A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs

[bobbymike]

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.

I think Gates is showing his hand without the benefit of the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review. In conjunction with the "disarmament" announcement that is looking to limit delivery vehicles from a range of 500 to 1000 I think you are seeing and end to the ICBM. The US will transform the Triad into a completely second strike deterrent force of submarines and bombers.

What do the members of Secret Projects think?

 

[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.

I think Gates is showing his hand without the benefit of the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review. In conjunction with the "disarmament" announcement that is looking to limit delivery vehicles from a range of 500 to 1000 I think you are seeing and end to the ICBM. The US will transform the Triad into a completely second strike deterrent force of submarines and bombers.

What do the members of Secret Projects think?

SSBN-X has been scheduled to enter design phase in 2014 for some time, with actual program initiation in 2016. Preliminary work would have started in the next year or so anyway. I suspect the reason that part has been moved up slightly is twofold: First, if the US doesn't start design work on new (not just modified) subs soon, we will lose the expertise to do so and it will become prohibitively expensive to try and get that back. Second, the British Vanguard subs will wear out before the Ohios, and given the relatively small number of SSBNs needed to replace them, Great Britain may just want to buy SSBN-X rather than go through the expense of completely designing and building for just three subs. This would be a smart move. Yes, the US most definitely would share technology and sell the UK some boomers.

Now how this all fits in with Pres. Obama's desire to magically make nuclear weapons disappear remains to be seen.

 

[Skybolt]

Now how this all fits in with Pres. Obama's desire to magically make nuclear weapons disappear remains to be seen.

And, BTW, no-one seems to have noticed that the target for reduction of the new round of negotiations is only slightly lower (in seven years, i.e. 2017) than the SORT agreement reached in principle by Bush and Putin in 2002 (limit of 1700-2200 warheads by 2012). And that the 2017 date is beyond the end of an Obama's second mandate... The "historic" Obama proposal will actually end up in delaying any reduction by five years. The generalistic media are really ridicolous in those things.

 

[bobbymike]

Skybolt While I don't disagree with your premise my concern would be that the continued neglect of the nuclear infrastructure (Yes I am beating the drum again) will make it very hard to reverse course well before 2017. As I previously posted "for the first time in the last 50 years the Air Force does not have a large solid propellant missile under development and the whole solid rocket industrial base is perceived to be at risk". If Obama serves to 2016 with no attempt to rectify this situation will the US ever be able to build an advanced ICBM in a timely fashion again, especially if you include the, possibly, hundreds of scientists that are due to retire with the baby boom generation.

 

[Skybolt]

Bobby, I had and have your poiint. And I think it will be corrected in a short time. Powerful developments are at work in the world. Think not only on Iran and its cascading effects (on ABMs, for instance) but the nuclear proliferation North Korea is doing in Myanmar. The former Birmania is a China protegè, (like half-heartdly, North Korea) and it is difficult to imagine that this is done without China's consent (if so, China's political influence abroad is much less effective that advertised, and this will speak trouble for China herself). So, since I don't see anyone thinking of menacing Myanmar, a "nuclear Birmania" makes sense only as a menace to India's flank. This in turn means that India and China are in a collision course. Remember that Iran's Pasdaran actively helped Srilankan government in destroying the Tamil Tigers. In a couple to five years the Indian Ocean will be a very dangerous place, and in turn the world will be more dangerous, too (at a late-30s level, I think). And we all know very well what happened in the US in late '30s... I can see the military budget going up from 2010 on, expecially if the liberal wing Democrats take a beating in 2010.
BTW, Chinese policy with North Korean nuclear and missile skills is the same as the late URSS one (Gorbachev era): use them as a third party agent for destabilisation. Gorbachev used them as an asymmetric response to SDI, helping them with complete package old-technology missile systems: first with evolved Scuds and SS-N-5s and later with SS-N-6s or alternate projects for the same class (think like the US proliferating the Vought version of the SLCM). The Carnegie Endonwment did in late '90s a very interesting study on this. I'll try and find the link. End of the out of topic detour.

 

[avatar]

Don't forget what Norko is to japan , Pakistan is precisely that to India. These are forward bases being used by China for proxy nuclear games.

There is no frigging doubt that the IOR is hotting up. However I would just like to state a few things as well.

Neither Burma nor Sri lanka are totally out of our ( indian ) orbit. there have been some shall we say "port" and "river" deals that we have cut with the Burmese where the Chinese have lost out. it is not one way traffic.

And make no mistake Sri lanka would not have won without our backing.
As far as the chinese string of pearls is concerned , it hasn't happened yet and it won't happen.

with close to a 100 blue water elements in our fleet by 2020 backed by land and sea based air power , we will dominate the northern Indian ocean.

 

[Firefly 2]

Not to mention that the potential Indian delivery vectors could increase. Surely I'm not the only one to think of a nuclear tipped, air launched Brahmos...

But, back on topic...
If I'm to understand correctly the USA are losing their know how on how to build nuclear delivery vectors??? That is a frightening thought...

 

[avatar]

That is correct. Reports suggest that a 20 kt warhead has been found "compatible" with the Brahmos.

 

[Skybolt]

"Risk of losing" is a better approximation... if you are a reader of AW&ST you'll find that those risks presented themselves a lot of times in the last 50 years....

 

[sferrin]

"Risk of losing" is a better approximation... if you are a reader of AW&ST you'll find that those risks presented themselves a lot of times in the last 50 years....

Not quite like today though. Up into the early 90s there were nuclear warheads in production. Now not only aren't there any in production but many of those who did the design work are retired.

 

[bobbymike]

Sen. Jon Kyl has sent a letter to Obama with cosigners Sen Lugar and other Senate foreign policy heavy weights that basically says. The Senate will NOT ratify any further arms control treaties unless you have a plan in place to fully modernize the nuclear infrastructure and delivery systems.

I have already called and emailed the good Senator to support him on this and I urge others to do so. In case I get accused of being partisan politically at Secret Projects the letter had a couple of moderate Republican cosigners as well.

Funny (although definitely not ha ha funny) story from the recent "summit" on future deterrence held by STRATCOM in Omaha last week. Apparently the US representative Ellen Taucher (sp?) was the only one who talked about the "path to zero" all the other countries seemed a little more realistic and pretty open that they will keep and modernize their arsenals.

 

[Skybolt]

My opinion is that the probability on no-nuclear weapons is zero in one hundred years.

 

[Skybolt]

Things are starting to roll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/03/AR2009080302776.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

And there is John Kerry on-board, too.. strange bedfellows.

 

[bobbymike]

Skybolt - Starting to feel a little better The key part of the article for me is:

"when the new START treaty is submitted for ratification, it should be accompanied by a 10-year funding estimate to support enhancement of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. They also want it to include cost figures, beginning with the fiscal 2011 budget, that show how much will be available to modernize the aging nuclear weapons manufacturing complex and to maintain a competent workforce able to create new weapons, if necessary. Finally, they want numbers to prove that the administration is prepared to maintain the nuclear weapon delivery systems -- strategic submarines, sub- and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers, all of which need replacements."

While I am optimistic that "clearer heads have prevailed on the path to zero silliness" I do think having the likes of Senators Kerry and Levin on board probably signals how dire the situation was. Just think, the US, the inventor of the "bomb" lost the ability to produce a key element required JUST TO REFURBISH existing weapons, shocking.

The US should be the world leaders in "all things nuclear" avoiding both future "Fogbanks" or losing any other key production technologies. Let's hope the good Senators also realize that all "physics" is NOT known and that the US also needs a robust R&D program so if it is possible to build pure fusion or other exotic weapons "we get there first"

 

[Skybolt]

Oh, the national labs lobby is quietly sharping their blades. And remember that the first Obama's AND Rahm Emanuel's financer is the practical owner of General Dynamics...

 

[F-14D]

Oh, the national labs lobby is quietly sharping their blades. And remember that the first Obama's AND Rahm Emanuel's financer is the practical owner of General Dynamics...

They may not have knives to sharpen, quite yet :

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507305,00.html

 

[Skybolt]

Sure, precisely the Fogbank affair started the rolling in Senate.

 

[bobbymike]

Further up the thread I made this comment: 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 respond 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."

Just out from the Defense Science Board - Fulfillment of Urgent Operational Needs Report. It includes five recommendations. Here are the three that seem the most significant.

#2 The Executive and Legislative Branches Must Establish a Fund for Rapid Acquisition and Fielding
#3 The Secretary of Defense Should Establish a New Agency: The Rapid Acquisition and Fielding Agency
#5 DOD Should Establish a Streamlines, Integrated Approach for Rapid Acquisition

I guess my thought was either ahead of its time or not very original after all ;D

 

[bobbymike]

Link to an older article from Global Security Newswire - http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2008/4/24/2c0a5f82-8977-4625-b202-51827f17304a.html

So the proposed SSBN-X to replace the Trident sub carrying SLBMs will also be a SSGN-X to replace the conventional Trident SSGNs which I guess makes sense as all Trident boats will be starting their phase out by the 2028 timeline in this article. It is interesting to speculate how much the interior designs may differ for a purpose built SSGN and not a converted design. This also possibly increases the odds that the new boats will be modified Virginia's with a "missile plug".

