Register here

Author Topic: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)  (Read 69771 times)

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 832
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:28:59 pm »
So basically, USAF wants to replace Minuteman III with another ICBM....that still uses the same silo and C3I network from Minuteman; going into the ground by 2030 at least.  ::)


Just in time for laser defenses to be deployed operationally.  B)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2014, 04:32:46 pm »
So basically, USAF wants to replace Minuteman III with another ICBM....that still uses the same silo and C3I network from Minuteman; going into the ground by 2030 at least.  ::)


Just in time for laser defenses to be deployed operationally.  B)

FWIW, we do know something at least as big a Peacekeeper will fit in them.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 832
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2014, 04:38:09 pm »
The latest "nuclear revival" stats have me scratching my head to be honest:

SSBN(X) to replace Ohios
SLBM(X)? to fit in SSBN(X)? -- not explicitly stated but it's somewhat implied.
GBSD (aka ICBM(x) to replace Minuteman III)
B61 Life Extension (yet again) for LRS-B and legacy bombers
ALCM(X) for LRS-B and legacy bombers
LRS-B aka B-3

Plus the USAF and USN are already looking at F-X (USAF) and FA-XX (USN) for sixth generation fighters.

Seeing as how Burke Flight III was slaughtered to pay for SSBN(X) taking up 60% of the USN's shipbuilding budget for the next 20 years, and the history of 2/3 of all the primes surviving in the big aerospace business for horrible cost overruns (LockMart and NoGrum), I'm not optimistic on the other programs maintaining their neat programmed budgetary spaces.  :-[

If it was up to me, I'd consolidate the nuclear forces into:

Ballistic Life Extension Program (BLEP) to extend Trident and Minuteman life to 2030.

SRAM III for tactical and strategic platforms to replace B61 and ALCM-N.

Accuracy is enough now with cruise missiles that we can use conventional cruises in a SIOP role to take down radar sites (JASSM-ER could fill that role nicely if it was hardened somewhat for a nuclear environment).

The big new manned aircraft program would be:

Joint Strike Aircraft -- similar in size to a A-5 Vigilante; procured for both the USN and USAF -- 78,000 lb MTOW; supercruise built in along with some signature reduction; internal bomb bay, etc.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2014, 04:45:33 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2014, 05:02:32 pm »
STRATCOM CINC Gen Kowalski says the differences between the GBSD and MMIII is range, payload and accuracy. So it appears we are talking about a larger missile or maybe something with a higher energetic solid propellant IMHO.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2014, 07:57:47 pm »
STRATCOM CINC Gen Kowalski says the differences between the GBSD and MMIII is range, payload and accuracy. So it appears we are talking about a larger missile or maybe something with a higher energetic solid propellant IMHO.

Under New START, there is no longer a restriction on throw weight which opens things up a bit.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2014, 09:46:32 am »
I was wondering when we were going to get around to replacing the LGM-30G Minuteman-III missiles. Hopefully, the United States Air Force intends to also upgrade the computers in the silos and retires the 8-inch (200 mm) floppy disk.

I was disappointed that the MGM-134A Midgetman was cancelled in 1992. It seems to me that we should have had mobility to some of our land-based nuclear deterrent due to the vulnerability of missile silos to attack. I wonder if the United States could have constructed something similar to the Club-K Container Missile System inside ISO shipping containers.

Perhaps the timing is right for modernization of our land-based nuclear deterrent with increased tensions with the People's Republic of China and Cold War 2.0 with the Russian Federation.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 11:08:38 am by Triton »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2014, 05:28:50 pm »
I was wondering when we were going to get around to replacing the LGM-30G Minuteman-III missiles. Hopefully, the United States Air Force intends to also upgrade the computers in the silos and retires the 8-inch (200 mm) floppy disk.

I was disappointed that the MGM-134A Midgetman was cancelled in 1992. It seems to me that we should have had mobility to some of our land-based nuclear deterrent due to the vulnerability of missile silos to attack. I wonder if the United States could have constructed something similar to the Club-K Container Missile System inside ISO shipping containers.

Perhaps the timing is right for modernization of our land-based nuclear deterrent with increased tensions with the People's Republic of China and Cold War 2.0 with the Russian Federation.


The end of the ABM treaty and the advent of Hit-to-kill interceptors radically changes the vulnerability equation of silos; we can defend
the silos with as many interceptors as we wish and a nuclear weapons release authorization is not required to begin launching interceptors.

Most mobility schemes end up looking an awful lot like Multiple Protective Shelters (MPS) because of the security, reliability and "public interface" issues of continuously mobile schemes.

The ISO shipping container scheme, like other concealment schemes, quickly runs afoul of treaty (e.g. New START) verification requirements.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2014, 05:47:48 pm »
I was wondering when we were going to get around to replacing the LGM-30G Minuteman-III missiles. Hopefully, the United States Air Force intends to also upgrade the computers in the silos and retires the 8-inch (200 mm) floppy disk.

