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

http://www.defensenews.com/space/2017/09/22/4-alternatives-to-the-pentagons-new-icbm-modernization-plan/

https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/170921_Harrison_OptionsGroundBasedLegNuclearTriad.pdf?_q2TQEeJsoYEGK0hBv.6Nm6kHAiWq2nx

Maybe 20 years ago these were options but we ARE WAY PAST being able to have any further delays to replacing MMIII.
 
http://aviationweek.com/missile-defense/boeing-unveils-icbm-program-suppliers#comment-900271
 
On GBSD, No Miracles Required

In developing the requirements for its Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, the Air Force has surveyed existing technologies and likes what it sees. The Air Force is not looking for “technology miracles” for the Minuteman III replacement, program manager Col. Heath Collins said at a Task Force 21-Minot event in Washington, D.C., Thursday. He said his team looked long and hard at “the state of industry today,” and it has identified a lot of technology that already “meets our requirements.” Moving the GBSD program forward, he said, will be a matter of “integrating existing technologies” rather than achieving new technical breakthroughs. The program is taking this approach to stay ahead of the timeline and keep costs down, a strategy developed after studying the “acquisition woes” of recent Air Force development programs, Collins added. His program office is also looking into cost savings from commonality with similar programs. The GBSD shop has investigated links with the Navy’s Trident missile, and has also looked for parallels “from the space community” and the Missile Defense Agency. “We will beg, steal, and borrow anything we can,” Collins admitted, in order to complete the mission with reliability, speed, and affordability. —Wilson Brissett
 
bobbymike said:
On GBSD, No Miracles Required
....

Looks like they're learning from B-21 program.

1. Make it open source so it's easy to upgrade.
2. Using existing tech.
3. Eliminate risk where possible. e.g existing silos and awards to both NG and Boeing
4. Don't change the specs.

Now if they can get this new rig to fit in the 87" Virginia Payload Tubes then that would be something. Sixty+ additional "mobile" launchers. ;)
 
NeilChapman said:
bobbymike said:
On GBSD, No Miracles Required
....

Looks like they're learning from B-21 program.

1. Make it open source so it's easy to upgrade.
2. Using existing tech.
3. Eliminate risk where possible. e.g existing silos and awards to both NG and Boeing
4. Don't change the specs.

Now if they can get this new rig to fit in the 87" Virginia Payload Tubes then that would be something. Sixty+ additional "mobile" launchers. ;)

It'd be easier to drop a D-5 in there.
 
sferrin said:
NeilChapman said:
bobbymike said:
On GBSD, No Miracles Required
....

Looks like they're learning from B-21 program.

1. Make it open source so it's easy to upgrade.
2. Using existing tech.
3. Eliminate risk where possible. e.g existing silos and awards to both NG and Boeing
4. Don't change the specs.

Now if they can get this new rig to fit in the 87" Virginia Payload Tubes then that would be something. Sixty+ additional "mobile" launchers. ;)

It'd be easier to drop a D-5 in there.


Whatever works.
 
NeilChapman said:
Now if they can get this new rig to fit in the 87" Virginia Payload Tubes then that would be something. Sixty+ additional "mobile" launchers. ;)

New START restricts SLBMs to boomers only.
 
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.
 
marauder2048 said:
Moose said:
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.

Not D5 but there has been some argument for something like C4:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/build-strategic-fast-attack-submarines

IMHO, exploiting the gaping New START loophole on SLCMs is a better use of the Virginia class.

I'll reiterate, whatever works for GBSD

But to tie a bow on this SLBM discussion. I think a new SLBM and skipping CCS there could be US$100 Billion in additional funds for GBSD program.

Requirements include...

Need new GBSD
Planning on new Columbia-Class submarine - CCS
Need Virginia Class Replacement - VC(R)
Need new SLBM
Building 12 boats of a class is incredibly expensive
If a larger boat is required, making it the VC(R) and spreading cost, labor build efficiencies and total build time reductions (time in yard) will reduce costs significantly. Think F-35 (3k planes) vs B-2 costs (20 planes).

An exercise in identifying potential advantages:

1. Skip CCS and move design to Virginia Class Replacement - VC(R). CCS design work can be redirected with eye making it the VC(R). Perhaps VC(R) will need a larger diameter boat in future. Perhaps it won't be 43' but maybe it will. Modifying design work is cheaper than new boats. With additional time, new tech for use in VPT's can be developed and tested. Other uses for VPT's will be found. New electric motor and stern can be better developed and tested, reducing risk. Expect VC(R) design completed and ready for 1st boat build start in 2025 w/expected 7yr build.

2. It would be much easier to increase VCS production without CCS. Two VCS funded 2018, two VCS in 2019 with the 2nd accommodating the VPM. Modify shipbuilding plan by adding three VCS w/VPM in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Then 10 boats in the next 5 year MYB, 2024-2028 w/1 boat in 2025 and 1 boat in 2027 being VCS Replacement. New, larger boats may take up to 2x labor to build at first. Blk V production reduced to add labor for VC(R). Some labor moved to overhaul jobs for VCS.

MYB
Yr Blk V VPM VC(R)
2019 1 1
2020 3
2021 3
2022 3
2023 3

2024 3
2025 2 1
2026 1
2027 1 1
2028 1

2029 2
2030 2
2031 2
2032 2
2033 2

3. 2018 start new SLBM with deployment planned by 2026 when first Ohio is retired. By then you've got 7 VCS w/VPM commissioned and three new boats delivered for each of the next three years. Much quicker to produce new SLBM's than boats.

That's the equivalent # of warheads for ~2.5 CCS's by 2026 and 7.5 CCS's by 2031 using VPM Block V boats. All while saving ~US100Billion.

What's the risk? US can't build a new SLBM by 2026. OK, how about by 2031 when the 1st CCS was set to deploy? If the US can't build a SLBM in in 14 years...

4. Crew training. Everyone is on the same boats. Another reduction in cost. Even if SLBM function uses blue - gold crew the underlying boat is basically the same.

5. Wartime production. If VCS production is 2-3 per year, that's 2-3 replacements in the pipeline each year - with VC(R) accelerated.

6. Cost. 2-4 boats a year will increase labor knowledge and likely reduce build time to 48 months over time - saving more money. Increasing Blk V labor pool will prep for VC(R) and build capacity for overhaul teams - reducing costs.

7. Force level dramatically changes.

Year Proj. Force Proposed Force 688/SW/774 VC(R)

2022 48 +2 Blk IV VCS 2018 budget 48
2023 49 +1Blk IV +1 BlkV VCS 2019 budget 49
2024 48 +3 BlkV VCS 2020 budget 49
2025 47 +3 BlkV VCS 2021 budget 52
2026 45 +3 BlkV VCS 2022 budget 53
2027 44 +3 BlkV VCS 2023 budget 55
2028 42 +3 BlkV VCS 2024 budget 56
2029 41 +2 BlkV VCS 2025 budget 57 because 1st VC(R) has 7 yr build
2030 42 +1 BlkV VCS 2026 budget 58
2031 43 +1 BlkV VCS 2027 1 VC(R) 2025 60 1 total = 61
2032 43 +1 BlkV VCS 2028 61 1 total = 61
2033 44 +1 VC(R) 2027 62 2 total = 64
2034 45 + 1 VC(R) 2029 1@7yr build 62 3 total = 65
2035 46 + 2 VC(R) 2030 2@6yr build 62 6 total = 68
+ 1 VC(R) 2029 1@7yr build

2036 47 + 2 VC(R) 2031 2@6yr build 62 8 total = 70
2037 48 + 2 VC(R) 2032 62 10 total = 72
2038 47 + 2 VC(R) 2033 62 12 total = 74

VC(R) build time will likely drop as has VCS over time.
VCS Block 1 begin retirement in 2036.


Downside? UK may be upset but they're still getting the tubes they need.

It's late. I expect I'm missing something. Lot's of reasons to try and make this work. Over 100Billion reasons.
 
marauder2048 said:
Moose said:
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.

Not D5 but there has been some argument for something like C4:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/build-strategic-fast-attack-submarines

IMHO, exploiting the gaping New START loophole on SLCMs is a better use of the Virginia class.
"Something like C4" means a new missile specifically for the VPM tubes. Entirely possible, but would be for Prompt Global Strike or some other non-nuclear mission.
 
Moose said:
marauder2048 said:
Moose said:
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.

Not D5 but there has been some argument for something like C4:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/build-strategic-fast-attack-submarines

IMHO, exploiting the gaping New START loophole on SLCMs is a better use of the Virginia class.
"Something like C4" means a new missile specifically for the VPM tubes. Entirely possible, but would be for Prompt Global Strike or some other non-nuclear mission.

Since this is a GBSD thread I'll stop. ;)
 
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Air-Force-to-Fire-New-Ground-Based-Strategic-Deterrent-Next-Gen--108784109

Will be disappointed if the USAF doens't take this opportunity to build a Peacekeeper+ sized MMIII replacement missile.
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/10-reasons-the-us-should-build-new-nuclear-missiles-gbsd/#comment-3593042521

SRM industry report
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687977.pdf
 
ATK's GBSD promotional pamphlet

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/propulsion-systems/GBSD/default.aspx
 
Looking at this ATK brochure, I'm wondering what the burn time of GBSD will be. One wants it to be as short as possible so it's easily visible for less time. Peacekeeper's, as I recall, was about 150 seconds total. (Compared to ~200 for GBI.)
 
Air Force sets industry day for nuclear reentry vehicle acquisition

Air Force Global Strike Command and the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center will host an industry day Nov. 29-30 to discuss the Mark 21A reentry vehicle, which is planned to hold an inter-operable warhead on the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, the service said last week.
 
Inside the Air Force - December 1, 2017

GBSD program clears Air Force review, proceeding to design, development

November 30, 2017

Boeing's initial blueprint for a new intercontinental ballistic missile recently passed muster with the Air Force during a key review, clearing the defense contractor to proceed with initial systems development as part of an $18 billion project to develop two competing designs as part of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program.

In a Nov. 30 press release, Boeing said its GBSD program "successfully completed" the System Requirements Review with the Air Force, "validating program technical requirements." The assessment cross-walked the proposed GBSD system and performance requirements with cost, schedule, risk and technology readiness -- establishing a baseline for the Boeing effort to proceed with design and development.

"The SRR is used to review a program's system requirements and assess a prime contractor's understanding of those requirements down to the subsystem and component levels," Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center spokeswoman Leah Bryant told Inside the Air Force Oct. 26. "Specific exit criteria have been established for each program that the prime contractors are required to demonstrate they have met in order to successfully complete the SRR."

On Aug. 23, the Air Force awarded a $349 million contract to Boeing and a $328 million contract to Northrop Grumman to develop prototypes to replace the Minuteman III missile fleet. These technology maturation and risk-reduction contracts are to support work through a planned downselect decision in September 2020, a milestone B review that would launch the engineering and manufacturing development phase.

At press time (Nov. 30), Northrop Grumman did not respond to a query about whether its GBSD design proposal completed the System Requirements Review.

"The Air Force set clear system design requirements early in the acquisition process," Frank McCall, Boeing GBSD program manager, said in a statement. "Thanks to this straightforward guidance, the Boeing team was able to focus on options that would meet those requirements and provide the capability needed to deter an evolving threat. We concentrated on modularity and affordability to enable efficient government ownership of the system through 2075 and beyond."

After the System Requirements Reviews, Air Force spokeswoman Bryant said Boeing and Northrop "will continue to establish baselines at the subsystem and component levels in preparation for future technical reviews. In addition, the GBSD Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase's prime contractors will complete a number of cost-capability studies to identify areas that may be adjusted to improve the overall affordability of the GBSD weapon system."

The Air Force's fiscal year 2018 budget request disclosed for the first time the GBSD development cost estimate is $18 billion, including $5.1 billion through FY-22 and another $12.6 billion in the years beyond that to complete development. -- Jason Sherman and Rachel Karas
 
Aerojet Rocketdyne Achieves Significant Air Force Demonstration and Validation Milestone with Successful Hot-Fire Test

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec. 07, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), recently achieved a significant milestone by completing a successful hot-fire test
of a controllable solid rocket motor under the U.S. Air Force Demonstration and Validation Post Boost Study A program.

"This hot-fire test successfully demonstrated the increased capabilities of an advanced, controllable solid rocket motor system,"
said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. "Applying this technology could provide increased mission flexibility
and capability in a future post boost propulsion system."

Post boost propulsion systems are a critical element of strategic and missile defense systems for final payload positioning and
deployment. The Post Boost Study A program was aimed at identifying emerging propulsion concepts using a trade study approach
and selecting high potential candidates for demonstration of technical maturity.

"This program allowed us to evaluate various advanced technology propulsion systems and select one of the most promising -
a controllable solid rocket motor system for hardware demonstration testing," said Vice President of Defense Advanced
Programs Tyler Evans. "Maturing this critical technology now will undoubtedly pay future dividends as our nation looks to
modernize its strategic deterrent capabilities in the coming years."
 
