Thanks for the article Wes, a good read. I believe the nuclear air-to-air option for the MiG-31 goes back to the original MiG-31B upgrade of the 1980s, which offered the MiG-31 the option of the R-33S with a nuclear warhead. Wonder if this is more of a last-ditch resort against nuclear-armed bombers than anything else. In the Cold War, the Soviet air force was more cautious than the US about carrying actual nukes in aircraft; I wonder if this is still the case with the Russian air force.
Great thoughts. I seem to remember reading the nuclear Axehead was late 80s or (very) early 90s. To your last point, I suspect the RU Federation is slightly more cavalier about carrying nukes than they used to be. The Soviets were surprisingly risk-averse at times.
More reliance on satellites for command and control. More hardened C2 aircraft, beyond current EMP countermeasures. Maybe more dedicated air-to-air interceptors on NATO fighters, but those take up precious pylon space away from real weapons. Thinking ahead, perhaps airborne lasers might someday be useful at detonating a nuke air-to-air missile before it gets close. Just brainstorming.
Came for the reporting. Stayed for the writing. Subscribed for the multi-layered analysis. And just upgraded because of the strategic layers. This is what Substack is for.
A missile like the R37-M would be the logical mode of attack against Airforce 1 should the President be controlling his forces from the air in a conflict involving Russia and The USA. While it’s shielded against EMP, it likely couldn’t survive a localised nuclear blast any better.
And as you say, a near hit would likely have the same consequences
Thanks for another awesome article Wes. This is a notable development. My understanding is that nuclear AAM were originally developed to counter large bomber formations. Then quickly fell out of favour as people realised that formations Tu-95s probably weren't a major threat. The next question is a what has changed to make these weapons useful again, and I think you article identifies some great points. Specifically, I thought the point about destroying and disrupting the C2 of a kill chain or kill web. And, about the impact on planning of even the threat of these weapons being used.
Hey Wes! It reminds me of when the Canadians decided to disarm the nuclear 101 Voodoos in the early sixties and handed its Genies over to the USAF. That was over sixty years ago. I wonder what happened to those.
Thanks for this. Given what you wrote the best advice is probably to ignore it, at least until «normal» use has been demonstrated. (Of course the other advices offered by Wes are probably sound in a lot of settings, by all means.) But I think this is much more Russian Psy op than a weapon in mass production and use.
There is no legal target for a nuke. Call it tactical if you want. Doesn’t matter. The nuclear taboo is deeply ingrained. If Putin wants to see his support disappear faster than the mushroom cloud this is it. This is the great weakness of nuclear weapons, they cannot be used. Directly. But as Wes points out: indirect use does it, and is useful every day. Very useful for Russia. Poland probably wants to enter the fray, but can’t.
Thanks for the article Wes, a good read. I believe the nuclear air-to-air option for the MiG-31 goes back to the original MiG-31B upgrade of the 1980s, which offered the MiG-31 the option of the R-33S with a nuclear warhead. Wonder if this is more of a last-ditch resort against nuclear-armed bombers than anything else. In the Cold War, the Soviet air force was more cautious than the US about carrying actual nukes in aircraft; I wonder if this is still the case with the Russian air force.
Great thoughts. I seem to remember reading the nuclear Axehead was late 80s or (very) early 90s. To your last point, I suspect the RU Federation is slightly more cavalier about carrying nukes than they used to be. The Soviets were surprisingly risk-averse at times.
Possible countermeasures, if any? 🤔
More reliance on satellites for command and control. More hardened C2 aircraft, beyond current EMP countermeasures. Maybe more dedicated air-to-air interceptors on NATO fighters, but those take up precious pylon space away from real weapons. Thinking ahead, perhaps airborne lasers might someday be useful at detonating a nuke air-to-air missile before it gets close. Just brainstorming.
Find out where they are stocked in inventory for potential employment. Put a couple Tauruses on the site and get a longer stick for the marshmallows.
Came for the reporting. Stayed for the writing. Subscribed for the multi-layered analysis. And just upgraded because of the strategic layers. This is what Substack is for.
After today, Russia should be more worried about having airplanes where to mount these weapons…
Can they aim them up too? To space based parts of he system?
A missile like the R37-M would be the logical mode of attack against Airforce 1 should the President be controlling his forces from the air in a conflict involving Russia and The USA. While it’s shielded against EMP, it likely couldn’t survive a localised nuclear blast any better.
And as you say, a near hit would likely have the same consequences
This vlog makes me go.
Uh oh.
Soo often..
But I stay on as a sub as I enjoy the rules.
Thanks for another awesome article Wes. This is a notable development. My understanding is that nuclear AAM were originally developed to counter large bomber formations. Then quickly fell out of favour as people realised that formations Tu-95s probably weren't a major threat. The next question is a what has changed to make these weapons useful again, and I think you article identifies some great points. Specifically, I thought the point about destroying and disrupting the C2 of a kill chain or kill web. And, about the impact on planning of even the threat of these weapons being used.
Hey Wes! It reminds me of when the Canadians decided to disarm the nuclear 101 Voodoos in the early sixties and handed its Genies over to the USAF. That was over sixty years ago. I wonder what happened to those.
Thanks for this. Given what you wrote the best advice is probably to ignore it, at least until «normal» use has been demonstrated. (Of course the other advices offered by Wes are probably sound in a lot of settings, by all means.) But I think this is much more Russian Psy op than a weapon in mass production and use.
Will successful deployment of this system shut up the Drone Swarm fetishists? Because that would be a legit tactical use for a small nuke.
There is no legal target for a nuke. Call it tactical if you want. Doesn’t matter. The nuclear taboo is deeply ingrained. If Putin wants to see his support disappear faster than the mushroom cloud this is it. This is the great weakness of nuclear weapons, they cannot be used. Directly. But as Wes points out: indirect use does it, and is useful every day. Very useful for Russia. Poland probably wants to enter the fray, but can’t.