I was disappointed that the MGM-134A Midgetman was cancelled in 1992. It seems to me that we should have had mobility to some of our land-based nuclear deterrent due to the vulnerability of missile silos to attack. I wonder if the United States could have constructed something similar to the Club-K Container Missile System inside ISO shipping containers.

Perhaps the timing is right for modernization of our land-based nuclear deterrent with increased tensions with the People's Republic of China and Cold War 2.0 with the Russian Federation.


The end of the ABM treaty and the advent of Hit-to-kill interceptors radically changes the vulnerability equation of silos; we can defend
the silos with as many interceptors as we wish and a nuclear weapons release authorization is not required to begin launching interceptors.

Most mobility schemes end up looking an awful lot like Multiple Protective Shelters (MPS) because of the security, reliability and "public interface" issues of continuously mobile schemes.

The ISO shipping container scheme, like other concealment schemes, quickly runs afoul of treaty (e.g. New START) verification requirements.

I personally liked the idea of co-locating a LoADS interceptor and it's radar with each MX missile.  At a stroke it doubled the number of RVs the other side would have to expend to be sure of a kill.  And they've been looking at Terminal defense against ICBMs with KKVs for some time now.  HEDI was the first (that I know of). 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/ait.htm

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2014, 06:57:32 pm »
Thanks marauder2048 and sferrin for the information.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7938
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2014, 01:57:46 am »
Is it just me, or does the graphic artist of this poster/advert really seem to have been
influenced by another artist ?  ;)
But it's not a bad idea at all, presenting this theme to a wider public in  an adequate way !
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 01:59:44 am by Jemiba »
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2014, 08:47:43 pm »
Is it just me, or does the graphic artist of this poster/advert really seem to have been
influenced by another artist ?  ;)
But it's not a bad idea at all, presenting this theme to a wider public in  an adequate way !

It really does have that breezy feel to it doesn't it? I just felt the Army was trying to highlight its bitchin' workforce :)

Offline phrenzy

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • as long as all they ask me about is the air war...
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2014, 11:54:36 pm »
Will this include new pen aids and other survivable measures or is it just a new missile system?

Considering that the Chinese think they can hit a moving ship with a ballistic reentry vehicle you'd have to think that a future US system will have a pretty impressive CEP.

I wonder if some of the long overdue warhead upgrades will be done at the same time. I wonder how long major powers can manage to confidently maintain a stockpile without any task testing. This missile system could be fielding warheads 50 years after the last US test, surely at some point things ate going to get a little dicey as to reliability and new designs. I know they have pretty clever people and pretty super computers to deal with these problems but there has to be a limit to what you can do with simulations.
We train young men to drop fire on people. Yet their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it is obscene.  -  Kurtz

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2014, 02:31:37 am »
Will this include new pen aids and other survivable measures or is it just a new missile system?

Considering that the Chinese think they can hit a moving ship with a ballistic reentry vehicle you'd have to think that a future US system will have a pretty impressive CEP.

I wonder if some of the long overdue warhead upgrades will be done at the same time. I wonder how long major powers can manage to confidently maintain a stockpile without any task testing. This missile system could be fielding warheads 50 years after the last US test, surely at some point things ate going to get a little dicey as to reliability and new designs. I know they have pretty clever people and pretty super computers to deal with these problems but there has to be a limit to what you can do with simulations.

The USAF has expressed interest in using the MaRV the Navy was/is developing for Conventional Trident which IIRC, has an objective CEP of 10m(!).  I don't believe that particular MaRV was intended to be an evader so the point about penaids is highly relevant and was brought up during the Senate ratification process for New START.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2014, 01:40:46 pm »
Will this include new pen aids and other survivable measures or is it just a new missile system?

Considering that the Chinese think they can hit a moving ship with a ballistic reentry vehicle you'd have to think that a future US system will have a pretty impressive CEP.

I wonder if some of the long overdue warhead upgrades will be done at the same time. I wonder how long major powers can manage to confidently maintain a stockpile without any task testing. This missile system could be fielding warheads 50 years after the last US test, surely at some point things ate going to get a little dicey as to reliability and new designs. I know they have pretty clever people and pretty super computers to deal with these problems but there has to be a limit to what you can do with simulations.

The USAF has expressed interest in using the MaRV the Navy was/is developing for Conventional Trident which IIRC, has an objective CEP of 10m(!).  I don't believe that particular MaRV was intended to be an evader so the point about penaids is highly relevant and was brought up during the Senate ratification process for New START.

The head of the Navy's strategic systems program talked about the Mk5 RV as having an accuracy that the aim point is inside the non-explosive crater. A new ICBM should definitely be this accurate.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2014, 02:59:50 pm »
The head of the Navy's strategic systems program talked about the Mk5 RV as having an accuracy that the aim point is inside the non-explosive crater. A new ICBM should definitely be this accurate.

Is that the baseline, ballistic only Mk5 RV? I ask because the estimated impact crater size for that class of RV is approximately 10m in radius.