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2018/February%202018/Replacing-Minuteman.aspx
 
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13715/usaf-awards-contractors-big-bucks-for-new-icbms-but-future-of-missiles-is-uncertain
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13715/usaf-awards-contractors-big-bucks-for-new-icbms-but-future-of-missiles-is-uncertain

Another ignorant "we could scrap the ICBMs" piece. And citing troop morale as a reason? Really? I guess we should stop digging ditches and training in the rain too. ::)
 
From Inside Defense (pay per article)

Air Force: Ground Based Strategic Deterrent development costs jumped 20 percent

The estimated price tag to develop the Air Force's new intercontinental ballistic missile is now $21.7 billion -- a 20 percent jump compared to the service's estimate last year -- a revision that comes after Northrop Grumman and Boeing were tapped last summer to develop prototypes for a Minuteman III replacement.
 
No surprise there as they pretty much have to start from scratch and train new designers. "Peace dividends" coming home to roost.
 
sferrin said:
No surprise there as they pretty much have to start from scratch and train new designers. "Peace dividends" coming home to roost.
I'm hoping part of the cost increase is because the design is more Peacekeeper than MMIII??
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
No surprise there as they pretty much have to start from scratch and train new designers. "Peace dividends" coming home to roost.
I'm hoping part of the cost increase is because the design is more Peacekeeper than MMIII??

I'd be happy to see that. I'm mainly hoping it's not, "jeez, that's not even a Minuteman III".
 
Northrop Grumman moves ahead with new ICBM design, impact of Orbital merger still unclear

When the Pentagon had a chance to review the merger of both firms, it did not believe the GBSD program was a deal breaker. “It’s a balance” that had to be struck between market forces and the Pentagon’s desire to have multiple competitors in major programs, McGinn said Monday at a New America event in Washington.

“As a department you don’t want to get in the middle of business,” he said.

http://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-moves-ahead-with-new-icbm-design-impact-of-orbital-merger-still-unclear/
 
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2017/AirForce/stamped/U_0605230F_4_PB_2017.pdf

GBSD budget document
 
From Inside Defense pay site

USAF report shows GBSD reentry vehicle draft RFP slated for late FY-18

The Air Force plans to release a draft request for proposals for the Mark 21A nuclear reentry vehicle in late fiscal year 2018, according to a new acquisition report published this week.
 
bobbymike said:
From Inside Defense pay site

USAF report shows GBSD reentry vehicle draft RFP slated for late FY-18

The Air Force plans to release a draft request for proposals for the Mark 21A nuclear reentry vehicle in late fiscal year 2018, according to a new acquisition report published this week.

One would have hoped they'd have come up with something better in the last 30 years. Obviously they aren't considering terminal guidance or maneuverability for the RV. SAD.
 
From Inside Defense

USAF: Five companies could compete as primes for $3B GBSD reentry vehicle program

May 15, 2018

Designing and buying a new reentry vehicle for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent is expected to cost around $3 billion, although the Air Force isn't sure whether it will choose one or more contractors for the first development phase, a service spokeswoman said this week.

Five major defense contractors -- Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK and Raytheon -- are interested in competing as prime contractors for the Mark 21A reentry vehicle program's three-year technology-maturation and risk-reduction phase, the Air Force said in an April 9 notice. Boeing and Northrop are already maturing their next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile designs under contract for the GBSD program, although Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center spokeswoman Leah Bryant said May 14 the service would not prioritize their Mk21A bids.

The reentry vehicle will carry a new configuration of the Air Force and Navy's refurbished W78 and W88-1 warheads known as the Interoperable Warhead 1, starting in FY-30. GBSD is slated to begin entering missile silos in FY-29, and will initially use existing reentry vehicles until the Mark 21A is ready.

A Mark 21A solicitation is expected out this August and the contract award is slated for September 2019, according to the recent notice. In its fiscal year 2019 budget request, the Air Force stated it plans to competitively award two contracts in FY-19.

"The Mk21A RV team will hold a 'requirement deep dive' with companies that have self-identified as filling a prime role for the subject program," the notice stated. "The deep dive will consist of the government releasing an updated version of the program system requirements document and statement of work available for review."

The company -- or companies -- chosen for TMRR will mature their preliminary designs, develop ground and flight test plans for prototypes and begin developing test vehicles in FY-19.

In the program's third request for information, the Air Force indicated it is exploring its options for competing an engineering and manufacturing development contract as well.

