RyanCrierie said:We went through all this in the 1970s and early 1980s with MX. Why are we returning to it now? It kind of says to me that the USAF thinks that the prospect of a new ICBM is not feasible, and wants to kill it by study.
Vahe Demirjian said:The development of a new ICBM and new SLBM in the US will depend on many internal and external factors ---- the geopolitical situation in North Korea (whether or not North Korea ever collapses), would-be Chinese aggression in East Asia, economics, et cetera. The LGM-118 Peacekeeper was the last time that the US fielded a replacement for the LGM-30 Minuteman, but the START 1 treaty meant that the USAF had to retire the Peacekeeper and keep the Minuteman in deployment because the cost of replacing all Minuteman missiles with Peacekeepers would have been staggering. We'll see if a new American ICBM program is ever successful in leading to the replacement of all Minuteman ICBMs with a new ICBM (MGM-X or LGM-X). I wouldn't be surprised if some pacifist group in the US successfully lobbied the Pentagon not to go ahead with a new Minuteman replacement on ethical and moral grounds.
sferrin said:Vahe Demirjian said:The development of a new ICBM and new SLBM in the US will depend on many internal and external factors ---- the geopolitical situation in North Korea (whether or not North Korea ever collapses), would-be Chinese aggression in East Asia, economics, et cetera. The LGM-118 Peacekeeper was the last time that the US fielded a replacement for the LGM-30 Minuteman, but the START 1 treaty meant that the USAF had to retire the Peacekeeper and keep the Minuteman in deployment because the cost of replacing all Minuteman missiles with Peacekeepers would have been staggering. We'll see if a new American ICBM program is ever successful in leading to the replacement of all Minuteman ICBMs with a new ICBM (MGM-X or LGM-X). I wouldn't be surprised if some pacifist group in the US successfully lobbied the Pentagon not to go ahead with a new Minuteman replacement on ethical and moral grounds.
They wouldn't lobby the Pentagon (the Pentagon doesn't make those decisions). They'd pay off the pols. Besides, the Pentagon is intelligent enough to see how asinine crippling yourself in the name of PC is and send them packing.
bobbymike said:It is interesting to speculate that due to an expanded target set if you include countries like N Korea, China and Iran the MMIII replacement might have to be larger than the MMIII. The first post on this thread says a range up to 26,000km is needed for truly global reach. Combined with the 'desire' to have D5 replacement commonality are we going to get an 83" diameter ICBM?
quellish said:bobbymike said:It is interesting to speculate that due to an expanded target set if you include countries like N Korea, China and Iran the MMIII replacement might have to be larger than the MMIII. The first post on this thread says a range up to 26,000km is needed for truly global reach. Combined with the 'desire' to have D5 replacement commonality are we going to get an 83" diameter ICBM?
There are targets in the current portfolio that can only be held at risk by nuclear weapons - and many of those targets are not worth crossing that threshold. This is one of the (many) reasons that DoD wants alternatives like conventional prompt global strike. Given the current political climate that alone may push the US to develop new ballistic missiles, with conventional warheads as well as high precision unconventional warheads. As it is now, a conventional strike capability could be had in the near term by tail kit upgrades to Trident and Minuteman, but politics is not letting that happen.
So instead we may get a conventional strike missile, and *possibly* a new ICBM. If the SSBN-X gets enough momentum, a new SLBM is also possible.
Vahe Demirjian said:quellish said:bobbymike said:It is interesting to speculate that due to an expanded target set if you include countries like N Korea, China and Iran the MMIII replacement might have to be larger than the MMIII. The first post on this thread says a range up to 26,000km is needed for truly global reach. Combined with the 'desire' to have D5 replacement commonality are we going to get an 83" diameter ICBM?
There are targets in the current portfolio that can only be held at risk by nuclear weapons - and many of those targets are not worth crossing that threshold. This is one of the (many) reasons that DoD wants alternatives like conventional prompt global strike. Given the current political climate that alone may push the US to develop new ballistic missiles, with conventional warheads as well as high precision unconventional warheads. As it is now, a conventional strike capability could be had in the near term by tail kit upgrades to Trident and Minuteman, but politics is not letting that happen.
So instead we may get a conventional strike missile, and *possibly* a new ICBM. If the SSBN-X gets enough momentum, a new SLBM is also possible.
Do we really need to speculate on a future SLBM? The UGM-133 has been in service for 23 years and the current engineering analysis suggests that the UGM-133 could stay in service until 2045. Regardless of whether or not the US will ever replace the entire Minuteman fleet with a new ICBM armed with conventional warheads, I can guarantee you that the US will retire its Minuteman fleet and give up its ICBM capability only if Korean reunification happens and we see pacifist leaders in France, the UK, and Russia who advocate the abolition of nuclear weapons on ethical and moral grounds (contamination of the environment with radiation).
Vahe Demirjian said:quellish said:bobbymike said:It is interesting to speculate that due to an expanded target set if you include countries like N Korea, China and Iran the MMIII replacement might have to be larger than the MMIII. The first post on this thread says a range up to 26,000km is needed for truly global reach. Combined with the 'desire' to have D5 replacement commonality are we going to get an 83" diameter ICBM?
There are targets in the current portfolio that can only be held at risk by nuclear weapons - and many of those targets are not worth crossing that threshold. This is one of the (many) reasons that DoD wants alternatives like conventional prompt global strike. Given the current political climate that alone may push the US to develop new ballistic missiles, with conventional warheads as well as high precision unconventional warheads. As it is now, a conventional strike capability could be had in the near term by tail kit upgrades to Trident and Minuteman, but politics is not letting that happen.
So instead we may get a conventional strike missile, and *possibly* a new ICBM. If the SSBN-X gets enough momentum, a new SLBM is also possible.
Do we really need to speculate on a future SLBM?
Vahe Demirjian said:Regardless of whether or not the US will ever replace the entire Minuteman fleet with a new ICBM armed with conventional warheads,
Vahe Demirjian said:I can guarantee you that the US will retire its Minuteman fleet and give up its ICBM capability only if Korean reunification happens and we see pacifist leaders in France, the UK, and Russia who advocate the abolition of nuclear weapons on ethical and moral grounds (contamination of the environment with radiation).
KJ_Lesnick said:Well all I can say is the world will get interesting once we create an unmanned sub with full autonomy that can launch cruise missiles and ICBM's...
The Minuteman III replacement, officially known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, will require hundreds of large SRMs and thus drive domestic demand for such systems through 2030. It is the last opportunity for Aerojet Rocketdyne, one of two surviving U.S. manufacturers of large solid rocket motors, to stay in the business. Orbital ATK, the other source, has gradually won the right to supply all other domestic users, meaning that if Aerojet doesn't get a piece of the action on the new Air Force missiles, it is done with large SRMs.
bobbymike said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/05/08/rocket-motors-on-nuclear-missiles-become-a-test-case-for-trump-industrial-policy/#557148fc2cf4
The Minuteman III replacement, officially known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, will require hundreds of large SRMs and thus drive domestic demand for such systems through 2030. It is the last opportunity for Aerojet Rocketdyne, one of two surviving U.S. manufacturers of large solid rocket motors, to stay in the business. Orbital ATK, the other source, has gradually won the right to supply all other domestic users, meaning that if Aerojet doesn't get a piece of the action on the new Air Force missiles, it is done with large SRMs.
Probably not it, (heck it's a student project...) But maybe we could step up to a SLIM JIM?Be very interesting when we first see the dimensions of the new missile