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

[sferrin]

Nope. That’s not remotely based on what I’m saying (or what I think).
To just refute that I’d confirm my support for the B-21 as replacement for existing nuclear armed bombers (plus it’s new cruise missile), the new SSBN in similar numbers to the existing fleet, and the new ICBM in broadly similar numbers to the existing Minutemen numbers. And updates to the B61s.
Not a comprehensive list, my views may vary on other programs.
Again that apparent urge by even relatively reasonable contributors to find an “opponent” to argue with/ gang up on.

As for the other comments I’ll leave it to other contributors and the sites administrators to judge, not looking to derail this discussion.

That's basically what they're planning. I'd add the small nuclear warhead, B83 modernization, and the mobility option to the new ICBM, and we're there. (I suspect where we'd differ the most is the characteristics of the ICBM.)

 

[Jemiba]

As a warning:
Point 2 of the forum rules is "Political, religious and nationalistic posts are discouraged. "
That point without doubt was ignored here and in other, similar threads quite right from the start by many
participating members, but by some members of the SPF staff, too.
Reason is, that it is really difficult to split the pure technical from the political side, so a certain degree of politics
should be tolerated in such special cases. But that only works on condition, that the discussionis kept in reasonable
limits ! To discuss a theme means "to exchange opinions" and that definition makes clear, that there actually are
different opinions ! I know, often it's hard to accept, that there are people, who don't agree to ones own opinion,
but whoever starts participating in a discussion here, has to accept this, or keep aloof !
And absolutely unacceptable are personal attacks, disparaging comments and the like, again please have a look to the
forum rules ("Personal attacks on others are always inappropriate "). And remarks like "you again !" can be accepted
as greeting in a bar, but not here !
Please let me point you to two other points from the forum rules:

• No Trolling.
• Don't Feed Trolls.

Hard, really hard, I know just too well, but I'm sure, that you can do it !

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THIS THREAD: PLEASE REGARD THIS AS A WARNING !
LOCKING A THREAD ALWAYS IS JUST ONE CLICK AWAY ... OTHER ACTIONS, TOO !

 

[Forest Green]

No it's about making decisions (or in the context of this web site proposing decisions) that at least try to take into account what other parties will actually do rather than what you would like them to do, or ignoring that part of the calculation entirely to push your own pet agendas.
Even another rational player may have a different rationale then you, and if you don't even try to understand it how do you expect to think through their likely actions & re-actions?

I am no fan of the Putin regime and there are of course aspects of hypocrisy, inconsistency and strains of ultra-nationalistic exceptionalism to their nuclear/ missile/ deterrence policy (or almost all their policies for that matter). Other contributors here have been substantially more muted re: Putin for readily apparent US domestic political reasons that none of us need to go into.
And honestly one doubts Putin's Russia can actually afford to build and field half of what their propaganda promises and is so keen to project as resurgent Russian power ("Make Russia great again"?).
Unfortunately even on this website (and on this topic) you can see the US equivalent mindset feeding on its Russian equivalent (and I'm sure it's vice versa on Russian equivalents of this website).

There are no pet agendas, just responses to other moves. You can't allow chess opponents to have free moves. Improved ABM capabilities is a response to nuclear proliferation to North Korea plus the introduction of HGVs and a likely expanding Chinese nuclear arsenal plus their ASBMs. A reversion to START I would also address China's expanding arsenal and ambitions. Russia has cruise missiles sitting in land-based TELs that are identical to the 2,800km-range cruise missiles sitting in their warships' VLS containers, which has already clearly broken the INF Treaty and in all honesty the Islander-M probably already had a range greater than 500km based on size by my calculations anyway. Then you have the nuclear-powered cruise missile, which is a breach in principle of the INF Treaty with an actual nuclear-equipped weapon without breaching it technically. Sure the missile has a range over 5,500km, but it can still land anywhere inside that range making the maximum range moot, and the same probably applies to HGVs too really. So there has to be a response to that too, which could also double-up to provide a conventional response to China's ASBMs.

You are right about that, there are <50 GBIs at present but Russia has 56 Gazelles and 12 Gorgons. You would think there were several hundred GBIs given his rhetoric and responses. He reaches for the advantage while accusing the other side of taking it. It's about time his responses were ignored when it comes to weapons development, because he would happily ignore you, while accusing you of the very things he's doing at the same time.

 

[marauder2048]

Nope. That’s not remotely based on what I’m saying (or what I think).
To just refute that I’d confirm my support for the B-21 as replacement for existing nuclear armed bombers (plus it’s new cruise missile), the new SSBN in similar numbers to the existing fleet, and the new ICBM in broadly similar numbers to the existing Minutemen numbers. And updates to the B61s.
Not a comprehensive list, my views may vary on other programs.
Again that apparent urge by even relatively reasonable contributors to find an “opponent” to argue with/ gang up on.

As for the other comments I’ll leave it to other contributors and the sites administrators to judge, not looking to derail this discussion.

That's basically what they're planning. I'd add the small nuclear warhead, B83 modernization, and the mobility option to the new ICBM, and we're there. (I suspect where we'd differ the most is the characteristics of the ICBM.)

Looking back at the BAA for GBSD, even the mobile version was MIRV'ed (2 x Mk21 or 2 x Mk12a RVs). That they were also looking at a
silo-basing with an encanistered missile to improve ground shock level resistance and to ease post-attack deployment (push through debris)
suggests to me a missile somewhere between SICBM and MMIII.

 

[Forest Green]

BAA?

 

[bobbymike]

BAA?

Broad Area Announcement I think

 

[sferrin]

Nope. That’s not remotely based on what I’m saying (or what I think).
To just refute that I’d confirm my support for the B-21 as replacement for existing nuclear armed bombers (plus it’s new cruise missile), the new SSBN in similar numbers to the existing fleet, and the new ICBM in broadly similar numbers to the existing Minutemen numbers. And updates to the B61s.
Not a comprehensive list, my views may vary on other programs.
Again that apparent urge by even relatively reasonable contributors to find an “opponent” to argue with/ gang up on.

As for the other comments I’ll leave it to other contributors and the sites administrators to judge, not looking to derail this discussion.

That's basically what they're planning. I'd add the small nuclear warhead, B83 modernization, and the mobility option to the new ICBM, and we're there. (I suspect where we'd differ the most is the characteristics of the ICBM.)

Looking back at the BAA for GBSD, even the mobile version was MIRV'ed (2 x Mk21 or 2 x Mk12a RVs). That they were also looking at a
silo-basing with an encanistered missile to improve ground shock level resistance and to ease post-attack deployment (push through debris)
suggests to me a missile somewhere between SICBM and MMIII.

I'd prefer something between MMIII and Peacekeeper. (Well, I'd actually prefer an improved Peacekeeper but $$$.) In needs to have enough throw weight to handle boost-gliders or up to 5 Mk 21s. And 12,000 mile range.

 

[bobbymike]

Nope. That’s not remotely based on what I’m saying (or what I think).
To just refute that I’d confirm my support for the B-21 as replacement for existing nuclear armed bombers (plus it’s new cruise missile), the new SSBN in similar numbers to the existing fleet, and the new ICBM in broadly similar numbers to the existing Minutemen numbers. And updates to the B61s.
Not a comprehensive list, my views may vary on other programs.
Again that apparent urge by even relatively reasonable contributors to find an “opponent” to argue with/ gang up on.

As for the other comments I’ll leave it to other contributors and the sites administrators to judge, not looking to derail this discussion.

That's basically what they're planning. I'd add the small nuclear warhead, B83 modernization, and the mobility option to the new ICBM, and we're there. (I suspect where we'd differ the most is the characteristics of the ICBM.)

Looking back at the BAA for GBSD, even the mobile version was MIRV'ed (2 x Mk21 or 2 x Mk12a RVs). That they were also looking at a
silo-basing with an encanistered missile to improve ground shock level resistance and to ease post-attack deployment (push through debris)
suggests to me a missile somewhere between SICBM and MMIII.

I'd prefer something between MMIII and Peacekeeper. (Well, I'd actually prefer an improved Peacekeeper but $$$.) In needs to have enough throw weight to handle boost-gliders or up to 5 Mk 21s. And 12,000 mile range.

All solid Antares with 25k payload. A guy can dream.

But realistically you’re correct the best we’ll get is MMIV but with slightly more throw weight

 

[fredymac]

One thing that will be helpful about GBSD is a current cost per missile benchmark. It will provide a comparative baseline for estimating economic advantages of deterrence vs defense. The infrastructure and support needed for nuclear warheads includes all the facilities and security involved in their manufacture, upkeep, and storage. Assuming missile defense progresses as hoped, the balance between defense and deterrence can gradually shift more towards the former. This also impacts the number of deployed ICBM's as they naturally start fitting under the umbrella of protection as capability expands. It would be ironic if ICBM's wind up being the most secure element of the Triad.

 

[Forest Green]

One thing that will be helpful about GBSD is a current cost per missile benchmark. It will provide a comparative baseline for estimating economic advantages of deterrence vs defense. The infrastructure and support needed for nuclear warheads includes all the facilities and security involved in their manufacture, upkeep, and storage. Assuming missile defense progresses as hoped, the balance between defense and deterrence can gradually shift more towards the former. This also impacts the number of deployed ICBM's as they naturally start fitting under the umbrella of protection as capability expands. It would be ironic if ICBM's wind up being the most secure element of the Triad.

One thing I've always wondered about is that whilst land-based missiles are more vulnerable to attack, communication with them is arguably more secure, making their deployment more reliable. The interesting thing is that the other side has opted for missiles capable of carrying many warheads (10+), whereas currently MMIIIs can only carry 3 warheads.

 

[sferrin]

One thing that will be helpful about GBSD is a current cost per missile benchmark. It will provide a comparative baseline for estimating economic advantages of deterrence vs defense. The infrastructure and support needed for nuclear warheads includes all the facilities and security involved in their manufacture, upkeep, and storage. Assuming missile defense progresses as hoped, the balance between defense and deterrence can gradually shift more towards the former. This also impacts the number of deployed ICBM's as they naturally start fitting under the umbrella of protection as capability expands. It would be ironic if ICBM's wind up being the most secure element of the Triad.

One thing I've always wondered about is that whilst land-based missiles are more vulnerable to attack, communication with them is arguably more secure, making their deployment more reliable. The interesting thing is that the other side has opted for missiles capable of carrying many warheads (10+), whereas currently MMIIIs can only carry 3 warheads.

We traded ours away. Both Russia and China are going with a MM3+ and Peacekeeper (essentially). Russia will have the RS-24 for their "small" ICBM and RS-28 for their large ICBM. China will have the DF-31 and DF-41 respectively. And the US? Well, many are belly-aching over just replacing the nearly half-century old MM3s, let alone getting TWO types of ICBMs.

 

[marauder2048]

One thing I've always wondered about is that whilst land-based missiles are more vulnerable to attack, communication with them is arguably more secure,

Do you mean bi-directional communication? Uni-directionally, the former head of STRATCOM, Butler, in "Common Dreams vol. 2" implies
that to his surprise as an AF officer the SSBNs in the 90's were as responsive as the land based missiles. Maybe not with respect
to retargeting though.

The de-emphasis on MIRV on the US-side is understandable given that, as I understand it, neither the Russians nor the Chinese have a
heavy biasing of their ICBM force towards silo basing. If anything, I would expect to see an emphasis on MaRVs with terminal seekers
or nuclear earth penetrators.

 

[Desertfox]

Land-based MIRVed missiles, especially silo-based ones are destabilizing, they are juicy targets for pre-emptive strikes and conversely are more likely to be used in a launch-on-warning scenario. That is why START II sought to ban them and why the US leaving ABM and killing START II was such a poor move. Yes Russia does have a missile defense system which was legal under ABM and is only point-defence. But in our attempt to defend ourselves we have cause our adversaries to design and field better, more, and more destabilizing ICBM systems, which in turn have made us less safe. Sticking with ABM and START II and keeping pressure on future nuclear treaties would have been a more effective method. After all GBI and the rest of MDAs systems have not deterred North Korea from continuing their ICBM program.

