Lets make fun of Obama while he is still relevant.

[Warren Dew]

(11-28-2016, 02:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-28-2016, 12:28 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In addition to all that, he has been reinvigorating our nuclear forces.

Where in the world do you get that idea?  The bulk of our nuclear triad is still composed of Tridents, Minuteman IIIs, and B-52s, which all date back to Reagan or before.  There have been ongoing studies about the next generation of weapons, but no money allocated to building them - not even to replace B-52s with B-2s, which Obama could have done without waiting for development time.

It would be nice to see money freed up for Trident and Minuteman III replacements, but getting that through Congress may not be easy.

Bombs deteriorate with age.  When refined to weapons grade, even if the fissionable materials aren't at critical mass, the half life is short enough that you want to replace the weapon every once in a while.  Much of the recent work on the nuclear forces has been to replace old bombs with new, to insure that they will function as intended.

Sure.  Tritium has a 12 year half life, so fusion warheads have to be replaced every few years.  As you note, though, this is an ongoing process; there wasn't anything special Obama was doing.

Quote:Why would one want a better delivery platform the Tridents or Minutemen IIIs?  How would you improve them?  Missiles also have limited lives.  They can only sit in their holes for so long before one wants to replace them.  Last I knew this was an ongoing process.

With respect to the Tridents, like all ships, submarines wear out eventually.  They will need to be replaced starting in 2031 or so.  There have been significant advances in submarine technology since the Tridents were designed - some of which were used in the Seawolf and Virginia class attack submarines - so it makes sense to incorporate those advances in the Trident replacements.

The Peacekeeper was an improvement over the Minuteman III, but they may be restricted by treaty.

Quote:The aircraft third of the triad is the most vulnerable to an active defense.  It might be cheapest.  You can reuse the delivery platform.  A B2 is pretty survivable stealth wise.  Wiki says 20 of them remain in service.  That would be adequate for small strikes.  Grand strikes would be apt to use the missiles, may the lord forbid.

While the B 52 still has its uses, I wouldn't use one for a nuke mission unless one has complete control of the air over the target.  They are old, slow, and designed well before modern stealth technology.  Still, if one does have control of the air, and we expect such in the sort of war we have been fighting recently, they will do the job relatively cheaply.

Northrop Grumman is currently working on a project originally called the Long Range Bomber, now called the B 21.  The project was initiated in 2009 and was awarded to Northrop Grumman in 2015.  They are hoping to build 80 to 100 planes, with the first arriving around 2025.  After recent aircraft such as the B1, B2, and F-35 really pushed the state of the art resulting in massive cost overruns and few aircraft being produced, the B 21 is designed around existing technology.  The aircraft looks much like a B 2 or a stealth fighter.  Hopefully the relatively conservative design won't result in massive overruns.  Perhaps we can afford to build the full run.

Of course, the greatest problem with Obama upgrading the nuclear force is that the nuclear codes are about to be given to somebody else.

Actually building the B-21 sounds like it would be good.  No need to repeat the F-35 boondoggle fiasco, of course.