Why no Western TEL ICBMs?

[Archibald]

Well worth a read when discussing COMAC airliners and chinese nuclear subs.

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/a-cycle-of-misery-the-business-of

I sometimes think about how the boundary of technological possibility is defined not just by mastery of the universe, but by the limits of the economy and the organizations that operate within it. If products are sufficiently complex, and demand is for such small quantities that there's a limited business case for them, we won’t get them, even if they’re physically possible to build.

Nuclear submarines seem close to this boundary: enormously complex weapons that only a tiny handful of organizations on the planet are capable of constructing. Jet airliners seem to be rapidly heading to this outer boundary, if they're not there already. Cost and level of technology required, along with the tremendous risk of developing them and the tiny number of sales on which costs can be recouped, have already whittled the number of providers down to essentially two (though perhaps China's COMAC might eventually add a third player), and there's no evidence that it's getting any easier.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The main issues that are corrigible are manufacturing. Until that improves, no matter how good the crews, the submarine force will be bad.

Manufacturing QA can be argued about. Let's say that a widget gets shipped out with a marginal component in terms of noise. Replace that component with a different one and retest for self noise.

Remember that scene from "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" where one of the names is in a gun store and swaps cylinders between two pistols? Same idea.

You need to have your crews out doing their things.

The U.S. started with F-117 and was able to produce a viable combat airframe in about half the time it took to make B-2. It took about 8 years from '75 to '83. Something like B-2 likely requires two to three times as long (15-25 years) to gestate fully. OTOH, H-20 has probably been in industrial work since the late oughties, so we can expect it within the next 5 years or so (including this year).

They're capable of doing it and my totally unbiased opinion is we'll see the first airframe within 30 months.

Agree on the timeline, I still think that the airframe is going to be more H-6 sized than B-2.

The question is whether war will come before then.

Hopefully war does not come at all, but I'm expecting it to happen.

 

[Josh_TN]

Is there really much range difference between H-6K/N/J and B-2?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is there really much range difference between H-6K/N/J and B-2?

Ignoring inflight refueling, an H-6 has a ~3200nmi range, while a B-2 has a published range of 6000nmi.

 

[Josh_TN]

Ignoring inflight refueling, an H-6 has a ~3200nmi range, while a B-2 has a published range of 6000nmi.

H-6K with the Russian turbofans? That seems a bit short.

ETA: though as I’ve said before, engines are key to range and the secret sauce to H-6K is “Russian turbofans “.

 

[Scott Kenny]

H-6K with the Russian turbofans? That seems a bit short.

ETA: though as I’ve said before, engines are key to range and the secret sauce to H-6K is “Russian turbofans “.

That's what Sinodefence says. D-30KP2 turbofans.

 

[ashnole]

Ignoring inflight refueling, an H-6 has a ~3200nmi range, while a B-2 has a published range of 6000nmi.

B-2's unrefueled combat radius is supposed to be somewhere around 3000 nmi with full payload (~35,000lb). B-21's expected to be more or less the same but with around 15,000lb payload.

 

[Josh_TN]

B-2's unrefueled combat radius is supposed to be somewhere around 3000 nmi with full payload (~35,000lb). B-21's expected to be more or less the same but with around 15,000lb payload.

We do not have any hard numbers, but that is not the expectation.

 

[ashnole]

We do not have any hard numbers, but that is not the expectation.

My apologies, I confused miles for nautical miles. This is from an old (2007ish) publication.

 

[Josh_TN]

My apologies, I confused miles for nautical miles. This is from an old (2007ish) publication.

That predates the B-21 program by roughly a decade; I do not see the relevance.

 

[Scott Kenny]

B-2's unrefueled combat radius is supposed to be somewhere around 3000 nmi with full payload (~35,000lb). B-21's expected to be more or less the same but with around 15,000lb payload.

B-2's full payload is more like 50-60klbs. B-21's payload is thought to be 25-30klbs, and it is said that the B-21 has a longer range than the B-2.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think 30,000 lbs at 5000 miles round trip is more likely, but there are other B-21 threads for that. Certainly anything under 20,000 lbs is unrealistic, and I personally cannot imagine GBU-57 is not a B-21 option.

 

[mkellytx]

I think 30,000 lbs at 5000 miles round trip is more likely, but there are other B-21 threads for that. Certainly anything under 20,000 lbs is unrealistic, and I personally cannot imagine GBU-57 is not a B-21 option.

It all depends on the mission set; 30,000 lbs. is more likely the max payload side of the set, while 10,000 lbs. (8xB-61 on a CSRL is pretty close to 10 klbs.) will fall closer to the full fuel payload side of the set. The latter is greater than the former and I don't see the former as being the requirement for full fuel payload unless the Raider has some trick up its sleeve...

 

[Scott Kenny]

It all depends on the mission set; 30,000 lbs. is more likely the max payload side of the set, while 10,000 lbs. (8xB-61 on a CSRL is pretty close to 10 klbs.) will fall closer to the full fuel payload side of the set. The latter is greater than the former and I don't see the former as being the requirement for full fuel payload unless the Raider has some trick up its sleeve...

But we get to "cheat" a little because the CSRL doesn't get carried for the the GBU-57. Neither does whatever rack is used for 24x 1000lb.

 

[mkellytx]

But we get to "cheat" a little because the CSRL doesn't get carried for the the GBU-57. Neither does whatever rack is used for 24x 1000lb.

It uses the CSRL attachment points in the bay, so it's physically impossible for both to be present. I physically touched the first one when it was in Balls 50's bomb bay, I saw it up close. Never seen a Mk-83 on a B-1, B-2 or B-52. The only 1000lb class bombs were CBU's, B-1's had a special module that carried 10 per bay, BUFF's were external only (I dropped WCMD's for tests), not sure if/how they go on B-2's only saw GBU-31's and GBU-38's.

Theoretically speaking if the clearance inside the bay exists you might be able to mount them (GBU-32's) on a CSRL like the B-1 did with GBU-38's on their rotary.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It uses the CSRL attachment points in the bay, so it's physically impossible for both to be present. I physically touched the first one when it was in Balls 50's bomb bay, I saw it up close.

Oh? I wasn't expecting that.

But discussions about the B-2s bays holding 24,000lbs each or whatever do not include the weight of whatever racks are there, and those racks are very heavy.

That's what I was getting at.

GBU-57s do not require or even allow a CSRL or BRA in the bays, so what is getting counted as aircraft structure when usually talking about payload weight is absent from the aircraft entirely for the BLU-57 mission. And depending on just how heavy the RLA and BRA are, that may make it possible for a B-2 to carry a pair of GBU-57s and take off with full fuel.

 

[mkellytx]

Oh? I wasn't expecting that.
But discussions about the B-2s bays holding 24,000lbs each or whatever do not include the weight of whatever racks are there, and those racks are very heavy.
Never saw the That's what I was getting at.

IDK where you're getting that, but from my understanding CSRL's are 8x4,000lb (or whatever the max weight of an ALCM/CALCM) weapons and can very nicely carry 27,000 lb, 30,000 lb class weapons

GBU-57s do not require or even allow a CSRL or BRA in the bays, so what is getting counted as aircraft structure when usually talking about payload weight is absent from the aircraft entirely for the BLU-57 mission. And depending on just how heavy the RLA and BRA are, that may make it possible for a B-2 to carry a pair of GBU-57s and take off with full fuel.

Certainly not, with two MOP's a B-2 will trade fuel for payload, it's been long enough I can't remember how much, not that it matters b/c if I did, I couldn't say publicly anyhow

 

[indicisivedivide]

Air Force Orders Halt to Some Work on Sentinel ICBM

The Air Force is pausing work on launch facilities for its new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program (ICBM).

www.airandspaceforces.com

Now that they have paused sentinel because of silo infrastructure can they please look at TELs. They can certainly spread them around the country. PNW and midwest has a ton of empty land, and nobody dares mess with NNSA guards.

 

[Josh_TN]

TELS are hardly a less expensive or less complex deployment. They are off the table. IMO the advantage of TELs is largely at an end since we are rapidly approaching a state of persistent overhead satellite coverage.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Air Force Orders Halt to Some Work on Sentinel ICBM

The Air Force is pausing work on launch facilities for its new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program (ICBM).

www.airandspaceforces.com

Now that they have paused sentinel because of silo infrastructure can they please look at TELs. They can certainly spread them around the country. PNW and midwest has a ton of empty land, and nobody dares mess with NNSA guards.

Dude, idjits have blocked White Trains and various other transports hauling nuclear materials. Oregon State troopers forced a DoE truck to stop that my Senior Chief was driving while he was assigned to DoE, as a credentialed agent.

 

[Josh_TN]

Dude, idjits have blocked White Trains and various other transports hauling nuclear materials. Oregon State troopers forced a DoE truck to stop that my Senior Chief was driving while he was assigned to DoE, as a credentialed agent.

There is a reason nuclear TELs are only in despot countries. You cannot just turn a highway into a free fire zone in the U.S., or even a dirt road on federal land.

 

[TomS]

nobody dares mess with NNSA guards.

Of course they fired a fifth of the NNSA staff this week. Not Secure Transport folks, but still, not a screaming commitment to nuclear security.