USN against the Strategic Missile Forces
Both the modern American and Russian nuclear triads date back to the Cold War, when the goal and task were extremely simple and clear: to completely wipe the enemy off the face of the planet. And yet there are differences. The core of the American strategic nuclear forces is Ohio-class nuclear submarines, each of which carries up to 24 solid-propellant three-stage UGM-133A Trident II (D5) ballistic missiles.
The Ohio is now nominally the world's most destructive submarine. Even the promising Columbia will not have such capabilities: the number of ballistic missiles will be reduced to 16 units. In total, the US Navy has fourteen Ohio-class nuclear submarines with Tridents: the rest have been rearmed, making them carriers of Tomahawk cruise missiles.
In turn, Russia relies more on mine-based and mobile-based complexes. There is not much choice: all the submarines of Project 667BDRM "Dolphin" were built quite a long time ago - even before the collapse of the Soviet Union ("Ohio", by the way, is also far from new). And the armament in the face of the Soviet liquid-propellant R-29 can hardly be called modern. A real alternative to them could be not the now produced Bulava, but the R-39UTTH. But she never did.
New warhead
It must be assumed that there are no complaints about Trident II: now it is the most powerful solid-propellant ballistic missile of submarines and one of the most powerful missile systems in general. According to data from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for 2019, one rocket can have up to eight W88 blocks of 455 kilotons each, up to fourteen W76-0 blocks of 100 kilotons each (they were decommissioned) or the same number of W-76-1 blocks approximately 90 kilotons each. For comparison: the above-mentioned new Russian "Bulava" carries six (according to other sources - ten) warheads of 150 kilotons.
All the more unusual may seem the news about equipping the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734) submarine with Trident II (D5) missiles with W76-2 thermonuclear warheads, each of which has a very modest yield - only about five kilotons. We will remind, recently the website of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reported that at the end of December 2019, the submarine first went on patrol from the King's Bay naval base, having missiles with such warheads. Not all missiles are equipped with new blocks, but only one or two. Moreover, each of these missiles has only a few warheads W76-2. The other several dozen missiles of the USS Tennessee submarine have W88 or less powerful W-76-1s.
According to the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies bmpd, the first W76-2 warhead was manufactured at the Pantex facility in Amarillo, Texas in February last year. At the same time, they said that the start of the delivery of these warheads to the US Navy was scheduled for the end of the 2019 fiscal year. In total, according to experts, about 50 W76-2 warheads were manufactured.
Loosen to strengthen
The main question can be formulated as follows: why did the Americans need such a weapon? As you know, for the first time about its creation was announced relatively recently, in 2018. The main goal is to confront the Russian Federation. According to American experts, Russia admits the use of the "escalation for de-escalation" doctrine: in this case, low-power tactical nuclear weapons can be used in an attack using conventional means.
The W76-2 warhead is intended to show that the Americans also have such weapons at their disposal, and that Russia will no longer be able to individually exercise the "right of the strong." However, the harmonious concept in the Federation of American Scientists is not shared. “This is all reminiscent of old-fashioned Cold War warfare. In the past, any tactical nuclear weapon has been justified by similar arguments: that less power and "lightning-fast use" are needed for deterrence. Now the new, low-powered W76-2 is giving the US a weapon that its supporters say is better to use and more effective as a deterrent. There is nothing new here, the authors of the publication note.
From the Russian point of view, the launch of Trident II (D5) with the aim of using low-power warheads is no different from the usual launch of this missile and the actual start of the “big war”. So, according to experts, the W76-2 does not make sense from a practical point of view. In addition, experts indicate that the United States has air-launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads and B61 tactical thermonuclear bombs, the use of which will be equivalent in effect to the use of the W76-2.
The last thesis is only partially true. The aerospace forces of the Russian Federation have been receiving new Su-35S and Su-30SM fighters for a long time and in large quantities, as well as modern S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems (we also recall that the latest S-350 was transferred to the army for the first time in December). Despite the actual technical superiority of the US Air Force in terms of fighter aircraft, Russia can effectively shoot down air carriers of tactical nuclear weapons.
There is another point of view. Allegedly, the W76-2 warheads are not directed against the Russian Federation, but against Iran. And they were created not to serve as a deterrent, but to attack. If this is the case, then the entrepreneurial spirit of the Americans knows no boundaries, because even without taking into account tactical nuclear weapons, they have a great variety of conventional conventional weapons, which, in one way or another, pose a huge danger to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which does not have modern weapons capable of withstanding them. So, for example, all attempts to create a national Iranian fighter ended in nothing. And the notorious "mosquito fleet" can fight anyone, but not the United States Navy, which has an absolute advantage. The same, in general, applies to the DPRK, a war with which, however, the US leadership will avoid in any way due to the DPRK's nuclear weapons.
(Not) symmetrical answer
The naval component of the Russian nuclear triad faces more mundane tasks. To put it simply, the main one is the nominal efficiency and at least partial replacement of old Soviet boats and missiles, which will sooner or later go down in history.
Let us remind you that on January 24, Izvestia wrote that Russian specialists intend to eliminate the critical inability of the Bulava to pass through the ice. For this purpose, the carrier boats will allegedly teach how to use special unguided rockets, thanks to which ice holes will be formed, through which ballistic missiles can pass. The first tests of this system without explosives were allegedly carried out back in 2014.
At the same time, there is no talk of any replacement for the Bulava or its carriers in the person of the Project 955 submarine. This, in particular, is well illustrated by the recently shown model of a small multipurpose submarine of the future project 545 with the code "Laika-Navy", which may replace the boats of projects 971 and 885, but not the aforementioned "Borei".
