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

Inside Defense pay site

Pentagon plans to revisit GBSD price tag in late spring
The Defense Department plans to update the cost estimate for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent in late spring of next year, setting the stage for a potential major recalibration of the price tag for the new ballistic missile program that generated a pair of valuations in 2017 that varied by more than $20 billion
 
 
Interesting image from NG website.

Others I’ve seen had the “Minuteman” stage taper while this is more Midgetman? Although I’m hoping for a much larger ICBM

1574967680943.jpeg
 
 
Interesting image from NG website.

Others I’ve seen had the “Minuteman” stage taper while this is more Midgetman? Although I’m hoping for a much larger ICBM
Personally, I'm more in favor of a "Midgetman II" than a "Peacekeper II", Midgetman keeps the option of a road-mobile solution on the table, while Peacekeeper almost handcuffs you into silos only. We also still have a decent upload potential on the Tridents so in case of no New START follow-on, I would rather have more small missiles, than fewer large missiles with more warheads. The ICBMs work best as warhead sinks and for that you want numbers.
 
Personally, I'm more in favor of a "Midgetman II" than a "Peacekeper II", Midgetman keeps the option of a road-mobile solution on the table, while Peacekeeper almost handcuffs you into silos only. We also still have a decent upload potential on the Tridents so in case of no New START follow-on, I would rather have more small missiles, than fewer large missiles with more warheads. The ICBMs work best as warhead sinks and for that you want numbers.

Perhaps something similar to the Midgetman Platform will be available via one of the newer hypersonic projects going on right now.
 
Interesting image from NG website.

Others I’ve seen had the “Minuteman” stage taper while this is more Midgetman? Although I’m hoping for a much larger ICBM
Personally, I'm more in favor of a "Midgetman II" than a "Peacekeper II", Midgetman keeps the option of a road-mobile solution on the table, while Peacekeeper almost handcuffs you into silos only. We also still have a decent upload potential on the Tridents so in case of no New START follow-on, I would rather have more small missiles, than fewer large missiles with more warheads. The ICBMs work best as warhead sinks and for that you want numbers.
While Midgetman handcuffs you to a single, tiny warhead of limited versatility.
 
Interesting image from NG website.

Others I’ve seen had the “Minuteman” stage taper while this is more Midgetman? Although I’m hoping for a much larger ICBM
Personally, I'm more in favor of a "Midgetman II" than a "Peacekeper II", Midgetman keeps the option of a road-mobile solution on the table, while Peacekeeper almost handcuffs you into silos only. We also still have a decent upload potential on the Tridents so in case of no New START follow-on, I would rather have more small missiles, than fewer large missiles with more warheads. The ICBMs work best as warhead sinks and for that you want numbers.
While Midgetman handcuffs you to a single, tiny warhead of limited versatility.
Tiny? Midgetman was capable of carrying the same RV as Peacekeeper and with improvements in accuracy, that RV is capable of taking out any possible target including Russian ICBM silos. That same RV has also been converted into a MaRV.

The land-based ICBM force has two jobs, 1) Be a warhead sink, the Russians would require about 500 (out of 1500 available warheads) to take them out. 2) Force Russia to go nuclear (and more specifically, mass nuclear strike) to take them out. A Midgetman with a single Mk 12A or Mk 21, in a silo or hardened shelter is perfectly capable of achieving both jobs. A Peacekeeper (in the numbers it would be deployed) would fail at #1 and only partially succeed at #2 (Russia could take it out with a limited nuclear strike).
 
The land-based ICBM force has two jobs, 1) Be a warhead sink, the Russians would require about 500 (out of 1500 available warheads) to take them out. 2) Force Russia to go nuclear (and more specifically, mass nuclear strike) to take them out. A Midgetman with a single Mk 12A or Mk 21, in a silo or hardened shelter is perfectly capable of achieving both jobs. A Peacekeeper (in the numbers it would be deployed) would fail at #1 and only partially succeed at #2 (Russia could take it out with a limited nuclear strike).

10 Midgetmen cost more than one Peacekeeper. If you want to carry a larger warhead than the Mk21 you're SOL with Midgetman. If you want to download RVs to increase range you're SOL with Midgetman. If you want to swap out your warheads for BGRVs you're SOL with Midgetman. Ideally, you'd want a mix force of the two. If you only get one then Peacekeeper it is.
 
Maybe not 10 to 1, but say cost is 4 to 1 (including cost of converting Minuteman silos to Peacekeeper), I'll still take 400 Midgetmen (in silos) over 100 Peacekeepers.

You do realize that extra mass margins can be built into this theoretical Midgetman II? Say its designed for 500 kg to 10,000 km, a Mk21 is 270 kg (475 Kt), plenty of reserve mass for a bigger warhead*, or say AMaRV (470 kg), or even multiple (3?) Mk4s (100 kg).

*With accuracy improvements, what target even needs more than 0.5 Mt?

One other consideration, what if Sarmat runs into major problems and the Russians agree to cut MIRVed silo-based ICBMs (like with START II) on a New START follow-on? Now you are stuck with 100 Peacekeepers with a single RV vs 400 Midgetmen with a single RV. It also makes it harder to push for eliminating MIRVed silo-based ICBMs, which in nuclear strategy are destabilizing.
 
Maybe not 10 to 1, but say cost is 4 to 1 (including cost of converting Minuteman silos to Peacekeeper), I'll still take 400 Midgetmen (in silos) over 100 Peacekeepers.

You do realize that extra mass margins can be built into this theoretical Midgetman II? Say its designed for 500 kg to 10,000 km, a Mk21 is 270 kg (475 Kt), plenty of reserve mass for a bigger warhead*, or say AMaRV (470 kg), or even multiple (3?) Mk4s (100 kg).

It's not a Midgetman at that point.

*With accuracy improvements, what target even needs more than 0.5 Mt?

"Who needs more than 640k?" Anybody who doesn't want to have to spend a significant portion of their arsenal on area targets. I'd rather spend one warhead hitting Beijing with 25 Mt than using a dozen ICBMs to accomplish less.

One other consideration, what if Sarmat runs into major problems and the Russians agree to cut MIRVed silo-based ICBMs (like with START II) on a New START follow-on? Now you are stuck with 100 Peacekeepers with a single RV vs 400 Midgetmen with a single RV. It also makes it harder to push for eliminating MIRVed silo-based ICBMs, which in nuclear strategy are destabilizing.

What if they don't, and decide Sarmat is their SMALL ICBM? And did you forget about China?
 
Interesting the new state of the art carbon fibre motor casing machine can make 22” up to 72” diameter solid rocket motors.

MMIII is 66” at its fattest. Does this mean for sure we won’t get anything bigger than 72” diameter GBSD?

 
Interesting the new state of the art carbon fibre motor casing machine can make 22” up to 72” diameter solid rocket motors.

MMIII is 66” at its fattest. Does this mean for sure we won’t get anything bigger than 72” diameter GBSD?


How big do you want it to be? lol.
 
Interesting the new state of the art carbon fibre motor casing machine can make 22” up to 72” diameter solid rocket motors.

MMIII is 66” at its fattest. Does this mean for sure we won’t get anything bigger than 72” diameter GBSD?


How big do you want it to be? lol.
1000 ” :cool:
 
Interesting the new state of the art carbon fibre motor casing machine can make 22” up to 72” diameter solid rocket motors.

MMIII is 66” at its fattest. Does this mean for sure we won’t get anything bigger than 72” diameter GBSD?


How big do you want it to be? lol.
Peacekeeper is 92” and ATK in the near past has tested a modern LCS solid at this size for “strategic strike”
 
It's not a Midgetman at that point.
Its not? Midgetman was capable of 300 kg to 11,000 km, 500 kg to 10,000 km should definitely be doable for a "Midgetman II".

"Who needs more than 640k?" Anybody who doesn't want to have to spend a significant portion of their arsenal on area targets. I'd rather spend one warhead hitting Beijing with 25 Mt than using a dozen ICBMs to accomplish less.
There is no way you are getting a 25 Mt warhead on any current, or projected future ICBM much less a Peacekeeper. The largest warhead on a US ICBM was the 9 Mt Mark 6 on the Titan II at 3,700 kg. I'll take 13 Mk 21s over 1 Mk 6 any day. More flexibility, more survivability, and if properly targeted more damage to the target. Multi-megaton warheads where for city busting when accuracy (CEP) was measured in miles

What if they don't, and decide Sarmat is their SMALL ICBM? And did you forget about China?
Do you seriously believe Russia will bring back the Proton ICBMs? Where are they going to deploy them? They only have so many heavy ICBM silos and new silos are expensive. Russia does not have unlimited money and their ICBM force is already significantly more expensive than the US one.

I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.
 
I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.

China hasn't been willing to give up anything really, it cites its "No First Use" policy as a reason for why countries shouldn't worry about them.
 
How many warheads does China really have anyway? It uses its small official claim as a reason not to engage in START or the INF but does anyone know for sure?
 
How many warheads does China really have anyway? It uses its small official claim as a reason not to engage in START or the INF but does anyone know for sure?
Their infrastructure is twice the size of ours employing 2 1/2 times the people. Apparently there are massive underground facilities no one in the West has seen. I believe every new nuke system they are building is MIRV capable.

