Air Force examines mobile command-and-control for ICBM replacement
April 14, 2016
The Air Force is examining additional airborne assets and extra layers of ground-based mobile command and control systems that could help bolster the survivability of its new intercontinental ballistic missile system, according to service officials.
In a recent draft request for proposals, the service asked industry to explore mobile basing options for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent System, the follow-on to the Minuteman III ICBM. The current missiles are housed in silos.
But in an April 11 interview with Inside the Air Force, service officials emphasized that the mobile basing option might not appear on GBSD until the 2050 time frame. The draft RFP asks industry to look at an open architecture system for GBSD, so that the initial design gives the Air Force the ability to adjust to any new requirements in the future, including a mobile basing variant, Eric Single, chief of Air Force Global Strike Division aquisition, told ITAF. Industry will deliver a preliminary design during GBSD's technology maturation and risk-reduction phase, which is not tied directly to the mobile option, but to any capability upgrades the service must make over the weapon's life cycle, he said.
"Having that open system architecture doesn't impact the current time line," Single said. "It just makes that future time line much more streamlined, if or when we had to go to [mobile basing]."
The Air Force plans to recapitalize its legacy ICBM fleet with the new GBSD. It will replace the infrastructure of the Minuteman III, including its entire flight system, weapon system and command-and-control infrastructure. The Air Force is looking to renovate the existing launch control centers and reach initial operational capability by 2027. The service could award a contract for the recapitalization effort as soon as the summer of 2017.
Ground-based systems accomplish the majority of the Air Force's ICBM command and control functions. The current ICBM consists of 450 silos, 400 of which are deployed, and 45 launch control centers which control multiple missiles. The Airborne Launch Control System, which is operated on a Navy E-6B aircraft, also provides targeting, communications and launch capabilities for the Air Force's ICBM.
As the Air Force looks to harden the next-generation missiles, it is considering two layers of survivability. Additional mobile command and control centers, whether ground or aerial, could boost the GBSD's pre-launch survivability, according to Single. The initial design in the TMRR should explore concepts that are able to work with a mobile command and control asset, which could be equipped on a truck, train, aircraft or ship, he added.
"Your command and control nodes are also targets for the enemy," Single said. "Much like for a bomber, if you shot the two pilots, you don't have to blow up the airplane. If you take out the command and control, you don't have the ability to launch the weapon system."
GBSD could also address the second layer of survivability after the missile is launched and enters the target area. The future missile solution could address threats that could emerge in an anti-access/area-denial environment, ITAF previously reported.
A mobile basing requirement could still emerge to increase survivability sometime during the next-generation ballistic missile's 60-year lifespan, which would extend to about 2075, Single said. A 2014 analysis of alternatives examined an improved weapon recapitalizing existing infrastructure and a hybrid system that would institute mobile forces in the 2050s. The AOA recommended the improved option, which would cost $159 billion over the weapon's life cycle, compared to the hybrid system that would cost $242 billion. Still, that AOA intended to leave that trade space open so when the Air Force fields GBSD, the service does not preclude a hybrid solution, according to Single.
"Right now, we're designing it with an open system architecture so that you would not have to significantly change the entire weapon system to support, if you had that requirement," he said.
Although adversaries would face more difficulty targeting mobile missiles, a mobile basing option could face political headwinds. While China and Russia have fielded mobile ICBMs, Americans may not warm to the idea of nuclear missiles passing through their backyards, Col. Andrew Kovich, chief of the Air Force's strategic deterrence and nuclear integration capabilities unit, told ITAF April 11.
"For us, we think about security and logistics tail and the public interface perhaps more than some of the other countries . . . driving these things around in the countryside," he said. "You'd have to weigh some of the political insecurity things that we worry about versus the strategic value. It does make it a more complicated decision calculus for adversaries; that would be a pro, but it doesn't come for free." -- Leigh Giangreco