As for GBSD, I believe it should be a single-warhead Midgetman/MM3 cross that can fit in a standard shipping container. Initially based on tractor-trailers using a MPS scheme with the capability to also disperse along the Interstate highway system as well as the possibility to be silo-, rail-, air-, and sea-based.

 

[Forest Green]

Do you mean bi-directional communication? Uni-directionally, the former head of STRATCOM, Butler, in "Common Dreams vol. 2" implies
that to his surprise as an AF officer the SSBNs in the 90's were as responsive as the land based missiles. Maybe not with respect
to retargeting though.

The de-emphasis on MIRV on the US-side is understandable given that, as I understand it, neither the Russians nor the Chinese have a
heavy biasing of their ICBM force towards silo basing. If anything, I would expect to see an emphasis on MaRVs with terminal seekers
or nuclear earth penetrators.

Interesting about the SSBNs thanks.

My point was that the Russians could easily ramp up the number of warheads on their ICBMs following a potential collapse of START but MMIIIs are very limited in that regard following disposal of the LGM-118s.

 

[sferrin]

Land-based MIRVed missiles, especially silo-based ones are destabilizing, they are juicy targets for pre-emptive strikes and conversely are more likely to be used in a launch-on-warning scenario.

Actually that's an opinion not born out by the facts. Silo-based MIRVed ICBMs have existed for over half a century and nobody's been tempted to start WWIII yet. A more supportable opinion is that they are the 2nd most stabilizing (1st being mobile land-based ICBMs). If I have silo-based ICBMs you HAVE to attack my homeland to kill them. Such an attack would guarantee a large, nuclear response. And launch on verification is almost certainly going to be the way forward. Positive ID is totally doable.

As for your ICBM recommendation, it would be a very poor response to what Russia an China are fielding. Basically a joke capability wise.

 

[Forest Green]

We traded ours away. Both Russia and China are going with a MM3+ and Peacekeeper (essentially). Russia will have the RS-24 for their "small" ICBM and RS-28 for their large ICBM. China will have the DF-31 and DF-41 respectively. And the US? Well, many are belly-aching over just replacing the nearly half-century old MM3s, let alone getting TWO types of ICBMs.

It was a mistake getting rid of the Peacekeepers in my opinion. The capacity advantage lies on the Russian side.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2019.1606503?needAccess=true

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2019.1580891?needAccess=true

Also interesting that Russia has 290 nuclear-tipped S-400 missiles hiding in reserve wrt 'The ABM Treaty'. I mean, okay a conventional S-400 missile isn't ICBM capable (4.8km/s max. target speed), but add a nuclear warhead.....

 

[sferrin]

We traded ours away. Both Russia and China are going with a MM3+ and Peacekeeper (essentially). Russia will have the RS-24 for their "small" ICBM and RS-28 for their large ICBM. China will have the DF-31 and DF-41 respectively. And the US? Well, many are belly-aching over just replacing the nearly half-century old MM3s, let alone getting TWO types of ICBMs.

It was a mistake getting rid of the Peacekeepers in my opinion.

Yep. Russia got rid of their SS-24s but they kept their SS-18s.

 

[Desertfox]

Silo-based ICBMs were stabilizing in the past as they where very hard to kill, but as accuracy increases they have become easier and easier to kill. The MM3 is stabilizing as it only carries one warhead. If you need multiple warheads to kill one warhead there is less incentive to go after them, now if you can kill multiple warheads with only one (due to increased accuracy) then the incentive increases substantially.

The US got rid of Peacekeeper because the main US system is Trident. The US depends on its SSBN force while Russia depends on its land-based ICBMs. Peacekeeper was great, but it was too many eggs in one basket. Peacekeeper would have required launch-on-warning on even a limited strike, while MM3 can ride out a limited strike.

When it comes to ICBMs its not all about ultimate capability, survivability and the capability to successfully conduct a retaliatory strike, I would argue are even more important.

 

[marauder2048]

OTOH, mobile missiles are potentially vulnerable to one close-in SSBN with with a lot of comparatively cheap and inaccurate IRBMs.

The silo-based versions do at least require two accurate warheads to guarantee a kill. And with BGVs and other threats driving terminal defenses
(they can affordably get an active seeker onto a 57mm cannon round and if HVP meets its affordability goals..) and no ABM treaty to restrict the
inventory, silos might still be very attractive.

Mobile missiles are still appealing particularly their ability to mass against a space-based boost-phase interception layer

 

[bobbymike]

Land-based MIRVed missiles, especially silo-based ones are destabilizing, they are juicy targets for pre-emptive strikes and conversely are more likely to be used in a launch-on-warning scenario.

Actually that's an opinion not born out by the facts. Silo-based MIRVed ICBMs have existed for over half a century and nobody's been tempted to start WWIII yet. A more supportable opinion is that they are the 2nd most stabilizing (1st being mobile land-based ICBMs). If I have silo-based ICBMs you HAVE to attack my homeland to kill them. Such an attack would guarantee a large, nuclear response. And launch on verification is almost certainly going to be the way forward. Positive ID is totally doable.

As for your ICBM recommendation, it would be a very poor response to what Russia an China are fielding. Basically a joke capability wise.

Exactly we just talk as if it’s gospel that in a crisis an opponent will fire 800-1000 warheads at our ICBM fields. Also to my knowledge there has never been a full range over the pole missile shot that would give me any confidence a mass attack could disable even 50% of our ICBMs.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Famous last words?

 

[Forest Green]

30 minutes is actually a long time to respond with modern detection systems I guess.

 

[sferrin]

Silo-based ICBMs were stabilizing in the past as they where very hard to kill, but as accuracy increases they have become easier and easier to kill. .

It's not that they're easy to kill that matters. (And they've been "easy" to kill since the early 80s.) It's that they're stationed on a countries' homeland. That raises the bar for conflict very high. NOBODY is going to invite an assured, massive retaliation unless they genuinely feel the life of their nation is on the line. And that's EXACTLY what one wants. Obviously both China and Russia agree as they're both still building silo-based missiles.

 

[sferrin]

Famous last words?

How vulnerable they are isn't what's important (at least it's not the most important). It's that they're on the homeland. It'd be the best of all worlds if they were mobile but we won't likely get that. (Even though everybody else is building them.)

 

[marauder2048]

Famous last words?

How vulnerable they are isn't what's important (at least it's not the most important). It's that they're on the homeland. It'd be the best of all worlds if they were mobile but we won't likely get that. (Even though everybody else is building them.)

And the silo based ones are really only vulnerable to accurate nuclear warheads. Realistically, since no-one is testing, two warheads are required for a reliable kill.

Having an element of the triad that requires a nuclear attack to destroy strikes me as useful.

 

[Desertfox]

Theoretically both Peacekeeper and Trident had the accuracy to kill silos with warhead, wouldn't be hard to imagine the Russians obtaining those levels of accuracy in the near future.

Its all a numbers game, say the Russians have a ten warhead ICBM and it takes two warheads to kill a silo. If you have 400 single-warhead MM3s it would take 800 warheads and 80 missiles to take them out, but if you have 40 Peacekeepers with 10 warheads each, now you only need 80 warheads and 8 missiles. With MM3s you need a mass strike, while with Peacekeepers only a limited strike is required or even a single SSBN strike. With Peacekeepers, if you see a limited strike incoming you have to launch-on-warning, while with MM3s you can wait, ride out the strike then retaliate as you will still have the majority of your force.

Hence, why single-warhead silo-based ICBMs are stabilizing, while MIRVed silo-based ICBMs are not. I'll take MM3/Midgetman over Peacekeeper any day of the year.

 

[sferrin]

I'll take MM3/Midgetman over Peacekeeper any day of the year.

Nobody who counts (i.e. China and Russia) shares that opinion. Both are going with MM3+ with single-warhead or MIRV option AND and heavyweight ICBM. The US would too if the Democrats allowed it.

 

[Desertfox]

The US has a heavy ICBM, it's called Trident II, the US also has 400 MM3s, more than all of Russia's ICBMs combined. Adding a heavy ICBM would only limit the number of missiles the US could field as New START has a 1550 warhead limit across the triad. The MM3s, and probably GBSD, are MIRV capable as well.

China is moving away from heavy silo ICBMs toward small road-mobile ones and the bulk of Russian forces are MM3 size ICBMs (Topol-M, Yars), only Sarmat is a heavy ICBM and its due to specific requirements the Russian's have (HGVs, FOBS) and to their land-based focus (compared to the US sea-based focus). Remember that the Russians were onboard with eliminating all land-based MIRVed ICBMs under START II and only kept them after the US pulled out of ABM.

 

[sferrin]

The US has a heavy ICBM, it's called Trident II,

Uh, no. That's what's known as an "SLBM".

 

[bobbymike]

With New START Peacekeeper II would be single warhead silo based with upload potential. Then some single warhead mobile missiles to compliment.

 

[Desertfox]

I know Trident II is an SLBM, but it has comparable payload and accuracy to the Peacekeeper and functionally fills the heavy ICBM role in the US triad. Russia does not have a Trident II equivalent, hence they have a need for a land-based heavy ICBM.

New START does not limit the number of warheads per missile, it does however, limit the total number of deployed launchers (700) and warheads (1550).

 

[Forest Green]

Theoretically both Peacekeeper and Trident had the accuracy to kill silos with warhead, wouldn't be hard to imagine the Russians obtaining those levels of accuracy in the near future.

Its all a numbers game, say the Russians have a ten warhead ICBM and it takes two warheads to kill a silo. If you have 400 single-warhead MM3s it would take 800 warheads and 80 missiles to take them out, but if you have 40 Peacekeepers with 10 warheads each, now you only need 80 warheads and 8 missiles. With MM3s you need a mass strike, while with Peacekeepers only a limited strike is required or even a single SSBN strike. With Peacekeepers, if you see a limited strike incoming you have to launch-on-warning, while with MM3s you can wait, ride out the strike then retaliate as you will still have the majority of your force.

Hence, why single-warhead silo-based ICBMs are stabilizing, while MIRVed silo-based ICBMs are not. I'll take MM3/Midgetman over Peacekeeper any day of the year.

I contest this idea of a limited strike being 'rode out'. A strike with 100 warheads or even 50 warheads on CONUS would generate a near full out response, with perhaps a few SLBM missiles kept behind for a second strike.

 

[Forest Green]

China is moving away from heavy silo ICBMs toward small road-mobile ones

Neither DF-41, DF-31 or DF-5 are that small and 10 warhead ICBMs lead me to wonder how many warheads China really has.

 

[sferrin]

I know Trident II is an SLBM, but it has comparable payload and accuracy to the Peacekeeper

Which does not preclude the fact it's an SLBM, making it irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[sferrin]

China is moving away from heavy silo ICBMs toward small road-mobile ones

Neither DF-41, DF-31 or DF-5 are that small and 10 warhead ICBMs lead me to wonder how many warheads China really has.

And, in fact the Russian RS-24 & RS-28, and Chinese DF-31 & DF-41 are all larger than Minuteman 3, carry more warheads, and (with the exception of the RS-28) are mobile. I don't think some people realize just how outclassed the US is in the ICBM dept. and will remain so even WITH GBSD. (That or they have an agenda and are feigning ignorance.)

 

[Forest Green]

And, in fact the Russian RS-24 & RS-28, and Chinese DF-31 & DF-41 are all larger than Minuteman 3, carry more warheads, and (with the exception of the RS-28) are mobile. I don't think some people realize just how outclassed the US is in the ICBM dept. and will remain so even WITH GBSD. (That or they have an agenda and are feigning ignorance.)

They need much more capable ICBMs than MMIII or a MMIV, and need something like AMARVs on them. An assessment needs to be done on how many warheads China actually has too, because the idea that they have 40 less than France is difficult to even say without scoffing. Between the US, UK and France, NATO should have at least as many strategic warheads as Russia and China combined. And as a broad-ass estimate, I put that at ~2,600 deployed right now (1,600 for Russia and ~1,000 for China). I mean if China has just 20 DF-5Bs, 20 DF-41s and 20 DF-31Bs, that alone would be 560 warheads, ignored SLBMs, ignoring older DF-4s, and JL-2 and JL-3 SLBMs, not to mention what are probably considerable intermediate range nuclear forces and ALCM capabilities.

 

[sferrin]

And, in fact the Russian RS-24 & RS-28, and Chinese DF-31 & DF-41 are all larger than Minuteman 3, carry more warheads, and (with the exception of the RS-28) are mobile. I don't think some people realize just how outclassed the US is in the ICBM dept. and will remain so even WITH GBSD. (That or they have an agenda and are feigning ignorance.)

They need much more capable ICBMs than MMIII or a MMIV, and need something like AMARVs on them. An assessment needs to be done on how many warheads China actually has too, because the idea that they have 40 less than France is difficult to even say without scoffing. Between the US, UK and France, NATO should have at least as many strategic warheads as Russia and China combined. And as a broad-ass estimate, I put that at ~2,600 deployed right now (1,600 for Russia and ~1,000 for China).

RS-28 (Sarmat) will, apparently, be able to carry up to 24 boost gliding RVs. That's just a smidgen more than a "modern SICBM". DF-41 ill be a 10-warhead missile, the longest range ICBM on the planet, and will be mobile. Their "small" ICBMs (RS-24 & DF-31) will each be able to carry twice the number of warheads of a fully loaded MM3.

 

[Desertfox]

You do not retaliate to 50 warheads with everything you got, as bad as a "limited" nuclear strike is, it is still preferable to a mass nuclear strike, and a massed retaliation will lead to a mass retaliation.

DF-31, DF-41 and RS-24 are all in the sub 50 ton "small" ICBM same as MM3. Are they more capable than MM3? Sure, at least DF-41 and RS-24 (partially because they are mobile). But they are nowhere near the 100 ton class like Peacekeeper or Trident II or the 150-200 ton ICBMs like DF-5, Satan, or Sarmat. Yes, the US is outclassed in ICBMs but at the same time it completely outclasses both Russia and China in SLBMs (different focus). The question should be, should the US even try to outclass Russia and China in ICBMs? The MM3 force is currently a enemy warhead sink, requiring at least a third of the allowed Russian warheads to take out. GBSD does not need to be better than the Russian ICBMs it just needs to be as big if not bigger of a warhead sink, the goal being to increase the cost of an enemy strike beyond that which they are willing to pay. A Peacekeeper II while being more capable could have the opposite effect in reducing the cost of an enemy strike.

Don't fall for Russian and Chinese hyperbole and propaganda. Physics is still physics. For DF-41 to carry 10 warheads to that range it would have to be at least Peacekeeper size, which it clearly is not. Sarmat with 24 HGVs is simply ludicrous. Assuming, their claims of 10 ton payload are accurate and assuming the payload is nothing but HGVs (no structure to hold them, not post-boost vehicle, no guidance, no shroud), you end up with 400kg for each HGV which is very small. Not to say anything of the deployment issues and volumetric issues.

 

[sferrin]

You do not retaliate to 50 warheads with everything you got, as bad as a "limited" nuclear strike is,

You honestly believe if we nuked 50 targets in either Russia or China they'd restrain themselves to 50 targets in the US? Good luck with that.

DF-31, DF-41 and RS-24 are all in the sub 50 ton "small" ICBM same as MM3.

DF-41 is closer to Peacekeeper in capability. And mobile. Both DF-31 and RS-24 are significantly more capable than MM3. And also mobile. Also, we're not talking about SLBMs so stop trying to drag them into the conversation.

 

[Forest Green]

RS-28 (Sarmat) will, apparently, be able to carry up to 24 boost gliding RVs. That's just a smidgen more than a "modern SICBM". DF-41 ill be a 10-warhead missile, the longest range ICBM on the planet, and will be mobile. Their "small" ICBMs (RS-24 & DF-31) will each be able to carry twice the number of warheads of a fully loaded MM3.

SICBM? Is that the same as AICBM? The other thing about Sarmat is that, at that size, but carrying only 4 warheads (as specified in START II), it could be a FOBS.