Register here

Author Topic: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)  (Read 69618 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: 11254
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: 8522
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: 9704
  • 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: 11254
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: 9704
  • 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: 7936
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: 8522
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.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2014, 06:34:55 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.

From the CRS Report on Prompt Global Strike

Reentry Vehicle Research
In FY2003, the Navy requested funding for research on a new type of guided reentry vehicle that
could significantly improve the accuracy of the Trident II (D-5) missiles. This program, known as
the enhanced effectiveness (E2) initiative, included an initial funding request of $30 million, a
three-year study, and a full-scale flight test in early 2007.29 Congress rejected the initial funding
request in FY2003 and FY2004, but Lockheed Martin Corporation, the contractor pursuing the
study, continued with a low level of research into this system.

The E2 reentry vehicle would have integrated the existing inertial measurement unit (IMU)
guidance system (the system currently used to guide long-range ballistic missiles) with global
positioning system (GPS) technologies so that the reentry vehicle could receive guidance updates
during its flight.30 A standard MK4 reentry vehicle, which is the reentry vehicle deployed on
many Trident SLBMs, would be modified with a flap-based steering system, allowing it to
maneuver when approaching its target to improve its accuracy and increase its angle of
penetration. This steering system, which the Navy referred to as a “backpack extension,” would
increase the size of the reentry vehicle, making it comparable in size to the MK5 reentry vehicle
that is also deployed on Trident missiles. The E2 warhead could possibly have provided Trident
missiles with the accuracy to strike within 10 meters of their intended, stationary targets. This
accuracy would not only improve the lethality of the nuclear warheads but it would also permit
the missiles to destroy some types of targets with conventional warheads.31
--------------------------------------------
Sorry it was a modified Mk4  :o
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 Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2014, 12:23:26 pm »
How many launch failures are expected with the current Minuteman III and the new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)? How reliable are our ICBMs?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2014, 12:28:51 pm »
How many launch failures are expected with the current Minuteman III and the new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)? How reliable are our ICBMs?

The general consensus in the 80's was 90% launch rate or 10% failure. Now 25+ years later who knows. Part of the reason why we need a new missile that can be tested extensively with new modern more robust electronics and targeting/RV systems.
 
It worries me to this day that there has never been a launch from an operational silo in the US.
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 Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2014, 10:43:24 pm »
It worries me to this day that there has never been a launch from an operational silo in the US.

Has any other nation carried out such a test?

Where?  When?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 07:44:26 pm by Kadija_Man »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2014, 12:18:18 am »
It worries me to this day that there has never been a launch from an operational silo in the US.

Has any other nation carried out such a test?

My understanding is that USSR/Russia has launched quite a few from operational silos as well as from their mobile systems like the SS-27, SS-24 (rail) and Yars, which while obviously different still displays, IMHO, a much closer to operational test than pulling a missile from ND and taking it Vandy.

Russia fires missile from operational base

One such example
Published: 2004 Dec. 22

Russian Strategic Missile Forces, RVSN, launched its largest Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, ICBM from an operational base in the south of the country.

The R-36M-2 Voevoda missile, capable of carrying 10 warheads, blasted off from a silo facility of the 13th missile regiment deployed near the town of Dombarovka in Orenburg Region at the border with Kazakhstan at 11:30 Moscow Time on Wednesday, December 22, 2004.
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 Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2014, 09:24:52 pm »
From what I've been able to gather about that test is that it appears to actually have been unusual, even for the Russians up till then to launch from an operational site.  See here, to see what  I mean.

I can think of several problems with doing so, for any ICBM power.    One is that the sites usually aren't instrumented to allow tests to be fully assessed after the event (particularly if something goes wrong).  Another is that it effectively will give away the capabilities of operational sites - useful intelligence to any potential adversary.   Finally,  firing an operational missile could have potentially dangerous destabilising effects on the delicate relationship between competing nuclear powers, particularly in times of heightened tension.

Firing from a different test site could fix most of those problems.    Pulling a missile from an operational silo, transporting it to the test site and putting it into a test silo would allow testing of operational missiles for reliability, if that is your concern.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2014, 12:14:06 pm »

I can think of several problems with doing so, for any ICBM power.    One is that the sites usually aren't instrumented to allow tests to be fully assessed after the event (particularly if something goes wrong).  Do you have any specific information on what capabilities Russian operational silos have or is this just speculation? Maybe several silos per field are instrumented for testing that's me speculating.
 
Another is that it effectively will give away the capabilities of operational sites - useful intelligence to any potential adversary. Between, Humint, Elint, arms control treaties and other national technical means I think we have a pretty good idea. If we don't it would make moot every arms control treaty. Russia launches from its' mobile platforms that my understanding are also 'operationally capable' systems.
 
Finally,  firing an operational missile could have potentially dangerous destabilising effects on the delicate relationship between competing nuclear powers, particularly in times of heightened tension. It might but a single missile launch probably not IMHO. For me when it comes to the Russians I would think the opposite, "Hey they're testing an ICBM from a test site to 'fool' us it's really a first strike"  Any missile launch would concern me good thing my finger was never anywhere near the button  ;D

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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2014, 04:54:56 pm »
I keep waiting for them to launch an ICBM out of Hill AFB.  Drivers on I-15 would get a hell of a show.  ;D

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

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2014, 12:51:01 am »

I can think of several problems with doing so, for any ICBM power.    One is that the sites usually aren't instrumented to allow tests to be fully assessed after the event (particularly if something goes wrong).
Do you have any specific information on what capabilities Russian operational silos have or is this just speculation? Maybe several silos per field are instrumented for testing that's me speculating.

Adding sufficient test instrumentation to every missile field would be expensive and ultimately rather wasteful as it would largely stand idle most of the time.  It's not as if they were every planning to regularly fire a missile from each missile field.

And no, I have no idea about how well instrumented Russian silos are but as the article I linked to made clear, in order to convert that one to a  commercial launching facility they had to add quite a lot to it, to make it adequate.
 
Quote
Quote
Another is that it effectively will give away the capabilities of operational sites - useful intelligence to any potential adversary.
Between, Humint, Elint, arms control treaties and other national technical means I think we have a pretty good idea. If we don't it would make moot every arms control treaty. Russia launches from its' mobile platforms that my understanding are also 'operationally capable' systems.

It is the small details which can often be telling.   Those small details wouldn't be present if the tests are conducted from one centralised location.   As paranoid as the Soviets were, I think they'd have been unwilling to reveal more than they thought necessary to their potential adversaries.

Quote
Quote
Finally,  firing an operational missile could have potentially dangerous destabilising effects on the delicate relationship between competing nuclear powers, particularly in times of heightened tension.
It might but a single missile launch probably not IMHO. For me when it comes to the Russians I would think the opposite, "Hey they're testing an ICBM from a test site to 'fool' us it's really a first strike"  Any missile launch would concern me good thing my finger was never anywhere near the button  ;D

Yes, I'm rather glad of that as well.

The thing is, it could be perceived as a good time at which to undertake a first strike - first giving warning of the single launch, so reactions would be slower, even if for a few seconds.  Considering the hair-trigger both sides had, any advantage, any chance of destabilisation would need to be avoided.   Dr. Strangelove and Failsafe aren't as far from the truth as we might prefer to believe.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 07:02:24 pm by Kadija_Man »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2014, 10:14:55 am »
It worries me to this day that there has never been a launch from an operational silo in the US.

Has any other nation carried out such a test?

Answer - Yes
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2015, 04:09:52 pm »
GBSD RFI expected this fall

Boeing And Lockheed Martin Move Forward With ICBM Replacement

Posted: July 09, 2015


As the Air Force prepares to launch a competition to replace the Minuteman III, potential bidders Lockheed Martin and Boeing are participating in key research that will help shape the program's design.

Lockheed and Boeing detailed contributions to the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent system research in interviews this week. Along with Northrop Grumman, all the companies responded to the GBSD request for information in late March and are preparing for the draft request for proposals this fall.

The GBSD will recapitalize the infrastructure of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or the Minuteman III, including its entire flight system, weapons 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.

Boeing recently completed a basic phase of the concept design architecture guidance, which reviewed technologies and modes of replacing the current guidance system on the ICBM, as well as GBSD, said Ted Kerzie, Boeing's director of strategic missile systems futures, in an interview with Inside the Air Force on July 7.

Both the RFI and recent industry days indicate the Air Force will award multiple contacts during the technology maturation and risk reduction phase. The Air Force plan will likely consist of two to three contractors for the TMRR phase, one to two during the engineering phase and a single provider for production and deployment, Kerzie said.

As part of the Air Force's market research, Lockheed is assisting with the planning for the reentry systems for GBSD. The company has also responded to the Air Force's broad agency announcement, which explores potential modularity modernization and technologies that would assist the Air Force in determining GBSD guidance requirements, according to a July 6 interview with Everett Thomas, director of Air Force strategic programs at Lockheed. The company is also exploring modernization for countermeasures.

Lockheed is also able to share the latest technology in their Navy programs with their customer sets in the Air Force, Thomas said.

Any austerity in the current budget should not affect plans for the new GBSD, according to Jim Chilton, vice president and general manager at Boeing Strategic Missile and Defense Systems, who participated in the July 7 interview.

"I think the Air Force is prudently going through a deliberate process," he said. "I believe it will move forward."

While the RFI stipulates the program will retain the silo basing mode, the Air Force is looking at mobile options for the future, said Kerzie. -- Leigh Giangreco
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any speculation? It appears from reading between the lines we will get a brand new MMIII, in terms of dimensions, etc. with new technology.
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 Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2015, 09:08:19 pm »
It worries me to this day that there has never been a launch from an operational silo in the US.

Has any other nation carried out such a test?

Answer - Yes

When and where, please.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2015, 06:59:29 am »
Asked this question of Pavel Podvig of Russian Forces website fame, his answer, "Yes quite a few [tests from operational silos]"

http://russianforces.org/podvig/ )
« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 09:16:26 am by Jemiba »
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2015, 10:04:39 am »
Asked this question of Pavel Podvig of Russian Forces website fame, his answer, "Yes quite a few [tests from operational silos]"

I don't see the big concern myself.  They're all built the same (with more test equipment in the Vandenburg silos I'd imagine).  If anything, the operational silos would be more reliable.  I'd love to see them launch a Minuteman III out of Hill AFB (3 silos there for testing).
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2015, 07:46:06 pm »
Asked this question of Pavel Podvig of Russian Forces website fame, his answer, "Yes quite a few [tests from operational silos]"

Who?  Never heard of him or the "Russian Forces website"...

Edit : See link in bobbymikes post
« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 09:17:54 am by Jemiba »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2015, 07:15:20 am »
Asked this question of Pavel Podvig of Russian Forces website fame, his answer, "Yes quite a few [tests from operational silos]"

Who?  Never heard of him or the "Russian Forces website"...
DO SOME RESEARCH. He is a VERY well known (often sought out by major media for opinions on Russia & their military) and knowledgeable expert who has literally written the book on Russian strategic forces.

http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Strategic-Nuclear-Forces-Podvig/dp/0262661810/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436710277&sr=8-1&keywords=russian+nuclear+forces
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 06:57:29 am by Jemiba »
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 Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2015, 02:25:23 am »
I'll think about purchasing this book, I think.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 06:58:08 am by Jemiba »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2015, 04:25:33 am »

BUT YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET AREN'T YOU! You know about things called search engines don't you? You are here at SPF aren't you? You can Google can't you? 
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 06:59:57 am by Jemiba »
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 Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2209
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2015, 04:29:57 am »
Now would be a nice moment to lighten up.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2015, 05:13:07 am »
I've never seen nor heard of this man.  I have no idea as to his credentials or his abilities.  He is just another name to me.

So your default is to disparage the source rather than use that thing called "Google"?  As Bobbymike pointed out, that guy's book is probably THE authority on Russian nuclear systems available to the public.

http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Strategic-Nuclear-Forces-Podvig/dp/0262661810/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436789549&sr=1-1&keywords=russian+strategic+nuclear+forces
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 07:01:38 am by Jemiba »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7936
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2015, 07:08:13 am »
As bobbymike pointed out: Some research before posting is highly recommended, simply ignoring mentioned
sources/authors in a way, that seems to indicate lack of interest may well be regarded as trolling.
And for that, please read point 13 of the forum rules !
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Hot Breath

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2015, 05:51:03 pm »

BUT YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET AREN'T YOU! You know about things called search engines don't you? You are here at SPF aren't you? You can Google can't you?

You appear to get upset when I merely point I've never heard of this man.   Do you want me to lie and say he's wonderful?   No thanks.

I note the book is 10 years old.  Surely there is something more recent on the topic?    I also wonder at the tone I might find in such a book.  Would it be rather slanted against the fUSSR/Russia?

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2015, 06:02:36 pm »
Well, the book was published by the MIT Press, so you can be sure it's not a beach novel.  Podvig is a highly respected Russian scholar with access to key sources and archives, so I doubt it's slanted or biased against Russia.  I'm not sure why there is resistance to accepting this source as authoritative.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 06:04:09 pm by George Allegrezza »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2015, 06:07:21 pm »
Well, the book was published by the MIT Press, so you can be sure it's not a beach novel.  Podvig is a highly respected Russian scholar with access to key sources and archives, so I doubt it's slanted or biased against Russia.  I'm not sure why there is resistance to accepting this source as authoritative.
And Hot Breath seems to be posting AS Kadija Man and continues to disparage this source and this author for no apparent reason this is just trolling.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2015, 06:31:18 pm »
Asked this question of Pavel Podvig of Russian Forces website fame, his answer, "Yes quite a few [tests from operational silos]"

Who?  Never heard of him or the "Russian Forces website"...

Edit : See link in bobbymikes post


BUT YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET AREN'T YOU! You know about things called search engines don't you? You are here at SPF aren't you? You can Google can't you?

You appear to get upset when I merely point I've never heard of this man.   

Whoopsie.  Looks like you said that with the wrong account.  ::)

From the Rules:  "Only one login per user is allowed on the forum. Users creating duplicate logins may face temporary or permanent ban."
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 08:08:51 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2015, 09:36:29 pm »
Sketching Minuteman IV

—Arie Church

July 30, 2015—The next generation ICBM will retain commonality with the Minuteman III to control costs wherever possible, Aerojet Rocketdyne Missile Systems Vice President Michael Bright told Air Force Magazine.

To avoid "breaking the bank," the government is looking to "maintain a lot of aspects" of the Minuteman III, said Bright. This includes everything from re-entry vehicles, upper stages, and fuel, to the current operating locations, launch control facilities, silos, and command and control—albeit, updated, he said in a July 29 interview.

Industry is also looking to cut long-term costs with technological improvements to improve the missile's shelf life "making sure you're not putting a lot of money back into maintaining these missiles," Bright said.

Unlike the Minuteman III, which required new propellant every 20 years, the new fuel ideally would last through ​the life of the missile, out to last at least 2070, he noted.

Over the last decade, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center has worked with Aerojet and likely competitor ATK to "develop new, modern stages" for the Minuteman III under the Propulsion Applications Program. As a result, "the industrial base right now is ready" to move with Minuteman III replacement, said Bright.

"We've developed new case material, new propellant material, we've fired the motors, and we're now at the point that we're ready to support the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent modernization," he added.

The Air Force completed its analysis of alternatives last year, and a request for proposals is expected in March 2016, followed by a competitive development contract in 2019 or 2020.

"We fully support that competition … it spurs innovation, it brings down cost, and it's just better for the whole aerospace industry," Bright said.

Whether Aerojet or ATK win, production will likely take from "mid-2025 through the end of the decade" to ramp up, just as Minuteman III ages out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was hoping for an all new missile a Peacekeeper II size class with new hyper-accurate MaRV and new 'physics' package.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2015, 04:59:26 am »
Well that's depressing as hell.  Oooh they're sticking recast 1st and 2nd stages on the old MMIII fleet.  *wank*, *wank*, *wank*
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2015, 05:44:11 am »
Considering the state of industry and political will, did anyone really expect much more than that? The odds of a new physics package were slim, though a new/mod RV (that tailflap addon?) probably is in the cards. Much like the F-18, if it sounds like upkeep and not new dev, they can at least improve some things under the skin, but the overall size and shape of the beast is largely set in stone politically.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #43 on: August 18, 2015, 10:34:14 am »
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=94ff446354f0b5c6e763c8c69d5f5745&tab=core&tabmode=list&=


USAF Reportedly Plans GBSD Draft RFP As Early As September

Defense Daily | 08/03/2015 | Brian Bradley

The Air Force plans to release a concept of operations (CONOPS) and a draft request for proposals (RFP) for the estimated $62.3 billion Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) as early as September, Defense Daily sister publication Nuclear Security and Deterrence
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #44 on: August 18, 2015, 10:39:48 am »
Considering the state of industry and political will, did anyone really expect much more than that?

Well this sure as hell isn't the way to fix the state of the industry, that is for sure.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2015, 11:18:03 am »
Meanwhile in China;

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-tests-new-long-range-missile-with-two-guided-warheads/

The new multiple-warhead missile is likely to renew debate over the size of China’s nuclear arsenal. Current U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of Chinese warheads at around 240 warheads. Other analysts, however, say China’s warhead arsenal is far larger, with perhaps as many as 1,500 warheads, and base their assessments on the growing size of China’s missile forces, the addition of multiple warhead technology, and its large-scale nuclear material production capabilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Now using this exact same sentence with minimal edits to perfectly describe the US nuclear weapons enterprise, "the 'shrinking' size of 'America's' missile forces, the "subtraction" of multiple warhead technology and its small-scale nuclear production capabilities"   
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2015, 11:38:16 am »
Then throw Russia's nuclear expansion (new SLBMs, SSBNs, ICBMs) and it gets really scary.  I fear our "strategy" of unicorns wishes, rainbows, and delusion will not strike fear into the hearts of potential adversaries. 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 04:56:32 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2015, 07:24:57 am »
An ICBM is a piece of artillery. Why would you go and re-invent it? The operating costs are low (make sure it doesn't freeze or cook, test-fire one now and then), the guidance system has been updated anyway and as long as it goes bang it will deliver an effect.


If/when an adversary looks like fielding some kind of breakthrough in BMD or counterforce, things would be different. That was what was happening in the 70s/80s, hence things like Midgetman and AMaRV.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2015, 07:56:52 am »
If/when an adversary looks like fielding some kind of breakthrough in BMD or counterforce, things would be different. That was what was happening in the 70s/80s, hence things like Midgetman and AMaRV.

If anything it's more of an issue today than ever before.  Both China and Russia are working on maneuverable RVs/BGVs, and the ICBMs China and Russia are building today are at least as accurate (likely much more accurate) than those they were building in the 80s.  Also they're both working very hard on fielding ABM defenses. Then there's the issue of maintaining design and manufacture expertise in the industrial base.  And let's not forget reliability.  Mechanical things deteriorate over time.  It boggles the mind that any of this even needs to be said.

"An ICBM is a piece of artillery. Why would you go and re-invent it?"

I don't know, why isn't Britain still using WWI artillery?  As long as it goes *bang* when you pull the rope that's all that matters right? 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 08:08:39 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2015, 10:04:31 am »
China upgrading the DF-5 is kind of surprising, at least to me. I realize that it has tremendous throw weight (in the same ballpark as a Titan 2 IIRC) so it can complement the DF-31/41 systems in the same way that the R-36 and upcoming SARMAT compliment the Russian solid propellant missiles.


However, its powered by Kerosene and LOX and so needs to be fueled...in the open. Can these (if in silos) realistically be kept topped off so they can launch on warning?




Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2015, 11:16:17 am »
If/when an adversary looks like fielding some kind of breakthrough in BMD or counterforce, things would be different. That was what was happening in the 70s/80s, hence things like Midgetman and AMaRV.

If anything it's more of an issue today than ever before.  Both China and Russia are working on maneuverable RVs/BGVs, and the ICBMs China and Russia are building today are at least as accurate (likely much more accurate) than those they were building in the 80s.  Also they're both working very hard on fielding ABM defenses. Then there's the issue of maintaining design and manufacture expertise in the industrial base.  And let's not forget reliability.  Mechanical things deteriorate over time.  It boggles the mind that any of this even needs to be said.

"An ICBM is a piece of artillery. Why would you go and re-invent it?"

I don't know, why isn't Britain still using WWI artillery?  As long as it goes *bang* when you pull the rope that's all that matters right? 
And there's the matter of the massive downsizing we've gone through since the end of the Cold War. We no longer have the nuclear infrastructure or redundant systems/warheads if something goes wrong NOR can we ramp up like Reagan did in the 80s. Right now we can produce 40 (that's not a typo) warhead 'pits' per year while Russia has maintained a much larger nuke enterprise employing 4 times as many people. China supposedly has a couple hundred warheads yet employs 2 times more people than the US.

So what does this mean under New START with the 700 launcher 1550 deployed warhead limit? You must have the most modern, robust AND up loadable systems as possible because in a crisis or 'breakout' by Russia or China you no longer have time to build up forces, which would take years.

The GBSD should be Peacekeeper sized or something that can be uploaded to 5-7+ warheads, Ohio's and the future SSBN(X) are fine given the D5's ability to carry more warheads and because bombers now count as one warhead regardless of load out we should have it carry 20+ of the future LRSO. Second to this is a modernized R&D and production line able to increase warhead production in a crisis as quickly as possible BUT in the mean time we should have what I call a 'MAX+2' reserve force which means if our 700 launchers could carry extra warheads (as I recommended above) those warheads +2 more for each launcher should be sitting ready to be mounted onto the D5 or GBSD as required.

Then there is modernizing our tactical nukes beyond the B-61-12 but that's for another thread.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #52 on: August 20, 2015, 11:56:32 am »
It should be Peacekeeper sized if only to keep options open.  You could either upload more RVs, add more decoys, use more versatile RVs (MARV/BGRV), or upload a larger unitary warhead.   Rebuild the current MMIII silos for cold launch (much like they did with the Peacekeeper missles). 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #53 on: October 01, 2015, 11:37:44 pm »
Second RFI September 11, 2015

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6b3c7d5c85b8b4976dda6c5795d3f30c&tab=core&_cview=1

BACKGROUND: The USAF is initiating an acquisition program to replace the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) called Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). GBSD will replace the entire flight system, retaining the silo basing mode while recapitalizing the ground facilities, and implements a new Weapon System Command and Control (WSC2).

So looks like a new missile

Also of interest

The major activities in the GBSD program include 1) Flight Systems; 2) WSC2; 3) Launch Systems (LS); 4) Weapon System Integration. Flight System is an integrated missile stack which includes the following major sub-components: propulsion, post-boost, guidance, and re-entry systems (RS).

New RV?
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2015, 03:57:19 am »
New RV?

Hopefully they still have somebody around who remembers how to make one. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #56 on: November 12, 2015, 03:51:39 pm »
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 #57 on: November 12, 2015, 04:22:33 pm »
Pentagon studies new mobile ICBM


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/11/inside-the-ring-pentagon-studies-new-mobile-icbm/?page=all#pagebreakk

Quote
By Bill Gertz - - Wednesday, November 11, 2015

The Air Force is nearing completion of plans for the next generation land-based strategic nuclear missiles that could be deployed on difficult-to-locate mobile launchers or in tunnels.

According to an updated Congressional Research Service report published last week, the road- and rail-mobile missile concepts were outlined in a contract proposal two years ago produced by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center.

"The Mobile concept employs a new ICBM on a transporter erector launcher (TEL)," the Air Force contracting document says. "The systems would be located on government land and be capable of deploying on- or off-road."

The new missiles are needed to replace the arsenal of 450 Minuteman IIIs and would put the United States in the same league with China and Russia. Both countries are deploying new and more advanced road-mobile missiles with multiple warheads.

The Air Force is considering development of a new missile that would be silo-based but designed so that it could be deployed on a mobile launcher in the future, a congressional defense expert said.

The Air Force and the contractor Orbital ATK conducted a ground test of a new solid rocket motor for use in the future ICBMs, the company said in a statement Wednesday, noting that the motor test demonstrated "new advanced technologies."

The U.S. government in the past rejected deploying mobile missiles, a basing mode considered more survivable in a nuclear conflict than the current silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

The new road-mobile ICBM would be built so it could move to avoid being targeted and "therefore, a key feature will be the speed at which the TEL can depart the operating base when required," the proposal reads.

The new ICBM will be armed with one or two existing warheads and the transporter must be capable of traveling on roads and unpaved surfaces. The control system for the missile would be either fixed or mobile.

The Air Force also considered a rail-mobile ICBM that would be stored in tunnels.

"The tunnel concept mode operates similar to a subway system but with only a single transporter/launcher and missile dedicated to a given tunnel," the Air Force said. "The vehicle moves at random down the length of the tunnel. The tunnel is long enough to improve survivability but leaving enough room to permit adequate 'rattle space' in the event of an enemy attack."

The missile rail cars would be self-propelled and remotely-controlled, with launch portals inside the tunnels at regular intervals that could be used to raise the missile and fire it through an opening.

"During an attack, the launcher vehicle will need protection from ground shock," the document says.

Other options call for upgrading current Minuteman IIIs, or building a new silo-based ICBM to replace it.

However, Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick said in news reports last summer three options were being considered: keeping Minuteman IIIs through 2075; building a new silo-based ICBM; and deploying a mix of upgraded Minuteman IIIs and the new road-mobile missile.

The project is called the Ground-based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) and the outline of the future ICBM will be announced in the coming weeks.

U.S. Strategic Command commander Adm. Cecil Haney told reporters Oct. 22 the Minuteman III replacement current is the focus of an "analysis of alternatives" study that will then produce a request for proposal to industry, possibly before the end of the year.

The congressional report said the government will spend $348 billion between 2015 and 2024 on nuclear forces.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #58 on: November 12, 2015, 04:48:30 pm »
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 04:52:04 pm by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #59 on: November 12, 2015, 05:30:09 pm »
Pentagon studies new mobile ICBM


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/11/inside-the-ring-pentagon-studies-new-mobile-icbm/?page=all#pagebreakk

I wonder how much the new TEL resembles the Small ICBM Hard Mobile Launcher.

Hopefully a lot.  IMO it was a lot more survivable and mobile than what you'd see the Russians and Chinese use.  The Topol TEL can slog through mud (probably) but it doesn't have the speed of the Midgeman TEL (or ability to turn at speed).  And it's not nearly as hardened as Midgetmans TEL was.  On the other hand, they're under trees so there's probably not much need for that once you're deployed off base. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2015, 08:59:19 am »
Pretty sure whatever TEL they're discussing won't resemble the Hard Mobile Launcher, if only because GBSD will be a full-size ICBM, not something small like Midgetman.  Think TOPOL-M instead. 

The whole thing sounds like a rehash of the MX basing discussions.  And we all know how that ends up -- mobile options just cost way too much (on an ongoing basis) and are politically unpalatable compared to reusing existing silos or even building something new like superhard or dense-pack silo basing.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2015, 10:42:11 am »
Why look at mobile ground based missile? I can't imagine that it would get any more support now than it did then...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2015, 03:07:35 pm »
Everything old is new again.  ;)


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2015, 03:12:43 pm »
Why look at mobile ground based missile? I can't imagine that it would get any more support now than it did then...

