"The 1980s Called. They Don’t Need Their Cruise ..." Topic

..Missiles Back.

"Lest anyone think that Barack Obama defanged America's nuclear deterrent, we should all rest assured. The nuclear triad of submarines, land-based missiles and nuclear-armed bombers remains, just as it has for over 50 years. The Navy is going to produce a new ballistic missile sub. The Air Force would like to upgrade the ICBM force. The contract for the follow-on to the B2 bomber was announced just last week. If you'd gone into a coma the night the Berlin Wall fell and woken up 25 years later, you wouldn't notice much difference other than lower numbers. The structures and strategies remain intact.

Those strategies are so persistent that once again, the United States is gearing up for a debate on yet another weapons system from another era. Apparently, the nuclear-armed B-2 and its stealth capabilities are not enough to guarantee our nuclear deterrent, at least not for advocates of a new nuclear air-launched cruise missile (what used to be called ALCMs). The "Long Range Standoff" (now blessed with the new acronym LRSO) would be the follow-on to the cruise missiles meant to be launched by bombers against the old USSR during World War III…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Good news!

Good news for the arms industry which most likely are related to the generals.
How many nuclear bombs would be needed to prove mine is bigger than yours?

How many nuclear bombs would be needed to prove mine is bigger than yours?

Not something you ever want to see tested. Once those are dropped on the table there will be no one left to do the measuring.

Current cruise missiles are upgraded versions of '80's era subsonic Tomahawks and ALCMs. With the development of supersonic cruise missiles by China and Russia I don't have a problem with this.

It certainly makes more sense than, say, developing a new stealth bomber.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I don't see the need for bomber-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. What is the use case that can't be met with greater speed/security/survivability/cost-effectiveness by SLBMs and ICBMs?

A flexible response that can't be gamed is the case, ensuring peace through superior firepower.

A flexible response that can't be gamed is the case

If the scenario "can't be gamed", then how can anyone develop parameters/metrics by which to design, test, and deploy the new hardware?

Superior firepower isn't necessary to secure peace between nuclear states, merely mutual extermination-level firepower…which has been the status quo vs Russia/China for decades. Additional assets above/beyond that level are a misallocation of resources.

Actually, here's ONE use case: deployment of tactical nukes in a non-total-war scenario. Launching an ICBM or SLBM might trigger a nuclear state to respond in kind, but a bomber throwing a single nuclear-tipped cruise missile, possibly at a target in a non-nuclear state, shouldn't lead to a world-destroying escalation. Upgrading to new supersonic missiles might be necessary to evade increasingly sophisticated SAM systems.

Good news for the arms industry which most likely are related to the generals.

This is no 3d World dictatorship. The Generals and Admirals, rarely are related to CEOs, etc., by blood or marriage in the arms industry. Regardless of how ones feels about employment of Nucs. Which I think we all can agree would be a horrendous turn of events.

I don't see the need for bomber-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. What is the use case that can't be met with greater speed/security/survivability/cost-effectiveness by SLBMs and ICBMs?

Recallability in case of a false alarm.

Cruise missiles mean bombers to deliver them to launch points. Bombers can be recalled at any point up to the drop.

ICBMs/SLBMs? Those hit about 30 minutes after word go, with zero option to not have them go boom.

It would be good to have supersonic cruise missiles for both nuclear and conventional kaboom.

I thought this was going to be about Tom Cruise.

The Generals and Admirals, rarely are related to CEOs, etc., by blood or marriage in the arms industry.

You are right about the lack of blood relations….the crony capitalist method is to give retiring senior officers board positions and "consulting fees" after they hook your company up with contracts.

And that, for better or worse, is the way it works and business has been done that way for some time. One of the faults of human nature and Capitalism or Communism for that matter. Don't know how it could even be stopped. Even Ike warned about the Military-Industrial Complex decades ago.