US Navy submarines to re-arm with nuclear cruise missiles after 3 decades

[william]

In a surprising development, the US Navy has released a Request for Information (RFI) regarding the development of a Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N).

The initiative aims to establish a modular and resilient cruise missile system that delivers a proportional response while ensuring essential adversary targets remain vulnerable.

The goal is to deploy an operational system by fiscal year 2034, with prototype tests anticipated within the next three years.

The SLCM-N will be launched from Virginia-class attack submarines and is centered around an “All Up Round” (AUR) concept.

This includes an expendable booster, a nuclear-capable cruise missile, and a launch canister, allowing underwater launches from Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT) or Virginia Payload Modules (VPM).

Additionally, the Navy seeks missiles that are “as modular as possible,” incorporating both software and hardware, to ensure that modifications to the missile’s body or shared tactical systems don’t necessitate changes to the warhead payload interfaces or avionics related to the nuclear mission.

“The open system approach is being adopted to facilitate future technical upgrades or technology enhancements as needed throughout the SLCM-N program’s lifespan,” the Navy’s request indicates.

The United States originally introduced nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles during the mid-1980s with the deployment of the TLAM-N, a nuclear variant of the Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile.

These missiles, which had a range of about 2,500 kilometers (approximately 1,550 miles), were positioned on both surface vessels and attack submarines.

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush declared the withdrawal of all sea-based tactical nuclear weapons, resulting in the removal of TLAM-N missiles by the middle of 1992.

The Navy kept the option to redeploy them on attack submarines if necessary. However, in 2010, the Obama Administration recommended decommissioning the TLAM-N system, considering it redundant in light of other available nuclear capabilities. This retirement was finalized in 2013.

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) under the Trump Administration advocated for the development of a novel nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, now referred to as SLCM-N.

This initiative aimed to provide a “non-strategic regional presence” and fulfill the need for “flexible and low-yield options” within the US nuclear arsenal.

The SLCM-N was designed to enhance deterrence against regional threats and reassure US allies.

Supporters of the SLCM-N contend that it provides a flexible and survivable nuclear option capable of deployment in various regions without needing to station nuclear assets on allied territories.

The SLCM-N would fulfill a critical role as a sea-based nuclear deterrent below the strategic level on the nuclear escalation ladder, emphasizing that the commander-in-chief should have access to such options.

2034, I would think they could field this system way before that. After all this is not new technology.

US submarines re-adopt sea-launched nukes after 32-year absence

 

[william]

Pros And Cons Of The Navy’s Controversial Submarine-Launched Nuclear Cruise Missile​

As President-elect Donald Trump nears his return to the White House, the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) program started during his first term is potentially returning to the spotlight as well.

It remains unclear whether Trump’s second term will put wind in the sails for the program, which President Joe Biden proposed canceling in the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review. Questions remain about whether the deterrent juice is worth the financial and resource squeeze to field SLCM-N and its warhead in the next decade, and the potential role it could play in escalating hostilities, not lessening them. Concerns also persist about whether it will irrevocably change the very nature of the American attack submarine force, and if all those dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

But supporters argue that SLCM-N would provide a much-needed sea-based nuclear deterrent that is a rung below the strategic level on the nuclear warfare ladder, and that the commander-in-chief is owed a bevy of such options.

Like its predecessor, the U.S. Navy’s scuppered nuclear-armed Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N), SLCM-N is envisioned as a lower-yield nuclear weapon launched from subs that would provide a new dimension to the maritime portion of the nuclear triad while allowing the United States to proportionately respond to a limited nuclear strike by an adversary.

“It’s part of an overall ability to build a flexible reaction, flexible deterrent,” Bradley Martin, a retired Navy surface warfare officer and current senior policy researcher at the RAND think tank, told The War Zone. “Being sea-based, it does allow concealment and less vulnerability than there might be if it’s sitting on an attack aircraft someplace.”

Count Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe, director of the Navy Strategic Systems Programs (NSSP), as one of the SLCM-N skeptics. “This is truly a capability we have to build from the ground up,” Breaking Defense quoted Wolfe as saying.

Wolfe also quashed the idea of the Navy simply recreating a nuclear Tomahawk from the Cold War era.

“We can’t reconstitute that, okay?” Breaking Defense quoted Wolfe as saying. “It’s not that easy.”

But supporters of the program argue that the main reason for American subs in the first place is deterrence, and giving the president an additional submarine-launched tactical nuclear option has major advantages.

The U.S. Navy has already fielded a lower-yield nuclear strike option in the form of the W76-2 warhead loaded onto an unspecified number of Ohio class nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), boats that are already set up to fire nuclear weapons.

Concerns over an adversary not knowing if a Trident launch is packing a low-yield or much more powerful payload is also an issue. The cruise missile delivery system fired by SSNs solves this issue to some degree, but also introduces others in terms of strategic ambiguity. If these boats can fire nuclear-armed cruise missiles, then will any cruise missile be interpreted as such during a crisis?

And while it doesn’t these days, the U.S. Navy’s non-ballistic missile-equipped fleet does have a history of carrying nuclear weapons, Miller writes.

“Throughout the Cold War, U.S. carriers deployed with nuclear gravity bombs and ASW weapons; surface combatants carried a range of nuclear-tipped anti-air and ASW weapons; and SSNs carried nuclear-tipped torpedoes and the SUBROC ASW systems,” he writes. “From the 1980s until the end of the Cold War, surface ships and SSNs also carried nuclear Tomahawks (and those nuclear Tomahawks contributed significantly to deterring Soviet nuclear attacks on our aircraft carriers).”

The President does have multiple options outside the Navy’s leg of the nuclear triad. The Air Force has B-61 tactical nuclear bombs that currently equip certain fighters and B-2 bombers, which are highly flexible assets that can deal with broadcasting strategic intent and executing proportional strikes if called upon to do so. That service also has air-launched nuclear cruise missiles in its arsenal.

As President-elect Trump’s inauguration nears, and his politically appointed defense and Navy secretaries get to work, whether SLCM-N will return to prominence remains to be seen, but considering the program was born out of his last administration, it’s a definite possibility.

Pros And Cons Of The Navy's Controversial Submarine-Launched Nuclear Cruise Missile

Will Trump returning to the White House put wind in the sails of the nuclear-tipped cruise missile program he started?

www.twz.com

 

[OReid]

I don’t know if a would characterize TLAM-N as different from ballistic nukes in a strategic sense.
Any delivery of a nuclear warhead I would think is a strategic action.
I don’t know maybe being to technical. A ballistic missile will almost always have more range options as well as better survivability.
The only advantage of a nuclear cruse missile is targeting flexibility mid course.

Only thing they better do is design them in a way that they have a chance of accepting future hypersonic missiles

 

[william]

I don’t know if a would characterize TLAM-N as different from ballistic nukes in a strategic sense.
Any delivery of a nuclear warhead I would think is a strategic action.
I don’t know maybe being to technical. A ballistic missile will almost always have more range options as well as better survivability.
The only advantage of a nuclear cruse missile is targeting flexibility mid course.

Only thing they better do is design them in a way that they have a chance of accepting future hypersonic missiles

I agree. What I don't understand when I read through the articles is why it's going to take so long to field them. I mean it's not like it's something we haven't done before. I know the flavor of the week now are the hypersonic fast movers, but I still think a ground hugging TLAM-N is going to be able to penetrate russias air defense quite well. I don't think their radar would be able to find them through the ground clutter. I mean come on we fire conventional TLAMS from subs now so how much would it take to swape out the warheads? Let's get ready to rumble if they want to go there!

Oh, and by the way, that missile putin just firered is why we pulled out of that treaty. Those frackers have been cheating for years! That and the fact the chicoms wouldn't get on board.

 

[Yingyang]

Wow all the talk of a triad capabilities and people thinking US NAVY -submarines having nuclear weapons on board for 32 yrs wasn't true. And probably won't for another decade. Wow.
Huh. TRUST .

 

[DarkNoon]

What I don't understand when I read through the articles is why it's going to take so long to field them. I mean it's not like it's something we haven't done before.

Because our naval shipyard capacity is bismall at best. We have let our Shipyard capacity dwindle to almost nothing. I've read articles about how service or repair of our nuclear aircraft carriers has a backlog and takes a rather pedantic amount of time now... We would absolutely not be able to make emergency repairs quick enough in any major naval war anymore.

 

[Yingyang]

Because our naval shipyard capacity is bismall at best. We have let our Shipyard capacity dwindle to almost nothing. I've read articles about how service or repair of our nuclear aircraft carriers has a backlog and takes a rather pedantic amount of time now... We would absolutely not be able to make emergency repairs quick enough in any major naval war anymore.

No shit.

 

[DarkNoon]

No shit.

But doesn't matter, as that's what nuclear weapons are for. Won't stay conventional for long then.

 

[Yingyang]

But doesn't matter, as that's what nuclear weapons are for. Won't stay conventional long.

 

[william]

I agree. What I don't understand when I read through the articles is why it's going to take so long to field them. I mean it's not like it's something we haven't done before. I know the flavor of the week now are the hypersonic fast movers, but I still think a ground hugging TLAM-N is going to be able to penetrate russias air defense quite well. I don't think their radar would be able to find them through the ground clutter. I mean come on we fire conventional TLAMS from subs now so how much would it take to swape out the warheads? Let's get ready to rumble if they want to go there!

Oh, and by the way, that missile putin just firered is why we pulled out of that treaty. Those frackers have been cheating for years! That and the fact the chicoms wouldn't get on board.

I was thinking about this, and I wonder if this could be some sort of misdirection by the pentagon. They wouldn't do that would they. You know, 10 years is really 1 year, 1 year is really 1 month, 1 day is really 1 hour. That type of thing.

 

[william]

Wow all the talk of a triad capabilities and people thinking US NAVY -submarines having nuclear weapons on board for 32 yrs wasn't true. And probably won't for another decade. Wow.
Huh. TRUST .

Of course, the US has nukes on subs. The articles are talking about sub launched nuclear cruise missiles.