Back then though they were talking about a MASSIVE undertaking.  4600 shelters, 200 off those TELs (I say "TEL" but I don't know if they'd have been able to launch from the truck had they been moving a missile when the attack started).  Personally I think something like superhard silos with LoADS would be the best option. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #64 on: December 23, 2015, 05:32:15 pm »
Air Force to brief industry on draft solicitation for new ICBM program

Posted: December 23, 2015


The Air Force next month plans to conduct in-depth technical discussions with industry on the requirement to modernize the silo-based intercontinental ballistic missile fleet, a meeting that comes in anticipation of an early 2016 decision to acquire the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, a projected $62 billion project.

The ICBM systems directorate and the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center plan to host a three-day meeting, Jan. 11-13 at Hill Air Force Base, UT, with industry representatives, a gathering that comes as the Air Force plans to seek permission by March to formally launch acquisition by soliciting bids for the first material phase of the GBSD -- technology maturation and risk reduction (TMRR).

An objective of the gathering is to review draft acquisition documents circulated to industry earlier this month, including a statement of work for the technology maturation and risk reduction phase of development; a GBSD weapon system specification; and a GBSD security classification guide, according to a Dec. 22 notice published on the Federal Business Opportunities website.

In addition, the Air Force intends to brief industry at the January conference on its plans to utilize “model-based systems engineering” in the GBSD program, according to the notice. “The government will provide an overview of how it intends to 'Own the Technical Baseline' (OTB) using a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach.”

The GBSD program aims to modernize the ICBM fleet in order to keep the silo-based leg of the nuclear triad operational beyond the end of the Minuteman III's service life in 2030. In July 2014, the Air Force -- after weighing a wide range of options -- decided on a plan to develop and deploy a new missile using existing Minuteman infrastructure.

“GBSD will replace the entire flight system, retaining the silo basing mode while recapitalizing the ground facilities, and implements a new Weapon System Command and Control,” according to an Air Force summary of the GBSD decision.

This approach carries an estimated $62.3 billion price tag to develop and acquire though the 2030s, according to the Air Force. A February 2015 draft estimate tallied $48.5 billion for new missiles, $6.9 billion for command and control systems, and $6.9 billion for renovation of launch control centers and launch facilities.

This fall, the Air Force announced in a presolicitation notice that it was “contemplating a sole source award(s) to potentially all prospective prime contractors who anticipate submitting a formal proposal for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent technology maturation and risk reduction contract,” according to an Oct. 30 notice published in Federal Business Opportunities.

The aim of the TMRR phase is to complete a preliminary design and function baseline in anticipation of transitioning to development and production.

A Sept. 11 request for information for GBSD outlined a notional schedule that envisioned a TMRR phase beginning with contract award during the second quarter of fiscal year 2017 and concluding three years later in the second quarter of FY-20 with a milestone B review that would transition the program to engineering and manufacturing development. That would be a year longer than the Air Force estimated in its notional schedule submitted to Congress last February as part of its FY-16 budget request.

“The schedule depicted [in the FY-16 budget request] was a notional schedule as the Air Force continues to refine the draft acquisition strategy in preparation for the upcoming Milestone A (scheduled for the end of the second quarter in FY16),” Maj. Rob Lesse, an Air Force spokesman told Inside Defense in an email. “The exact timing of Milestone B is still TBD,” the spokesman said. -- Jason Sherman
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

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2015, 08:21:51 am »
I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #66 on: December 28, 2015, 10:21:47 am »
I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available.  Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too.  Yes, cha-ching.  Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production). 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2015, 10:46:25 am »
I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available.  Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too.  Yes, cha-ching.  Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production). 
If SPF had an 'Like' button.  ;D
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 #68 on: December 28, 2015, 01:00:52 pm »
I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

Or to faciliate a first-use (particularly against emerging nuclear powers) which the US has never formally, technically or doctrinally ruled out.

If you look at the "Medium Class Stage" program, they are longer and more powerful than the comparable MMIII stages which you would need to avoid overflights of Russia and China if your ICBM is on its way to
Iran,  Pakistan, India, North Korea etc.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 03:00:18 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #69 on: December 28, 2015, 03:01:22 pm »
I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available.  Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too.  Yes, cha-ching.  Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production).

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #70 on: December 28, 2015, 10:56:22 pm »
I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available.  Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too.  Yes, cha-ching.  Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production).

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...
What is that from? Looks like a Pk sized missile?? Also, CPS Conventional Prompt Strike?
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 #71 on: December 28, 2015, 11:56:20 pm »
I believe that there was some public mention of new modes for GBSD a couple of years ago, although the details cited here were not published at the time.

More recently I have heard nothing except the message that the major physical infrastructure is in good shape, that the ICBM force continues to perform its strategic job (which is to limit and shape an aggressor's options) and that what needs to be done is a new M-III-type missile and a new control system.

It'd be nice if they gave it more throw weight and range just to have options available.  Road and rail mobility (as well as air-launch) would be nice too.  Yes, cha-ching.  Still, with Russia going all out with their ICBM program and China recently demonstrating the launch of a rail-mobile ICBM, I think we need to restore our expertise in that area (as well as nuclear warhead design & production).

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...
What is that from? Looks like a Pk sized missile?? Also, CPS Conventional Prompt Strike?

From LM's Space Systems Suppliers Conference.

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #72 on: December 31, 2015, 08:35:02 pm »

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...

Is that a rail launcher pictured, or a semi with a really long cab?

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #73 on: January 01, 2016, 03:16:14 am »

LM was guiding its suppliers along the mobile missile route...

Is that a rail launcher pictured, or a semi with a really long cab?

It's an image of a Hard Mobile Launcher.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #74 on: January 01, 2016, 07:49:40 pm »
From early 2015:

"Nuclear Hell On Wheels Examining The Need For A Mobile ICBM" by Lt. Col. Matthew E. Dillow, USAF command missileer.

Worth a read. He points out that one of the perverse consequences of quantity obsessed New START-type treaties
is that it may force the US to adopt a countervalue ("retaliation against population centers") strategy as there may not be
sufficient deployed weapons to support a counterforce strategy.

Mobile ICBMs would be integral to a countervalue strategy and in fact may be required if an enemy develops an
"advanced stealth bomber or a highly accurate, conventional ballistic missile with sophisticated countermeasures."

I'll leave you with this gem:

"Silo-based ICBMs are a first strike or immediate retaliatory strike weapon, best suited to striking an adversary's military forces before they can be employed against the United States."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #75 on: January 01, 2016, 08:53:10 pm »
While a silo might be the easiest to target it also comes with the highest cost to said enemy were they to attempt to do so. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #76 on: January 01, 2016, 09:27:17 pm »
While a silo might be the easiest to target it also comes with the highest cost to said enemy were they to attempt to do so.

A valuable point that the author makes.

Something that occurred to me was that it might be possible to leverage all of the railroad expansion in Montana and North Dakota that's occurred because of Bakken play; all of that double tracking and the new passing sidings would be useful for a rail garrison trying to GTFO.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #77 on: January 02, 2016, 06:21:17 am »
It's interesting to look at how assumptions and technologies may have changed since the last serious mobile-missile go-around.

Midgetman was predicated on a hail of warheads over its entire deployment zone, hence its complexity despite the fact that the missile itself was quite small. The Russians put a full-size ICBM on a wheeled launcher that's supposed to use normal roads, but in practice I doubt it.

A 30 klb weapon on a smaller, constantly dispersed vehicle would be different. However, you would have to worry about tracking, given the number of insecure or poorly secured video surveillance networks that exist.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #78 on: January 02, 2016, 07:34:42 am »
It's interesting to look at how assumptions and technologies may have changed since the last serious mobile-missile go-around.

Midgetman was predicated on a hail of warheads over its entire deployment zone, hence its complexity despite the fact that the missile itself was quite small. The Russians put a full-size ICBM on a wheeled launcher that's supposed to use normal roads, but in practice I doubt it.

A 30 klb weapon on a smaller, constantly dispersed vehicle would be different. However, you would have to worry about tracking, given the number of insecure or poorly secured video surveillance networks that exist.
are we talking about the MAZ TELs being to long for street/ road networks?   there are plenty of axles and tire cross section on those TELs for almost any terrain including much of that famous Russian mud.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #79 on: January 03, 2016, 06:20:43 am »
Flotation's great. But various sources give the loaded weight (chassis/cab+fixed launch hardware+missile) at 120 tons or so. That's going to break stuff.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #80 on: January 03, 2016, 07:34:56 am »
Flotation's great. But various sources give the loaded weight (chassis/cab+fixed launch hardware+missile) at 120 tons or so. That's going to break stuff.
ok got it.

much like a hard landing geared UAV might have--- graphene's compressive strength for the weight might help.  :)

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #81 on: January 03, 2016, 11:46:16 am »
It's interesting to look at how assumptions and technologies may have changed since the last serious mobile-missile go-around.

Midgetman was predicated on a hail of warheads over its entire deployment zone, hence its complexity despite the fact that the missile itself was quite small. The Russians put a full-size ICBM on a wheeled launcher that's supposed to use normal roads, but in practice I doubt it.

A 30 klb weapon on a smaller, constantly dispersed vehicle would be different. However, you would have to worry about tracking, given the number of insecure or poorly secured video surveillance networks that exist.

It's been analyzed to death but an advantage of rail mobility is that it gets around the "it looks unlike anything else on planet earth" tracking liability inherent to wheeled mobile launchers.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #82 on: January 04, 2016, 04:30:29 am »
But a 30,000 lb missile wouldn't need much more than the 80,000 lb gross weight of a standard semi. Every Petro and Flying J in the nation could be a nuclear site...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #83 on: January 04, 2016, 06:18:13 am »
Not sure how that's a good thing. 

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #84 on: January 04, 2016, 07:19:37 am »
It probably isn't, but we're into considering possibilities here.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #85 on: January 04, 2016, 09:40:35 am »
Not sure how that's a good thing.

How is it a bad thing?  Am I going to be more dead if they hit a gas station 5 miles away than if they hit an air base 5 miles away?  Not trying to be a smart ass here, I'm honestly curious how making the enemy's targeting problem several orders of magnitude more difficult is a bad thing.  That said, I can think of several OTHER reasons why a nuclear weapon traversing the interstate highways would be a bad thing, mostly because of our own people.  (Sad as that is.)  Every (pardon my French) attention whore in the country would be trying to stop them for their 15 seconds of fame.  Imagine SJWs blocking off nuclear weapons vehicles instead of shutting down a freeway or crapping on cop cars.  Short of a "kill zone" around the convoys (which would elicit a whole 'nother level of chicken-little hysteria) this kind of problem would be unavoidable.  On top of that you can be sure there would be a group of bored stupid people who would make it their hobby to spot and track the vehicles and post current locations real-time on the internet.  (Effectively doing the enemy's job for them.)

Trains would be perfect as would offroad TELs like Midgetman (or that ABM-armed Peacekeeper carrying hovercraft).  Have them trolling around in areas already off-limits to the public like the Nevada Test Site, White Sand Missile Range, etc.   Hydrofoils might not be bad either.  The could anchor or patrol on diesel most of the time and then scatter fairly quickly.   If I could pick my perfect deployment method though I'd have something like a Peackeeper in a superhard silo with each silo having it's own radar and maybe half a dozen HiBEX/LoADS-type missiles in silos.  Like Ratheon's Quick Kill on steroids.  (Or a railgun with guided munitions when they're sufficiently developed.)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 09:47:25 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #86 on: January 04, 2016, 09:49:52 am »
Rather than worrying about the SJWs and bored stupid people, I'd focus on the level of security provided by speed-camera networks.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2016, 10:17:31 am »
Rather than worrying about the SJWs and bored stupid people, I'd focus on the level of security provided by speed-camera networks.

That too.  (Though it's probably less of an issue in the US than other places.)  According to Wiki:

"As of 2009, speed cameras existed in 48 communities in the United States, including in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and Washington, D.C.[79]"

It's undoubtedly grown but I doubt it would be that difficult to map out everywhere there AREN'T those camera and just go there.   I'm sure if Uncle Sugar said, "if you'll let us deploy our road-mobile ICBMs in your state we'll make traffic cams illegal there" there would be states that signed up.  Something like that would be relatively easy to control.  Hundreds of millions of people with cell phone cameras much less so.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 10:23:19 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #88 on: January 04, 2016, 01:24:30 pm »
But a 30,000 lb missile wouldn't need much more than the 80,000 lb gross weight of a standard semi. Every Petro and Flying J in the nation could be a nuclear site...



It's a fine idea that's been proposed many times but the security and command vehicles would be way too conspicuous and the public interface issues are probably insurmountable.

We already transport literally tons of nuclear waste and solid rocket boosters via rail on a regular basis with very few issues.

Going for a 60,000 - 80,000 lb MMIII sized missile  (and IFOG based inertial guidance) mitigates many of the problems they ran into trying to rail enable a 200,000 lb MX.

And to sferrin's point, you could carry along an overlay or underlay ABM system. IOW, the scalability, cost and silo-compabilitity arguments are compelling and it gets you very close
to the survivability of the continually dispersed public road mobile system with fewer headaches. 


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #89 on: January 04, 2016, 02:39:34 pm »
And to sferrin's point, you could carry along an overlay or underlay ABM system. IOW, the scalability, cost and silo-compabilitity arguments are compelling and it gets you very close
to the survivability of the continually dispersed public road mobile system with fewer headaches.

I've often wondered about the possibility of rail-mobile ABMs/strategic SAMs/and their radars.   :)  One could fit a hell of a radar on a train car. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #90 on: January 04, 2016, 03:07:02 pm »
And to sferrin's point, you could carry along an overlay or underlay ABM system. IOW, the scalability, cost and silo-compabilitity arguments are compelling and it gets you very close
to the survivability of the continually dispersed public road mobile system with fewer headaches.

I've often wondered about the possibility of rail-mobile ABMs/strategic SAMs/and their radars.   :)  One could fit a hell of a radar on a train car.

"Enough is Enough!  I have had it with these motherf**king Sprints on this motherf**king train!"

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #91 on: January 04, 2016, 03:39:10 pm »
And to sferrin's point, you could carry along an overlay or underlay ABM system. IOW, the scalability, cost and silo-compabilitity arguments are compelling and it gets you very close
to the survivability of the continually dispersed public road mobile system with fewer headaches.

I've often wondered about the possibility of rail-mobile ABMs/strategic SAMs/and their radars.   :)  One could fit a hell of a radar on a train car.

"Enough is Enough!  I have had it with these motherf**king Sprints on this motherf**king train!"

The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1590
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2016, 03:16:40 am »
I'm sorry to be cynical, but how many of these railway/tunnel ICBM systems has the Pentagon wasted million/billions $$$$ on, to no avail?
Why cant they brush the dust off the Mobile Minuteman program for rail-based ICBMs for which the USAF released details in1959. Or more relevant why not the MX basing studies (Peacekeeper Rail Garrison1980's) and implement this comprehensive study?
I think its ironic, that whilst the U.S. publicised such basing systems since the 1960's (Minuteman), the former Soviet Union, and now Russia and PRC are actually doing what the U.S. has been flagging like a dead and bloated elephant in the sun for decades. More action and less talk. Seriously fix your economy, practice what ya preach, stop being a victim and integrator of corporatocracy, which is bleeding your nation from the inside. And stop playing 'I wanna be the only super power' rhetoric, because the PRC is catching up and is going to leave you behind!!  >:(

It's hard to believe that the U.S. 'actually organised the 4062nd Strategic Missile Wing (Mobile) on 1 December 1960 for 3 planned LGM-30 Minuteman missile train squadrons, each with 10 trains carrying 3 missiles per train. But sadly with the Kennedy/McNamara cutbacks, the DoD announced "that it has abandoned the plan for a mobile Minuteman ICBM.'

Sorry about my rant  ???

Regards
Pioneer   
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2016, 05:08:44 am »
I'm sorry to be cynical, but how many of these railway/tunnel ICBM systems has the Pentagon wasted million/billions $$$$ on, to no avail?

I still think a combination of mobile Midgetman and Peackeepers in defended superhard silos is the way to go.  The Midgetman for the ability to ride out an attack and the Peacekeepers for throw weight and deterrent value.  (And they'd also have a decent chance of surviving.  At the very least they will demand an enemy throw a LOT of warheads at them to guarantee a kill.)
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 05:14:11 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2016, 05:43:58 am »
I still think a combination of mobile Midgetman and Peackeepers in defended superhard silos is the way to go.  The Midgetman for the ability to ride out an attack and the Peacekeepers for throw weight and deterrent value.  (And they'd also have a decent chance of surviving.  At the very least they will demand an enemy throw a LOT of warheads at them to guarantee a kill.)

That would be a very cost effective expedient in the near term; unfortunately shortages of logic and sanity are rife at the present time.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2016, 07:07:18 am »
I am confused about the desire for both mobile ICBMs and superhardened silos. If one considers the nuclear Triad, the role of survivable second-strike capability seems to fall to the Submarine arm, while the role of flexible first strike and conventional weapon proof capability falls to the ICBM arm. Buying a mobile ICBM and a very advanced SSBN fleet simultaneously seems redundant; a luxury not available to these financially constrained times.

Making the ICBM silos nearly conventional proof, via permanent air defenses and point defenses, helps the ICBM fulfill it's role in nuclear deterrence.  That would be a better investment then buying an expensive and politically difficult mobile missile system.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2016, 07:24:48 am »
I am confused about the desire for both mobile ICBMs and superhardened silos. If one considers the nuclear Triad, the role of survivable second-strike capability seems to fall to the Submarine arm,

Consider we will only have 12 (at best) SSBNs with a fraction of that on patrol at any given time, compared to the 41 we had at one time.  Sure, the new subs are more deadly but it's still easier to kill 12 than 41.  The mobile ICBMs protects you against a breakthrough in ASW.  (Or the other guy just putting tails on our SSBNs and following them around.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #97 on: January 07, 2016, 07:29:39 am »
If there is a threatened breakthrough in ASW, then a crash mobile program can be pursued. But before then, it seems to me that a heightened investment in silo survivability is better than dealing with the political implications of mobile basing.

Put in other terms, mobile basing is unlikely unless there is a crisis in the SSBN force. In that case, any research / discussion into mobile basing constitutes a waste of effort which could be better focused on hardening existing silos.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #98 on: January 07, 2016, 09:22:35 am »
If there is a threatened breakthrough in ASW, then a crash mobile program can be pursued.

"Crash" isn't what it used to be.  If we find out China/Russia has had a major breakthrough, and has deployed it, -today- it would probably be a decade before we had a mobile ICBM even in production let alone deployed in numbers. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #99 on: January 07, 2016, 11:48:06 am »
If there is a threatened breakthrough in ASW, then a crash mobile program can be pursued. But before then, it seems to me that a heightened investment in silo survivability is better than dealing with the political implications of mobile basing.

Put in other terms, mobile basing is unlikely unless there is a crisis in the SSBN force. In that case, any research / discussion into mobile basing constitutes a waste of effort which could be better focused on hardening existing silos.

The MILCON costs of reinforcing existing silos would come very close to that of a small rail mobile force. 

The bigger issue is the large uncertainty as to survivability since you would really need to test the new materials and design against an actual nuclear detonation to have high confidence.

Rail lets you start gradually and relatively cheaply (just captive carry initially) while you buld up your operational expertise. You can subsequently scale out or up as circumstances dictate.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #100 on: January 07, 2016, 12:16:56 pm »
The bigger issue is the large uncertainty as to survivability since you would really need to test the new materials and design against an actual nuclear detonation to have high confidence.

Don't know that that would be necessary as there is a lot of materials nuclear test effects data out there for reference. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #101 on: January 07, 2016, 02:21:40 pm »
The bigger issue is the large uncertainty as to survivability since you would really need to test the new materials and design against an actual nuclear detonation to have high confidence.

Don't know that that would be necessary as there is a lot of materials nuclear test effects data out there for reference.

I was surprised to find out that only about 10% of the nuclear tests the US conducted were weapons effects tests. So I'm skeptical that they could, with high confidence, extrapolate from that data to some of the newer materials* that have been developed in the intervening 25 years especially in the presence of nuclear earth penetrators.

* Subscale SIFCON-based superhardened silo testing may have been conducted

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2016, 03:03:48 pm »
The US was still doing underground nuclear testing while the Peacekeeper and Midgetman were being developed.  Between that and the large scale above ground testing they were doing with conventional explosions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale

It's a virtual certainty they got enough data to be reasonably confident of future designs.  (Assuming anybody is still around from that era with relevant experience, and all the data was analyzed and cataloged sufficiently of course.) 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2016, 03:20:44 pm »
The issue of nuclear tests is beside the point. The purpose of the land based ICBM force is to require an adversary to resort to nuclear attacks to destroy the US nuclear deterrent. In that case, what matters is if the silo is hardened against bombs and hypersonic conventional weapons. The silo should be hardened against many nuclear weapons, to require a sufficiently advanced attack, but it 'only' needs to be hardened against conventional weapons.

