show of force or in a response to an increase in DEFCON. We weren't worried about recalling a cruise missile that is what its bomber launch platform was for.  A nuclear armed UCAS would have to be launched more often and fly greater distances than a cruise missile. If we lost an ALCM over uncontrolled territory that would have been the least of our worries. More important would have been the nuclear weapons exploding all across the planet. If we have a UCAS lost, which is more likely to happen than with a manned bomber then we have a major incident like that over Georgia or the Med.
 
One person here thinks that dropping two A-bombs on a country that had none, bombs that burst at 1850ft is the same thing as nuclear war. One person here thinks that two bombs, dropped from B-29s, which had little sensor ability some 64 years ago thinks that gave us "tons of data."
 
If you believe that, he has a UAV to sell you. Don't believe any different. Sure we could
 
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