LGM-35A Sentinel - Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program

[Desertfox]

Currently the MM3 fleet is armed with a single RV despite having the capability to carry 3 due to New START restrictions. I'd rather use that extra capacity for decoys than for an HGV. Now if uploading is an option, then I'd take 3 RVs over 1 HGV.

 

[marauder2048]

Why do you need an HGV then to go after an undefended target? Just needlessly adding cost and complexity. And its impossible to distinguish a full-size decoy (RV with ballast instead of warhead) from a real RV. MM3 can carry two full-size decoys without a problem.

There are no neutral nuclear powers between the US and Russia.

There's this country called Russia between the US and China.

And given no-testing for the foreseeable future and the warhead reliability concerns, I can't see the US squandering the mass of a real warhead on a decoy

 

[sferrin]

Currently the MM3 fleet is armed with a single RV despite having the capability to carry 3 due to New START restrictions. I'd rather use that extra capacity for decoys than for an HGV. Now if uploading is an option, then I'd take 3 RVs over 1 HGV.

Why do you need an HGV then to go after an undefended target? Just needlessly adding cost and complexity. And its impossible to distinguish a full-size decoy (RV with ballast instead of warhead) from a real RV. MM3 can carry two full-size decoys without a problem.

There are no neutral nuclear powers between the US and Russia.

There's this country called Russia between the US and China.

And given no-testing for the foreseeable future, I can't see the US squandering the mass of a real warhead on a decoy.

Especially when going with one warhead gives you more range.

 

[marauder2048]

Especially when going with one warhead gives you more range.

Which is the real motivation for de-MIRVing MMIII; to regain the range lost when the case insulation
material that was used during the propulsion life extension ended up being much heavier than the legacy stuff.

De-MIRVing is not required under New START.

 

[Desertfox]

It is required, when your SLBMs are taking up 2/3s of the allowable warheads.

 

[sferrin]

It is required, when your SLBMs are taking up 2/3s of the allowable warheads.

That's a happy accident. We'd have had to de-MIRV them anyway due to the range issue mentioned by marauder2048.

 

[marauder2048]

That and it's much quicker to upload/download warheads for Trident D5 than it is for MMIII; the latter was not designed
to make this a quick or easy process.

 

[RanulfC]

Quick point but IIRC one of the requirements is that the new GBSD fit in existing MM silo's so it won't be bigger or likely carry many more warheads. One aspect for this I suspect it to avoid duplication/new-build support infrastructure so that the new missile can use existing MM transport and depot systems. You could likely use something smaller (Midgetman) but really nothing bigger than the current MM systems.

Randy

 

[sferrin]

Quick point but IIRC one of the requirements is that the new GBSD fit in existing MM silo's so it won't be bigger or likely carry many more warheads.

They were able to fit Peacekeeper in existing silos and cold-launch them to boot.

 

[Desertfox]

400 Peacekeepers would be ridiculously expensive, you would be dooming the program before it even began. Especially when they could only be deployed with 1 warhead each. And if you went with only 40 (so they could carry 10 warheads) you just lost MM3s best asset, its use as a warhead sink. You just freed up a lot more enemy warheads for other targets and increased your vulnerability to a pre-emptive strike. You want simple and cheap, the ability to go road-mobile, and no more than 3 warheads.

 

[sferrin]

400 Peacekeepers would be ridiculously expensive,

Who said anything about 400 Peacekeepers? As for expense how do you define, "ridiculously expensive"?

 

[marauder2048]

For a new silo-based missile, O&S costs of maintaining a mixed fleet are going to dominate over even the large MMIII -> MX unit cost differences
especially at the low annual quantity rate at which the new missile is likely to be procured.

 

[sferrin]

For a new silo-based missile, O&S costs of maintaining a mixed fleet are going to dominate over even the large MMIII -> MX unit cost differences
especially at the low annual quantity rate at which the new missile is likely to be procured.

If you maximize commonality you could minimize the impact.

 

[bobbymike]

Boeing: Still Interested In GBSD, But RFP Changes Needed - Breaking Defense

"For now, we remain in source selection" for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent contract despite Boeing's withdrawal, says a spokesperson for Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper.

breakingdefense.com

 

[RanulfC]

Quick point but IIRC one of the requirements is that the new GBSD fit in existing MM silo's so it won't be bigger or likely carry many more warheads.

They were able to fit Peacekeeper in existing silos and cold-launch them to boot.

Barely and they had to heavily modify the silo's to include all the gear. The reason they Peacekeeper has all those "blocks" of padding is because they would actually contact the sides of the launch tube during a 'ground-shock' event whereas the MM were suspended well clear of the silo sides. More importantly though they Peacekeeper required it's own transporter and erector unit and depot processing system and gear which was a not-insignificant added cost so the requirement to use the MM systems. That's going to limit the diameter to about 6ft or less. The TE transporter/trailer is going to be the defining factor currently. Oddly that was an issue with the Midgetman as the TE's would need some extensive, (and arguably expensive though I've not seen clear numbers though granted I haven't looked really hard) modifications to the trailers due to their smaller size. On the other hand it looked like you could fit several missiles and their launchers in a single MM silo so there is that

But most likely the new missile will be very close to the current size of the Minuteman to take as much advantage of the existing systems as possible.

Randy

 

[sferrin]

Quick point but IIRC one of the requirements is that the new GBSD fit in existing MM silo's so it won't be bigger or likely carry many more warheads.

They were able to fit Peacekeeper in existing silos and cold-launch them to boot.

Barely and they had to heavily modify the silo's to include all the gear. The reason they Peacekeeper has all those "blocks" of padding is because they would actually contact the sides of the launch tube during a 'ground-shock' event whereas the MM were suspended well clear of the silo sides. More importantly though they Peacekeeper required it's own transporter and erector unit and depot processing system and gear which was a not-insignificant added cost so the requirement to use the MM systems. That's going to limit the diameter to about 6ft or less. The TE transporter/trailer is going to be the defining factor currently.

Randy

Hopefully they're not THAT short sighted. Not building the force you need because you can't be bothered to build a new kind of truck is stupid beyond belief. And the "foam blocks" were there as much for cold launching as shock absorption.

 

[Forest Green]

Currently the MM3 fleet is armed with a single RV despite having the capability to carry 3 due to New START restrictions. I'd rather use that extra capacity for decoys than for an HGV. Now if uploading is an option, then I'd take 3 RVs over 1 HGV.

Not all MM3s are single warhead.

 

[Forest Green]

400 Peacekeepers would be ridiculously expensive, you would be dooming the program before it even began. Especially when they could only be deployed with 1 warhead each. And if you went with only 40 (so they could carry 10 warheads) you just lost MM3s best asset, its use as a warhead sink. You just freed up a lot more enemy warheads for other targets and increased your vulnerability to a pre-emptive strike. You want simple and cheap, the ability to go road-mobile, and no more than 3 warheads.

200 Peacekeepers and 200 Midgetman missiles is what I suggested. You don't have to load the Peacekeepers with a full warhead complement but the capacity is there if needed.

 

[kaiserd]

400 Peacekeepers would be ridiculously expensive, you would be dooming the program before it even began. Especially when they could only be deployed with 1 warhead each. And if you went with only 40 (so they could carry 10 warheads) you just lost MM3s best asset, its use as a warhead sink. You just freed up a lot more enemy warheads for other targets and increased your vulnerability to a pre-emptive strike. You want simple and cheap, the ability to go road-mobile, and no more than 3 warheads.

200 Peacekeepers and 200 Midgetman missiles is what I suggested. You don't have to load the Peacekeepers with a full warhead complement but the capacity is there if needed.

Hands up anybody with any expectation that anyone in the US political system willing to pay for 2 different land based ICBMs.

 

[sferrin]

Hands up anybody with any expectation that anyone in the US political system willing to pay for 2 different land based ICBMs.

Congratulations, you finally understand why some of us are pushing for a larger missile.

 

[Forest Green]

Hands up anybody with any expectation that anyone in the US political system willing to pay for 2 different land based ICBMs.

They've already paid for them really. The design, testing and commissioning of the LGM-118 was completed over 30 years ago and the Midgetman was like 100% designed and 99% tested 28 years ago. AMARV was also designed and tested.

So the choice is really between designing and testing a relatively poor MMIII replacement from scratch, or simply commissioning far better replacements, which have already been paid for in terms of RD&T.

 

[bobbymike]

Quick point but IIRC one of the requirements is that the new GBSD fit in existing MM silo's so it won't be bigger or likely carry many more warheads.

They were able to fit Peacekeeper in existing silos and cold-launch them to boot.

Barely and they had to heavily modify the silo's to include all the gear. The reason they Peacekeeper has all those "blocks" of padding is because they would actually contact the sides of the launch tube during a 'ground-shock' event whereas the MM were suspended well clear of the silo sides. More importantly though they Peacekeeper required it's own transporter and erector unit and depot processing system and gear which was a not-insignificant added cost so the requirement to use the MM systems. That's going to limit the diameter to about 6ft or less. The TE transporter/trailer is going to be the defining factor currently.

Randy

Hopefully they're not THAT short sighted. Not building the force you need because you can't be bothered to build a new kind of truck is stupid beyond belief. And the "foam blocks" were there as much for cold launching as shock absorption.

The pads were between MX and it’s own cold launch canister not between the missile and the MMIII silo

 

[Forest Green]

As I understood it the purpose of the self-discarding pads was to protect the missile during cold launch without adding weight during the boost phase.

 

[sferrin]

As I understood it the purpose of the self-discarding pads was to protect the missile during cold launch without adding weight during the boost phase.

I'd always thought they were a gas seal/ bit of extra shock absorption.

 

[kaiserd]

Hands up anybody with any expectation that anyone in the US political system willing to pay for 2 different land based ICBMs.

They've already paid for them really. The design, testing and commissioning of the LGM-118 was completed over 30 years ago and the Midgetman was like 100% designed and 99% tested 28 years ago. AMARV was also designed and tested.

So the choice is really between designing and testing a relatively poor MMIII replacement from scratch, or simply commissioning far better replacements, which have already been paid for in terms of RD&T.

But that “choice” is not actually a real choice available to anyone.
Any missile you build now is unavoidably going to have to be a new missile no matter what you may wish to think about somehow “turning back on the tap” for complex weapons systems last manufactured decades ago.

 

[kaiserd]

Hands up anybody with any expectation that anyone in the US political system willing to pay for 2 different land based ICBMs.

Congratulations, you finally understand why some of us are pushing for a larger missile.

I’d suggest expectation management - given all the nuclear triad spending coming up likely your wish would cost the guts being ripped out of something else like the B-21 or new missile sub program.

 

[sferrin]

Hands up anybody with any expectation that anyone in the US political system willing to pay for 2 different land based ICBMs.

Congratulations, you finally understand why some of us are pushing for a larger missile.

I’d suggest expectation management - given all the nuclear triad spending coming up likely your wish would cost the guts being ripped out of something else like the B-21 or new missile sub program.

Not likely.

 

[Forest Green]

As I understood it the purpose of the self-discarding pads was to protect the missile during cold launch without adding weight during the boost phase.

I'd always thought they were a gas seal/ bit of extra shock absorption.

Yeah, that's what I meant, they absorb the shock of the cold launch.

Up close launch sequence here.

Mk 21 | This Day in Aviation

This briefly mentions it. There were 114 Peacekeeper made, so at least 114 silos must already be upgraded.

 

[Forest Green]

But that “choice” is not actually a real choice available to anyone.
Any missile you build now is unavoidably going to have to be a new missile no matter what you may wish to think about somehow “turning back on the tap” for complex weapons systems last manufactured decades ago.

A little 'yes' but mostly 'no'. The electronics might be defunct (although the F-22 is still flying on Intel 286s) but everything else is already ready to manufacture. Putting Peacekeepers and Midgetmans into service would certainly be a piece of cake compared to say the Nimrod MRA4.

 

[kaiserd]

But that “choice” is not actually a real choice available to anyone.
Any missile you build now is unavoidably going to have to be a new missile no matter what you may wish to think about somehow “turning back on the tap” for complex weapons systems last manufactured decades ago.

A little 'yes' but mostly 'no'. The electronics might be defunct (although the F-22 is still flying on Intel 286s) but everything else is already ready to manufacture. Putting Peacekeepers and Midgetmans into service would certainly be a piece of cake compared to say the Nimrod MRA4.

I’m no rocket expert but, sorry Forest Green, to my ears that doesn’t sound even remotely plausible.

 

[marauder2048]

The big driver for Peacekeeper's greater maintenance cost was the guidance system which you wouldn't build in that form today.
Achieving rattle space through the canister might not be as much of an issue with improved shock isolation systems and
propellant grain designs that are more 'g' tolerant.

This briefly mentions it. There were 114 Peacekeeper made, so at least 114 silos must already be upgraded.

That doesn't necessarily follow since for example the current MMIII inventory is greater than the number of silos
and you expend, at a bare minimum at least one missile a year in testing.

 

[RanulfC]

Hopefully they're not THAT short sighted. Not building the force you need because you can't be bothered to build a new kind of truck is stupid beyond belief. And the "foam blocks" were there as much for cold launching as shock absorption.

Not exactly 'short-sighted' as the Peacekeeper trailers and infrastructure were very different than the MM stuff and that too cost a lot extra to handle and it was clear from "Midgetman" we didn't technically NEED a bigger missile to do the job. From what we're hearing on our level there is the hope/plan that the new missile will be encapsulated so that the trailers will be transporting "all-up" round, (sans warhead) inside the current trailers which should decrease the requirement for some of the trailer internal systems. Keep in mind it's NOT 'just' the trailers but the prime movers and all the support and maintenance support involved as well.

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mimi/images/fig13.jpg

On the silo let me be a bit clearer, (and fun fact I just yesterday got done shredding documentation on the step-by-step silo conversion process) in order to fit the Peacekeeper they had to fully gut and remove the inner silo system from the MM silo. That's neither easy nor inexpensive and once done the new silo had totally different shock and support systems. The new silo liner was larger which reduced the room and play for the shock absorbing systems so that the launch tube was going to take more shock than the MM system so the pads were needed to dampen this inside the launch tube.

https://srmsc.org/images/000106m0.jpg

This effected not only the silo inner tubing itself but the support and protection systems that had to be installed in the silo as well.

As I understood it the purpose of the self-discarding pads was to protect the missile during cold launch without adding weight during the boost phase.

I'd always thought they were a gas seal/ bit of extra shock absorption.

Yes Multipurpose/multiple uses and all that

Hands up anybody with any expectation that anyone in the US political system willing to pay for 2 different land based ICBMs.

They've already paid for them really. The design, testing and commissioning of the LGM-118 was completed over 30 years ago and the Midgetman was like 100% designed and 99% tested 28 years ago. AMARV was also designed and tested.

So the choice is really between designing and testing a relatively poor MMIII replacement from scratch, or simply commissioning far better replacements, which have already been paid for in terms of RD&T.

Not so clear though as it's unlikely that they won't be using any previous design "work" (in the sense of copying) from previous missiles. Both companies are looking at 'clean-sheet' designs beyond the government requirements being met. There is also the problem of, (at this point) you're almost "sole-source" (only two bidders at best and most of the subcontracting for both providers ARE single source) for providers which likely means costs are going to be higher than it should be. Moreover, (and the main reason the government is insisting on using the existing infrastructure) simply putting a new missile into service is going to be expensive enough so that the idea of rebuilding the support and maintenance infrastructure, (which itself was just recently upgraded) basically "from scratch" to support two different missiles isn't going to be done. There will be a period where the systems need to support both the MM and it's replacement at the same time.

This briefly mentions it. There were 114 Peacekeeper made, so at least 114 silos must already be upgraded.

