Defense Secretary demands Congress fund new nuclear weapons program, offers veiled threats on testin

reply to post by Harlequin


Thanks for the great info.

Originally posted by ANNED
The weapons we have now were build when we could hit within 500 feet of the target,
now we can hit within 5 feet with GPS guidance systems

With a bomb that hits within 5 feet you do not need a yield of 50 to 100 KT
that was great for the bombs that could hit within 500 feet.

20 years ago to take out a C3 bunker you needed to hit it with a 100KT weapon.

Now you use a 5KT GPS guided nuclear deep penetrating bunker buster.

Yes we need to up grade our nukes to reduce there yield and improve the guidance systems to be able to take out there target without a excess of collateral damage.

I don't know about that - you need to check your sources. Lobbing a 5Kt nuclear device several thousand miles is a terrific waste of money and nuclear material. Do-able, but not practical. I have been concerned with the state of the arsenal but thankfully Gates has the good sense to shine some light on the subject.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by ACEMANN]

reply to post by Harlequin and ACEMANN

who said all our nuclear weapons are missile based.
we have many aircraft dropped nukes.
en.wikipedia.org...


we have built gps guided smart bombs that are a lot more accurate then 1.5 meters. try 85 cm

The weapon demonstrated its range in May with an 88 km flight from an altitude of 30,000 feet, hitting within 85 cm of its target.

this has been tested on the joint air force/navy small diameter bomb project.

Boeing completed SDB development testing in September 2005. In development testing, 37 SDBs were released against fixed targets. Thirty-five weapons were successful, each hitting within an average of 1.1 m from its surveyed target aim-point. Key tests included the single-pass release of four bombs against four separate targets, at a range of 37 km. The weapon demonstrated its range in May with an 88 km flight from an altitude of 30,000 feet, hitting within 85 cm of its target. In a test with effective GPS jamming in May, a bomb flew 56 km and landed within 2 m of its designated impact point, using its inertial measurement unit and onboard logic to overcome jamming.

The secret to the SDB's precision is the Accuracy Support Infrastructure (ASI), developed and supported by SRI International. Based on USAF technology programmes from the 1990s, this comprises ground stations that detect errors in GPS and transmit correction signals. ASI stations can be located up to 2,400 km apart, making it possible to cover an entire theatre from neutral or friendly territory. This improvement in accuracy is applicable to any GPS weapon with the correct receiver.

www.strategypage.com...

once you have the system to drop smart bombs this accurate the engineering to build longer range weapons is not far behind,
this includes ICBM warheads.

the navy is allready working on systems to use this on ship-launched missiles and artillery rounds for the marines.

The next step after that would be sub launched nukes.

the navy has a long history of working on developing a guidance system to drop a nuke warhead on the door of a enemy nuke missile silo with a sub launched ICBM.

the shorter range systems are the first step.

as for penetration

the best a penetrator can `dig` into rock is around50 meters , using a secant ogive shape with rocket assistance.

With a guidance system that has accuracy of 2 meters or less you could drop 4 or more conventional GPS guided bombs one after another down the same hole (crater in crater) and then put a very low yield .5 TO 5KT nuke down the hole this would put the nuke over 200 feet underground





[edit on 31-10-2008 by ANNED]

Originally posted by ACEMANN
the reality is that there are evil people in this world, with access to WMD; be they nuclear, biological, or chemical.

Yeah, don't most of them work from government compounds in a place called Washington DC?

reply to post by ANNED


the technology required to drop a gps guided and maneuverable bomb is vastly different to a nuclear warhead which (at least in the case of the usa) doesn`t maneuver


you won`t fly a manned system over a silo and expect it to live

to manuver a bomb , which `flies` at subsonic speeds you put wings on it - to maneuver a warhead which reenters at mach 14 - you have to use thrust veins , and the US hasn`t developed this technology as yet (though the russians have)

it doesn`t matter if the seeker is amazing , when it just looks around and can`t effect the flight path

as for your small bomb theory - 5kt explosion doesn`t do much , watch the video i linked - thats operation plowshare SEDAN shot , of a shallow burst - 100 feet down

upload.wikimedia.org...

1/2 mile wide and 300 feet deep - AFTER being buried 600 feet down!

but the good news is the RNEP has been cancelled - its a shallow or even surface burst - and the repocusions would have been nuclear is reply, and as proven during plowshare - a 100KT shot is only a 4.7 richter scale shockwaves - which buildings are designed to survive.


it doesn`t matter if you can drop it within 90m or 1m - a deep buried target would survive.


but as i said at the start -its a moot point as the technology for guideing a bomb is vastly different to guideing a mach 14 warhead.

[edit on 31/10/08 by Harlequin]