A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs

[Skybolt]

No conspiration, Bobby, only resources allocation. US had (has) deep pockets but Americans wanted (want) butter AND guns... After WW2 the US military budget at constant prices never exceeded 15 percent of GDP. The peak was in Fiscal 1953 with 14.2 percent. During the Eisenhower administration it was stabilized at 10 per cent of GDP (now it is slightly less than 5 per cent, all expenses included, like DOE) and still one major service (the Army) suffered (another reading suggestion, it should be possible to find in the nearest public library: "The uncertain trumpet", by Gen. Maxwell Taylor). During the '60 the US managed to: build the TRIAD as we know it (42 SSBN plus 1000 Minutemen plus updating the bomber force) AND expand the TAC, AND updating the Navy, AND revamp the Army, AND fight in Vietnam not exceeding 9,4 % of GDP (Fiscal 1968). Without Vietnam, or a reduced one (like today's Iraq and Afghanistan summed, not powered 2 like it was) but this is only speculation, US could have bought ABM (at least the modular Nike-X or Sentinel, remember that the US BOUGHT ABM... ), update interceptors (but for what ? Bears and Bounders ?) and build a new big solid ICBM. The early '70s could have brought evading MaRVs aboard ICBMs and SLBMs and operational hypersonics for recce and perhaps strike, but that's linked to what the opposition would do. All within the Eisenhower limit, or slighly less (Nixon's budget in OTL dived from 8.7 to 5.5 % of GDP in six years). Regarding the interservice resources allocation, the real fight (apart episodes, like the B-36 affair) has always been between Air Force and Army, with the first winning during all the '50s, then going parity and only recently with the Army having the winning hand from time to time (most relative). The Navy is the Navy, and must be considered the senior service, otherwise Poseidon (the god) would hurl the ghosts of Mahan and Nimitz at the Congress to scream their disdain (a little semi-quotation from Poul Anderson's.. sorry). Speaking of SF authors, and Star Wars (not-the-movie), please consider what Jerry Pournelle and his group said and did (and recalled after the fact): it was both real and smoke and mirrors. In my opinion, it couldn't ever succeeded at that spending level in research (4 billions per year). Probably it would had at 5 times that. But it was enough to win the endgame.

 

[bobbymike]

From insidedefense.com - LAWMAKERS EYE TWEAKS TO U.S. NUCLEAR STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT REGIME
House lawmakers last week unveiled legislation that would create a Stockpile Management Program aimed at placing restrictions on nuclear weapons development and guiding future reductions in the U.S. stockpile.

"program aimed at placing restrictions on nuclear weapons development" As I stated in a earlier post on this thread Obama and the Dems seek to have the nuclear enterprise "die on the vine" through such "restrictions". Every single nuclear weapons state including Britain, France, China and Russia are modernizing while the US is dismantling. If these trends are not reversed the US will lose its nuclear preeminence in 1/2 a generation or less, basically the time it takes for the next generation of weapons scientists to pick another area of study/profession.

 

[Skybolt]

Just wait another year or so, everything'll change.

 

[F-14D]

Just wait another year or so, everything'll change.

bobbymike has a point. While it's kind of macabre to be talking about these weapons there are some issues related to this the US is going to have to face sooner or later.

Back in the '90s I believe the Administration shut down the facilities the US had that produced the nuclear materials for warheads. Warhead material decays, so this resulted in less usable material over time. Since then, the existing material has been moved around between various warheads. Since the US is reducing its warhead stockpile anyway, this kind of kicked the can down the road.

However, the reliability of warheads is an issue. Although we can supposedly simulate the effects and nature of a detonation (or so they say), the actual reliability has always been a kind of guess. Especially with decaying material, it's not really known what percentage will actually go off, unless every so often one gets pulled and set off to see if it goes. Built into the numbers of warheads is an allowance for ones where the nuclear reaction no longer happens, but that figure becomes progressively unreliable over time, so a check has to be made to update the modeling algorithms.

Clearly in the modern world its not politically feasible for most nations to test nuclear weapons, even under ground. The solution the US was working on was a new generation of warheads to replace the existing ones (no doubt using the nuclear material from the ones replaced). They were not more powerful. While they would be more efficient, the big technological leap forward was that the warheads would be more reliable (meaning you'd also need less of them), and that through some technological thingamajig you could determine individual and inventory reliability to a high degree of confidence without having to once in a while actually set one off. This was called the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. In the proposed FY10 budget it is canceled.

 

[Skybolt]

As I've already said, wait and see. It needs political resolve for sustain a program for 10 years, but it needs political resolve to NOT sustain it, too. Watch what's happening with the F-22...

 

[F-14D]

As I've already said, wait and see. It needs political resolve for sustain a program for 10 years, but it needs political resolve to NOT sustain it, too. Watch what's happening with the F-22...

Not quite the same thing, IMHO. With an aircraft, you get to show it at air shows and in commercials. It's visible. People can relate to it. But here, we're talking about Nuclear Weapons (eek!). It doesn't take a lot of resolve to say you're against developing new Nuclear Weapons (eek!). Remember, it's been well over a decade since we've been producing new material for them. Also, while expensive, it's possible to restart production of aircraft (RA-5, C-5, etc.). On the on other hand, some things are Sooo expensive to restart once stopped everyone keeps wanting to avoid the situation. For example, the reason Clinton authorized the third SEAWOLF submarine is that even though he didn't like spending money on defense systems (topic for another forum), he realized that without it the US nuclear submarine industry would go out of business and it would be so expensive to rebuild it it might not happen, and he didn't want to go down in History as the President who took the US out of the nuclear sub game. Warhead development could be similar

Note how we have no new ICBM in development and only vague studies (but no real money) for new SLBMs or even a submarine to replace the Ohios...


IMHO

 

[sferrin]

On top of that it's pretty easy to point to Boeing, LM, Northrop, etc., see their products flying through the air everyday, and people can relate to that. "Who the hell produces bombs?" To Joe Blow it just doesn't compute. And why would anybody want to get into such a specialized field when there is little or no job opportunity there. The gov. has been kicking that can down the road and eventually the pigeons will come home to roost. Just as they are doing with the surface navy and the tanker & fighter communities. But hey, at least GM will get paid.

 

[SOC]

It makes me ask the question "did the US purposely hamstring its weapons R&D and production to assuage the Soviets?"

McNamara also set a limit to the accuracy of warheads, fearing that making them too accurate would irk the Soviets. If you want another amusing Cold War book, try The ABM Treaty Charade. There is some information that has been recently disproven inside there, but also a lot of interesting political angles as well.

 

[F-14D]

On top of that it's pretty easy to point to Boeing, LM, Northrop, etc., see their products flying through the air everyday, and people can relate to that. "Who the hell produces bombs?" To Joe Blow it just doesn't compute. And why would anybody want to get into such a specialized field when there is little or no job opportunity there. The gov. has been kicking that can down the road and eventually the pigeons will come home to roost. Just as they are doing with the surface navy and the tanker & fighter communities. But hey, at least GM will get paid.

Good points. Of course, Joe Blow has his own concerns and really doesn't get into this kind of specialized discsuss ion. If you asked most folks, they'd think the Defense arsenal is much larger than it actually is, not that it's tiny. Otherwise they'd see the incongruity in the US' position, "Don't be concerned about North Korea's missile developments. We can intercept them with the very systems we're trying to shut down".

 

[Skybolt]

I remain of my opinion: too early to judge the directions. Anyway, you'll know how to vote in November 2010...

 

[bobbymike]

Some great point made about nuclear weapons development. The problem is the politicians. It is so easy to say nukes bad and very hard to explain and justify their continued development.

If this issue is not put closer to the front burner I fear we will lose the "technical" skills necessary to development and produce any nuclear weapon. The first step is 2010 as Skybolt says while at the same time I fear it won't be enough.

 

[sferrin]

"Don't be concerned about North Korea's missile developments. We can intercept them with the very systems we're trying to shut down".

And that's the thing that really makes my blood boil. The amount of money missile defense requires is a drop in the ocean compared to what's getting flushed down the toilet in bailouts and entitlements.

