DOD wants Silicon Valley's help to hunt for nuclear-tipped mobile missiles

The Defense Department, in its first pilot project funded through In-Q-Tel -- the government-financed investment entity that operates similar to a venture capital firm -- is looking to Silicon Valley entrepreneurs to assist with one of the U.S. military's most vexing technical challenges: the ability to find, track and destroy nuclear-tipped, mobile missiles.
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/12-navy-future-ssbnx-nuclear-missile.html

Information not new but two good graphics of the SSNB(X)
 
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/Iranian-military-official-warns-US-Stay-away-from-Irans-red-lines-450191
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-slashing-u-s-nuclear-stockpiles/
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-violating-nuke-deal/
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-warhead-rodong-missile.html
 
http://defensenewsstand.com/sites/insidedefense.com/files/documents/apr2016/04062016_orp.pdf

Navy cost report update ORP.
 
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
 
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/04/increasingly-automated-hunt-mobile-missile-launchers/127864/?oref=d-topstory
 
House panel quashes immediate funding for mobile ballistic missile option
April 28, 2016

An amendment
included in the House Armed Services Committee's version of the fiscal year
2017 defense policy bill prohibits funds for a mobile variant of the Ground
Based Strategic Deterrent System.

Offered by Rep.
Rick Larsen (D-WA), the language blocks funds in FY-17 and FY-18 to retain or
develop a mobile option for GBSD, the Minuteman III's replacement.

The amendment comes
after Air Force and industry officials revealed plans to explore a mobile
option for the intercontinental ballistic missile replacement. As part of its
technology maturation and risk reduction draft request for proposals, the Air
Force asked industry to explore a mobile basing option for the GBSD, Inside
the Air Force previously reported. The design features and total cost to
support the modular GBSD will be evaluated during the TMRR phase, Air Force
spokesman Maj. Rob Leese told ITAF March 4.

In an April 11
interview with ITAF, 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 acquisition, 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.

Separately, Larsen
offered another amendment regarding GBSD which asks for "the incremental cost
associated with missile designs which include the flexibility to develop mobile
variants, as well as the strategic doctrine which will inform an eventual decision
on whether to included mobility requirements in a future procurement."

The amendment would
expand language submitted in the House Armed Services strategic forces
subcommittee's mark of the bill, which demands a more detailed acquisition
strategy, contract structure and cost estimate for GBSD. While the mark asked
for more information on the missile system's recapitalization, including
opportunities for commonality between GBSD and the Navy's Trident II D5
sub-launched ballistic missile, the subcommittee omitted language on the mobile
missile option. -- Leigh Giangreco
 
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-inside-the-us-navys-next-generation-ballistic-16050
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/air-force-abandons-sole-source-nuke-helos-deal/

::)
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-boomers-should-america-fear-beijings-underwater-nukes-16130
 
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/beyond-the-ohio-class-inside-americas-next-generation-16270

Theoretically, if the ORP’s other systems could support the additional weight and power requirements, adding more missiles to the design would simply mean adding additional Quad-Packs. The tubes are the same 87-inch diameter vessels as the current Trident II D5 launchers on the Ohio-class, but are a foot longer—leaving some margin for a future missile design.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom