sferrin said:Wasn't aware he actually tried to do anything Must have been impressive indeed.
sferrin said:Wasn't aware he actually tried to do anything Must have been impressive indeed.
Grey Havoc said:sferrin said:Wasn't aware he actually tried to do anything Must have been impressive indeed.
In the worst possible sense of the word, yes. 'Minuteman IV' in this context was the nickname for the late 2000s/early 2010s project to replace the first stages of all the remaining missiles in the Minuteman III fleet with a new first stage using 'environmentally friendly propellants'.
Moose said:but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).
To my knowledge, the bulk of the range shortfall comes from the Propulsion Replacement Program changing the solid stages' insulation material in favor of one less toxic to the people who have to work with it. The replacement was a bit thicker and massed a bit more, so performance took a hit. Accuracy was mostly on the Guidance Replacement Program, which was its own nightmare. I believe much of the shortfall in both has all, or mostly, been smoothed out by software and PSRE upgrade work.sferrin said:Moose said:but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).
Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
Moose said:To my knowledge, the bulk of the range shortfall comes from the Propulsion Replacement Program changing the solid stages' insulation material in favor of one less toxic to the people who have to work with it. The replacement was a bit thicker and massed a bit more, so performance took a hit. Accuracy was mostly on the Guidance Replacement Program, which was its own nightmare. I believe much of the shortfall in both has all, or mostly, been smoothed out by software and PSRE upgrade work.sferrin said:Moose said:but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).
Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
Moose said:To my knowledge, the bulk of the range shortfall comes from the Propulsion Replacement Program changing the solid stages' insulation material in favor of one less toxic to the people who have to work with it. The replacement was a bit thicker and massed a bit more, so performance took a hit. Accuracy was mostly on the Guidance Replacement Program, which was its own nightmare. I believe much of the shortfall in both has all, or mostly, been smoothed out by software and PSRE upgrade work.sferrin said:Moose said:but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).
Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
marauder2048 said:Moose said:To my knowledge, the bulk of the range shortfall comes from the Propulsion Replacement Program changing the solid stages' insulation material in favor of one less toxic to the people who have to work with it. The replacement was a bit thicker and massed a bit more, so performance took a hit. Accuracy was mostly on the Guidance Replacement Program, which was its own nightmare. I believe much of the shortfall in both has all, or mostly, been smoothed out by software and PSRE upgrade work.sferrin said:Moose said:but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).
Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
Specifically, they were forced, due to EPA regulations, to switch the first stage SRM TPS from the low-density AVCOAT to the higher density Vamac.
NASA was confronted with the same dilemna but had the time and money to reformulate AVCOAT in an EPA compliant manner.
marauder2048 said:Lt. Gen. Bunch mentioned that the contract award is expected in September for both GBSD and LRSO.
Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?marauder2048 said:marauder2048 said:Lt. Gen. Bunch mentioned that the contract award is expected in September for both GBSD and LRSO.
According to Lockheed Martin's CEO, as of July 16th 2017, September is still the timeframe for GBSD and LRSO.
bobbymike said:Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?
bobbymike said:Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?
sferrin said:I really hope I'm wrong but I'm expecting "new" refurbished MMIIIs with "new" "4th generation" Tomahawks. The same that lost to the AGM-86 30+ years ago.
Refurbishing MM indefinitely was discarded as an option in 2015. Unless someone making decisions today stops the current work and brings the idea back, it's dead. And Tomahawk is not going to be the LRSO in any form, I don't think anyone would even pitch it.sferrin said:bobbymike said:Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?
I really hope I'm wrong but I'm expecting "new" refurbished MMIIIs with "new" "4th generation" Tomahawks. The same that lost to the AGM-86 30+ years ago.
Of course my real dream (Bond villain style) would be to bring back the concept of the WS-120a in deeply buried hard rock basing.Triton said:bobbymike said:Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?
I'm also hoping that there will be a new road mobile ICBM like the MGM-134.
The amounts reflect what the companies bid for this phase of the program.Airplane said:Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
Moose said:The amounts reflect what the companies bid for this phase of the program.Airplane said:Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
Airplane said:Moose said:The amounts reflect what the companies bid for this phase of the program.Airplane said:Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
What I find amusing in the line about it being effective until 2075. Good grief, how do you design a missile that drops MIRVs and decoys to be effective so far out into the future. By then there are going to be hundreds of GBLs in enemy/aggressor hands to shoot down everything detectable.
Or maybe they are going to design a LO re-entry vehicle along with multiple decoys deployed on each missile? Or pre-emptively strike early warning systems?
Maybe logically it is time go to a nuclear DIAD? Stealthy ALCMs on stealth bombers and undersea deployed nukes that don't give as much warning time. Or maybe we go a hybrid DIAD / TRIAD where we deploy a few dozen land based missiles to keep countries like NK and IRAN in check.... "Hey NK, all we have to do is push a button a 15 minutes later your country is gone."
I just don't know how you design a missile today that will be survivable in 2075.
Airplane said:Moose said:The amounts reflect what the companies bid for this phase of the program.Airplane said:Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
What I find amusing in the line about it being effective until 2075. Good grief, how do you design a missile that drops MIRVs and decoys to be effective so far out into the future. By then there are going to be hundreds of GBLs in enemy/aggressor hands to shoot down everything detectable.
Or maybe they are going to design a LO re-entry vehicle along with multiple decoys deployed on each missile? Or pre-emptively strike early warning systems?
Maybe logically it is time go to a nuclear DIAD? Stealthy ALCMs on stealth bombers and undersea deployed nukes that don't give as much warning time. Or maybe we go a hybrid DIAD / TRIAD where we deploy a few dozen land based missiles to keep countries like NK and IRAN in check.... "Hey NK, all we have to do is push a button a 15 minutes later your country is gone."
I just don't know how you design a missile today that will be survivable in 2075.