Lockheed aims to leverage commonality, best practices in GBSD design
October 13, 2016
Lockheed Martin will look at commonality between Air Force, Navy and Missile Defense Agency programs and requirements to cut down on time, cost and risk when designing their pitch for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, John Karas, the company's vice president and program manager for the effort, said Oct. 13.
Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and Boeing submitted their proposals Oct. 11 in hopes of winning the technology maturation and risk reduction contract. GBSD achieved milestone A in August, and the service expects to award up to two risk-reduction contracts by late fiscal year 2017.
Lockheed will collaborate with General Dynamics, Draper Labs, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Orbital ATK, Moog Inc. and Bechtel Corp. The most cost-efficient, least-risky technologies from each company may be combined into new hybrid products, though Karas said it's too early to tell. Karas, who spoke with reporters in an Oct. 13 conference call, expects the three-stage solid rocket and four-stage post-boost design to mirror the existing Minuteman III fleet.
Karas noted that Lockheed is exploring commonality of airborne and ground-based programs that are pertinent to both Air Force and Navy requirements. While Air Force and Navy requirements aren't always identical, he said, they are very close in many cases. The Navy is also pursuing a modernization effort for its submarine-launched ballistic missile.
"Several of the components that first and foremost meet the Air Force requirements, we're looking at to provide derivatives of those things specifically for the GBSD program, so it's a mix and a blend," Karas said. "We also have not only just on the airborne side, but on the ground side, other cyber-hard operational [operations and sustainment] systems that Lockheed Martin has for other Air Force programs we're leveraging, too."
Commonality is a major concern when fielding large numbers of new weapons -- 600 missiles and 450 launch sites as the Air Force has asked, Karas said. He suggested that digital similarities will help shorten the production schedule and save money, while hardware commonality is key as well because the physical missile plays a large part in initial life-cycle cost estimates.
He added that it's important for Lockheed not to be presumptive in deciding what common systems to pursue, and that those decisions will be driven by Air Force requirements and needs. Lockheed anticipates it could save more than $10 million a year through model-based systems engineering and the digital improvements, which would pair with savings earned through broader commonality.
Lockheed's missile design accounts for cybersecurity needs from the beginning to protect against hacking, Karas said. Nuclear surety designs will prevent the missiles from erroneous launch, and cybersecurity pieces will defend against infiltration and compromise. Those systems will be stress-tested later in the process, Karas added.
Lockheed has also conducted studies of fixed and mobile ground control sites to determine the right mix that would allow the silo-based missiles to survive in case of a first attack and subsequent launch. The company is attempting to reduce the number of sites to lower operation and sustainment costs while keeping the same level of survivability, Karas said.
Lockheed will continue discussions with the Air Force before choosing their final configuration of fixed and mobile sites, the mix of which was not a requirement but is dictated in part by survivability objectives.
The company will also analyze which of its sites can best handle the production of 666 missiles over the next decade or so. Arms Control Today reported earlier this month that Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall approved an $85 billion cost baseline that would pay for 666 new missiles and rebuild existing missile infrastructure as part of the milestone A decision.
The new ICBMs are projected to start replacing the Minuteman III fleet in the late 2020s. The Air Force estimates the life-cycle cost of the GBSD at $159 billion through 2075.
Northrop Grumman and Boeing also issued statements on their ability to design the next ICBM.
"As the developer and systems integrator on every ICBM weapons system since 1954, Northrop Grumman is uniquely qualified to design and develop the next ICBM weapon system for the Air Force," the company said in an Oct. 13 email. "Northrop Grumman is leveraging its comprehensive ICBM weapon systems understanding to fully integrate flight systems, launch systems and command and control into a sustainable, capable and affordable ICBM weapon system."
Boeing contends that its experience creating the Minuteman ICBM in 1958 and related expertise "has influenced a GBSD concept that is readily capable and affordable . . . that will meet the Air Force mission requirements through 2075."
Another arguably even bigger problem is that much of the U.S. based industrial infrastructure necessary for a mobile ICBM (among many other things) was, starting in the 1990s and it's infamous End of History/Peace Dividend, dismantled, scrapped, or sold off to the People's Republic of China and elsewhere. This textbook example of stupidity & insanity combined has continued right up into this decade.
