PC/WI: USA consolidates all Strategic Nuclear forces on SSBN's

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Inspired by a previous thread by Polish Eagle regarding US ICBM/Cruise missile forces development.

These are the total number of warheads fielded by the US in Dec 1987 minus ALCM/GLGM courtesy of Salamander-Illustrated Guide to Strategic Weapons.

ICBM's

Minuteman II . . . . . . . 442
Minuteman III . . . . . 1,608
Peacekeeper . . . . . . . .140

SLBM's

Poseidon C-3 . . . . . . 2,560
Trident I C-4 . . . . . . 3,072

Total . . . . . . . . . . . 7,822

What if the US removed their possible first strike capability (although they never implied they had one) and replaced all their ICBM's with SLBM's carried on a extra 11 Ohio class SSBN's to give a new total of 7,822 warheads carried on extra Trident D II's to give a full fleet of 41 SSBN's.

Would this be plausible?

Would the US go for this option of going for a full secondary strike capability?

Regards filers.
 
Trident D5s, deployed in 1990, are considered first strike weapons. The Air Force would never in a million years allow this. They tried in the late 90s to get SSBNs placed under their command because they carried missiles. Then there is the cost of 11 more Ohio subs. Both in hardware and manning. Bangor and Kings Bay can only handle so many subs each. I was stationed on the USS Tennessee and USS Pennsylvania out of Kings Bay and I don't think that the base could handle 5-6 more subs. Being a sub guy, I hate to say it, but ICBMs have one advantage. They are ready 24/7. An SSBN is not ready or able to fire during refit. Refit is around 25 days out of each patrol cycle. Plus subs are really expensive to keep running. Crew, parts, bases, etc... ICBMs do not have those costs. IMHO the TRIAD worked because each piece played its part. Bombers could be scrambled, but then recalled. ICBMs are ready 24/7 and SSBNs are the ultimate last strike weapon.
 
Politically it'll never fly - the USAF and it's political backers would fight tooth and nail to keep their role in the strategic nuclear arsenal.

From a thought experiment perspective, it is certainly plausible that with the introduction of the Trident II you could have a SSBN force that provides your full deterrent. The Trident II was a real leap in capability, combining the accuracy to strike counterforce targets heretofore reserved for ICBMs with the nigh-invulnerability of submarine basing. As such, a fleet of Trident II SSBNs does not force the USA to give up on counterforce strategy and the ability to launch a first strike.

IMO there is a significant chance a submarine only deterrent would be significantly destabilizing to the strategic balance. The classic triad meant that the Soviets could threaten a significant portion of the US arsenal at any time, which will be lost now. Also, the prospect of a surprise counterforce strike from the Trident II fleet, especially if combined with depressed trajectories and the Pershing 2 would give the Soviet leaders nightmares and may provoke an unimaginable disaster.
 
also, doesn't having the triad make it harder for an enemy to guard against it? If you have only missiles, only bombers, or only subs, wouldn't the enemy throw everything into countermeasures for that one delivery system? With all three, it's a lot more difficult...
 
Yeah, if it's just subs, then you'd see the Russians developing big AIP subs and Kilos en masse along with all efforts going into sonar and shkval long range nuke-tipped torps.
 

Archibald

Banned
France somewhat did that - the ground-based missiles of the Plateau d'Albion were withdrawn in 1996. The Air component was cut to a handful of ASMPs cruise missiles with limited range. Main strike capability was given to submarines.
Surely, that saved a lot of money on a shoestring defence budget. Conventional forces suffered a lot because of the Force de Frappe annual, secured funding.
 
Last edited:
also, doesn't having the triad make it harder for an enemy to guard against it? If you have only missiles, only bombers, or only subs, wouldn't the enemy throw everything into countermeasures for that one delivery system? With all three, it's a lot more difficult...

In theory, sure. In practice though? Well, it might have been true at one point in time but by the time the D-5 came around it wasn't any more. The problem with countermeasures against boomers is that modern sub ICBMs have identical ranges to their land-based counterparts, which means that they now tend to hang out in designated patrol areas close to their home country's shorelines. This means that in order to apply the relevant countermeasures, that is ASW ordinance and systems, you are putting the assets which use such ordinance at severe risk. This is even more the case for any given nuclear power that isn't the United States because of the US's positively unrivaled blue water naval superiority.
 
Yeah, if it's just subs, then you'd see the Russians developing big AIP subs and Kilos en masse along with all efforts going into sonar and shkval long range nuke-tipped torps.

Sometimes I wake up to Tom Clancy nightmares of a submarine force that uses nuclear submarines as tenders and AIP submarines as silent pickets. Didn't the Russians build some concrete submarines during the Cold War?
 
Trident D5s, deployed in 1990, are considered first strike weapons. The Air Force would never in a million years allow this. They tried in the late 90s to get SSBNs placed under their command because they carried missiles. Then there is the cost of 11 more Ohio subs. Both in hardware and manning. Bangor and Kings Bay can only handle so many subs each. I was stationed on the USS Tennessee and USS Pennsylvania out of Kings Bay and I don't think that the base could handle 5-6 more subs. Being a sub guy, I hate to say it, but ICBMs have one advantage. They are ready 24/7. An SSBN is not ready or able to fire during refit. Refit is around 25 days out of each patrol cycle. Plus subs are really expensive to keep running. Crew, parts, bases, etc... ICBMs do not have those costs. IMHO the TRIAD worked because each piece played its part. Bombers could be scrambled, but then recalled. ICBMs are ready 24/7 and SSBNs are the ultimate last strike weapon.

Politically it'll never fly - the USAF and it's political backers would fight tooth and nail to keep their role in the strategic nuclear arsenal.

From a thought experiment perspective, it is certainly plausible that with the introduction of the Trident II you could have a SSBN force that provides your full deterrent. The Trident II was a real leap in capability, combining the accuracy to strike counterforce targets heretofore reserved for ICBMs with the nigh-invulnerability of submarine basing. As such, a fleet of Trident II SSBNs does not force the USA to give up on counterforce strategy and the ability to launch a first strike.

IMO there is a significant chance a submarine only deterrent would be significantly destabilizing to the strategic balance. The classic triad meant that the Soviets could threaten a significant portion of the US arsenal at any time, which will be lost now. Also, the prospect of a surprise counterforce strike from the Trident II fleet, especially if combined with depressed trajectories and the Pershing 2 would give the Soviet leaders nightmares and may provoke an unimaginable disaster.
I thought that we had 41 SSBN's based before the Ohios came along, and we didn't have any problems basing those.

As for the Trident II, it's probably the best ICBM we have, and I personally think that we should use it as the basis for a "universal heavy missile system". That would mean developing land-based silos or road mobile launchers for it (like the Topol-M or RS-24 Yars) to replace the Minuteman III, and also to develop other missiles that can be fired out of the same launchers as the Trident II. These missiles could include something very similar to (and thus replacing) the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) missile (which is similar in size to the ICBMs it is designed to intercept), and a heavy anti-ship/cruise missile similar to (or larger than) the P-700 Granit (which is also very similar in size to the Trident II). This would make the SSBN and ICBM missile silos much more versatile, as they could act in a deterrent, anti-ballistic missile, or anti-ship (or coastal defense) role depending on what missiles are loaded.
 
As pointed out, the Air Force would never allow it.

===
However, let's play with the idea.
If the Air Force, Army and Navy are ALL massively reduced and have far less political and economic clout, it might be doable.

OTL, the US maintains a Triad because they're prepared to spend enough money to afford it.

If the Soviets collapse earlier, and they and the Chinese go to economic instead of military competition, and everybody joins hands and sings Kum By Ya, then you might get such a build down.

In that case, the US maintaining a token nuke force consisting of about 3 boomers (as a deterrent against e.g. North Korea and Iran, say), might happen. Similarly the rump Russian state and China keep a dozen ICBMs, and France keeps a couple of squadrons of nuclear capable Mirages/Rafaels/whatever.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Trident D5s, deployed in 1990, are considered first strike weapons. The Air Force would never in a million years allow this. They tried in the late 90s to get SSBNs placed under their command because they carried missiles. Then there is the cost of 11 more Ohio subs. Both in hardware and manning. Bangor and Kings Bay can only handle so many subs each. I was stationed on the USS Tennessee and USS Pennsylvania out of Kings Bay and I don't think that the base could handle 5-6 more subs. Being a sub guy, I hate to say it, but ICBMs have one advantage. They are ready 24/7. An SSBN is not ready or able to fire during refit. Refit is around 25 days out of each patrol cycle. Plus subs are really expensive to keep running. Crew, parts, bases, etc... ICBMs do not have those costs. IMHO the TRIAD worked because each piece played its part. Bombers could be scrambled, but then recalled. ICBMs are ready 24/7 and SSBNs are the ultimate last strike weapon.

WI, Removing ICBM's and Bombers and SSBN's from the USAF & USN respectively and putting then under their own independent command (making SAC a complete service of the military) such as the USSR's Strategic Rocket Forces did, would that help?

Regards filers
 
Or half the Trident Force belongs to the USAF
Oh dear. I just had a horrid thought.

The political compromise reached is that the Navy runs the subs - but the Air Force provides the missile techs on board the sub. Probably both the ship's captain, and an air force Colonel have to enter their respective launch codes to actually launch anything. ... :(
 

WhoMadeWho

Banned
WI, Removing ICBM's and Bombers and SSBN's from the USAF & USN respectively and putting then under their own independent command (making SAC a complete service of the military) such as the USSR's Strategic Rocket Forces did, would that help?

Regards filers

I think there's too much crossover between SSBNs and attack subs to feasibly put them under their own service without a massive duplication of effort.
 
I thought that we had 41 SSBN's based before the Ohios came along, and we didn't have any problems basing those.

As for the Trident II, it's probably the best ICBM we have, and I personally think that we should use it as the basis for a "universal heavy missile system". That would mean developing land-based silos or road mobile launchers for it (like the Topol-M or RS-24 Yars) to replace the Minuteman III, and also to develop other missiles that can be fired out of the same launchers as the Trident II. These missiles could include something very similar to (and thus replacing) the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) missile (which is similar in size to the ICBMs it is designed to intercept), and a heavy anti-ship/cruise missile similar to (or larger than) the P-700 Granit (which is also very similar in size to the Trident II). This would make the SSBN and ICBM missile silos much more versatile, as they could act in a deterrent, anti-ballistic missile, or anti-ship (or coastal defense) role depending on what missiles are loaded.

The "41 for Freedom" SSBNs were deployed out of Rota, Spain; Holy Loch, Scotland and the Charleston Weapons Station. Bremerton and Kings Bay were built just for the Tridents. Patrols out of Scotland were great. You went right on alert and stated on alert for the entire patrol. Soviets were usually out there trying to track you. Fun stuff. You turned the boat over in 3 days and then flew back to Charleston, SC at the end of the patrol. The flights home were on charter flights with lots of drinking.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The Air Force would never allow this, for the reasons already discussed.

Somewhat related to this, freshwater subs based in the Great Lakes were apparently proposed as a less costly alternative to the MX system. It's a rather interesting idea if you ask me: all the advantages of sub basing but at potentially much lower cost than MX or ocean based subs. 1980 article on this here:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AAIBAJ&sjid=254EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6960,255125&hl=en

Quiet interesting. I wonder if you save money by just building more Ohio or a lesser new sub. You don't really need weapons, as advance sonar or maybe even the nuclear reactor on a lake based submarine. And you probably don't need that high a top speed.
 
Sorry it's not clear to me if the U.S. only has SLBM delivered nuclear weapons in this scenario or if the SLBM's replace ICBM's and bomber delivered weapons are retained ? I'm very doubtful that the U.S. would want to rely on a single nuclear weapon system but I could conceviably see a move to consildate the ballistic missile forces into the SLBM force along with a nuclear armed bomber force. As others have mentioned the USAF is unlikely to want to give up a nuclear role but I could conceviably see them settling for the bomber role especially if politics or budget constraints lead to cuts in the U.S. Nuclear arsenal.
 
Here's what you do: the USAF and first-strike counterforce doctrine fall out of favour in the late 1950s/early 1960s. Having one or more of the nuclear weapons incidents result in a nuclear event might help here.

Effect of this is that the Navy's proposals for a submarine-based second-strike force are accepted. The 45 for Freedom are built, the USAF's bombers are stood down, and Minuteman is cancelled. The SSBN fleet gets a lot of attention paid to keeping it at the cutting edge of technology.
 
Top