 

[bobbymike]

To bring the thread full circle - I have found articles from Aerojet press releases that talk about work on different sized "future strategic strike" missiles. One was 46", one was 52" and 92" diameter, if you look at the future ICBM replacement illustrations in the report on the first post they look like similar sized systems (other than the D5 alternative that the Air Force will never build).

 

[sferrin]

I swear I saw somewhere where they were talking about a 120" diameter SLBM as well.

 

[bobbymike]

An article from defenseindustrydaily.com that seems to confirm 120" diameter missile tubes on the next generation SSBN - http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/CMC-contract-to-Define-Future-SSBN-Launchers-for-UK-USA-05221/

 

[Mercurius Cantabrigiensis]

An article from defenseindustrydaily.com that seems to confirm 120" diameter missile tubes on the next generation SSBN - http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/CMC-contract-to-Define-Future-SSBN-Launchers-for-UK-USA-05221/

I’m not sure what to make of this report. PMS 397, the new USN programme office for the Ohio-class replacement only started work in October 2009.

To the best of my knowledge, the USN has made no pronouncement regarding the armament of its next-generation SSBNs, but work is under way at General Dynamics on the design of a Common Missile Compartment to be used by the SSBNs of both nations. These studies were originally financed by the UK but are now receiving US funding.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced in March 2009 that the UK believed that its requirement for a next-generation SSBN could be met with a design having only 12 missile tubes. In theory, this decision could be reviewed if his party loses the election due to be held in the UK in the first half of this year.

Assuming that the USN would not be happy with such a modest armament, it could either double the length of its version of the Common Missile Compartment, or install two compartments (the latter solution seems to have been selected by Russia for the new Borei-class due to carry Bulava).

The new compartment will have to be able handle existing Royal Navy's current Trident 2 missiles and whatever missile the USN orders to replace its Trident 2s. This new missile will almost certainly be adopted by the UK when the Trident 2 runs out of life.

A request for information released by the USN Strategic Systems Programs office for a new SLBM test stand (SSP) in late 2007 asked for initial studies and costings for a stand compatible with missile tube diameters ranging from 32 inches to 120 inches and able to handle missile weights of up to 200,000 lb. That’s about 1.5 times the weight of Trident.

 

[bobbymike]

200,000 lbs is five thousand pounds heavier than Peacekeeper and almost at the START limit of 108,000kg for any missile. I am working on a long "article" discussing the possible need to have a separate "strategic deterrent" budget with as much Navy and Air Force joint development of next generation systems as possible. I believe it is absolutely a necessity to combine both services strategic weapons budgets to insure the health of the industrial base for everything from solid rocket propellant to guidance systems to reentry vehicles.

 

[sferrin]

200,000 lbs is five thousand pounds heavier than Peacekeeper and almost at the START limit of 108,000kg for any missile. I am working on a long "article" discussing the possible need to have a separate "strategic deterrent" budget with as much Navy and Air Force joint development of next generation systems as possible. I believe it is absolutely a necessity to combine both services strategic weapons budgets to insure the health of the industrial base for everything from solid rocket propellant to guidance systems to reentry vehicles.

How is Russia propoosing to get around that limit with their SS-18 replacement? ???

 

[bobbymike]

Under START I believe you can modify or upgrade existing systems and they are exempted. No matter how much the Russians change a system they simply say it is an upgrade or a modification (as long as it has similar dimensions to the SS-18 they can make that argument). I can't remember exactly but I think it can be up to 5% heavier with no more than a 10% throw weight increase. I am sure they will call it a model of the existing SS-18. Look at all the iterations under the R-36/R-36M program.

The 108,000kg limit is on all new systems and I believe the limit was taken from the size of the SS-24. Anything above that weight is a "heavy" ICBM not allowed unless "see paragraph one, above". I remember a political debate about the treaty on TV in the early 90's - the treaty was ratified in 1991 - when a defense "hawk" so to speak, was complaining that the US was signing a treaty that locked in the USSR's heavy missile advantage forever. The Treaty does limit "heavy missiles (like the SS-18) to 104 systems.