"The government has been considering program-level strategy and is seeking feedback on a tentative evaluation criteria for EMD," the April 9 RFI stated. "One possible criteria to compete is that an offeror have a prototype design developed and requirements verified through component- and system-level [modeling and simulation] and component-level ground tests in qualification environments."

The Air Force asked industry whether that approach would make competition more possible for EMD and wants to know how the program could judge a design's risk level without requiring test flights. Bryant said TMRR and EMD will include trade studies and prototyping efforts but did not elaborate on those plans.

Mk21A risk reduction is an $18.4 million new-start effort in the FY-19 budget request, for which the Air Force is still refining its cost projection. The service is also researching reentry vehicles through multiple related efforts.

TMRR is projected to last from FY-19 to the third quarter of FY-22. A preliminary design review is slated for January 2021, followed by milestone B in July 2022. After the Air Force chooses one company's design, the program will enter EMD from the fourth quarter of FY-22 to FY-27.

When asked if the Air Force is looking at whether its future reentry vehicle could be used with the Navy's Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile or the planned Sea-Launched Cruise Missile, Bryant said the Air Force "intends to explore the possibility of common reentry systems with the U.S. Navy as described in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review."

In written testimony submitted for an April 11 Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing, Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand said IW-1 could also be used on Navy missiles.

"The replacement warhead will use a [Mark 21] aeroshell and will deploy on GBSD after fiscal year 2030," Rand's testimony said. "The Navy will study the feasibility of using the same nuclear explosive package with their flight vehicle."

The NPR, published in February, directs the National Nuclear Security Administration to speed up its W78 warhead replacement by one year to start in FY-19 so it can be fielded on GBSD by 2030. NNSA was also told to investigate whether it is feasible to field the new warhead in a Navy flight vehicle.

Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Emily Grabowski told Inside Defense the services do not have a requirement to field a common reentry vehicle, meaning the Navy could use IW-1 without packaging it in the Mark 21A.

"Determining the feasibility of fielding the nuclear explosive package in a Navy flight vehicle will be studied as part of the department's NPR implementation process, to include cost, timing and decision points," Grabowski said.

Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, wrote in January the interoperable warhead programs could cost around $50 billion and require nuclear weapon labs to produce more than 80 pits a year.

The Navy did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See bolded - I think sferrin once commented that US produced 3000 W68s in five years along with several other warhead types.
 
From Inside Defense (pay site)

Air Force looking to reprogram $183 million for GBSD in FY-18

The Air Force confirmed this week it will ask Congress to reprogram an additional $183 million for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent this year, hoping the intercontinental ballistic missile modernization program would remain ahead of schedule.

GBSD program could threaten solid-rocket motor industrial base, DOD report says

The Pentagon's annual assessment of the defense industrial base shares concerns with Capitol Hill about the future of solid-rocket motors, including the potential for competition and continued research and development in the face of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program.
 
https://spacenews.com/air-force-gets-first-real-look-at-future-icbm-designs/

WASHINGTON — Boeing and Northrop Grumman have presented design options to the U.S. Air Force for a new intercontinental ballistic missile. The companies are pitted in a head-to-head competition to build hundreds of ICBMs that will replace decades-old Minuteman 3 missiles.

Both firms recently discussed their proposed ideas with Air Force leaders as the service faces a 2019 deadline to specify requirements and map out a procurement strategy for the ground-based strategic deterrent, or GBSD.

The companies submitted what is known as “trade studies” to help the Air Force draft program requirements before it releases a final “request for proposals” possibly a year from now.

Better match Sarmat and the DF-41 for range and payload
 
bobbymike said:
https://spacenews.com/air-force-gets-first-real-look-at-future-icbm-designs/

WASHINGTON — Boeing and Northrop Grumman have presented design options to the U.S. Air Force for a new intercontinental ballistic missile. The companies are pitted in a head-to-head competition to build hundreds of ICBMs that will replace decades-old Minuteman 3 missiles.

Both firms recently discussed their proposed ideas with Air Force leaders as the service faces a 2019 deadline to specify requirements and map out a procurement strategy for the ground-based strategic deterrent, or GBSD.

The companies submitted what is known as “trade studies” to help the Air Force draft program requirements before it releases a final “request for proposals” possibly a year from now.

Better match Sarmat and the DF-41 for range and payload

Yep. DF-41 is basically a mobile Peacekeeper and Sarmat much larger still.
 
https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/future-weapons/air-force-to-have-operational-new-nuclear-armed-icbm-by-late-2020s-LuzmtV4jdkKGyPRRO6ajcw/

The Air Force plans to fire off new prototype ICBMs in the early 2020s as part of a long-range plan to engineer and deploy next-generation nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles by the late 2020s – by building weapons with improved range, durability, targeting technology and overall lethality, service officials said.

The service is already making initial technological progress on design work and “systems engineering” for a new arsenal of ICBMs to serve well into the 2070s – called Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD.

“GBSD initial operating capability is currently projected for the late 2020s,” Capt. Hope Cronin, Air Force spokeswoman, told Warrior Maven.

Northrop Grumman and Boeing teams were awarded Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction deals from the Air Force last year as part of a longer-term developmental trajectory aimed at developing, testing, firing and ultimately deploying new ICBMs.

http://www.asdnews.com/news/defense/2018/07/20/boeing-reviews-new-icbm-design-options-with-usaf?hash=72df8b8c8020f12b2ac54cd2eb01d2bd&campaignid=53526&messageid=54438&l=3&utm_source=asdnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chl-c56-n1-hlb&utm_content=btn
 
I'd be interested in hearing the strategic arguments for spending $$ on a larger ICBM - given that the US is developing a robust triad-and-a-half - and what you'd give up to pay for it. Given also that a switch to a much larger missile would slow GBSD down.
 
LowObservable said:
I'd be interested in hearing the strategic arguments for spending $$ on a larger ICBM - given that the US is developing a robust triad-and-a-half - and what you'd give up to pay for it. Given also that a switch to a much larger missile would slow GBSD down.
I've posted my strategic arguments several times but basically my answer is flexibility. Under New START limits the additional flexibility to upload more warheads or be able to carry heavier BGVs or AMaRVs could become relevant over the life of the system (to 2070) We have no assurance of future Russian compliance or possible Chinese intentions out 50 years. Chinese nuclear program is currently very opaque to the West. Also, with the expected one warhead configuration at deployment you could vastly increase range to potentially fly non-Russian overflight profiles on the way to Iran for example. One Land Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD precursor) proposal called for 'a global ranged' missile for this purpose

Note the following estimates are based on numbers from different sources so I attempt to use the range of figures and average figures over the various ranges.

I think the current estimated cost of just the missile is $65 to $105 billion or about 6.5% to 10.5% of Triad modernization budget over the next 30 years. My understanding this already takes into account a possible larger missile. Also 'just' modernization of all three legs is around $400-$500 billion of the estimated $1,000 to $1,300 billion total cost of modernization AND ongoing maintenance of the existing Triad. Total Triad costs are expected to average 5% of total defense spending over these 30 years, modernization therefore will equal only 2%. So adding 50% to the cost of GBSD (high in my estimate as it was factored into the range already) to an extra $50 billion would be only one quarter of one percent of defense spending over the next 30 years.

Sorry I don't know what a "Triad-and-a-half" is (I don't believe I've ever seen the term used before do you have a source for term?), please define.
 
LowObservable said:
given that the US is developing a robust triad-and-a-half - and what you'd give up to pay for it. Given also that a switch to a much larger missile would slow GBSD down.

Options. You don't know what that ICBM might be required to do, or what you might want to do with it over the life of the program, and a Peacekeeper-sized ICBM will have more versatility than a MMIII. Obviously you can't have your entire fleet be those large missiles ($$$). Both Russia and China seem to be going for a mixed fleet. Russia with it's Topol / SS-18/Sarmat and China with it's DF-31 and DF-41. Where the US seems to be going for one design only let's pick one that isn't going to be so limited.

As for "triad-and-a-half" that's news to me. Could you elaborate?
 
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/07/31/unarmed-us-missile-test-flight-terminated-due-to-anomaly/?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — An unarmed U.S. Air Force Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile was intentionally destroyed in flight when an anomaly occurred during a test launch from California.

An Air Force Global Strike Command statement says the flight was safely terminated over the Pacific Ocean at 4:42 a.m. Tuesday.

The Minuteman system’s accuracy and reliability is routinely tested with launches from Vandenberg that send a missile’s re-entry vehicle on a 4,200-mile (6,759-kilometer) flight to a target in the Kwajalein Atoll of the Marshall Islands.

The Air Force says an anomaly is any unexpected event during a test and could arise from different factors.

A launch analysis group is being formed from various Air Force organizations.
Can't get the GBSD soon enough
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom