Air Force scraps nuclear stealth missiles

The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Mar 7, 2007 21:22:27 EST
 
WASHINGTON — The Air Force said Wednesday it will retire the most modern cruise missile in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, a “stealth” weapon developed in the 1980s with the ability to evade detection by Soviet radars.



Known as the Advanced Cruise Missile, the weapon is carried by the B-52 bomber and was designed to attack heavily defended sites. It is the most capable among a variety of air-launched nuclear weapons built during the Cold War that remain in the U.S. inventory even as the Pentagon is reducing its overall nuclear arms stockpile.



The Air Force had said as recently as February 2006 that it expected to keep the missile active until 2030.

If the retirement is carried out as planned, the Advanced Cruise Missile will be the first group of U.S. nuclear weapons to be scrapped since the last of the Air Force’s 50 MX Peacekeeper land-based missiles was retired in September 2005.

The decision to retire the Advanced Cruise Missile fleet has not been publicly announced. It was brought to light by Hans M. Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists. He noticed that funds for the program were cut in the Air Force budget request for 2008, and that no money is budgeted for it beyond 2008; when he inquired, the Air Force acknowledged the retirement decision.

An Air Force spokeswoman, Maj. Morshe Araujo, confirmed it on Wednesday. She and other Air Force public affairs officials were unable to provide additional details, including the rationale for the decision.

Araujo indicated that the retirement was part of a “balanced force reduction” being carried out to reduce the number of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 by Dec. 31, 2012, as required under a U.S.-Russia arms reduction deal signed in Moscow in May 2002.



The treaty does not require that any specific group of nuclear weapons be retired, only that the total number in the U.S. and Russian arsenals be cut to the prescribed range of 1,700-2,200. The Russians still have a nuclear-tipped cruise missile in active service, according to Robert S. Norris, an expert in American, Soviet and Chinese nuclear weapons.

The decision to get rid of the Advanced Cruise Missile comes amid U.S. efforts to modernize what remains of the nuclear arsenal, even as it presses Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear programs.

Last week the Bush administration took a major step toward building a new generation of nuclear warheads, selecting a design that is being touted as safer, more secure and more easily maintained than today’s arsenal. A team of scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will proceed with the weapons design with an anticipation that the first warheads may be ready by 2012 as a replacement for Trident missiles on submarines.

As a matter of policy the Defense Department does not confirm the location of nuclear weapons, but Kristensen and other private nuclear experts said the fleet of more than 400 Advanced Cruise Missiles is located at the only two B-52 bomber bases: Minot Air Force Base, N.D., and Barksdale Air Force Base, La.

The Air Force originally planned to field 1,500 of the missiles, which were put on the drawing board in 1982 after U.S. officials determined that its predecessor, known as the AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile, which has no stealth capabilities, would soon be too easy to detect by air- and ground-based defenses.



Kristensen said there are about 1,300 of the older air-launched nuclear cruise missiles still in the Air Force inventory.

Norris, a nuclear weapons expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it appears likely the Air Force will further shrink its inventory of air-launched nuclear weapons in the years ahead. He estimates that there are about 3,000 air-launched gravity bombs in the nuclear arsenal, based mostly in the United States.

The other main element of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is the Navy’s fleet of nuclear-armed Trident submarines.

Norris estimates that the United States now has about 5,000 strategic nuclear weapons, including the Advance Cruise Missiles, so it will take further reductions to get down to the 1,700-2,200 level set by the 2002 treaty.

The aircraft that was to carry it will be used longer than the nuke itself.

Thats awsome!

I love the B52.

Quoted: The aircraft that was to carry it will be used longer than the nuke itself. Thats awsome! I love the B52.

How is that awesome?

I say convert them to CALCMs if possible.

Which weapons are Putin phasing out?

I think these are being phased out because.... we have shot most of them off...

I can guarantee that that we still have plenty of these weapons and that that is not the reason for retirement.  And if they are changed a conventional role than we would probably call them CACM (Conventional Air Cruise Missile).

Quoted: I think these are being phased out because.... we have shot most of them off...

You actually think we've fired off 'most of' 1300 nuclear weapons? wtf?

I'm sorry, but Im am saddened by our reduction in nuclear strength. I think it makes us weaker.

height=8

Quoted: I can guarantee that that we still have plenty of these weapons and that that is not the reason for retirement.  And if they are changed a conventional role than we would probably call them CACM (Conventional Air Cruise Missile).

I actually meant Conventional Advanced Cruise Missile.  Sorry I'm just a dumb EW.

This seems assinine.

If the warheads are the problem, convert them.  Stealthy Cruise missiles would be a great conventional asset.

I'd be willing to bet Dollars to Deutchmarks (if they were still around) that the reason that these have been selected to be phased out becuase a cruise missile based on either the Lockheed-Martin RAATLRS or the scramjet/ramjet technology of the British Meteor AAM or X-43/X-51 is coming into production. Thanks to the loss of Rocky-Flats we can't produce new nuclear warheads, or at least not for several years, so if we have a new missile for the airborn portion of the triad then we are going to have to get the warheads from somewhere. It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129.

Also with the B-2 on the nuclear attack mission penetrating hostile airspace wouldn't be dependent on a cruise missile with low observability, and the B-2 can carry the B-83 with a maximum nominal yeild of 1200kilotons, a much higher yeild then the warheads carried by cruise missiles. If you are going to be limited to feilding a smaller number of warheads it makes the most sense to maximize the yeild of the weapons you have.

It's not the warhead that's the problem, it's probably the guidance system.  I believe the same warhead is used for the ALCM and the ACM.

I remember when one would have been buried under the jail for even acknowledging the existence of the ACM. I also remember being at a loss for words when I first saw it and was briefed on its capabilities.

Shit ,I'm gettin old.

height=8

Quoted: I'd be willing to bet Dollars to Deutchmarks (if they were still around) that the reason that these have been selected to be phased out becuase a cruise missile based on either the Lockheed-Martin RAATLRS or the scramjet/ramjet technology of the British Meteor AAM or X-43/X-51 is coming into production. Thanks to the loss of Rocky-Flats we can't produce new nuclear warheads, or at least not for several years, so if we have a new missile for the airborn portion of the triad then we are going to have to get the warheads from somewhere. It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129. Also with the B-2 on the nuclear attack mission penetrating hostile airspace wouldn't be dependent on a cruise missile with low observability, and the B-2 can carry the B-83 with a maximum nominal yeild of 1200kilotons, a much higher yeild then the warheads carried by cruise missiles. If you are going to be limited to feilding a smaller number of warheads it makes the most sense to maximize the yeild of the weapons you have.

Than why don't we put warheads back on our ICBMs, since those weapons have the largest payload of the nuclear traid?

We will need systems like this in the middle east and elseware in the future.  With the nuclear warheads.

Quoted: I'd be willing to bet Dollars to Deutchmarks (if they were still around) that the reason that these have been selected to be phased out becuase a cruise missile based on either the Lockheed-Martin RAATLRS or the scramjet/ramjet technology of the British Meteor AAM or X-43/X-51 is coming into production. Thanks to the loss of Rocky-Flats we can't produce new nuclear warheads, or at least not for several years, so if we have a new missile for the airborn portion of the triad then we are going to have to get the warheads from somewhere. It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129. Also with the B-2 on the nuclear attack mission penetrating hostile airspace wouldn't be dependent on a cruise missile with low observability, and the B-2 can carry the B-83 with a maximum nominal yeild of 1200kilotons, a much higher yeild then the warheads carried by cruise missiles. If you are going to be limited to feilding a smaller number of warheads it makes the most sense to maximize the yeild of the weapons you have.

I am thinking the same thing about the new hypersonic cruise missiles coming online.

It should be noted that the Russians are thinking about walking away from the SALT and other nuclear treaties not that they actually observed them anyhow.

Quoted: I'd be willing to bet Dollars to Deutchmarks (if they were still around) that the reason that these have been selected to be phased out becuase a cruise missile based on either the Lockheed-Martin RAATLRS or the scramjet/ramjet technology of the British Meteor AAM or X-43/X-51 is coming into production. Thanks to the loss of Rocky-Flats we can't produce new nuclear warheads, or at least not for several years, so if we have a new missile for the airborn portion of the triad then we are going to have to get the warheads from somewhere. It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129. Also with the B-2 on the nuclear attack mission penetrating hostile airspace wouldn't be dependent on a cruise missile with low observability, and the B-2 can carry the B-83 with a maximum nominal yeild of 1200kilotons, a much higher yeild then the warheads carried by cruise missiles. If you are going to be limited to feilding a smaller number of warheads it makes the most sense to maximize the yeild of the weapons you have.

Why can't we build new warheads?

Quoted: It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129.

Makes sense.  Wonder if it has anything to do with this:
U.S. Military selects new nuclear warhead design based on underground tests done twenty years ago
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=553213

The good news is that some of the airframes are going to be kept in storage.

The official reason we hear at work is the cost of maintenance is too high for this aircraft.

On the other hand, last month we were asked by the government to provide estimates for opening a new ALCM production line.  Of course, the .gov wants it cheap and built with no changes, except for all the changes required for upgrades.  Same story.

There is one half of an ALCM airframe at Kirtland that has been sawed dead nuts down BL 0.000 - cool as hell, I want it.  The other half is supposedly in Missouri, but no one is fessing up if they know where it's stored.

Quoted: Quoted: I'd be willing to bet Dollars to Deutchmarks (if they were still around) that the reason that these have been selected to be phased out becuase a cruise missile based on either the Lockheed-Martin RAATLRS or the scramjet/ramjet technology of the British Meteor AAM or X-43/X-51 is coming into production. Thanks to the loss of Rocky-Flats we can't produce new nuclear warheads, or at least not for several years, so if we have a new missile for the airborn portion of the triad then we are going to have to get the warheads from somewhere. It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129. Also with the B-2 on the nuclear attack mission penetrating hostile airspace wouldn't be dependent on a cruise missile with low observability, and the B-2 can carry the B-83 with a maximum nominal yeild of 1200kilotons, a much higher yeild then the warheads carried by cruise missiles. If you are going to be limited to feilding a smaller number of warheads it makes the most sense to maximize the yeild of the weapons you have. Why can't we build new warheads?

Rocky Flats is where we machined the Plutonium and Uranium pits, slugs, and rings for nuclear weapons.  The place was a mess.

It looks like Lawrence Livermore Labs has won the first the contract to build a new weapons system since the 80's, don't know if they will reuse pits from other weapons or start from scratch.

We aren't allowed to build more warheads because we signed the START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).  This treaty limits the number of nuclear weapons that we are allowed to have in our arsenal.  We are also not allowed to build new warheads under this traety as well.  

Quoted: Why can't we build new warheads?

Even though it's Wiki....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States#Development_agencies

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd be willing to bet Dollars to Deutchmarks (if they were still around) that the reason that these have been selected to be phased out becuase a cruise missile based on either the Lockheed-Martin RAATLRS or the scramjet/ramjet technology of the British Meteor AAM or X-43/X-51 is coming into production. Thanks to the loss of Rocky-Flats we can't produce new nuclear warheads, or at least not for several years, so if we have a new missile for the airborn portion of the triad then we are going to have to get the warheads from somewhere. It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129. Also with the B-2 on the nuclear attack mission penetrating hostile airspace wouldn't be dependent on a cruise missile with low observability, and the B-2 can carry the B-83 with a maximum nominal yeild of 1200kilotons, a much higher yeild then the warheads carried by cruise missiles. If you are going to be limited to feilding a smaller number of warheads it makes the most sense to maximize the yeild of the weapons you have. Why can't we build new warheads? Rocky Flats is where we machined the Plutonium and Uranium pits, slugs, and rings for nuclear weapons.  The place was a mess. It looks like Lawrence Livermore Labs has won the first the contract to build a new weapons system since the 80's, don't know if they will reuse pits from other weapons or start from scratch.

Well it was stated that the LLNL design won the competition in large part to the fact that it was based around the certified primary of the W88 which meant that the warhead could be produced and certified without having to test it's fissile componets in a full yeild nature (since for some reason we are afraid to use the Nevada test site even though we didn't sign the comprehensive test ban). It's fusion secondary and tertiary stages are going to be tested at the National ignition facility without the need of a fission primary in 2010-2011 when the NIFs final beam lines come online.

I got side tracked, but my point is that since it will be using a W88 primary they are going to have to restablish a pit production facility since we are currently short on W88s as all of them that were produced are currently deployed on the Trident D5 missiles onboard our Ohio class SSBNs. In fact a big reason this warhead is being pushed is the fact that we don't have enough W88s stockpiled to complete upgrading our Ohio fleet to the D5s.

The last I heard was that there have been discussions of establishing a pit production facility at either Los Alamos or at the Pantex plant in Texas. They are going to have to pick a site by the end of the year in any event for the first opperational warheads to be ready by the 2012 deadline.

In any event this is going to be one slick bomb, from what I've heard (unofficially) it will produce the highest percentage of its yeild from fusion of any warhead feilded by the US with the intention being that the designated ground zero having little to no residual radiation above background two years after detonation. It will be a very interesting design because to meet it's shelf life and "clean" objectives it won't be able to use either tritium boosting or a plutonium "spark plug" in it's lithium-6 deuteride secondary, so the gama and X-ray flux will have to be an order of magnitude higher then in the W88. This leads me to belive that they are intending to use an isomer booster in the primary. (either hafnium or yttrium) Also a teritary fusion stage has never been developed or tested in a nuclear weapon, with all previous three stage weapons using a fission-fusion-fission scheme in which the fast neutrons generated by the fusion of tritium-deuterium (transmuted from the lithium-6 deuteride) are used to initate fission in unenriched uranium 238.(forcing unenriched Uranium to undergo fission produces some very long-lived daughter isotopes, which is why they are called "dirty" weapons, also why they were phased out of use in the US stockpike after the 1970s)  I'm unsure how the staging would work on a dual fusion stage, but it would definetly be a step beyond the current Teller-Ulam inline configured warheads.


Edited to error

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd be willing to bet Dollars to Deutchmarks (if they were still around) that the reason that these have been selected to be phased out becuase a cruise missile based on either the Lockheed-Martin RAATLRS or the scramjet/ramjet technology of the British Meteor AAM or X-43/X-51 is coming into production. Thanks to the loss of Rocky-Flats we can't produce new nuclear warheads, or at least not for several years, so if we have a new missile for the airborn portion of the triad then we are going to have to get the warheads from somewhere. It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129. Also with the B-2 on the nuclear attack mission penetrating hostile airspace wouldn't be dependent on a cruise missile with low observability, and the B-2 can carry the B-83 with a maximum nominal yeild of 1200kilotons, a much higher yeild then the warheads carried by cruise missiles. If you are going to be limited to feilding a smaller number of warheads it makes the most sense to maximize the yeild of the weapons you have. Why can't we build new warheads? Rocky Flats is where we machined the Plutonium and Uranium pits, slugs, and rings for nuclear weapons.  The place was a mess. It looks like Lawrence Livermore Labs has won the first the contract to build a new weapons system since the 80's, don't know if they will reuse pits from other weapons or start from scratch. Well it was stated that the LLNL design won the competition in large part to the fact that it was based around the certified primary of the W88 which meant that the warhead could be produced and certified without having to test it's fissile componets in a full yeild nature (since for some reason we are afraid to use the Nevada test site even though we didn't sign the comprehensive test ban). It's fusion secondary and tertiary stages are going to be tested at the National ignition facility without the need of a fission primary in 2010-2011 when the NIFs final beam lines come online. I got side tracked, but my point is that since it will be using a W88 primary they are going to have to restablish a pit production facility since we are currently short on W88s as all of them that were produced are currently deployed on the Trident D5 missiles onboard our Ohio class SSBNs. In fact a big reason this warhead is being pushed is the fact that we don't have enough W88s stockpiled to complete upgrading our Ohio fleet to the D5s. The last I heard was that there have been discussions of establishing a pit production facility at either Los Alamos or at the Pantex plant in Texas. They are going to have to pick a site by the end of the year in any event for the first opperational warheads to be ready by the 2012 deadline. In any event this is going to be one slick bomb, from what I've heard (unofficially) it will produce the highest percentage of its yeild from fusion of any warhead feilded by the US with the intention being that the designated ground zero having little to no residual radiation above background two years after detonation. It will be a very interesting design because to meet it's shelf life and "clean" objectives it won't be able to use either tritium boosting or a plutonium "spark plug" in it's lithium-6 deuteride secondary, so the gama and X-ray flux will have to be an order of magnitude higher then in the W88. This leads me to belive that they are intending to use an isomer booster in the primary. (either hafnium or yttrium) Also a teritary fusion stage has never been developed or tested in a nuclear weapon, with all previous three stage weapons using a fission-fusion-fission scheme in which the fast neutrons generated by the fusion of tritium-deuterium (transmuted from the lithium-6 deuteride) are used to insite fusion in unenriched uranium 238. I'm unsure how the staging would work on a dual fusion stage, but it would definetly be a step beyond the current Teller-Ulam inline configured warheads.

So that means it will go BOOM, right?

A shortsighted move IMO.

Quoted: I remember when one would have been buried under the jail for even acknowledging the existence of the ACM. I also remember being at a loss for words when I first saw it and was briefed on its capabilities. Shit ,I'm gettin old.

Those were the good ole days.

SLCM
GLCM
ACM

and the granddaddy of them all....

Thanks for the extra info Armed_Scientist, the enhanced design backs up what I heard about those types of warheads ten years ago.

Quoted: Quoted: I remember when one would have been buried under the jail for even acknowledging the existence of the ACM. I also remember being at a loss for words when I first saw it and was briefed on its capabilities. Shit ,I'm gettin old. Those were the good ole days. SLCM GLCM ACM and the granddaddy of them all.... img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/borderguy/Tom.jpg

No here is the grand daddy and Yes we copied the V-1.  We were going to use it on Japan.

Quoted: <snip> but it would definetly be a step beyond the current Teller-Ulam inline configured warheads.

That's like so space shuttle high over my head....

Quoted: and the granddaddy of them all....

The GSLAM.  

Quoted: Quoted: I'd be willing to bet Dollars to Deutchmarks (if they were still around) that the reason that these have been selected to be phased out becuase a cruise missile based on either the Lockheed-Martin RAATLRS or the scramjet/ramjet technology of the British Meteor AAM or X-43/X-51 is coming into production. Thanks to the loss of Rocky-Flats we can't produce new nuclear warheads, or at least not for several years, so if we have a new missile for the airborn portion of the triad then we are going to have to get the warheads from somewhere. It makes the most sense to use the most modern warheads avalible, thus the ones from the AGM-129. Also with the B-2 on the nuclear attack mission penetrating hostile airspace wouldn't be dependent on a cruise missile with low observability, and the B-2 can carry the B-83 with a maximum nominal yeild of 1200kilotons, a much higher yeild then the warheads carried by cruise missiles. If you are going to be limited to feilding a smaller number of warheads it makes the most sense to maximize the yeild of the weapons you have. I am thinking the same thing about the new hypersonic cruise missiles coming online. It should be noted that the Russians are thinking about walking away from the SALT and other nuclear treaties not that they actually observed them anyhow.

AFAIK, those hypersonic missiles are going to derive most of their power from kinetic kills.

Something traveling that fast does a HELL of a lot of damage to whatever it hits.  Even better when it has multiple .50 inch tungsten alloy rods for warheads.