USAF to retire AGM-129

Garry I am assuming that US would be using its B-2 fleet for some surprise pre-emptive strikes , wont wait for the ICBM to reach their land mass , For a preemptive B-2’s are just the kind of Bomber you would need.

The fact that they are practising low level stuff suggests they will likely want to use them in a preemptive strike, whether they will be given the chance is another matter. When there is evidence that they are able to fly through Russian airspace with impunity then they will have some credibility as a first strike weapon. Remember when the U-2 was flying missions over the Soviet Union there was suggestion that they were too high to be detected and tracked by some…

Looks like I misread his statement although it’s difficult to believe the USSR didn’t have any nuclear bombs on it’s bombers.

T-95 and Tu-160 was not a bombers but cruise missile carriers. Thats why its safe to say what USSR didnt had strategic nuclear bombs. But USSR had tactical nukes for use by Tu-22M, Su-27, Su-24, Mig-29, etc.

well! excess gear could always be refurbished and donated to strategic frontline allies like pakistan to better fight the war on terror 😀

Garry I am assuming that US would be using its B-2 fleet for some surprise pre-emptive strikes , wont wait for the ICBM to reach their land mass , For a preemptive B-2’s are just the kind of Bomber you would need.

I suppose the B-2 are capable of penetrating virtually any airspace in the world do its job and come back alive.

I’m not sure how practical a free-fall nuclear weapon is nowadays, though.

Fire a short range attack missile to vapourise the defences and then hit your official targets with bombs. Also remember the 6-8+ hour flight time means your bombers will be arriving long after the ICBMs and SLBMs have done their job. Whether there is anything left for them to hit will be a better question than how survivable they will be over target.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, there were reportedly up to 1000 Kh-55 cruise missiles on Ukrainian territory alone (how many of them were on alert and fitted with warheads is a different matter though)! That’s beside the point however, what Garry was getting at is that the only Soviet free-fall nukes were tactical weapons at that point, so the entire *airborne* part of their strategic nuclear deterrent was solely based on cruise missiles. Their absolute number or relative importance wasn’t actually being discussed.

Looks like I misread his statement although it’s difficult to believe the USSR didn’t have any nuclear bombs on it’s bombers.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, there were reportedly up to 1000 Kh-55 cruise missiles on Ukrainian territory alone (how many of them were on alert and fitted with warheads is a different matter though)! That’s beside the point however, what Garry was getting at is that the only Soviet free-fall nukes were tactical weapons at that point, so the entire *airborne* part of their strategic nuclear deterrent was solely based on cruise missiles. Their absolute number or relative importance wasn’t actually being discussed.

B-2s could carry nuclear freefall bombs as could the B-52s left in the strategic role. It was the Soviets that had an all Cruise missile airborne Strategic nuclear deterrent.

Don’t know where you get your information but how many cruise missiles and of what type did the Soviets have on strategic nuclear alert? Doubt it compares to 1700+ ALCMs and 460 ACMs.

I’m not sure how practical a free-fall nuclear weapon is nowadays, though. Sure a B-2 might get away with it due to its stealth characteristics, but there are only 20 of them and they are considered extremely valuable. All-out nuclear warfare might justify the risk, but still. A B-52 with nukes aboard OTOH would become such a high-priority target for the enemy that its lack of speed and stealth becomes damning. It wouldn’t stand a chance, IMHO. So, they might not be totally relinquishing the capability but they are certainly slashing it drastically.

It is weird though – doesn’t this basically mean that the US is giving up its airborne nuclear deterrent completely?

B-2s could carry nuclear freefall bombs as could the B-52s left in the strategic role. It was the Soviets that had an all Cruise missile airborne Strategic nuclear deterrent.

That’s the thing you’d use for the most dangerous of targets in a nuclear strike. Makes no sense that they’d get rid of them. Even the longest ranged JASSM doesn’t come close to the range (nor very likely have as small of a RCS) and you can bet the $hit would hit the fan if word got out that the US was developing nuclear varients of JASSM which means they won’t. If you think all this is bad though just wait until the dems get in the White House, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. 😡

The USAF needs smart weapons with none or less collateral damage.
So the AGM-129 is past its time, because it can’t hit targets like WMD bunkers.
And a conventionally armed AGM-129 is too expensive compared to smart weapons of today. See JASSM, JDAM and UGM-109.

There was also a projected AGM-129B version of the ACM. The official source describes it as an “AGM-129A modified with structural and software changes and an alternate nuclear warhead for accomplishing a classified cruise missile mission.” Apart from that, no further information is available, but most likely no ACMs were completed as AGM-129Bs. Reports, which attribute the AGM-129B designation to a planned, but eventually not funded, non-nuclear version of the ACM are erroneous. While a conventionally armed ACM was indeed proposed to the USAF by General Dynamics (and unofficially referred to as “AGM-129C”), this proposal was turned down.

Source: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-129.html

I wonder if those could be retained with conventional warhead.

I would be against that. If we had conventional stealth missiles we would likely use them. A small percentage fail to exploded, The pieces are obtain sold to countries like NK, Iran, ect… So they can be reverse engineered.

It’s the same reason I think the F-22 should be held back as a second line of defense unless the dirt hits the fan. Or a special mission comes up that it is needed really bad. I am against using the F-22 casually and I am against using stealth missiles casually.

We already have some smaller semi stealth missiles in R&D I think, and I think they are too small to carry nukes, and I think they are less vulnerable to reverse engineering.

Don’t worry, Nancy Polosi has offered them as foreign aid to Iran and North Korea.:D

I wonder if those could be retained with conventional warhead.

I think the small number of AGM-129s available would make that a somewhat pricey option. They’re probably much too expensive to be a cost-effective conventional weapon anyway – few potential adversaries have an airdefence system that could reliably shoot down the much cheaper AGM-86/Tomahawk/JASSM (And, more importantly, keep doing so long enough for it to become a real headache for the US. Only Russia and China can probably pull that off).

It is weird though – doesn’t this basically mean that the US is giving up its airborne nuclear deterrent completely? Almost as bizarre as the Peacekeeper retirement (it’s not like the US seemed to care much about getting rid of the ABM treaty, and Russia does not appear to have any intentions to retire their MIRVed missiles for other reasons than age).

I guess the fact they’re retiring them tells you it’s impossible (or not cost effective) to convert them to conventional warheads. I know, it sounds weird, but what other reason could there be? Perhaps the missiles themselves, because of the stealth or whatever reason, need constant pricey maintenance work – which would also be a good reason to retire them.

Also, one must not forget that jassm is being developed in long range and ultra long range versions – over 1000 km. It would surely be much cheaper to maintain and would offer greater commonality with rest of the USAF. I am sure if the need arises, new nukes will be added to the inventory, but such threats do not rise overnight.

I wonder if those could be retained with conventional warhead.

It’s insane

I thought it was the most advance cruse nuke we have. What are they thinking?