 

[bobbymike]

From Insidedefense.com - Will the next generation ICBM be mobile

Due to the reduced number of ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal, coupled with the limited nuclear payload each missile can now carry, survivability would play a key role in whatever ICBM design DOD opts for, U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton said at the same hearing.

“That [is] one of the things we ought to consider in that is whether or not the follow-on wouldn’t be more survivable than the current force structure that we have today,” Chilton told members of the House panel.

“That’s certainly the direction that the Russians went in with their land-based mobile missiles, so I would agree that is something we need to consider as we look at the follow-on to the Minuteman III,” he noted.

 

[Skybolt]

Absolutely correct... they are rediscovering the old Nuclear Great Game rules once again. As Kipling said: "The Great Game that never ceases, night and day", and "When everyone is dead the Great Game is finished. Not before".

 

[sferrin]

From Insidedefense.com - Will the next generation ICBM be mobile

Due to the reduced number of ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal, coupled with the limited nuclear payload each missile can now carry, survivability would play a key role in whatever ICBM design DOD opts for, U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton said at the same hearing.

“That [is] one of the things we ought to consider in that is whether or not the follow-on wouldn’t be more survivable than the current force structure that we have today,” Chilton told members of the House panel.

“That’s certainly the direction that the Russians went in with their land-based mobile missiles, so I would agree that is something we need to consider as we look at the follow-on to the Minuteman III,” he noted.

http://www.manitowoccranes.com/MCG_GRO/Products/EN/GMK7550.asp

If they took the crane off and mounted a missile tube. . .

 

[bobbymike]

There is a lot to read into Gen Chilton's comments (my favorite general along with Kehler). The US has been "examining" mobile ICBM missile systems since the 60's and yet never deployed a system. We were satisfied with 1054 missile silos when the Soviets easily had the ability put 3, 4 or more warheads on each silo in a first strike.

Now if we are to believe that the US and the Russians are going down to 1550 warheads how much more vulnerable will our 450 silos be? Or is the US going down to far fewer ICBM's? Or do we read into Chilton comments that the remaining "future" force of Russian ICBM's will be very, very accurate as in one warhead per silo, hence the need for mobility?

IMHO the Air Force is trying to justify a brand new system (not that there's anything wrong with that I would support a new state of the art future ICBM) that has to have a new missile, otherwise, I can see the argument, especially in tough budgetary times, that we can maintain the MMIII "forever" in their current basing scheme. There is a lot to speculate about in those two short paragraphs.

 

[Grey Havoc]

One word. Midgetman.

 

[sferrin]

One word. Midgetman.

If you check out the cold launch test on youtube, one thing of interest is how quick it is. It appears to accelerate faster than GBI.

 

[bobbymike]

sferrin - I am curious what the energetics are for such a fast fly out for an ICBM. In the early 90's the Air Force Research Lab, and others, started the Integrated High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology Program to increase payload capability for a comparably sized solid rocket missile by 93% . So in theory a Peacekeeper sized missile could carry close to 16,000 lbs !!

Here is a DTIC paper for the program. Look on page 11 for solid rocket performance goals.

 

[sferrin]

sferrin - I am curious what the energetics are for such a fast fly out for an ICBM. In the early 90's the Air Force Research Lab, and others, started the Integrated High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology Program to increase payload capability for a comparably sized solid rocket missile by 93% . So in theory a Peacekeeper sized missile could carry close to 16,000 lbs !!

Here is a DTIC paper for the program. Look on page 11 for solid rocket performance goals.

I read one source that indicated the Peackeeper's fuel had an ISP of 282. (IIRC the Shuttle SRB is 260 or so.)

 

[Skybolt]

Bobby, actually the first "examined" mobile ICBM is from 1959.... I'll post sooner or later.... :

 

[mz]

sferrin - I am curious what the energetics are for such a fast fly out for an ICBM. In the early 90's the Air Force Research Lab, and others, started the Integrated High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology Program to increase payload capability for a comparably sized solid rocket missile by 93% . So in theory a Peacekeeper sized missile could carry close to 16,000 lbs !!

Here is a DTIC paper for the program. Look on page 11 for solid rocket performance goals.

I read one source that indicated the Peackeeper's fuel had an ISP of 282. (IIRC the Shuttle SRB is 260 or so.)

The shuttle's PBAN fuel is old fashioned. One thing limiting it is also the old steel cases that AFAIK don't allow higher chamber pressures even with new fuels. HTPB was proposed for one or the other Ares at some point. Scott is a resident expert on this.