 

[quellish]

And that's the thing that really makes my blood boil. The amount of money missile defense requires is a drop in the ocean compared to what's getting flushed down the toilet in bailouts and entitlements.

I still say Ares I would make a fine firecracker.

 

[Skybolt]

With a different second stage. Bricolage, anyone.. ?

 

[sferrin]

And that's the thing that really makes my blood boil. The amount of money missile defense requires is a drop in the ocean compared to what's getting flushed down the toilet in bailouts and entitlements.

I still say Ares I would make a fine firecracker.

Wonder if you could make a gigaton nuke light enough to fit on it.

 

[bobbymike]

With the current administration in arms control talks with the Russians nothing is going to get built. The Russians will continue to upgrade and the the US will do nothing during the talks, which has happened since SALT I. The US even "locked" in Soviet advantages in heavy ICBMs. But if I was in charge I would weaponize the Ares (that would mean a new second stage and third stage - MIRV bus) Although I really like sferrin's idea of building, or rebuilding, Aerojet's 260" booster (in new superhardened silos).

Less than 40+ years ago the US spent 50% of the federal budget on defense (imagine a $1.6 trillion dollar defense budget today) and about 20% on "payments to individuals" (AKA entitlements, welfare, etc.) Now the US spends 61% on payments to individuals (and this does not include a new government run healthcare system if that happens) and 21% on defense. The left has completely redefined the role of the federal government. Defense will become less important to the people who will scream for more government cheese. If you look around Western Europe the second most powerful position in government is usually the Minister of Health with Defense way down the list, that is the future if we let it happen.

 

[Skybolt]

I disagree, here in Italy (and not only here) the most powerful minister after the premier is the Minister of the Interior, which translates in Homeland Security Department plus Attorney General in the US..... On par is the Minister of Economy, who sums up finance, treasury and budget. Third is Defense. Then Foreign and Public Works. Health is way down: when the totality of payments are AUTOMATIC and not discretionary, your pecking order is abysmal...

 

[F-14D]

The problem with weaponizing Ares is that the mission, operation and design of a civilian space launcher is so different from that of an ICBM that you'd have to change it so much that you'd be better off going with a new missile to begin with

 

[bobbymike]

Skybolt - I should not have been so specific but as your post shows it is "usually" internal cabinet positions and not external defense that is prominent. The British National Health Service is the largest employer in Europe. Plus the US has a unique republican structure that is supposed to limit the power of the federal government while specifically providing for the common defense. What is happening in the US is a counter revolution to the principles of the founding of the nation.

I am not a European, obviously, but it appears that any prominence given to defense is based more on martial traditions that an expression of military power of the respective nations who typically spend less than 2% of GDP on defense.

F-14D, ideally I would replace MMIII one for one with a new ICBM with about twice the throw weight and load it with 800kt "Munster" warheads, then build a few for conventional prompt global strike. But then I would have a trillion dollar defense budget

 

[F-14D]

F-14D, ideally I would replace MMIII one for one with a new ICBM with about twice the throw weight and load it with 800kt "Munster" warheads, then build a few for conventional prompt global strike. But then I would have a trillion dollar defense budget

Hmmm, maybe we could call it "Peacekeeper" or "MX"

 

[sferrin]

F-14D, ideally I would replace MMIII one for one with a new ICBM with about twice the throw weight and load it with 800kt "Munster" warheads, then build a few for conventional prompt global strike. But then I would have a trillion dollar defense budget

Hmmm, maybe we could call it "Peacekeeper" or "MX"

And disperse it amongst thousands of concrete shelters in the west desert so we wouldn't have to build as many evil nukes. . .

 

[bobbymike]

Yes I was being sarcastic as my point was we had already built the exact system we needed and then dismantled it. New book being published in July called US Nuclear Arsenal: A History of Weapons and Delivery Systems Since 1945.

 

[F-14D]

Yes I was being sarcastic as my point was we had already built the exact system we needed and then dismantled it. New book being published in July called US Nuclear Arsenal: A History of Weapons and Delivery Systems Since 1945.

I was being sarcastic too.

 

[Skybolt]

Having the money, I'd build instead a SICBM (not necessarily road-mobile) with a 20 feet CEP Terminal Homing MaRV (GPS and radar matching) and a low fission-component warhead. And hide them in dispersed very deep silos. That's for hard targets. To retailate rogue states, a nuclear-tipped cruise would more than suffice. My opinion. As for a REAL new Cold War, alles ist moglich.

 

[bobbymike]

Skybolt - from the recently passed defense supplemental "And there's $1 billion for a "Cash for Clunkers" program that would provide consumers with up to $4,500 if they trade in old vehicles for more fuel-efficient ones"

There is more than enough money if there is the national (or political will) to replace the US's aging systems. There is a lot, seemingly, going on behind the scenes related to the prompt global strike mission. The Air Force would be wise - and I suspect they are - piggybacking the Land Based Strategic Deterrent onto these studies and research efforts. At the very least the industrial infrastructure required for producing these weapons needs to have the resources so key weapons designers and engineers stay "in the business" of developing these weapons that will be key to deterrence for decades to come.

 

[F-14D]

Having the money, I'd build instead a SICBM (not necessarily road-mobile) with a 20 feet CEP Terminal Homing MaRV (GPS and radar matching) and a low fission-component warhead. And hide them in dispersed very deep silos. That's for hard targets. To retailate rogue states, a nuclear-tipped cruise would more than suffice. My opinion. As for a REAL new Cold War, alles ist moglich.

Actually, you could just restart LCAC production and put your missiles on them (and they don't have to be small missiles).

As far as rogue states go, Trident SLBMs could handle them quite nicely, along with their regular duties. Secdef Gates in April said that work on a replacement for the Ohio submarines would have to start in 2010, but no mention was made of a new SLBM.

 

[bobbymike]

If you google "new underwater launched missile system" you find a couple of articles about USN studies of a Trident D5 replacement in a missile tube of 120" diameter (the D5 is 83") So my guess would be tubes with multiple SLIRBM and maybe a larger SLBM with a large throw weight. If you extended the first stage a 120" diameter missile would also make a heck of a MMIII replacement and prompt global strike system. Skybolt, would that fit is a MMIII silo?

 

[bobbymike]

From Aviation Week's Check Six Podcast June 26, 2009 (can be accessed from Ares Defense Technology Blog) Starting about 20 minutes in a discussion on the solid rocket motor industrial base and the concerns about the ability to produce a new ICBM, as one issue, as the US is down to just one large motor casting facility. The cancellation of the KEI (sferrin has followed this closely, I believe) and trouble with the Ares I means there is little work being done on SRMs in the US.

Both ATK and Aerojet risk losing key personnel if no work can be found. There is apparently discussion at the Congressional staff level about projects to keep this important capacity active and relevant for the future including prompt global strike demonstrators.

As I have said - with regard to sustaining the "New Triad" - it would only take a short period of time to lose technological proficiencies over a vast range of critical defense programs and lose for a generation, at least, the ability to produce these weapon systems.

 

[Orionblamblam]

As I have said - with regard to sustaining the "New Triad" - it would only take a short period of time to lose technological proficiencies over a vast range of critical defense programs and lose for a generation, at least, the ability to produce these weapon systems.

Oh, pffff. You excaggerate. It's not that bad... look at your history! For example, just because Canada cancelled the Avro Arrow doesn't mean that Canada's aerospace industry didn't remain at the leading edge, producing world beating high performance military aircraft! And just because of that "White Paper" that killed off a number of Britain's advanced aircraft projects doesn't mean that the last fifty years hasn't seen an uncountable number of new and exciting British aircraft, including VTOL jetliners and hypersonic interceptors!

That's sarcasm. Duh.

 

[Skybolt]

Skybolt, would that fit in a MMIII silo?

With cold launch, yes.

 

[sferrin]

As I have said - with regard to sustaining the "New Triad" - it would only take a short period of time to lose technological proficiencies over a vast range of critical defense programs and lose for a generation, at least, the ability to produce these weapon systems.

Oh, pffff. You excaggerate. It's not that bad... look at your history! For example, just because Canada cancelled the Avro Arrow doesn't mean that Canada's aerospace industry didn't remain at the leading edge, producing world beating high performance military aircraft! And just because of that "White Paper" that killed off a number of Britain's advanced aircraft projects doesn't mean that the last fifty years hasn't seen an uncountable number of new and exciting British aircraft, including VTOL jetliners and hypersonic interceptors!

That's sarcasm. Duh.

The worst part is who's going to want to go work in a field that is constantly --cked over by the politcal "elite"? So people take stuff to the grave with nobody to hand the torch to. I worked on a DARPA project a while back and one of my coworkers was gushing over how cutting edge it was. When I showed him a picture of a 40 year old design that was a virtual carbon-copy of the thing you'd have thought someone shot Santa from the look on his face. I have no doubt whatsoever that the concept will be trotted out twenty or thirty years down the road once again as the "latest and greatest". And this kind of thing will happen more and more frequently in the West.

 

[bobbymike]

Interesting article from Armed Forces Journal on the pros/cons of a nuclear UAV for long range strike. How it relates to this thread is that the author briefly discusses the poor state of the nation's ICBMs including the need for silo replacement and how he does not foresee improvement to the situation anytime soon. Article online at: http://www.afji.com/2009/06/4040349.

All I can think about is the missed opportunity of spending 10% ($78 billion) from the stimulus to reset the force and buy more advanced weapons like the F-22, KEI, ABL, MMIII replacement, RRW and NGB. As well as insure the health of the industrial base meaning real jobs for scientists and engineers and technicians.

I was reading excerpts from the Nuclear Posture Review (2002) at GlobalSecurity.org and it painted a very grim picture of the nuclear infrastructure (weapons and delivery systems) if "immediate action" was not taken to modernize. Well 7 years later and the situation continues to deteriorate.

On a historically related note I just purchased "How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower" by Adrian Goldsworthy. The synopsis of the book is that internal political decisions weakened the empires resolve and defenses. It was national suicide.

 

[bobbymike]

Wall Street Journal Op-ed on the US nuclear deterrent - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623202363966157.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

It discusses many on things discussed on this thread. While I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion piece I have to say to Senator Kyle - talk to the the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee - Strategic Forces Subcommittee who agree and write some legislation or an amendment to the FY2010 defense budget to fix the problem of the neglect on the New Triad.

 

[F-14D]

Aside from the issues here, it should also be noted that the overhaul of the old Minuteman motors is almost complete, with no follow-on being submitted for funding. With only a few Trident SLBMs being built per year, this means that the US solid fuel rocket industry is on life support, and there is virtually no development going on, at least in the US. This also makes it extremely difficult to attract any good recent graduates into the industry.

 

[bobbymike]

F-14D - You bring up a very important point. One of the most militarily critical technologies is the entire field of "energetic materials" for propulsion and conventional warheads. I read somewhere there is only, like, 20 senior scientists in the entire US military specializing in this field. This at a time of rapid material breakthroughs from advanced computer simulation. A 2004 report of the Defense Science Board (on future strategic strike) talked about the potential for a 100 fold increase in explosive power over TNT. Imagine the US facing an adversary with this capability.

All I can say, as a civilian, with access to open source material only, I hope the "black budget" has investments in the R&D necessary to keep US technology the top of the heap.

 

[sferrin]

Aside from the issues here, it should also be noted that the overhaul of the old Minuteman motors is almost complete, with no follow-on being submitted for funding. With only a few Trident SLBMs being built per year, this means that the US solid fuel rocket industry is on life support, and there is virtually no development going on, at least in the US. This also makes it extremely difficult to attract any good recent graduates into the industry.

The thing that annoys me is that the cost of maintaining this expertise (as well as the nuclear weapon stuff which is also rapidly going down the toilet) would be trivial compared to the cost of the various bailouts, cap and trade, etc. etc. Once it's gone it's going to be damn tough to get back.

 

[bobbymike]

An older study of the reentry vehicle industrial base: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA318752

This report illustrates, as sferrin correctly states, the unbelievable complexity of retaining, maintaining and advancing technical proficiency, in this report's case, just in the RV sector. Add to that warheads and delivery systems and you have a precarious situation if you don't constantly and continuously invest in these critical skills.

Because the US is a largely open society our adversaries just watch and then try and exploit our R&D and technological "gaps". The DOD should have a "prototype" or technology demonstrator budget - a joint program with all services but outside normal procurement - to be able to rapidly respong to industrial base needs in order to keep key industrial sectors active. The simple way to conceptualize this department would be, for example the case of ICBM's, to be able to say "Hey ATK or Aerojet or TRW or Lockheed Missiles and Space or whoever - maybe SpaceX - (or all of you) build a new ICBM and RV with the latest technologies."

 

[bobbymike]

I just obtained the DOD report on the solid rocket motor industrial base. Here are some relevant parts related to "strategic systems".

As shown in Figure 14 on strategic propulsion S&T and intercontinental ballistic
missile/submarine-launched ballistic missile (ICBM/SLBM) sustainment funding, the
funding in the recent past for large SRMs has been dominated by the Minuteman III
PRP program, which amounted to about $300 million per year for the period FY 2004-
2007. The last year of funding for the PRP program is FY 2009, and hence the total
S&T and sustainment funding after FY 2009 is substantially less than previous period.
Still, the projected continuation of low rate production of D-5 motor sets and the Air
Force PAP results in a funding level for sustainment activities in the order of $130
million per year for FY 2010 and beyond. Total DoD S&T funding for the IHPRPT and
Technology for Sustainment of Strategic Systems (TSSS) programs (and prospective
follow-ons) has been somewhat over $100 million per year in the recent past, but
decreased in FY 2008 (from $112 million in FY 2007 to $95 million) and the FY 2009
request has been reduced again (to $89 million). The SRM and post boost control
system (PBCS) work shown here is dropping from ~$25 to 17M/year. The Navy S&T
investments in strategic systems related to propulsion have declined over the last few
years and are currently unfunded.

For the first time in fifty years, the Department is not developing a next
generation large SRM. The last significant ICBM development program concluded in
the early 1990’s with the termination of the Small ICBM program. In the mid-90’s the Air
Force undertook a major remanufacturing effort to extend the life of all three Minuteman
III motor stages, however this effort concludes in 2009. During this period the Navy has
continued low rate manufacturing of the D-5. There are currently no near-term next
generation ICBM or SLBM development efforts forecast, the MM III is expected to last
through 2030 and the D-5 until 2042.
The Department currently has no projected strategic system development or
clearly defined strategy for long term viability of developmental skills and, without
mitigation, there is increasing risk in the industrial area. The declining R&D funding
levels could have the following impacts for the Department and the SRM industry:
• No funded enabling technology efforts and no funding for the Navy Strategic PAP
to support the Trident II D-5 SLBM.
• The decrease in Air Force R&D for ICBM and termination of the MM III motor
production in FY 2009 substantially reduce the ability to mitigate risks associated
with motor aging and thereby ensure the viability of ICBM life extension from
2020 to 2030. Remaining R&D efforts are inadequate to support MM III ICBM
sustainment and future nuclear strategic system development needs. The limited
aging data currently available raises concerns about the ability to identify and

address problems that extending ICBM life an additional 10 years could generate
in areas such as propellant cracking and liner separation.
• Loss of technical workforce and opportunities for training and education of both
government and industry personnel qualified to sustain, develop and
manufacture future missile propulsion systems and support current system
upgrades.

 

[bobbymike]

From Danger Room - a Defense Technology Blog

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/strike-anywhere-missile-plan-could-get-hypersonic-boost/

Aerojet tests advanced 2nd stage motor for space and defense uses. 52" diameter future ICBM?

 

[F-14D]

This just in: the proposed FY2010 presently has $700 million in it to start preliminary work on establishing requirement for SSBN-X, the successor to the Ohio class subs, still planned for entry into service date of 2029.