Game theory and nuclear brinkmanship

[Simon_Jester]

Think about an aircraft able to hold three hundred small diameter bombs, each with a 40kt warhead and able to boost-glide 50-100km while striking with 30m accuracy completely via inertial guidance, before you think any further about what it might feature.

Does it even make sense to load that many expensive nuclear weapons onto one platform that can be taken out by one missile or serious mechanical failure? I recently saw an estimate of $28M each for the B61-12 and that's using existing fissile (although a small production run). You probably have a better idea of unit cost of nuclear cruise missiles than me, but if correct that's twenty ish munitions for the adjusted unit price of a B1B. Even with operational expenses considered, over a hundred nuclear warheads on one platform does not seem sensible (for a penetrating aircraft that is bound to take some losses).

True, but to a real extent it doesn't matter; you have to honor the threat. If the US is attacked by an enemy air force, where each plane carries enough firepower to paralyze the entire Eastern Seaboard... the fact that individually each of 12 planes is really only carrying 1/12 of the load can't be assumed. And letting one through is still a complete disaster.

For that matter, even with purely conventional munitions, the bomber carrying 300 SDBs is a huge threat.

Is mach 3 'fast enough'? Because in the 1960s it wasn't considered 'fast enough' to give reasonable defense against near-future Soviet capability (admittedly the quality of that analysis can and has been challenged), hence cancellation of the B-70. Any faster and you're into hypersonics and vastly expensive technology that is still in the experimental stage. Unless there is some synergy between high-supersonic speeds and modern electronics & guidance (e.g. greatly extended glide range for gravity weapons) that has yet to be exploited in a bomber?

Sustained Mach 2-3 speed does not grant immunity to air defenses. But, combined with altitude, it grants resistance, which makes the plane considerably more dangerous. And more able to fight its way into a defense network and damage that network for follow-up waves of bombers.

[Sky Captain]

How useful would be stealthy nuclear cruise missiles if ABM technology becomes widespread? I am thinking about a cruise missile that can carry small 20 kt warhead, and hug terrain at treetop level or even lower when going over water and level ground. How detectable it would be if it have same degree of stealth as F 35 and it is similar size to a Tomahawk missile?