 

[sferrin]

sferrin - I am curious what the energetics are for such a fast fly out for an ICBM. In the early 90's the Air Force Research Lab, and others, started the Integrated High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology Program to increase payload capability for a comparably sized solid rocket missile by 93% . So in theory a Peacekeeper sized missile could carry close to 16,000 lbs !!

Here is a DTIC paper for the program. Look on page 11 for solid rocket performance goals.

I read one source that indicated the Peackeeper's fuel had an ISP of 282. (IIRC the Shuttle SRB is 260 or so.)

The shuttle's PBAN fuel is old fashioned. One thing limiting it is also the old steel cases that AFAIK don't allow higher chamber pressures even with new fuels. HTPB was proposed for one or the other Ares at some point. Scott is a resident expert on this.

Why would steel be a limitation? It's plenty strong enough (many tactical missiles use steel casings).

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

sferrin - I am curious what the energetics are for such a fast fly out for an ICBM. In the early 90's the Air Force Research Lab, and others, started the Integrated High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology Program to increase payload capability for a comparably sized solid rocket missile by 93% . So in theory a Peacekeeper sized missile could carry close to 16,000 lbs !!

Here is a DTIC paper for the program. Look on page 11 for solid rocket performance goals.

I read one source that indicated the Peackeeper's fuel had an ISP of 282. (IIRC the Shuttle SRB is 260 or so.)

The shuttle's PBAN fuel is old fashioned. One thing limiting it is also the old steel cases that AFAIK don't allow higher chamber pressures even with new fuels. HTPB was proposed for one or the other Ares at some point. Scott is a resident expert on this.

Why would steel be a limitation? It's plenty strong enough (many tactical missiles use steel casings).

Sorry if I'm asking a stupid question, but wouldn't it depend on what kind of steel alloy and quality we're talking about? I know that steel qualities for submarines have evolved so that submarines can submerge deeper than they could before, so I guess that steel qualities for rocket engines have evolved too.

 

[sferrin]

sferrin - I am curious what the energetics are for such a fast fly out for an ICBM. In the early 90's the Air Force Research Lab, and others, started the Integrated High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology Program to increase payload capability for a comparably sized solid rocket missile by 93% . So in theory a Peacekeeper sized missile could carry close to 16,000 lbs !!

Here is a DTIC paper for the program. Look on page 11 for solid rocket performance goals.

I read one source that indicated the Peackeeper's fuel had an ISP of 282. (IIRC the Shuttle SRB is 260 or so.)

The shuttle's PBAN fuel is old fashioned. One thing limiting it is also the old steel cases that AFAIK don't allow higher chamber pressures even with new fuels. HTPB was proposed for one or the other Ares at some point. Scott is a resident expert on this.

Why would steel be a limitation? It's plenty strong enough (many tactical missiles use steel casings).

Sorry if I'm asking a stupid question, but wouldn't it depend on what kind of steel alloy and quality we're talking about? I know that steel qualities for submarines have evolved so that submarines can submerge deeper than they could before, so I guess that steel qualities for rocket engines have evolved too.

Consider that typical pressures are in the 1000psi to 5000psi range. That's not really that high and you could just as easily see a PBAN motor at the higher end and an HTPB at the lower end. Depends what you want to do with it.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

sferrin - I am curious what the energetics are for such a fast fly out for an ICBM. In the early 90's the Air Force Research Lab, and others, started the Integrated High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology Program to increase payload capability for a comparably sized solid rocket missile by 93% . So in theory a Peacekeeper sized missile could carry close to 16,000 lbs !!

Here is a DTIC paper for the program. Look on page 11 for solid rocket performance goals.

I read one source that indicated the Peackeeper's fuel had an ISP of 282. (IIRC the Shuttle SRB is 260 or so.)

The shuttle's PBAN fuel is old fashioned. One thing limiting it is also the old steel cases that AFAIK don't allow higher chamber pressures even with new fuels. HTPB was proposed for one or the other Ares at some point. Scott is a resident expert on this.

Why would steel be a limitation? It's plenty strong enough (many tactical missiles use steel casings).

Sorry if I'm asking a stupid question, but wouldn't it depend on what kind of steel alloy and quality we're talking about? I know that steel qualities for submarines have evolved so that submarines can submerge deeper than they could before, so I guess that steel qualities for rocket engines have evolved too.

Consider that typical pressures are in the 1000psi to 5000psi range. That's not really that high and you could just as easily see a PBAN motor at the higher end and an HTPB at the lower end. Depends what you want to do with it.

OK.