Ace of Spades HQ

June 02, 2010

Defense Notes....Of Nukes, Future Fighters And Budgets
— DrewM

One of the things that bothers me about the whole DADT debate is that it takes up what little attention most people pay to real defense related issues.

The public's imagination may never be captured by discussions about nuclear warhead procurement but perhaps it should. You see, while Obama is running around cutting our nuclear inventory, it turns out a lot of the weapons we already have are getting old and are in need of replacement. Unfortunately, there is no appetite for that from this President or Congress.

Still, John Noonan writing at the Weekly Standard makes the case for "New Nukes".

The need for modernization is pressing. Though most of the details about AmericaÂ’s warhead stockpiles are highly classified, there are a few key points well known to close observers. Most of our nuclear warheads are 20-30 years old. The last weapon was constructed in 1991 and the last test detonation of a bomb occurred in 1992. The average age of an operational bomb is slightly over 30 years old, meaning many of our deployed warheads were built before President Reagan took office. Scientists who specialize in warhead construction and sustainment are aging and retiring at an alarming rate. By 2008, over half the nuclear specialists at our national laboratories were over the age of 50, and very few of those under 50 have the technical know-how to produce and sustain functional weapons. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates estimated that within a few years, roughly three-fourths of our nuclear technicians will be at retirement age. The National Nuclear Security Administration, a Department of Energy subagency responsible for the security and health of our stockpile, has lost over a quarter of its workforce since the end of the Cold War. Components in our warheads are aging just as fast. We no longer possess the capacity or ability to construct certain parts required in our bomb designs.
Nuclear weapons are different from conventional munitions, which can sometimes detonate decades after they roll off the assembly lines. Nukes have a limited shelf life, and are constructed using parts that decay and corrode. Warheads must be constantly maintained and serviced to be considered credible. But along with the exodus of critical lab technicians, so went the industry that supported our national laboratories with key bomb-making components. Older weapons are now cannibalized to service the active force.

As you cut down the numbers of nuclear weapons (as this administration is dedicated to), their reliability, more importantly how reliable your potential adversaries think they are, takes on a greater importance.

As we lose critical nuclear weapon infrastructure, including people, things actually can become more dangerous not less.

Too many liberals engage in wishful thinking, that if only these horrible weapons (and they are that) would go away everything would be better. Well, the world isn't that simple. Never has been, never will be.

Any serious debate about our strategic security simply has to include an upgrade of our nuclear stockpile.

A second story not getting much attention is the over budget and behind schedule F-35 JSF program.

This plane is supposed to be work horse of the future (at least until UCAVs are ready). The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are each getting their own version and many of our allies have signed up for it as well.

Turns out things aren't going so well.

The projected cost of Lockheed Martin Corp.Â’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive U.S. weapons program, is now $382 billion, 65 percent higher than the $232 billion estimated when the program started in 2002, according to a government official.
This projection from independent Pentagon analysts is being sent to Congress today.
The PentagonÂ’s cost-analysis office reports that the price per plane -- including research, development and construction costs -- is now $112.4 million, the official said. ThatÂ’s about 81 percent over the original estimate of $62 million.
The production cost alone of each plane is estimated at $92.4 million, almost 85 percent higher than the $50 million projected when the program began in 2002, the Pentagon will tell Congress.
...The program is already four years behind schedule on key milestones, including completing the development phase and combat testing, beginning full-scale production and then declaring the first Air Force and Navy units ready for combat.

Oops.

The delays have forced the Navy to enter into a multi-year program buy of F/A-18 Hornets.

Good thing we canceled the really expensive F-22. We didn't need that because the Chinese aren't going to have a 5th generation fighter anytime soon.

Oops again!

We are faced with shrinking defense spending at a time when a lot of bills are coming due after close to a decade of 2 wars, ships built during the 80' and early 90's coming up for retirement and an Air Force with some really old airframes.

The need for the US military to be ready and engaged around the world isn't going to decrease anytime soon but the resources available to meet those missions may not be there in the future. These challenges and choices are the kind of priority setting people need to talk about because political support is going to have to be marshaled to avoid some real disasters.

Building a military on future projections is a losing game, the unexpected will always win. That's why you can't ever build 'just enough' because no one knows what that means. It's expensive being a superpower but it beats the alternative.

Now that I think about it, I can see why many people would rather talk about DADT. Compared the real challenges we are facing, that's pretty simple stuff.

(FTR- My annoyance at the disproportional coverage DADT gets over real defense issues has nothing to do with my stand on it. I don't think I have one actually beyond a firm belief the men and women of the military will deal with whatever hand the politicians deal them.

To my mind, it's simply an issue that gets way to much coverage compared to its actual importance.)

Posted by: DrewM at 10:42 AM | Comments (125)
Post contains 1021 words, total size 7 kb.

I'm sure the Soetero administration would much rather have the public talking about DADT than its apparent dereliction of duty when it comes to national defense.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 02, 2010 10:47 AM (DrWcr)

It's ok, Obama promised that everyone in the world will like us again.

Oops.

Posted by: EC at June 02, 2010 10:48 AM (mAhn3)

3 No offense to our ghey moron and moronettes (I love ya )but you don't protect the country and win wars by social engineering the military.

Last I heard overwhelming military force, blowing shit up and killing people usually gets you one in the W column.

Posted by: mpfs at June 02, 2010 10:49 AM (iYbLN)

4 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates estimated that within a few years, roughly three-fourths of our nuclear technicians will be at retirement age.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: President Holeplugger, Internationalist at June 02, 2010 10:49 AM (Mtciz)

5 Their motto for defense is the same one they use for our Constitution: if we ignore it, maybe it'll go away.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 02, 2010 10:49 AM (i3AsK)

6 I suspect that the F-35 will be canceled soon as well.

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2010 10:49 AM (6taRI)

7 What does Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, Will Folks think about this?

Maybe we should put in a call to his aide de camp, Sally Ann Cavanough?

Posted by: mpfs at June 02, 2010 10:51 AM (iYbLN)

8 This is a sobering sentence, re the increased projected cost of the JSF.

If the number of airframes purchased is reduced, we could potentially end up paying more money for new Joint Strike Fighters than we would have had we purchased new F-22s the last few years.

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 02, 2010 10:51 AM (9hSKh)

9 We're fucked. I am very pessimistic. And what this dope in the White House doesn't understand is that a weak America only makes War more likely

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 10:52 AM (U5btG)

10 And to think, Bush was destroyed for wanting to get rid of these outdated nukes but replace them with "bunker busters."

Posted by: The Q at June 02, 2010 10:53 AM (eRR+N)

Well, when all of our nuclear engineers have retired, we can just import some from North Korea or Iran. Or how about some of those nuclear engineers slipping across the border that Arizona is being so mean to......

Posted by: maddogg at June 02, 2010 10:54 AM (OlN4e)

12 So why aren't the technicians and designers going into retirement training up a new generation? And why not have the Navy or DoE set up a fund to support businesses that make critical nuclear components? We do it for other weapons systems. You would think nukes would have top priority. As for the F-35...it depends on how much political juice the manufacturers have. If they're tight enough with the admin, the plane will survive.

Posted by: joncelli at June 02, 2010 10:54 AM (RD7QR)

13 The only thing keeping the F35 on life support is the entangling commitments with foreign air forces.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2010 10:54 AM (vb5IK)

14 If the number of airframes purchased is reduced, we could potentially end up paying more money for new Joint Strike Fighters than we would have had we purchased new F-22s the last few years. Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 02, 2010 02:51 PM (9hSKh) That may be true, but the F-35 was NEVER meant to be a substitute of the F-22. The F-22 was and is the premier fighter/interceptor in the World. The F-35 was "designed" to be a jack of all trades: fighter, bomber, and Yada Yada Yada. That kind of plane never worked all that well in the past either.

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 10:54 AM (U5btG)

15 OT: Your daily Chris Christie awesomeness where he snubs a union deal

In the cover letter that accompanied the application, Christie wrote that he was so committed to the initiatives in the document, "I decided that they should not be compromised to achieve a contrived consensus among the various affected special interest group

Posted by: MFM at June 02, 2010 10:55 AM (0Hn5w)

16 God wants us to have our military go obsolete!

Posted by: Nancy Pelosi at June 02, 2010 10:55 AM (eRR+N)

17 The F-35? Seems like I've been hearing about the Joint Strike Fighter program for 20 years.

Posted by: maddogg at June 02, 2010 10:56 AM (OlN4e)

The dangerous side-effect of destroying our manufacturings sector is that we lose the capacity to defend ourselves, too. Think of the jobs that could be had making sure our military is adequately prepared for conflict.

I miss the good old days when we had Americans in high office, compared to whateverthefuck we've managed to elect in the past few years.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 02, 2010 10:56 AM (i3AsK)

19 And then there's the space program's "new direction", which would be down the drain.

Posted by: sherlock at June 02, 2010 10:56 AM (f/lPF)

20 damn sock

Posted by: taylork at June 02, 2010 10:57 AM (0Hn5w)

21 6 I suspect that the F-35 will be canceled soon as well.

Most likely.

What are we going to have after Obama is through with us, spit-balls?

/Channeling Zell Miller.

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 02, 2010 10:57 AM (9hSKh)

22
What are we going to have after Obama is through with us, spit-balls?

Will kill them with maddening re-tape and piss poor government run health care.

Posted by: taylork at June 02, 2010 10:59 AM (0Hn5w)

23 Well, if the Teaparty movement starts to get "out of hand" you can be assured Zero and his lampreys will show new interest in these weapons.

Posted by: maddogg at June 02, 2010 11:00 AM (OlN4e)

24 12 So why aren't the technicians and designers going into retirement training up a new generation?
______________

Training them up doing what? We're not talking about paperwork here, we're talking about building stuff. To train them up, we'd need to be building stuff.

Posted by: Anachronda at June 02, 2010 11:00 AM (3K4hn)

25 My personal opinion is that weapons should be simple, cheap, and abundant. That's why we still have B52's. We didn't win WWII by making B17's and B25s complex. We won by making a lot of them and of course being willing to use them.

Posted by: kansas at June 02, 2010 11:00 AM (mka2b)

26 I'm sure Barry will be more than happy to lead us in a rousing chorus of "All we are saying......is give peace a chance"...........as our new Chinese masters lead us off in chains.

Posted by: GarandFan at June 02, 2010 11:01 AM (6mwMs)

27 According to Obama we won't need them since he's so awesome the leaders of the world will all line up to be sprayed by his golden shower.

Posted by: taylork at June 02, 2010 11:01 AM (0Hn5w)

28 What are we going to have after Obama is through with us, spit-balls?

There's always harsh language....

Posted by: Pvt Frost, Colonial Marines at June 02, 2010 11:02 AM (E4Pj8)

Someone really should let The Vapid OneÂ© know that adolescent, drug-fueled dreams of a world without conflict only happen in adolescent, drug-fueled dreams.

Sorry to rant, but I haven't started self-sedation. Yet.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 02, 2010 11:02 AM (i3AsK)

30 My personal opinion is that weapons should be simple, cheap, and abundant. That's why we still have B52's. We didn't win WWII by making B17's and B25s complex. We won by making a lot of them and of course being willing to use them. Posted by: kansas at June 02, 2010 03:00 PM (mka2b) Yeah maybe, but with stealth technology, vectored engines, gps, and all the other star wars stuff, that is an era long gone

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 11:03 AM (U5btG)

31 Oh, and for the hippies, our military costs, over the last 10 years have gone up 76%, partially reflecting two on-going wars (it's in all the papers). The Chinese increase has been over 216%.

Think about it.

Posted by: GarandFan at June 02, 2010 11:03 AM (6mwMs)

32 Defense hardware procurement is real stimulus spending, therefore Barry won't go for it.

Posted by: damian at June 02, 2010 11:04 AM (4WbTI)

33 Think of the jobs that could be had making sure our military is adequately prepared for conflict.

And most of those jobs would be restricted to American citizens. Horrors.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 02, 2010 11:04 AM (mR7mk)

34 So what I'm hearing is that I don't have magical spunk, or pee? So why does the MFM not care whenever I shoot my silky presidential manhood all over the face and get it their hair?

Posted by: Barry O at June 02, 2010 11:05 AM (0Hn5w)

You guys need to look on the brighter side of life.

The new health care bill will mean everyone will get treatment for radiation sickness after we are nuked.

Posted by: robtr at June 02, 2010 11:06 AM (fwSHf)

36 a loosing game

GAAAH, MY EYES!

Posted by: Internet Grammarian at June 02, 2010 11:06 AM (FkKjr)

37 All this post does is prove the need for universal healthcare
/America's Dark Age Begins

Posted by: Methos at June 02, 2010 11:07 AM (Xsi7M)

Not so fast with those spitballs and harsh language - you might get yourself court-martialed.

Posted by: The Q at June 02, 2010 11:07 AM (eRR+N)

39 Something I forgot to put in the post...

The JSF was originally supposed to have about 80% commonality in parts and such across the three variants.

Yeah, it's going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%.

The JSF is a giant scandal waiting to be exposed in a major way.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 02, 2010 11:08 AM (X/Lqh)

is a loosing game

A little "lose" shit there, Drew.

Posted by: Mama AJ, denouncing herself for the pun at June 02, 2010 11:09 AM (XdlcF)

41 I don't think we should be spending money on new nuclear weapons until we get more use out of the ones we already have.

Posted by: scooter (still not libby) at June 02, 2010 11:09 AM (aamim)

42 My personal opinion is that weapons should be simple, cheap, and abundant. That's why we still have B52's. We didn't win WWII by making B17's and B25s complex. We won by making a lot of them and of course being willing to use them.

In some cases, that's an asset. But the more capable weapons systems are force multipliers. To turn the old cliche on it's head, quality has a quantity all it's own. On the modern battlefield I'd rather have a company of M1A2 Abrams than a whole division of Russkie T34s.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 02, 2010 11:09 AM (E4Pj8)

43 I say all this as a former Air Force pilot myself, but the Air Force is in the middle of a real identity crisis.

For those who don't know, the Air Force "budgets" themselves by allotting flying hours. By 2015--that's just 5 short years from now--half the flying hours in the AF will be done on unmanned platforms. I'm sure the F35 is a very capable platform, and I don't know what the right answers are, but when the costs of putting a man in that cockpit are far greater than putting a swarm of robot-planes into the air, at some point you just have to ask which is the wiser path.

Posted by: azlibertarian at June 02, 2010 11:10 AM (mM5zj)

44 No offense to our ghey moron and moronettes (I love ya )but you don't protect the country and win wars by social engineering the military.

Now that right there is an astute observation.

Here's my position on DADT - can we still blow up everyone else? Can we fight a two front war? How is our military infrastructure doing? Do members of our armed forces have to spend their own money at Home Depot to buy tools to get the job done? When all of those questions (and a ton more I'm too lazy to think about right now) are answered, then we can talk about DADT.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 02, 2010 11:10 AM (8WZWv)

45 The JSF is a giant scandal waiting to be exposed in a major way. Posted by: DrewM. at June 02, 2010 03:08 PM (X/Lqh) Yeah but this administration did the proper thing and closed down the F-22 line which was up and running and preforming up to spects? Way to go guys?

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 11:10 AM (U5btG)

46 #15 thanks for that... I did need a Christie pick me up today.

Posted by: Filly at June 02, 2010 11:11 AM (CGr9Q)

47 My personal opinion is that weapons should be simple, cheap, and abundant.

Like rocks or sticks?

Posted by: taylork at June 02, 2010 11:11 AM (0Hn5w)

48 but when the costs of putting a man in that cockpit are far greater than putting a swarm of robot-planes into the air, at some point you just have to ask which is the wiser path.

I think the answer is obvious.

Posted by: Skynet at June 02, 2010 11:11 AM (8WZWv)

Speaking of the budget the bitch in the White House is hellbent on bankrupting the country

PITTSBURGH Â– Seizing on a disastrous oil spill to advance a cause, President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Congress to roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil and pass a clean-energy bill that he says would help the nation end its dependence on fossil fuels.

Obama said that the Gulf spill "may prove to be a result of human error Â— or corporations taking dangerous shortcuts that compromised safety" Â— but that deepwater drilling is inherently risky and the U.S. cannot rely solely on fossil fuels.

Guess which one Chairman Barry will blame it on?

Obama also used the speech to lash out at Republicans with partisan rhetoric, saying they have mostly "sat on the sidelines and shouted from the bleachers" as he's tried to restore the economy.

The GOP, Obama said, has fought him on tax cuts for small businesses, tax credits for college tuition, new spending on clean energy and more.

Poor St. Barry he's ridden out to slay the dragon and the EVIL Republicans just hindering all of his noble efforts.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 02, 2010 11:11 AM (1Jaio)

50 America Held Hostage: Day 499.

Posted by: damian at June 02, 2010 11:12 AM (4WbTI)

51 The new health care bill will mean everyone young people of select ethnicities and party apparatchiks will get treatment for radiation sickness after we are nuked.

FIFY.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 02, 2010 11:12 AM (mR7mk)

52 I read where most of our nukes have vacuum tube components. Let that sink in for a bit. I hope it's not true.

Posted by: rawmuse at June 02, 2010 11:13 AM (8qfTx)

53 I think the single greatest difference between the Left and the Right in terms of military capabilities and foreign policy can be summarized by the Rumsfeld warning: "Weakness is provocative." The Left not only does not agree, it doesn't understand the warning. The Left refuses to acknowledge that history demonstrates this maxim more often than almost any other. Perhaps this is just another mini cycle of American history; a victory that leads to complacency, complacency to grave danger, reformation, and back to strength. I guess the only questions now are 'how big is the danger,' and 'will there be a reformation.'

Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at June 02, 2010 11:15 AM (zgd5N)

54
I don't like that word, surrender. It's so sexist, with that sir in there. My word for the day is mammender. See, doesn't that sound better? Say it with me, mammender!

Posted by: Nancy Botoxi at June 02, 2010 11:16 AM (Oxen1)

55 I read where most of our nukes have vacuum tube components.

Let that sink in for a bit. I hope it's not true.

Actually, there's some good reasons to use vacuum tubes in some military gear. EMP resistance, long-term effects of radiation on solid-state circuitry etc.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 02, 2010 11:16 AM (E4Pj8)

56 O/T

Joran van der Sloot on lam from Peru as suspected murderer.

This could be the Holloway family revenge.

Posted by: Fish at June 02, 2010 11:17 AM (v1gw3)

Looks like Greta's found material to stretch out for the next few months . . .

Posted by: The Q at June 02, 2010 11:20 AM (eRR+N)

58 The JSF is a giant scandal waiting to be exposed in a major way.

The last I heard they were fighting over who would supply the engines. It seem that some people are now pushing GE. One wonders where that came from?

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2010 11:21 AM (6taRI)

59 Say it with me, mammender!

Easy there, Nan.

Posted by: SENATOR Barbara Boxer at June 02, 2010 11:21 AM (rgQEE)

60 "I'm sure the F35 is a very capable platform, and I don't know what the right answers are, but when the costs of putting a man in that cockpit are far greater than putting a swarm of robot-planes into the air, at some point you just have to ask which is the wiser path."

I know everyone thinks unmanned drones are the aircraft of the future, but what happens when a capable enemy jams or intercepts the transmissions remotely controlling these aircraft? Even drones fully independent on AI with a preset mission package could be compromised in the air through various technologies.

At some point it is far more reliable to have pilots physically in a cockpit flying than to have everything be 100% dependent on drones. Perhaps the best of both worlds would be having a squadron of piloted aircraft acting as cavalry while drones act as the screening fodder?

Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at June 02, 2010 11:21 AM (ijjAe)

61 By the way we are also shrinking the US Navy. Both surface ships ( read carrier groups ) and the silent service ( read ballistic missile and attack subs).

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 11:21 AM (U5btG)

I don't like that word, surrender. It's so sexist, with that sir in there. My word for the day is mammender. See, doesn't that sound better? Say it with me, mammender!

Posted by: Nancy Botoxi at June 02, 2010 03:16 PM (Oxen1)

You're wrong, the Bird is the Word

http://tinyurl.com/2a5wq58

Posted by: robtr at June 02, 2010 11:22 AM (fwSHf)

Looks like Greta's found material to stretch out for the next few months . . .

Posted by: The Q at June 02, 2010 03:20 PM (eRR+N)

Yes Q, Greta will be on this like stink on Michelle's cooter, and Nancy Grace will be able to retire after the trial, hanging, and tearful burial of this serial murderer?

Posted by: Fish at June 02, 2010 11:22 AM (v1gw3)

64 Their plan is to probably cut back on CVNs maybe to six or seven, who knows, keep the F35 staggering along because of the foreign air force commitments, do more with UAVs, let the Army rust. We are about where Britain was in about 1965.

Posted by: Skookumchuk at June 02, 2010 11:23 AM (btzPD)

65 Our President and those that put him there want war.

There has been growing talk of sedition and other un-American activity directed at others by our President and those that put him there.

Like farting and those that smell it, people who bitch about the itch are generally the carrier of the Socially Transmitted Disease.

It's clear that our President and those that put him there are in fact guilty of all they accuse others of.

We're just experiencing the part of the play where the audience has it's nose rubbed in what is being so clumsily telegraphed before this little drama draws to a close.

Posted by: Cassandra at June 02, 2010 11:23 AM (Unq1i)

66 Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 03:21 PM (U5btG)

Yeah, it's so cute the way the Navy is pretending they are actually going to get an Ohio class replacement boat in the next few decades.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 02, 2010 11:25 AM (X/Lqh)

67 damian, when do start tying ribbons on trees

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2010 11:25 AM (JaO+v)

68 but what happens when a capable enemy jams or intercepts the transmissions remotely controlling these aircraft?

The hippies who've been protesting them (and harassing the families of the airmen who fly them remotely) because they don't kill enough Americans won't be hardest hit. Alas.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 02, 2010 11:25 AM (mR7mk)

69 Go Team Capitualte!

Posted by: Obumbles! at June 02, 2010 11:26 AM (pFJuu)

70 61 The last I heard they were fighting over who would supply the engines. It seem that some people are now pushing GE. One wonders where that came from? -------------- As I understand it, the plan was to have two sources of engines. That way, if a problem develops with one you have the other to fall back on. What's going on now is that Washington is trying to cut the budget for the second source on the theory that, since we have one source that seems to work, we don't need the contingency plan.

Posted by: Anachronda at June 02, 2010 11:26 AM (LD+ZJ)

71 Perhaps the best of both worlds would be having a squadron of piloted aircraft acting as cavalry while drones act as the screening fodder?

That would be a big fucking deal.

I have to say, though, that for some reason the idea of brainless vehicles floating in space, making a monotonous hum has tremendous appeal to me. I've never quite understood why.

Posted by: Joe Biden, Vice President at June 02, 2010 11:27 AM (rgQEE)

72 I don't like that word, surrender. With time, the word acquires a certain favorability. Try it, over and over again. Posted by: France If you've been paying attention to the Left, it's not a matter of getting negative words to become more acceptable. It's a matter of avoid the negative words, and emphasizing other meaningless phrases. It's not 'surrender,' it's 'soft power,' or 'building consensus.' See ProteinWisdom.com for the 411 +1.

Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at June 02, 2010 11:28 AM (zgd5N)

73 I read where most of our nukes have vacuum tube components.

There isn't anything in the actual weapon that requires any complicated circuitry so I see no need for vacuum tubes or transistors.

If we are talking guidance packages in missiles I can see that but I can guarantee that there are no "vacuum tubes" there.

As for being radiation resistant since the physics package is almost totally an alpha emitter radiation penetration is not an issue. A sheet of paper will shield alpha. The other radioactive component is tritium which decays by beta emission. It is a very weak beta which can be shielded by the explosive blocks.

The major maintenance need on the physics package is replacing that tritium which over a period of time forms helium which will poison the reaction.

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2010 11:28 AM (6taRI)

74 Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 03:21 PM (U5btG) Yeah, it's so cute the way the Navy is pretending they are actually going to get an Ohio class replacement boat in the next few decades. Posted by: DrewM. at June 02, 2010 03:25 PM (X/Lqh) Don't remind me.

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 11:28 AM (U5btG)

75

I read where most of our nukes have vacuum tube components.

Let that sink in for a bit. I hope it's not true.

Posted by: rawmuse at June 02, 2010 03:13 PM (8qfTx)

The guts of a blowed up one I saw had circuit boards. Prolly like "works in a drawer".

Styrofoam (believe it or not) is a critical part of thermonuclear weapons. It replaced the cardboard used in earlier designs.

Posted by: Ed Anger at June 02, 2010 11:30 AM (7+pP9)

76 Blue Falcon in Boston, that concept goes way back. The 52's had drones to help penetrate USSR airspace - and later as the Autonomous Wingman concept.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2010 11:30 AM (PjevJ)

77 I've heard about the deterioration of our nuclear weapons stockpile before. It's not a new concern. I think it was mentioned in Bill Gertz's book: Betrayal - How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security, published in 1999.

Here's a Bill Gertz interview about the book, if anybody's interested. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 02, 2010 11:31 AM (9hSKh)

78 57 I read where most of our nukes have vacuum tube components.
Let that sink in for a bit. I hope it's not true.

Actually, there's some good reasons to use vacuum tubes in some military gear. EMP resistance, long-term effects of radiation on solid-state circuitry etc.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 02, 2010 03:16 PM (E4Pj

Well my understanding is that there are technical reasons why vacuum tube components might be preferred over an equivalent solid state component, EMP, etc. Plus most modern bomb designs actually have intentionally delicate components that will be broken in the event of a crash so that a plane crash can't accidentally set off a bomb.

Posted by: Mætenloch at June 02, 2010 11:31 AM (f5vi+)

79 As for being radiation resistant since the physics package is almost totally an alpha emitter radiation penetration is not an issue. A sheet of paper will shield alpha. The other radioactive component is tritium which decays by beta emission. It is a very weak beta which can be shielded by the explosive blocks.

The major maintenance need on the physics package is replacing that tritium which over a period of time forms helium which will poison the reaction.

Wodeshed makes a mental note not to get on Vic's bad side. The revenge of Vic could be very bad for Wodeshed. Very bad, indeed.

Posted by: Wodeshed at June 02, 2010 11:32 AM (rgQEE)

80 The 3PM money dump was a whooper. +183.80

Posted by: DJIA at June 02, 2010 11:34 AM (4WbTI)

81 How much defense budget money are we wasting trying that scumbag muslim murdering Army Major Hassan?

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 11:35 AM (U5btG)

82 or a whopper

either or

Posted by: DJIA at June 02, 2010 11:35 AM (4WbTI)

83 One thing about open gays in the military: It'll give a whole 'nother meaning to, "I'll be there in about ten Mikes."

Posted by: Aww now. at June 02, 2010 11:36 AM (bCGHL)

84 OT:

I'm converting some survey data for a friend about what kids want to do after high schools and here is a sad/funny response in one of the columns:

Fuck this shit repeated multiple times in front of teacher, counselor, Mr. X. Will not do any work or stop talking, cursing incessantly.

Contrasted with the one before:
After high school, I'm planning to attend college and become an architect or an engineer.

You're public schools at work people.

Posted by: taylork at June 02, 2010 11:36 AM (0Hn5w)

85 Jamming a signal coming from space is difficult, esp. if the signal can be propagated from several points. So if you want to stop that invincible, all-drone airforce your going to need to start with domination of the orbitals. Lucky we have NASA ensuring that space is ... Ohh wait ...

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2010 11:37 AM (JaO+v)

86 Styrofoam (believe it or not) is a critical part of thermonuclear weapons.

ZOMG, it's destroying teh planet! Heh heh heh.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 02, 2010 11:37 AM (mR7mk)

87 Lucky we have NASA ensuring that space is ... Ohh wait ... Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2010 03:37 PM (JaO+v) Ah what are you worried about, the Ruskies will launch stuff for us?

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 11:38 AM (U5btG)

88 You're public schools at work people.

Irony. It's what gets me out of bed in the morning.

Posted by: Wodeshed at June 02, 2010 11:39 AM (rgQEE)

89 Yup.
Real people look at the military and determine that more or weapons, training, etc are needed in order to improve it.
Leftists look at the military and decide that they need more sodomy.

Posted by: RayJ at June 02, 2010 11:41 AM (YcjCJ)

90 O/T: Don't look now, but the Denver Post is getting a little curious about the Romanoff deal.

http://tinyurl.com/24vs4jx

Posted by: InCali at June 02, 2010 11:42 AM (u1OeY)

91 You're right on target, Wodeshed.

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2010 11:42 AM (tJF9l)

92 I haven't read all the comments, but has anyone noted that Barry is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure yet?

Posted by: that guy that doesn't read the comments at June 02, 2010 11:46 AM (4WbTI)

93 96

I see you attended a private educational establishment.

Posted by: Wodeshed at June 02, 2010 11:49 AM (ak/ny)

94 I haven't read all the comments, but has anyone noted that Barry is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure yet? Posted by: that guy that doesn't read the comments at June 02, 2010 03:46 PM (4WbTI) And you expected something different?

Posted by: nevergiveup at June 02, 2010 11:49 AM (U5btG)

InCali, verrrry interesting. The DP drops this line - "For his part, Romanoff appears to have done nothing wrong."

I translate this to, "hey Romanoff, your reputation is slipping, and you can easily get yourself a good name by ratting out Obama, to whom you owe nothing anyway".

Incidentally, this shows that Obama doesn't want an independent Democratic Congress; he wants a rubber stamp, and is willing to break laws to get it. A true Chavista.

Posted by: Zimriel at June 02, 2010 11:49 AM (9Sbz+)

96
There isn't anything in the actual weapon that requires any complicated circuitry so I see no need for vacuum tubes or transistors.

Actually, you need some sophisticated circuitry to set off all of those explosive lenses simultaneously.

I saw the guts of a nuke and it did contain circuit boards.

If we are talking guidance packages in missiles I can see that but I can guarantee that there are no "vacuum tubes" there.

He was probably referring to krytrons which aren't really vacuum tubes -- they're filled with hydrogen. They were commonly used on older nuclear weapons. Or maybe sprytrons which actually are are vacuum devices.

Posted by: Ed Anger at June 02, 2010 11:53 AM (7+pP9)

97 #93

Thread winner!

Posted by: NJConservative at June 02, 2010 11:53 AM (LH6ir)

98 Lucky we have NASA ensuring that space is ... Ohh wait ...

National security has never been part of NASA's brief. And the military hasn't used a NASA launcher since Challenger; they use Delta and Atlas for everything they need.

Posted by: Waterhouse at June 02, 2010 11:53 AM (Mtciz)

I think the vacuum tubes are used to "spark" the high explosives that compress the core of plutonium or U-235. It's called "implosion." They are not the common 12AX7 or KT-88 types used in consumer products.

We do need to keep a stream of young guys coming into the nuclear weapon business to learn the tricks of the trade from the experienced, but soon to retire, old hands. Without assurance that there's a future career there, few good people will want to invest the time and education in the field.

Plus, our security needs and hence missions for our nukes change with time. We long ago stopped needing 25 megaton H-bombs for busting Soviet bunkers. We've also retired the Titan II rockets to deliver them. They create hellacious fallout downwind. That's OK if you don't care about Soviet citizens, which you're killing by the millions anyway, on purpose. But if you want to smash an Iranian buried centrafuge plant, you don't necessarily intend to kill a lot of Iranian citizens or those downwind in Saudi Arabia or Dubei. For that job, you'd prefer a low yield, "clean" fusion weapon built in a hardened steel pointy thing. 20 kiloton in a penetrator casing could do the work of a 5 megaton ground burst (or somesuch ratio) with a LOT less radioactive fallout.

Our guys would love to design and build a few of those new designs but the Democrats have blocked it for years and years.

One more point - there are lots of electronic interlocks and permissive circuits built into a weapon so that they don't go off by accident ("single point safety") or deliberately by some unauthorized person.

Posted by: Whitehall at June 02, 2010 11:56 AM (htrmr)

100 You're public schools at work people.

Irony. It's what gets me out of bed in the morning.

Damn, it even took me a while to figure out what was wrong.

Posted by: taylork at June 02, 2010 11:56 AM (0Hn5w)

101

Posted by: Wodeshed at June 02, 2010 11:59 AM (ak/ny)

102 In my biz (audio) I use vac tubes because they sound better. They can be hard to get. The biggest supplier right now is in the former USSR. Please tell me we don't rely on these guys for parts

Posted by: rawmuse at June 02, 2010 12:00 PM (8qfTx)

103 Dude,
The military is used to project and experiment with social standards in an autocratic society of homogenized values and methods carrying out a singular vision for the common good. It doesn't need all that expensive junk!

What did you think it was for?

Posted by: Moonbat Pol at June 02, 2010 12:03 PM (0q2P7)

104 In my biz (audio) I use vac tubes because they sound better. They can be hard to get. The biggest supplier right now is in the former USSR. Please tell me we don't rely on these guys for parts

No defense purpose tubes (not the run of the mill pentodes) are made in the US.

Posted by: Moonbat Pol at June 02, 2010 12:05 PM (0q2P7)

105 SOCK!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 02, 2010 12:06 PM (0q2P7)

106 I'm not sure if the F-35's problems are as bad as everyone says they are; basically, now that the F-22 line is shut down and the F-35 is the proposed backbone-program-du-jour, all the problems with it are going to be played _up_ until they can cancel it and start over from scratch.

Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at June 02, 2010 12:06 PM (MeZD8)

107

75 61 The last I heard they were fighting over who would supply the engines. It seem that some people are now pushing GE. One wonders where that came from?
--------------
As I understand it, the plan was to have two sources of engines. That way, if a problem develops with one you have the other to fall back on.

What's going on now is that Washington is trying to cut the budget for the second source on the theory that, since we have one source that seems to work, we don't need the contingency plan.

Posted by: Anachronda at June 02, 2010 03:26 PM (LD+ZJ)

Congress bitch-slapped Gates and voted to buy two different engines for the F-35. They also decided to buy 18 more Super Hornets than Gated wanted. Not that it was about military strength -- it was all about jobs -- but it was fun to see Gates get kicked in the balls.

I visit Wired Magazine's Danger Room a couple of times each day. They had the vapors over the engine and Hornet buys. They're a bunch of pinkos.

Posted by: Ed Anger at June 02, 2010 12:09 PM (7+pP9)

108 Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at June 02, 2010 04:06 PM (MeZD

Actually,my guess is a lot of the problems were hidden or downplayed in order to make the cancellation of the F-22 palatable.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 02, 2010 12:10 PM (X/Lqh)

109 If the Norks can have kamikaze torpedos, why can't we develop snukes and flying cars?

Posted by: Joey Plugs at June 02, 2010 12:11 PM (GwPRU)

110 I sure love hanging out here. I feel like I learn stuff even tho' I am completely in over my head.

Posted by: rawmuse at June 02, 2010 12:14 PM (8qfTx)

111 Re#101 Ed Anger:
Wikipedia:
"The krytron is a cold-cathode gas filled tube intended for use as a very high-speed switch..."

"Sprytron, also known as vacuum krytron, is a vacuum-"filled" version. It is designed for use in environments where high levels of ionizing radiation are present (because the radiation might cause the gas-filled krytron to trigger inadvertently.)"

"This design, dating from the late 1940s, is still capable of pulse-power performance which even the most advanced semiconductors (even IGBTs) cannot match easily. The krytrons and sprytrons are capable of handling high current high voltage pulses, with very fast switching times, constant low time delay between application of the trigger pulse and switching on, and a low jitter of this delay."

"They are best known for their use in igniting the exploding-bridgewire detonators and slapper detonators in nuclear weapons, their original application, either directly (sprytrons are usually used in such manner)"

Posted by: RayJ at June 02, 2010 12:15 PM (YcjCJ)

112 One of the linked articles quoted a Navy person saying that space on a carrier is at a premium and storing parts for 2 different engines is problematic. GE just getting some payola, nothing to see here.

Posted by: Schwalbe at June 02, 2010 12:30 PM (UU0OF)

113 89 You're public schools at work people.
________________

Yes. Yes, we are.

Posted by: Anachronda at June 02, 2010 12:30 PM (3K4hn)

114 104 But if you want to smash an Iranian buried centrafuge plant, you don't necessarily intend to kill a lot of Iranian citizens or those downwind in Saudi Arabia or Dubei.
________________

Thus, the need for HAARP controlling the weather.

Posted by: Anachronda listens to too much Art Bell at June 02, 2010 12:32 PM (3K4hn)

115 JSF was a turkey from the start. Any weapon system that has "everything but the kitchen sink" specs usually is.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 02, 2010 12:51 PM (8vr0Y)

116 Any weapon system that has "everything but the kitchen sink" specs usually is.

The deuce you say!

Posted by: The Littoral Combat Ship at June 02, 2010 01:02 PM (X/Lqh)

117 I guess I didn't count on the complexity of the firing mechanism. I was wwwww....wwwwww....wrong.

There I said it. But, I knew there were those firing switches but like most people, I don't consider them "vacuum tubes". When I think of a vacuum tube I think of something like a 6L6 that used to be used in audio amplifiers of old.

As for the radiation thing I can not see where that would be important unless it is within that microscopic period of time after detonation IF the switches are still required to operate. I can't see how that would be the case though since the switches would have had to fire to cause the detonation to begin with.

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2010 01:05 PM (6taRI)

118 Little bit of inside baseball...

My wife was a meteorologist for Lockheed. I've been up close to a -35, and it does some astounding things. However...

1. Way too heavy. Thing weighs, loaded up, about as much as an -18 does with a small air-to-air load.

2. Stealth aircraft, right? So why hang external stores on it? That renders its stealthiness nonexistent. It's supposed to carry AIM-9s on the wingtips and possibly fuel on an outboard underwing pylon.

3. Supposed to be a close air support, -16-quality dogfighter, right? So where's the cannon? Only the F-35B- the Marine Corps V/STOL version- carries the good old-fashioned gun.

4. Navy/Marine Corps bird? When's the last time the Navy bought a single-screw aircraft? That would be the A-7. What the hell are you supposed to do over water if you eat a bird?

5. Close air support? Aircraft is made of plastic. That means that the aircraft is vulnerable to small-arms fire below 10,000 feet.

The last time this was tried was in the 60s under Johnson with the F-111. The Air Force got itself a passable low-level interdiction/strike aircraft. The Navy learned a few lessons, went back to the drawing board, and eventually got the F-14. The Aardvark was completely useless as an air-to-air platform. We're talking about an aircraft that was less maneuverable than an F-4, with engines (Pratt & Whitney TF30s) that were temperamental at best.

The engineers I know on the project think the plane has potential, but they're already calling it "Aardvark Jr."

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 02, 2010 01:24 PM (WRtsc)

119 > 123 As for the radiation thing I can not see where that would be important unless it is within that microscopic period of time after detonation IF the switches are still required to operate. I can't see how that would be the case though since the switches would have had to fire to cause the detonation to begin with. Posted by: Vic One of the concerns with radiation is the possible environment the bomb will be in if it has to used. That is, any particular bomb might not be the first bomb to go off in that area. That's one reason "gun-type" bombs using u-235 aren't built very often - they're more likely to "fizzle" in an environment with lots of neutrons floating around. The more difficult to build plutonium implosion bomb is resistant to that. Terrorists don't care. That's why it's a common assumption that terrorists will use u-235 and make a "gun-type" bomb. Also, they're worried about radiation (and emp) from OTHER bomb explosions damaging circuitry. There's a lot of things to worry about in a nuclear war! For example, see training films for SAC pilots from the 1950s and 60s. The pilots are usually wearing black eye-patches - pirate style. They want to have an eye left over in case they're too close to an air-burst.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 02, 2010 01:33 PM (iMPoO)

120 The thing that annoys me about the DADT controversy is that it's always blamed on the military. DADT is a creation of Congress! They passed the law - the military just obeys it. Harvard should ban Congressmen from being on campus.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at June 02, 2010 01:34 PM (iMPoO)

121 One of the concerns with radiation is the possible environment the bomb will be in if it has to used. That is, any particular bomb might not be the first bomb to go off in that area.

Didn't think of that either.

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2010 01:45 PM (6taRI)

122

Posted by: Jean at June 02, 2010 03:37 PM (JaO+v)

Ret USN Electronic Tech here... worked on SatComs and Crypto for many many years...

Its not that hard to use a brute force approach to jam a broad range of freqs... and with Saty you don't jam the downlink... you swamp the uplink. Key is that when you do a broad band Jam, you are also going to be messing up yer own Coms if they are anywhere near either the same band... or a sideband (but folks like Iran don't have that much comm equip anyway)... takes a LOT of power, but not that high of Teck. Easy to do from a shore installation.

Its like during Desert Strom... about half our Air Search radars were seriously degraded by our own emissions... the Rcvrs are so sensitive that they were picking up sidebands from emmisions of other systems... and other ships with the same systems.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 02, 2010 02:17 PM (OlHjR)

123 My personal opinion is that weapons should be simple, cheap, and abundant. That's why we still have B52's. We didn't win WWII by making B17's and B25s complex. We won by making a lot of them and of course being willing to use them. Posted by: kansas at June 02, 2010 03:00 PM (mka2b) The B-52 was adopted by the Air Force in 1955. That puts it closer in time to the Wright Flyer than it does to the present day. The newest B-52 in the USAF's arsenal was built in 1962. I doubt we have the capability to mass produce it anymore.

Posted by: Wikitorix at June 02, 2010 03:06 PM (a5YhG)

124 Hey, things aren't as bad as you think: They're worse. The Air Force is retiring two hundred plus fighters, F-15s and F-16s, which will not be replaced for years. So we'll be relying on Obama Magic War-Preventing Magic until then.

Posted by: Tantor at June 02, 2010 04:06 PM (Ek/Oc)

125 xxx

Posted by: Fish at June 04, 2010 11:49 AM (v1gw3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

148kb generated in CPU 0.116, elapsed 0.2772 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2475 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.