Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)

Are there any links or other such information on these NG rocket-motors and the NGI booster stack?
Considering that there is still a competition between NG and Lockheed for NGI, you are unlikely to get any information on the specifics of either the rocket motors or stack for either competitor until after the downselect happens.
 
you are unlikely to get any information on the specifics of either the rocket motors or stack for either competitor until after the downselect happens.

Since this will be a replacement for the GBI missile I assume the NGI missile Will have the same exterior dimensions so that it can fit into the GBI launch silos?
 
Since this will be a replacement for the GBI missile I assume the NGI missile Will have the same exterior dimensions so that it can fit into the GBI launch silos?
I expect it to use the same silos, though isn't GBI hot launched so the silo is a lot bigger than the missile itself?

Meaning that they could bump diameter a little bit and still be compatible with the GBI silos.
 
Still getting used to composite SRM stages becoming mainstream.
They've been using them in missiles since the 60s.

"The Poseidon first stage employed a Thiokol/Hercules solid-fueled engine, while the second stage employed a Hercules solid-fueled engine. Both stages were contained in glass filament-wound casings, and each was maneuvered by a single gimbaled exhaust nozzle."

Sprint ABM:

1713874858995.png
 
Last edited:

The FORGE capability architecture is crucial in providing OPIR (Overhead Persistent Infrared) data to operational warfighters and underpins the U.S. Space Force's shift towards a resilient missile warning, tracking, and defense architecture.
 

 
Last edited:
I'm sure the US has some about-to-expire Tridents and Minutemen available to use... Though I think the MM are kinda hard on their silo with the hot launch.
The new target vehicle will use an SR119 Peacekeeper motor.
 

 
Last edited:

@thustwr.bsky.social said:
Seems like MDA environmental assessment report on NGI deployment/testing at Vandenberg and Fort Greely is out: www.mda.mil/system/NGI/ deeper look at current maximum assessments for the system include 12 KVs per missile (vs 1 on GBI), and a much taller/heavier design (at minimum).

1000007033.jpg
1000007034.jpg
1000007035.jpg

Full Environment Assessment can be found at the following link: https://www.mda.mil/system/NGI/

The document in question is too large to upload here.
 



View attachment 760842
View attachment 760843
View attachment 760844

Full Environment Assessment can be found at the following link: https://www.mda.mil/system/NGI/

The document in question is too large to upload here.
Class 1.3? comparable to smokeless powder?!?
 

Full Environment Assessment can be found at the following link: https://www.mda.mil/system/NGI/

The document in question is too large to upload here.
:cool:
..designed to propel multiple KVs..
...up to 12...
 
Class 1.3? comparable to smokeless powder?!?

Sounds right. Solid rocket motors with polybutadiene binders are Class 1.3 -- they will burn rapidly and intensely but not usually detonate without a lot of extra effort. They are also generally shock-insensitive.

For a comparable example, the Shuttle SRBs were Class 1.3.
 
they will burn rapidly and intensely but not usually detonate without a lot of extra effort. They are also generally shock-insensitive.

So good for long term storage in a controlled environment such as a silo?
 
Sounds right. Solid rocket motors with polybutadiene binders are Class 1.3 -- they will burn rapidly and intensely but not usually detonate without a lot of extra effort. They are also generally shock-insensitive.

For a comparable example, the Shuttle SRBs were Class 1.3.
Okay, but I was anticipating a fuel a lot more energetic than Ammonium Perchlorate. Like CL-20 levels of energetic. Though I somehow doubt that CL-20 is Class 1.3.
 
Okay, but I was anticipating a fuel a lot more energetic than Ammonium Perchlorate. Like CL-20 levels of energetic. Though I somehow doubt that CL-20 is Class 1.3.
Surprise, CL-20 is Class 1.3. It's less shock sensitive than HMX. It burns but does not detonate unless deliberately initiated.
 
Dafuq?

That grinding sound yall just heard was my paradigm missing a shift.

Just remember that Hazard classes are all about transportation safety, not energy content. CL-20 is a generally safe product to drive around with, especially compared to HMX/RDX-based stuff, despite being more energetic. The downsides are that it is harder to make and deteriorates quicker than more conventional energetics.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom