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

[sferrin]

Well that's depressing as hell. Oooh they're sticking recast 1st and 2nd stages on the old MMIII fleet. *wank*, *wank*, *wank*

 

[ouroboros]

Considering the state of industry and political will, did anyone really expect much more than that? The odds of a new physics package were slim, though a new/mod RV (that tailflap addon?) probably is in the cards. Much like the F-18, if it sounds like upkeep and not new dev, they can at least improve some things under the skin, but the overall size and shape of the beast is largely set in stone politically.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=94ff446354f0b5c6e763c8c69d5f5745&tab=core&tabmode=list&=


USAF Reportedly Plans GBSD Draft RFP As Early As September

Defense Daily | 08/03/2015 | Brian Bradley

The Air Force plans to release a concept of operations (CONOPS) and a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the estimated $62.3 billion Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) as early as September, Defense Daily sister publication Nuclear Security and Deterrence

 

[sferrin]

Considering the state of industry and political will, did anyone really expect much more than that?

Well this sure as hell isn't the way to fix the state of the industry, that is for sure.

 

[bobbymike]

Meanwhile in China;

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-tests-new-long-range-missile-with-two-guided-warheads/

The new multiple-warhead missile is likely to renew debate over the size of China’s nuclear arsenal. Current U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of Chinese warheads at around 240 warheads. Other analysts, however, say China’s warhead arsenal is far larger, with perhaps as many as 1,500 warheads, and base their assessments on the growing size of China’s missile forces, the addition of multiple warhead technology, and its large-scale nuclear material production capabilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now using this exact same sentence with minimal edits to perfectly describe the US nuclear weapons enterprise, "the 'shrinking' size of 'America's' missile forces, the "subtraction" of multiple warhead technology and its small-scale nuclear production capabilities"

 

[sferrin]

Then throw Russia's nuclear expansion (new SLBMs, SSBNs, ICBMs) and it gets really scary. I fear our "strategy" of unicorns wishes, rainbows, and delusion will not strike fear into the hearts of potential adversaries.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1850988/chinas-df-41-long-range-nuclear-missile-closer

 

[LowObservable]

An ICBM is a piece of artillery. Why would you go and re-invent it? The operating costs are low (make sure it doesn't freeze or cook, test-fire one now and then), the guidance system has been updated anyway and as long as it goes bang it will deliver an effect.


If/when an adversary looks like fielding some kind of breakthrough in BMD or counterforce, things would be different. That was what was happening in the 70s/80s, hence things like Midgetman and AMaRV.

 

[sferrin]

If/when an adversary looks like fielding some kind of breakthrough in BMD or counterforce, things would be different. That was what was happening in the 70s/80s, hence things like Midgetman and AMaRV.

If anything it's more of an issue today than ever before. Both China and Russia are working on maneuverable RVs/BGVs, and the ICBMs China and Russia are building today are at least as accurate (likely much more accurate) than those they were building in the 80s. Also they're both working very hard on fielding ABM defenses. Then there's the issue of maintaining design and manufacture expertise in the industrial base. And let's not forget reliability. Mechanical things deteriorate over time. It boggles the mind that any of this even needs to be said.

"An ICBM is a piece of artillery. Why would you go and re-invent it?"

I don't know, why isn't Britain still using WWI artillery? As long as it goes *bang* when you pull the rope that's all that matters right?

 

[Brickmuppet]

China upgrading the DF-5 is kind of surprising, at least to me. I realize that it has tremendous throw weight (in the same ballpark as a Titan 2 IIRC) so it can complement the DF-31/41 systems in the same way that the R-36 and upcoming SARMAT compliment the Russian solid propellant missiles.


However, its powered by Kerosene and LOX and so needs to be fueled...in the open. Can these (if in silos) realistically be kept topped off so they can launch on warning?

 

[bobbymike]

If/when an adversary looks like fielding some kind of breakthrough in BMD or counterforce, things would be different. That was what was happening in the 70s/80s, hence things like Midgetman and AMaRV.

If anything it's more of an issue today than ever before. Both China and Russia are working on maneuverable RVs/BGVs, and the ICBMs China and Russia are building today are at least as accurate (likely much more accurate) than those they were building in the 80s. Also they're both working very hard on fielding ABM defenses. Then there's the issue of maintaining design and manufacture expertise in the industrial base. And let's not forget reliability. Mechanical things deteriorate over time. It boggles the mind that any of this even needs to be said.

"An ICBM is a piece of artillery. Why would you go and re-invent it?"

I don't know, why isn't Britain still using WWI artillery? As long as it goes *bang* when you pull the rope that's all that matters right?

And there's the matter of the massive downsizing we've gone through since the end of the Cold War. We no longer have the nuclear infrastructure or redundant systems/warheads if something goes wrong NOR can we ramp up like Reagan did in the 80s. Right now we can produce 40 (that's not a typo) warhead 'pits' per year while Russia has maintained a much larger nuke enterprise employing 4 times as many people. China supposedly has a couple hundred warheads yet employs 2 times more people than the US.

So what does this mean under New START with the 700 launcher 1550 deployed warhead limit? You must have the most modern, robust AND up loadable systems as possible because in a crisis or 'breakout' by Russia or China you no longer have time to build up forces, which would take years.

The GBSD should be Peacekeeper sized or something that can be uploaded to 5-7+ warheads, Ohio's and the future SSBN(X) are fine given the D5's ability to carry more warheads and because bombers now count as one warhead regardless of load out we should have it carry 20+ of the future LRSO. Second to this is a modernized R&D and production line able to increase warhead production in a crisis as quickly as possible BUT in the mean time we should have what I call a 'MAX+2' reserve force which means if our 700 launchers could carry extra warheads (as I recommended above) those warheads +2 more for each launcher should be sitting ready to be mounted onto the D5 or GBSD as required.

Then there is modernizing our tactical nukes beyond the B-61-12 but that's for another thread.

 

[sferrin]

It should be Peacekeeper sized if only to keep options open. You could either upload more RVs, add more decoys, use more versatile RVs (MARV/BGRV), or upload a larger unitary warhead. Rebuild the current MMIII silos for cold launch (much like they did with the Peacekeeper missles).

 

[bobbymike]

Second RFI September 11, 2015

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6b3c7d5c85b8b4976dda6c5795d3f30c&tab=core&_cview=1

BACKGROUND: The USAF is initiating an acquisition program to replace the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) called Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). GBSD will replace the entire flight system, retaining the silo basing mode while recapitalizing the ground facilities, and implements a new Weapon System Command and Control (WSC2).

So looks like a new missile

Also of interest

The major activities in the GBSD program include 1) Flight Systems; 2) WSC2; 3) Launch Systems (LS); 4) Weapon System Integration. Flight System is an integrated missile stack which includes the following major sub-components: propulsion, post-boost, guidance, and re-entry systems (RS).

New RV?

 

[sferrin]

New RV?

Hopefully they still have somebody around who remembers how to make one.

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.usni.org/2015/10/23/stratcom-co-next-air-force-icbm-navy-sub-launched-ballistic-missile-could-have-more-in-common

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/release.asp?prid=100

Medium class stage III test

 

[marauder2048]

Pentagon studies new mobile ICBM


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/11/inside-the-ring-pentagon-studies-new-mobile-icbm/?page=all#pagebreakk

By Bill Gertz - - Wednesday, November 11, 2015

The Air Force is nearing completion of plans for the next generation land-based strategic nuclear missiles that could be deployed on difficult-to-locate mobile launchers or in tunnels.

According to an updated Congressional Research Service report published last week, the road- and rail-mobile missile concepts were outlined in a contract proposal two years ago produced by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center.

"The Mobile concept employs a new ICBM on a transporter erector launcher (TEL)," the Air Force contracting document says. "The systems would be located on government land and be capable of deploying on- or off-road."

The new missiles are needed to replace the arsenal of 450 Minuteman IIIs and would put the United States in the same league with China and Russia. Both countries are deploying new and more advanced road-mobile missiles with multiple warheads.

The Air Force is considering development of a new missile that would be silo-based but designed so that it could be deployed on a mobile launcher in the future, a congressional defense expert said.

The Air Force and the contractor Orbital ATK conducted a ground test of a new solid rocket motor for use in the future ICBMs, the company said in a statement Wednesday, noting that the motor test demonstrated "new advanced technologies."

The U.S. government in the past rejected deploying mobile missiles, a basing mode considered more survivable in a nuclear conflict than the current silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The new road-mobile ICBM would be built so it could move to avoid being targeted and "therefore, a key feature will be the speed at which the TEL can depart the operating base when required," the proposal reads.

The new ICBM will be armed with one or two existing warheads and the transporter must be capable of traveling on roads and unpaved surfaces. The control system for the missile would be either fixed or mobile.

The Air Force also considered a rail-mobile ICBM that would be stored in tunnels.

"The tunnel concept mode operates similar to a subway system but with only a single transporter/launcher and missile dedicated to a given tunnel," the Air Force said. "The vehicle moves at random down the length of the tunnel. The tunnel is long enough to improve survivability but leaving enough room to permit adequate 'rattle space' in the event of an enemy attack."

The missile rail cars would be self-propelled and remotely-controlled, with launch portals inside the tunnels at regular intervals that could be used to raise the missile and fire it through an opening.

"During an attack, the launcher vehicle will need protection from ground shock," the document says.

Other options call for upgrading current Minuteman IIIs, or building a new silo-based ICBM to replace it.

However, Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick said in news reports last summer three options were being considered: keeping Minuteman IIIs through 2075; building a new silo-based ICBM; and deploying a mix of upgraded Minuteman IIIs and the new road-mobile missile.

The project is called the Ground-based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) and the outline of the future ICBM will be announced in the coming weeks.

U.S. Strategic Command commander Adm. Cecil Haney told reporters Oct. 22 the Minuteman III replacement current is the focus of an "analysis of alternatives" study that will then produce a request for proposal to industry, possibly before the end of the year.

The congressional report said the government will spend $348 billion between 2015 and 2024 on nuclear forces.

 

[Triton]

Pentagon studies new mobile ICBM


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/11/inside-the-ring-pentagon-studies-new-mobile-icbm/?page=all#pagebreakk

I wonder how much the new TEL resembles the Small ICBM Hard Mobile Launcher.

 

[sferrin]

Pentagon studies new mobile ICBM


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/11/inside-the-ring-pentagon-studies-new-mobile-icbm/?page=all#pagebreakk

I wonder how much the new TEL resembles the Small ICBM Hard Mobile Launcher.

Hopefully a lot. IMO it was a lot more survivable and mobile than what you'd see the Russians and Chinese use. The Topol TEL can slog through mud (probably) but it doesn't have the speed of the Midgeman TEL (or ability to turn at speed). And it's not nearly as hardened as Midgetmans TEL was. On the other hand, they're under trees so there's probably not much need for that once you're deployed off base.

 

[TomS]

Pretty sure whatever TEL they're discussing won't resemble the Hard Mobile Launcher, if only because GBSD will be a full-size ICBM, not something small like Midgetman. Think TOPOL-M instead.

The whole thing sounds like a rehash of the MX basing discussions. And we all know how that ends up -- mobile options just cost way too much (on an ongoing basis) and are politically unpalatable compared to reusing existing silos or even building something new like superhard or dense-pack silo basing.

 

[DrRansom]

Why look at mobile ground based missile? I can't imagine that it would get any more support now than it did then...

 

[Triton]

Everything old is new again.

 

[sferrin]

Why look at mobile ground based missile? I can't imagine that it would get any more support now than it did then...

Back then though they were talking about a MASSIVE undertaking. 4600 shelters, 200 off those TELs (I say "TEL" but I don't know if they'd have been able to launch from the truck had they been moving a missile when the attack started). Personally I think something like superhard silos with LoADS would be the best option.

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force to brief industry on draft solicitation for new ICBM program

Posted: December 23, 2015


The Air Force next month plans to conduct in-depth technical discussions with industry on the requirement to modernize the silo-based intercontinental ballistic missile fleet, a meeting that comes in anticipation of an early 2016 decision to acquire the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, a projected $62 billion project.

The ICBM systems directorate and the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center plan to host a three-day meeting, Jan. 11-13 at Hill Air Force Base, UT, with industry representatives, a gathering that comes as the Air Force plans to seek permission by March to formally launch acquisition by soliciting bids for the first material phase of the GBSD -- technology maturation and risk reduction (TMRR).

An objective of the gathering is to review draft acquisition documents circulated to industry earlier this month, including a statement of work for the technology maturation and risk reduction phase of development; a GBSD weapon system specification; and a GBSD security classification guide, according to a Dec. 22 notice published on the Federal Business Opportunities website.

In addition, the Air Force intends to brief industry at the January conference on its plans to utilize “model-based systems engineering” in the GBSD program, according to the notice. “The government will provide an overview of how it intends to 'Own the Technical Baseline' (OTB) using a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach.”

The GBSD program aims to modernize the ICBM fleet in order to keep the silo-based leg of the nuclear triad operational beyond the end of the Minuteman III's service life in 2030. In July 2014, the Air Force -- after weighing a wide range of options -- decided on a plan to develop and deploy a new missile using existing Minuteman infrastructure.

“GBSD will replace the entire flight system, retaining the silo basing mode while recapitalizing the ground facilities, and implements a new Weapon System Command and Control,” according to an Air Force summary of the GBSD decision.

This approach carries an estimated $62.3 billion price tag to develop and acquire though the 2030s, according to the Air Force. A February 2015 draft estimate tallied $48.5 billion for new missiles, $6.9 billion for command and control systems, and $6.9 billion for renovation of launch control centers and launch facilities.

This fall, the Air Force announced in a presolicitation notice that it was “contemplating a sole source award(s) to potentially all prospective prime contractors who anticipate submitting a formal proposal for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent technology maturation and risk reduction contract,” according to an Oct. 30 notice published in Federal Business Opportunities.

The aim of the TMRR phase is to complete a preliminary design and function baseline in anticipation of transitioning to development and production.

A Sept. 11 request for information for GBSD outlined a notional schedule that envisioned a TMRR phase beginning with contract award during the second quarter of fiscal year 2017 and concluding three years later in the second quarter of FY-20 with a milestone B review that would transition the program to engineering and manufacturing development. That would be a year longer than the Air Force estimated in its notional schedule submitted to Congress last February as part of its FY-16 budget request.

“The schedule depicted [in the FY-16 budget request] was a notional schedule as the Air Force continues to refine the draft acquisition strategy in preparation for the upcoming Milestone A (scheduled for the end of the second quarter in FY16),” Maj. Rob Lesse, an Air Force spokesman told Inside Defense in an email. “The exact timing of Milestone B is still TBD,” the spokesman said. -- Jason Sherman

 

[LowObservable]

I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

 

[sferrin]

I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available. Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too. Yes, cha-ching. Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production).

 

[bobbymike]

I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available. Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too. Yes, cha-ching. Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production).

If SPF had an 'Like' button. ;D

 

[marauder2048]

I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

Or to faciliate a first-use (particularly against emerging nuclear powers) which the US has never formally, technically or doctrinally ruled out.

If you look at the "Medium Class Stage" program, they are longer and more powerful than the comparable MMIII stages which you would need to avoid overflights of Russia and China if your ICBM is on its way to
Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea etc.

 

[marauder2048]

I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available. Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too. Yes, cha-ching. Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production).

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...

 

[bobbymike]

I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available. Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too. Yes, cha-ching. Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production).

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...

What is that from? Looks like a Pk sized missile?? Also, CPS Conventional Prompt Strike?

 

[marauder2048]

I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available. Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too. Yes, cha-ching. Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production).

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...

What is that from? Looks like a Pk sized missile?? Also, CPS Conventional Prompt Strike?

From LM's Space Systems Suppliers Conference.

 

[ouroboros]

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...

Is that a rail launcher pictured, or a semi with a really long cab?

 

[Grey Havoc]

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...

Is that a rail launcher pictured, or a semi with a really long cab?

It's an image of a Hard Mobile Launcher.

 

[marauder2048]

From early 2015:

"Nuclear Hell On Wheels Examining The Need For A Mobile ICBM" by Lt. Col. Matthew E. Dillow, USAF command missileer.

Worth a read. He points out that one of the perverse consequences of quantity obsessed New START-type treaties
is that it may force the US to adopt a countervalue ("retaliation against population centers") strategy as there may not be
sufficient deployed weapons to support a counterforce strategy.

Mobile ICBMs would be integral to a countervalue strategy and in fact may be required if an enemy develops an
"advanced stealth bomber or a highly accurate, conventional ballistic missile with sophisticated countermeasures."

I'll leave you with this gem:

"Silo-based ICBMs are a first strike or immediate retaliatory strike weapon, best suited to striking an adversary's military forces before they can be employed against the United States."

 

[sferrin]

While a silo might be the easiest to target it also comes with the highest cost to said enemy were they to attempt to do so.

 

[marauder2048]

While a silo might be the easiest to target it also comes with the highest cost to said enemy were they to attempt to do so.

A valuable point that the author makes.

Something that occurred to me was that it might be possible to leverage all of the railroad expansion in Montana and North Dakota that's occurred because of Bakken play; all of that double tracking and the new passing sidings would be useful for a rail garrison trying to GTFO.

 

[LowObservable]

It's interesting to look at how assumptions and technologies may have changed since the last serious mobile-missile go-around.

Midgetman was predicated on a hail of warheads over its entire deployment zone, hence its complexity despite the fact that the missile itself was quite small. The Russians put a full-size ICBM on a wheeled launcher that's supposed to use normal roads, but in practice I doubt it.

A 30 klb weapon on a smaller, constantly dispersed vehicle would be different. However, you would have to worry about tracking, given the number of insecure or poorly secured video surveillance networks that exist.

 

[jsport]

It's interesting to look at how assumptions and technologies may have changed since the last serious mobile-missile go-around.

Midgetman was predicated on a hail of warheads over its entire deployment zone, hence its complexity despite the fact that the missile itself was quite small. The Russians put a full-size ICBM on a wheeled launcher that's supposed to use normal roads, but in practice I doubt it.

A 30 klb weapon on a smaller, constantly dispersed vehicle would be different. However, you would have to worry about tracking, given the number of insecure or poorly secured video surveillance networks that exist.

are we talking about the MAZ TELs being to long for street/ road networks? there are plenty of axles and tire cross section on those TELs for almost any terrain including much of that famous Russian mud.

 

[LowObservable]

Flotation's great. But various sources give the loaded weight (chassis/cab+fixed launch hardware+missile) at 120 tons or so. That's going to break stuff.

 

[jsport]

Flotation's great. But various sources give the loaded weight (chassis/cab+fixed launch hardware+missile) at 120 tons or so. That's going to break stuff.

ok got it.

much like a hard landing geared UAV might have--- graphene's compressive strength for the weight might help.