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


From the article:

In a statement to Breaking Defense today, an Air Force spokesperson confirmed the significant schedule slip, saying that “Sentinel’s first flight test was delayed due to increased lead times for guidance computer components.”

You don't need the definitive production guidance-system for the missile if all you want to do is test the booster stack, all they need for that is a simple open-loop autopilot with a simple guidance-computer flying a preprogrammed trajectory to aerodynamically test the booster stack with a mass-simulator representing the warhead(s).
 
From the article:



You don't need the definitive production guidance-system for the missile if all you want to do is test the booster stack, all they need for that is a simple open-loop autopilot with a simple guidance-computer flying a preprogrammed trajectory to aerodynamically test the booster stack with a mass-simulator representing the warhead(s).
Which implies that they're confident enough in the booster stack to skip testing it without a production-representative guidance system.
 
Which implies that they're confident enough in the booster stack to skip testing it without a production-representative guidance system.

That's a distinct possibility but it doesn't hurt to test the booster stack while they're waiting for these long-lead items for the LGM-35's guidance-system to become available. If they've got a while to go then perhaps start off by testing the first-stage with the second and third stages loaded with inert solid propellant and moving on from there.
 
That's a distinct possibility but it doesn't hurt to test the booster stack while they're waiting for these long-lead items for the LGM-35's guidance-system to become available. If they've got a while to go then perhaps start off by testing the first-stage with the second and third stages loaded with inert solid propellant and moving on from there.
The only thing I can think of is the guidance system being egregiously classified, to the point that they can't get someone cleared for the controls specifications for a non-representative guidance stack.
 
to the point that they can't get someone cleared for the controls specifications for a non-representative guidance stack.

That's an interesting point that hadn't occurred to me, if that's the case then someone is going to get a boot up the arse for excessive classification.
 
That's an interesting point that hadn't occurred to me, if that's the case then someone is going to get a boot up the arse for excessive classification.
There's a story from I believe early Minuteman days, about how they assigned each missile stage to a separate company due to not wanting any given company to know everything about the missile. Each stage ended up long by a bit. So did the interstages. So the final missile was something like 10% longer than planned, all because of classification.
 
So the final missile was something like 10% longer than planned, all because of classification.

I wasn't aware of that fact, how much did it impact the Minuteman I's performance when it was flight-tested?

Edit: Given that just one company, Northrop-Grumman, is working on the stages of the LGM-35 this compartmentalisation problem shouldn't be an issue.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't aware of that fact, how much did it impact the Minuteman I's performance when it was flight-tested?

Edit: given that just one company, Northrop-Grumman, is working on the stages of the LGM-35 this compartmentalisation problem shouldn't be an issue.
Never heard, story was all about the size growth.
 
All of Trident's stages were designed and made by a different company. ATK ended up buying them all but they still have to use different formulations and manufacturing methods for each stage.
Please tell me they were able to simplify things for D5LE...
 
Please tell me they were able to simplify things for D5LE...
They were not. The Navy was unwilling to change anything that was working on the system. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Besides, each stage needs to be cast separately, so there is not that much efficiency to be gained standardizing the propellants since the production flow is already locked down. Case manufacturing was standardized to an extent, so that the flow is nominally the same between stages. Or at least as much as could be given the different lengths between the stages and the diameter of the third stage.
 
So this thread correctly guessed that the problem lies with the silos. And also is Garamendi a fool.
The vproblem could not be attributed to any single factor. The problem is complex and multilateral. It's both the lack of determination from politicians, lack of cocherent ideas from the USAF (they aren't exactly much interested in the program as whole), lack of competence from industry (which designed exactly zero new ICBM since 1980s)... Basically it's a perfect storm of mistakes.
 
Or they are NOT confident enough, and use guidance system delay as excuse to delay testing at all.
Usually you want to test as much as possible. I mean, the USN even does a few test-launches every year to burn up some rockets and allow new production, keeping the average age of the rockets in the fleet more or less steady.
 
When the Cold War ended, the production of Peacekeeper was canceled. This left the nation with a force of only 50 Peacekeepers. This newest ICBM was retired in 2002, leaving the much older and less capable Minuteman III as the nation’s only ICBM.

In short, the United States kept its oldest intercontinental ballistic missiles in the field and took a three-decade-long holiday from building new ones. This robbed industry of a generation of engineers, scientists, and program managers with experience building ICBMs and their supporting infrastructure. It also ensured that no Air Force acquisition officer had any experience with ICBMs.
Arguably, the 50 Peacekeeper missiles should have stayed in service while Minuteman III was phased out in favor of Midgetman on 1:1 ratio. After all, we’ve been limited to single warheads anyway? At very least, the mobile Midgetman would have allowed the abandonment of a massive, obsolete silo infrastructure. Moreover, Midgetman, reduced to 1 or 2 stages, would have been an excellent platform for hypersonics and a return to intermediate range missiles. At it is Sentinel is absolutely safe from cancellation, regardless of cost escalation in this era of inflation. There is absolutely no public grassroots public debate on this system, unlike Peacekeeper/MX in the 1980. Zero real world controversy. Much like the F-35, it’s totally uncancellable. Most big ticket procurements are today. Aside from those of the US Army.
 
Last edited:
Arguably, the 50 Peacekeeper missiles should have stayed in service while Minuteman III was phased out in favor of Midgetman

Given that each of the Peacekeeper ICBMs carried 10 Mk-21/W87s about 167 of the MMIIIs could've been retired instead with massive cost savings to the USAF leaving just 283 MMIIIs to be looked after.

On another note what would be a suitable thread concerning the MMI's D-17B guidance-computer? This interesting video about it was uploaded recently.
 
The vproblem could not be attributed to any single factor. The problem is complex and multilateral. It's both the lack of determination from politicians, lack of cocherent ideas from the USAF (they aren't exactly much interested in the program as whole), lack of competence from industry (which designed exactly zero new ICBM since 1980s)... Basically it's a perfect storm of mistakes.
Everything I hear about the program is terrible. Military officers are turning over two years, so the customer doesn't even understand what they themselves asked for. On the contractor side, NG tried to move everyone to Hill, and lots of people aren't loving the life out there. Tons of jobs applications from people on the program, which when you call them, indicate that they're "looking for something different".

The only thing I can think of is the guidance system being egregiously classified, to the point that they can't get someone cleared for the controls specifications for a non-representative guidance stack.
Such misplaced optimism. This is called a "cost savings" on a "success based schedule".
 
Usually you want to test as much as possible. I mean, the USN even does a few test-launches every year to burn up some rockets and allow new production, keeping the average age of the rockets in the fleet more or less steady.
To quote a retired US Air Force general who agrees with you: "The institutional air force would never do anything the Navy way, purely as a point of pride".

The depressing part is: he was a general in the air force. If he can't kick the institutional air force in the nuts to do stuff, who can? Having ponder this for some time, I propose the following answer: the Chinese.
 
That sounds strange... the 2 year USAF thing has been normal since forever.

And I would expect most NG people to be former ATK employees who were already locals.
 
That sounds strange... the 2 year USAF thing has been normal since forever.

And I would expect most NG people to be former ATK employees who were already locals.
It is normal. And dysfunction is normal. Solve (part of) the retention/acquisition crisis by giving personnel a four year tour.

GBSD is a massive program. NG is hiring nationally, and encouraging a lot of people to move out to Hill to be close to the customer.
 
ICBMs were destabilizing and should eliminated first heard by me around the time of MX and Midgetman. Why even replace MMIIIs as far back as the early 80s.
 
Even if there's a massive cost blowout in the Sentinel programme they WILL be deployed as the MMIII ICBM and associated structure is over 50 years old, it's painfully out of date and is becoming increasingly hard to support.
 
MX was destabilizing, MMIII, Midgetman, and GBSD are stabilizing.
MX was the excuse they’ve been calling for getting rid of the destabilizing ICBMs ever since. Do you read arms control sites?
Ad infinitum
 
I dont read those sites, I've worked with the people who are directly involved in both arms control and GBSD. I wouldn't be surprised if there was Navy and even Air Force money as well, neither branch wants the ICBMs.

The cost overruns on GBSD are on the infrastructure side, the missile is coming along just fine.
 
The cost overruns on GBSD are on the infrastructure side,
Yeah, and we knew that a long time ago that the infrastructure was in a lot worse shape than the USAF admitted until it was going to get reused. All the reports are that it'd be cheaper to scrap all the MM3 holes and comms lines entirely and start fresh.
 
MX was destabilizing, MMIII, Midgetman, and GBSD are stabilizing.
How was MX destabilising, it was the US counterpart of the RT-23 Modolets, of which 92 were put in service, against only 50 MX.

I wouldn't be surprised if you found connections to China with enough digging. Notice it's US ICBMs that are a waste. Not everybody else's.
Yeah, not Russia's, not China's, not DPRK's, not India's, not Israel's. If the guys writing these stories convince all those nations to give up ICBMs, then they can come back and ask the US again.

Yeah, and we knew that a long time ago that the infrastructure was in a lot worse shape than the USAF admitted until it was going to get reused. All the reports are that it'd be cheaper to scrap all the MM3 holes and comms lines entirely and start fresh.
Yes, having worked on the MRA4, I can vouch for that approach too. If you want a shiny object, you don't start by polishing a turd.
 
Would it make sense now to move the ICMB's under the command of the Space Force? And also have funding for the nuclear triad under a different budget then the normal service budget?

Reason being that with the Sentinel costs being so large, it may cut into funding the Air Force's other priorities so moving the nuclear triad to its own budget section that is not part of the normal service budget may be nice. And being an ICBM seems like it falls under the domain of the Space Force, especially if that branch will be taking over all satellite surveillance. Keeps the loop of detecting launch of enemy ICBM and then ordering a retaliating strike under one command and hopefully simplifies communication.

The budget change would also help the Navy with R&D and building the Columbia class, and allow it to fully fund other priorities.
 
Would it make sense now to move the ICMB's under the command of the Space Force? And also have funding for the nuclear triad under a different budget then the normal service budget?

Reason being that with the Sentinel costs being so large, it may cut into funding the Air Force's other priorities so moving the nuclear triad to its own budget section that is not part of the normal service budget may be nice. And being an ICBM seems like it falls under the domain of the Space Force, especially if that branch will be taking over all satellite surveillance. Keeps the loop of detecting launch of enemy ICBM and then ordering a retaliating strike under one command and hopefully simplifies communication.

The budget change would also help the Navy with R&D and building the Columbia class, and allow it to fully fund other priorities.
That would cut into the budget of the space force, which serves all the other forces with intelligence and targeting information. The cost of the entire Sentinel program including everything is $264bn over a 50-year life-cycle, which averages to $5.28bn/year. The missiles themselves cost significantly less than Peacekeepers relative to current costs. Current AF annual budget is around $215-220bn, so the missiles are only just over 2% of that. The Space Force budget in <$30bn.

Curiously I've noticed that ~$170bn of the US defense budget does not fall under AF, SF, USN/USMC or Army. Only ~$60bn of that goes to Ukraine, so that still leaves $110bn.
 
There are weekly sometimes twice a week “Peter Huessy Seminars” put on by the National Institute for Deterrence Studies with experts on the Triad and nuclear enterprise. These along with online sources is making me really really pessimistic for the future and our ability to meet the threats we might face.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom