New Fast-Attack Nuclear Submarines to be Named Arizona and Oklahoma

[HalcyonDaze]

One of the other oddball trivia bits regarding Polaris is that it was seriously considered for use on surface ships; USS Long Beach (CGN-9) was at one point slated to have four Polaris silos amidships (the space was later used to belatedly add some 5" gun mounts to what had been an all-missile design). A few proposals to complete the Iowa-class battleship USS Kentucky (BB-66) and the Alaska-class large cruiser USS Hawaii (CB-3) in the late 1950s also included Polaris silos; those hulls were scrapped incomplete instead.

This came up again in the early 1960s when President Kennedy proposed a multinational NATO force of 25 surface ships hosting 200 Polaris missiles; in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis it was abandoned. Italy went as far as to outfit four cruisers for Polaris tubes and work on a domestic version (Alfa) that was test-launched but eventually cancelled in 1975 to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

 

[Jared0425]

I meant Trident SLBM, not Posiedon.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I meant Trident SLBM, not Posiedon.

This has some info on the Trident acquisition process: Trident (UK nuclear programme) - Wikipedia

Short form, it seems like the main hesitation on the US end early on was that the SALT II agreement with the Soviets was awaiting Senate ratification. That was to impose limits on Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) and the Carter Administration thought the Soviets wouldn't look kindly on the US selling exactly that tech to the UK with the Trident I C4. SALT II died with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 1979; after that it was a matter of haggling over the price tag and exactly what missiles got provided (Trident I C4 being replaced with Trident II D5 after Reagan took over). Some of the pre-Falklands cuts to the RN were directly because of the Trident II acquisition costs.

Worth mentioning that throughout the Cold War we also had the dual-key system with many NATO countries whereby the US provided nuclear weapons that required US authority to arm, but the button would actually be pushed by non-US personnel on non-US delivery systems. In addition to nuclear bombs that could be fitted to various German, Belgian, Italian, Turkish, etc. aircraft this included Thor, Jupiter, and Pershing intermediate and medium-range ballistic missiles operated by NATO countries. Nowadays it seems the US is not in the business of wiring foreign-made aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon to drop US nukes; whether that's due to security concerns or pushing Boeing and LockMart's aircraft export sales is anyone's guess.

 

[Jared0425]

and the Carter Administration thought the Soviets wouldn't look kindly on the US selling exactly that tech to the UK with the Trident I C4.

That's where my memory of the reticence of the US SLBMs came from. There was no point in reducing MIRVs when both allies and adversaries have progressed the technology while we pretended to limit them. Both the Typhoon and Tornado can carry BB63's.

But reading a bunch of stuff from the Drive and Defense 1, we have no boats to spare to share and construction delays are making us keep the 688s and Ohio's longer than expected.

 

[formernuke]

Don't forget the tomahawk can also carry a nuke and we have the SSGN's......

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Don't forget the tomahawk can also carry a nuke and we have the SSGN's......

The nuclear Tomahawks (the naval TLAM-N and the ground-launched GLCM) were pulled out of the ordnance racks after the Soviet Union fell apart (GLCM went a litle earlier after the INF Treaty; Wikipedia says TLAM-N left service about 10 years ago but back in 1992 they were reportedly no longer deployed per executive order from George H.W. Bush). The Navy also stopped carrying tactical nukes on their ships, or at least that was what was publicly stated (as of 1997-1998 the plan was to pull the Marine security detachments off the carriers that were responsible for nuclear weapons security). I seem to recall the TLAM-Ns were remanufactured into conventional Block III land-attack missiles; more recently there were debates about funding a new ship/sub-launched nuclear cruise missile but I don't think that's progressed.

The SSGNs as stated earlier are actually the closest thing we now have to the "arsenal ship" concept from the early 1990s; they're in very high demand as conventional strike, special operations, and surveillance ships (they retain the Blue/Gold crew structure from their boomer days and are some of the most active boats in the fleet). Given that the Tomahawk has regained an antiship capability and those tubes can carry all sorts of other fun toys like drones, nukes would be a waste. The Navy figures if they want to ruin someone's day with a nuke, the rest of the boomers carry a couple Tridents with reduced numbers/yields of warheads that can do the job faster and from farther away.

Navy Plans For 'Large Payload Subs' Based On New Columbia Class To Take On SSGN Role And More

The service is also eying a new sub-launched ballistic missile to replace Trident and could end up expanding its nuclear deterrent capabilities.

www.thedrive.com

That's where my memory of the reticence of the US SLBMs came from. There was no point in reducing MIRVs when both allies and adversaries have progressed the technology while we pretended to limit them. Both the Typhoon and Tornado can carry BB63's.

But reading a bunch of stuff from the Drive and Defense 1, we have no boats to spare to share and construction delays are making us keep the 688s and Ohio's longer than expected.

Eurofighter Typhoon is not cleared for the US B-61 nuclear bombs stockpiled under the NATO Nuclear Sharing Agreement; this was why Germany announced it was adding 30+ F-35As to the Luftwaffe last year as Tornado replacements (Tornado is cleared for the B-61, but those birds are in "honk if parts fall off" condition). Otherwise they would have bought local; whether there were severe technical hurdles to adding the capability to Typhoon or the US just wanted to push the F-35 or F/A-18E/F is open to speculation. I liked Christopher Bergs's response to a commenter who suggested purchasing Rafales and ASMP nuclear cruise missiles from France - "... and Franco-German friendship has come a long way since the Second World War. We are as tight as ever ... but the French are not going to give Germany a nuclear bomb."

 

[formernuke]

The nuclear Tomahawks (the naval TLAM-N and the ground-launched GLCM) were pulled out of the ordnance racks after the Soviet Union fell apart

Are you absolutely sure about that, hint, hint

 

[MidOH]

I keep one in my living room as a coffee table. Good source of Helium to.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Are you absolutely sure about that, hint, hint

https://web.archive.org/web/20140709001733/https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/03/tomahawk/

"After the unilateral retirement of the SUBROC, ASROC, and Terrier missiles, the navy was left with B61 and B57 bombs on aircraft carriers and land-based anti-submarine aircraft, as well as the TLAM/N. Work initially continued on the B90 NSDB (nuclear strike and depth bomb) to replace the naval B61 and B57, but in September 1991 president George H.W. Bush unilaterally cancelled the program and ordered the offloading and withdrawal of all non-strategic nuclear weapons.

The Clinton administration’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review followed up by denuclearizing the entire surface fleet, leaving only TLAM/N for some of the navy’s attack submarines. The missiles were stored on land, however, and never made it back to sea.

In the early part of the George W. Bush administration, the navy wanted to retire the TLAM/N, but some officials in the National Security Council and the Office of the Secretary of Defense insisted that the weapon was needed for certain missions in defense of allied countries. As a result, the TLAM/N survived the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, and up through 2005 the navy continued to test launch the missile from attack submarines.

Some official and lobbyists tried to protect the TLAM/N during the 2009 Congressional Strategic Posture Commission process, but they failed. The Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review determined that the TLAM/N should finally be retired because it was redundant."

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Speaking of which ...