Manufactured, not deployed. In fact Congress had limited deployment to 50 missiles but I only find about 46 were every actually deployed, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper) and it looks like the silo's used were MMII's that were replaced and it looks like those were destroyed after the Peacekeeper was retired.

The big driver for Peacekeeper's greater maintenance cost was the guidance system which you wouldn't build in that form today.
Achieving rattle space through the canister might not be as much of an issue with improved shock isolation systems and
propellant grain designs that are more 'g' tolerant.

There's physical limitations to the amount of 'rattle space' (I may steal that ) in the silo's and improving the shock isolation system is problematical due to those limitations. And again part of that greater maintenance costs were tied up in the specialized transport and maintenance systems Peacekeeper required though I agree the guidance system was out-of-proportion expensive as well as being one of the major scandals of the program.

That doesn't necessarily follow since for example the current MMIII inventory is greater than the number of silos
and you expend, at a bare minimum at least one missile a year in testing.

You have missiles in various stages of maintenance and depot maintenance along with some in storage awaiting transport to the field and vice-versa so the number of missiles actually in existence will largely exceed your actual alert deployment.

A little 'yes' but mostly 'no'. The electronics might be defunct (although the F-22 is still flying on Intel 286s) but everything else is already ready to manufacture. Putting Peacekeepers and Midgetmans into service would certainly be a piece of cake compared to say the Nimrod MRA4.

Actually it's clearly a "no" as the systems and equipment to actually make those missiles no longer exists so you pretty much HAVE to start over. One of the things that's been 'worrying' the military for the past decades is that the means and ability to manufacture large solid rockets has been disappearing in the US. ATK had to actually rebuild several processing machines in order to complete the last refurbishment of the MM stage upgrade program and those are not set up to be able to turn out NEW design stages in any quantity so that's a basic bottleneck even before you know what your designing and building and its worse for something as big as a Peacekeeper stage. It's one of the reasons ATK was pushing for acceptance of a segmented design booster motor based on the Shuttle SRB making process. (The military resisted because the segmented boosters are simply not as robust as the single solid designs)

Building something the size of the Peacekeeper is going to require rebuilding a large chunk of the manufacturing and distribution system and there's still the issue with deployment on top of that. The Midetman while smaller requires different manufacturing and transportation systems as well which again adds to the overall cost. (And has the issue of being definitely unable to handle multiple warheads or conversion to an HGV) And there's going to be little support for new silo's and basing, (which is also a problem for mobile systems which need larger 'mobile' support systems and security as well as designated areas to move around in) either in public or government circles. It's a lot more complex of a problem than most people realize and in the end most don't really understand the whole problem anyway.

Randy

 

[Forest Green]

Hopefully they're not THAT short sighted. Not building the force you need because you can't be bothered to build a new kind of truck is stupid beyond belief. And the "foam blocks" were there as much for cold launching as shock absorption.

Not exactly 'short-sighted' as the Peacekeeper trailers and infrastructure were very different than the MM stuff and that too cost a lot extra to handle and it was clear from "Midgetman" we didn't technically NEED a bigger missile to do the job. From what we're hearing on our level there is the hope/plan that the new missile will be encapsulated so that the trailers will be transporting "all-up" round, (sans warhead) inside the current trailers which should decrease the requirement for some of the trailer internal systems. Keep in mind it's NOT 'just' the trailers but the prime movers and all the support and maintenance support involved as well.

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mimi/images/fig13.jpg

On the silo let me be a bit clearer, (and fun fact I just yesterday got done shredding documentation on the step-by-step silo conversion process) in order to fit the Peacekeeper they had to fully gut and remove the inner silo system from the MM silo. That's neither easy nor inexpensive and once done the new silo had totally different shock and support systems. The new silo liner was larger which reduced the room and play for the shock absorbing systems so that the launch tube was going to take more shock than the MM system so the pads were needed to dampen this inside the launch tube.

https://srmsc.org/images/000106m0.jpg

This effected not only the silo inner tubing itself but the support and protection systems that had to be installed in the silo as well.

As I understood it the purpose of the self-discarding pads was to protect the missile during cold launch without adding weight during the boost phase.

I'd always thought they were a gas seal/ bit of extra shock absorption.

Yes Multipurpose/multiple uses and all that

Hands up anybody with any expectation that anyone in the US political system willing to pay for 2 different land based ICBMs.

They've already paid for them really. The design, testing and commissioning of the LGM-118 was completed over 30 years ago and the Midgetman was like 100% designed and 99% tested 28 years ago. AMARV was also designed and tested.

So the choice is really between designing and testing a relatively poor MMIII replacement from scratch, or simply commissioning far better replacements, which have already been paid for in terms of RD&T.

Not so clear though as it's unlikely that they won't be using any previous design "work" (in the sense of copying) from previous missiles. Both companies are looking at 'clean-sheet' designs beyond the government requirements being met. There is also the problem of, (at this point) you're almost "sole-source" (only two bidders at best and most of the subcontracting for both providers ARE single source) for providers which likely means costs are going to be higher than it should be. Moreover, (and the main reason the government is insisting on using the existing infrastructure) simply putting a new missile into service is going to be expensive enough so that the idea of rebuilding the support and maintenance infrastructure, (which itself was just recently upgraded) basically "from scratch" to support two different missiles isn't going to be done. There will be a period where the systems need to support both the MM and it's replacement at the same time.

This briefly mentions it. There were 114 Peacekeeper made, so at least 114 silos must already be upgraded.

Manufactured, not deployed. In fact Congress had limited deployment to 50 missiles but I only find about 46 were every actually deployed, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper) and it looks like the silo's used were MMII's that were replaced and it looks like those were destroyed after the Peacekeeper was retired.

The big driver for Peacekeeper's greater maintenance cost was the guidance system which you wouldn't build in that form today.
Achieving rattle space through the canister might not be as much of an issue with improved shock isolation systems and
propellant grain designs that are more 'g' tolerant.

There's physical limitations to the amount of 'rattle space' (I may steal that ) in the silo's and improving the shock isolation system is problematical due to those limitations. And again part of that greater maintenance costs were tied up in the specialized transport and maintenance systems Peacekeeper required though I agree the guidance system was out-of-proportion expensive as well as being one of the major scandals of the program.

That doesn't necessarily follow since for example the current MMIII inventory is greater than the number of silos
and you expend, at a bare minimum at least one missile a year in testing.

You have missiles in various stages of maintenance and depot maintenance along with some in storage awaiting transport to the field and vice-versa so the number of missiles actually in existence will largely exceed your actual alert deployment.

A little 'yes' but mostly 'no'. The electronics might be defunct (although the F-22 is still flying on Intel 286s) but everything else is already ready to manufacture. Putting Peacekeepers and Midgetmans into service would certainly be a piece of cake compared to say the Nimrod MRA4.

Actually it's clearly a "no" as the systems and equipment to actually make those missiles no longer exists so you pretty much HAVE to start over. One of the things that's been 'worrying' the military for the past decades is that the means and ability to manufacture large solid rockets has been disappearing in the US. ATK had to actually rebuild several processing machines in order to complete the last refurbishment of the MM stage upgrade program and those are not set up to be able to turn out NEW design stages in any quantity so that's a basic bottleneck even before you know what your designing and building and its worse for something as big as a Peacekeeper stage. It's one of the reasons ATK was pushing for acceptance of a segmented design booster motor based on the Shuttle SRB making process. (The military resisted because the segmented boosters are simply not as robust as the single solid designs)

Building something the size of the Peacekeeper is going to require rebuilding a large chunk of the manufacturing and distribution system and there's still the issue with deployment on top of that. The Midetman while smaller requires different manufacturing and transportation systems as well which again adds to the overall cost. (And has the issue of being definitely unable to handle multiple warheads or conversion to an HGV) And there's going to be little support for new silo's and basing, (which is also a problem for mobile systems which need larger 'mobile' support systems and security as well as designated areas to move around in) either in public or government circles. It's a lot more complex of a problem than most people realize and in the end most don't really understand the whole problem anyway.

Randy

The information sheet I posted above mentioned 100 MX missiles in service.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ground-based-strategic-deterrent-gbsd.22898/post-357679

The designs to make all those systems and equipment still exists though. If the skills base to manufacture solid rockets has been disappearing, all the more reason to renew it.

How do you know Midgetman can't take a HGV? You've made a lot of assumptions of doom here. It's because this attitude doesn't exist in Russia that they can actually make progress updating their deterrent.

 

[Forest Green]

The big driver for Peacekeeper's greater maintenance cost was the guidance system which you wouldn't build in that form today.
Achieving rattle space through the canister might not be as much of an issue with improved shock isolation systems and
propellant grain designs that are more 'g' tolerant.

This briefly mentions it. There were 114 Peacekeeper made, so at least 114 silos must already be upgraded.

That doesn't necessarily follow since for example the current MMIII inventory is greater than the number of silos
and you expend, at a bare minimum at least one missile a year in testing.

It mentions 100 MXs being deployed in the information sheet.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ground-based-strategic-deterrent-gbsd.22898/post-357679

We only need 200 silos for 200 MX and 200 Midgetman.

 

[Forest Green]

I’m no rocket expert but, sorry Forest Green, to my ears that doesn’t sound even remotely plausible.

So what was possible in the 1980s (from scratch) is now impossible even with all the designs? That makes no sense unless human evolution is in reverse and we are going to turn back into amoebas shortly.

 

[kaiserd]

I’m no rocket expert but, sorry Forest Green, to my ears that doesn’t sound even remotely plausible.

So what was possible in the 1980s (from scratch) is now impossible even with all the designs? That makes no sense unless human evolution is in reverse and we are going to turn back into amoebas shortly.

Your quoting me outside the context in which my comments were made and not remotely reflecting what I meant.
I’d suggest you & other contributors read them in context.

 

[marauder2048]

More to the point, you wouldn't want to build SRMs with the propellants, case material, external protection material or TVC mechanisms
that were found on Peacekeeper.

Congress capped MX silo deployment at 50 way back in 1985. IIRC, modifications were just then underway at Warren to accommodate MX.
So I'd be surprised if they had more than 50 non-test silos.

 

[sferrin]

Hopefully they're not THAT short sighted. Not building the force you need because you can't be bothered to build a new kind of truck is stupid beyond belief. And the "foam blocks" were there as much for cold launching as shock absorption.

Not exactly 'short-sighted' as the Peacekeeper trailers and infrastructure were very different than the MM stuff and that too cost a lot extra to handle and it was clear from "Midgetman" we didn't technically NEED a bigger missile to do the job.

Well, no, that's not clear at all. That's a bit like saying we don't need B-21s because we're building the much smaller F-35.

 

[sferrin]

More to the point, you wouldn't want to build SRMs with the propellants, case material, external protection material or TVC mechanisms
that were found on Peacekeeper.

Congress capped MX silo deployment at 50 way back in 1985. IIRC, modifications were just then underway at Warren to accommodate MX.
So I'd be surprised if they had more than 50 non-test silos.

Yep, and that's all that were ever deployed. Still, we're not talking about building a Panama Canal here. The original thousand-plus silos were built in a few years. Modifying them, and bulding a new transport system for the new missile is hardly going to break the bank. It's not like those MM3 trucks can last forever, or need to. They're not sacred cows.

 

[sferrin]

I’m no rocket expert but, sorry Forest Green, to my ears that doesn’t sound even remotely plausible.

So what was possible in the 1980s (from scratch) is now impossible even with all the designs? That makes no sense unless human evolution is in reverse and we are going to turn back into amoebas shortly.

Your quoting me outside the context in which my comments were made and not remotely reflecting what I meant.
I’d suggest you & other contributors read them in context.

So give us some "context" that makes building Peacekeeper analogs, "not even remotely plausible". (And let's try and keep it to a technical standpoint.)