I’ve never trusted the “official” number.
 
Its not just about the number of warheads. The majority of China's missile force are not capable of reaching the US. The number of deployed ICBMs is limited and probably comparable in throw-weight to the UK or France. Of course that is changing and China is capable of reaching US and Russia numbers. In such a scenario they could be more willing to engage in discussions. Also all of China's heavy silo-based ICBMs are old vulnerable designs, they are moving towards small road-mobile ICBMs, so it would likely be easier to convince them to get rid of their heavy ICBMs than restrict their new road-mobiles.
 
Its not just about the number of warheads. The majority of China's missile force are not capable of reaching the US. The number of deployed ICBMs is limited and probably comparable in throw-weight to the UK or France. Of course that is changing and China is capable of reaching US and Russia numbers. In such a scenario they could be more willing to engage in discussions. Also all of China's heavy silo-based ICBMs are old vulnerable designs, they are moving towards small road-mobile ICBMs, so it would likely be easier to convince them to get rid of their heavy ICBMs than restrict their new road-mobiles.
Their latest most advanced is a Peacekeeper sized mobile missile capable of a 14k range and 10-14 warheads.

 
Yeah... Don't believe everything you read. The TEL is about the same size as the Topol-M/YaRS one, you are not carrying a Peacekeeper on that chassis. I'd say 11k range with 1-3 warheads, about the same as the Topol-M/YaRS and the Minuteman III.
 
Wiki source is CSIS Missile Threat Page so more than internet rumors or whatever
 
Ah yes Bill Gertz... Their page doesn't even match their source which is iffy to say the least. Note that the DF-41 has only been tested with 2 warheads and anything else is pure speculation, also the claimed max range is up to 12k not 12-16k. Physics don't lie, look at the size of the TEL and then look at the size of the proposed Peacekeeper TEL.
 
I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.

China hasn't been willing to give up anything really, it cites its "No First Use" policy as a reason for why countries shouldn't worry about them.

However much I may personally dislike their government (and their ongoing crimes) it should be noted that China isn’t and hasn’t to this point been party to any nuclear arms agreement that has required it to give up classes or numbers of nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Considering that, and that (despite paranoid-inflected comment above) the PRC’s nuclear forces have been and remain dwarfed by their US and Russian equivalents then what are we actually talking about them ever refusing to give up re: nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Amounting to anything much beyond non-specific “I don’t trust them-Chinese” sentiments by certain posters?
 
I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.

China hasn't been willing to give up anything really, it cites its "No First Use" policy as a reason for why countries shouldn't worry about them.

However much I may personally dislike their government (and their ongoing crimes) it should be noted that China isn’t and hasn’t to this point been party to any nuclear arms agreement that has required it to give up classes or numbers of nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Considering that, and that (despite paranoid-inflected comment above) the PRC’s nuclear forces have been and remain dwarfed by their US and Russian equivalents then what are we actually talking about them ever refusing to give up re: nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Amounting to anything much beyond non-specific “I don’t trust them-Chinese” sentiments by certain posters?
I trust them as much as a Uighurs do
 
I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.

China hasn't been willing to give up anything really, it cites its "No First Use" policy as a reason for why countries shouldn't worry about them.

However much I may personally dislike their government (and their ongoing crimes) it should be noted that China isn’t and hasn’t to this point been party to any nuclear arms agreement that has required it to give up classes or numbers of nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Considering that, and that (despite paranoid-inflected comment above) the PRC’s nuclear forces have been and remain dwarfed by their US and Russian equivalents then what are we actually talking about them ever refusing to give up re: nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Amounting to anything much beyond non-specific “I don’t trust them-Chinese” sentiments by certain posters?
I trust them as much as a Uighurs do
So that's a "No" then.......
I would probably agree with most/all of your sentiments re: the crimes being inflicted on the Uighurs but that's well off topic.
 
However much I may personally dislike their government (and their ongoing crimes) it should be noted that China isn’t and hasn’t to this point been party to any nuclear arms agreement that has required it to give up classes or numbers of nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Considering that, and that (despite paranoid-inflected comment above) the PRC’s nuclear forces have been and remain dwarfed by their US and Russian equivalents then what are we actually talking about them ever refusing to give up re: nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Amounting to anything much beyond non-specific “I don’t trust them-Chinese” sentiments by certain posters?

Deception & cunning are hallmarks of traditional Chinese strategy, which is interesting to watch because it only inflames their own paranoia at home when they think another country is trying to undermine them. With that said, I don't have many positive things to say about the CPC.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom