Quote:
Originally Posted by razark
In addition, you can use the F-22 for multiple roles, and you can use it more than once.
The B-61 does only one thing, and it can only do it once.
|
So in other words the F-22 has to come back and finish the job the next day while a B-61 finishes the job in a few seconds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So if a single B-61 costs 750,000 and an F-22 costs 149 million wouldn't you have to factor in the costs of the B-2 as the B-61 doesn't fly by itself
|
A B-2 doesn't have to be the delivery system. A low cost Scud or LACM would work, as could a semi-truck. All difficult to intercept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomizer
Actually, I have had formal courses in nuclear target analysis and tactical fire planning with nuclear weapons during the early eighties. Have also extensively studied nuclear deterrence during the Cold War and the development of nuclear weapons doctrines of both NATO and the Soviet Union.
I'm sorry that you seem to have succumb to hype and the superficial lure of Wikipedia for your info.
The majority of nuclear weapons costs are not so much in the acquisition of the weapons themselves but in the delivery systems and in the huge and unique infrastructure required to manufacture, store, secure and service them. There is no dual-use options for these facilities and the highly trained specialists that run them, the costs are recurring and cannot be reduced without reducing stockpiles OR compromising safety or security. I also strongly suggest that a warhead for a Trident missile is not a particulary cheap item so cherry picking a low tech bomb's cost out of a catalog proves absolutely nothing.
|
The only source I used Wikipedia on was for the price of the F-22, which is extremely high no matter what source you look at.
I don't have the figures for the W88 but the older W76 which is the original Trident payload is even cheaper than the B-61 I mentioned in my last post, only 128 million:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W76.html
A Trident missile is only 30 million:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm
Dual-use? There certainly is a duel use for nuclear bomb production, storage and service facilities. Its just no one has had the b*lls to build a flying mountain of steel yet!
Wikipedia
Google Books
Oh right there is no reason for launching 8,000 tons in to LEO with one launch...
oh wait there is