Hence: air defenses and point defenses to defeat conventional aircraft and smart weapons.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #104 on: January 07, 2016, 06:21:49 pm »
The issue of nuclear tests is beside the point. The purpose of the land based ICBM force is to require an adversary to resort to nuclear attacks to destroy the US nuclear deterrent. In that case, what matters is if the silo is hardened against bombs and hypersonic conventional weapons. The silo should be hardened against many nuclear weapons, to require a sufficiently advanced attack, but it 'only' needs to be hardened against conventional weapons.

Hence: air defenses and point defenses to defeat conventional aircraft and smart weapons.

If there's no need to operate in a nuclear weapons effects environment then the entire GBSD would look very different. 

In any event, there would still be the need for extensive and very expensive testing and MILCON to harden the silos against conventional hypersonic KEPs and conventional EPWs. 


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #105 on: January 07, 2016, 07:05:09 pm »
The issue of nuclear tests is beside the point. The purpose of the land based ICBM force is to require an adversary to resort to nuclear attacks to destroy the US nuclear deterrent. In that case, what matters is if the silo is hardened against bombs and hypersonic conventional weapons. The silo should be hardened against many nuclear weapons, to require a sufficiently advanced attack, but it 'only' needs to be hardened against conventional weapons.

Hence: air defenses and point defenses to defeat conventional aircraft and smart weapons.

If there's no need to operate in a nuclear weapons effects environment then the entire GBSD would look very different. 

In any event, there would still be the need for extensive and very expensive testing and MILCON to harden the silos against conventional hypersonic KEPs and conventional EPWs.

The idea of a superhard silo isn't to survive a direct hit.  Just ain't gonna happen.  What it aims to do though is make it so you almost HAVE to get a direct hit to kill it.  There was even one design that, if it was at the edge of the crater and got buried, it would shove off the overburden and still be able to launch from the silo.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #106 on: January 08, 2016, 11:15:23 am »
The issue of nuclear tests is beside the point. The purpose of the land based ICBM force is to require an adversary to resort to nuclear attacks to destroy the US nuclear deterrent. In that case, what matters is if the silo is hardened against bombs and hypersonic conventional weapons. The silo should be hardened against many nuclear weapons, to require a sufficiently advanced attack, but it 'only' needs to be hardened against conventional weapons.

Hence: air defenses and point defenses to defeat conventional aircraft and smart weapons.

If there's no need to operate in a nuclear weapons effects environment then the entire GBSD would look very different. 

In any event, there would still be the need for extensive and very expensive testing and MILCON to harden the silos against conventional hypersonic KEPs and conventional EPWs.

The idea of a superhard silo isn't to survive a direct hit.  Just ain't gonna happen.  What it aims to do though is make it so you almost HAVE to get a direct hit to kill it.  There was even one design that, if it was at the edge of the crater and got buried, it would shove off the overburden and still be able to launch from the silo.

I didn't mean to suggest or imply that the superhard silo was intended to survive a direct hit. 

For nuclear weapons effects environment I was thinking more of salvage fuzed warheads that had survived but had been deflected and the low-altitude detonations of the early nuclear tipped ABM systems.
And then the more general problem of flyout in a post nuclear attack environment.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #107 on: January 08, 2016, 12:25:43 pm »
and the low-altitude detonations of the early nuclear tipped ABM systems.
And then the more general problem of flyout in a post nuclear attack environment.

There aren't anymore nuclear-tipped ABMs in the US (though I do seem to recall there was speculation about bringing them - nuclear warheads- back).  HEDI and ERIS could almost have been thought of as hit-to-kill Sprints and Spartans respectively.  Thing about nuclear armed ABMs (aside from setting off EMP warheads over your own country) is that they're heavy.  Spartan had (roughly) SM-3 Block IIA range/altitude capability but was so much larger because of that 5 Mt warhead. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #108 on: January 08, 2016, 01:34:47 pm »
and the low-altitude detonations of the early nuclear tipped ABM systems.
And then the more general problem of flyout in a post nuclear attack environment.

There aren't anymore nuclear-tipped ABMs in the US (though I do seem to recall there was speculation about bringing them - nuclear warheads- back).  HEDI and ERIS could almost have been thought of as hit-to-kill Sprints and Spartans respectively.  Thing about nuclear armed ABMs (aside from setting off EMP warheads over your own country) is that they're heavy.  Spartan had (roughly) SM-3 Block IIA range/altitude capability but was so much larger because of that 5 Mt warhead.

Getting a timely nuclear weapons release authorization for the interceptors is also tricky; my remarks above were about historical factors that shaped MM.

I vaguely recall reading some interview with the head of the DSB who mentioned something about resurrecting nuclear tipped ABM. Any links?

It's interesting that the Navy kept its nuclear tipped interceptors until the late 80's.  And I gather from your comment that Gazelle and Gorgon are still operational but strike me as being in a weird place treaty wise.



Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #109 on: January 22, 2016, 12:52:58 pm »
SHOT

Air Force, Navy team examining commonality for future strategic missiles
January 22, 2016

A team comprised of Air Force and Navy officials is analyzing how the two services could use common subsystems and components in their future strategic missiles, according to a recent report.

The assessment team is led by the Air Force's program executive office for strategic missile systems and the director of Navy strategic systems programs, according to a report delivered to Congress in December by Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall's office. The group also includes representatives from U.S. Strategic Command, Air Force Global Strike Command, the Air Force Office of Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, and the Navy's Undersea Warfare division.

The Air Force is replacing its Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile through the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program, which aims to field a new missile in the 2030 timeframe, according to the report. It adds that the Navy will replace its Trident II D5 sub-launched ballistic missile about 10 years later.

"We expect the ongoing assessment will result in a number of promising commonality candidate components and technologies," the report states. "The use of these may offer significant cost, technical, and schedule risk reduction opportunities to GBSD and future Navy ballistic missile programs."

The Air Force was scheduled to conduct technical discussions with industry on its GBSD project Jan. 11-13 at Hill Air Force Base, UT, Inside the Air Force reported in December. The service is planning to seek permission by March to formally launch the technology maturation and risk reduction phase of the projected $62.3 billion GBSD program.

The joint assessment team is analyzing what components from the Navy's currently fielded D5 Life-Extension (D5LE) missile could be procured off-the-shelf for the Air Force's GBSD, as well as D5LE components that might require minor modification for use in the ground-based program, according to the report. In addition, the assessment is reviewing what GBSD-developed components could be used in the Navy's follow-on program.

The group has already ruled out using the DL5E itself, or a variant of the missile, as the Air Force's next ICBM. The team found that the "additional costs and risks of a common missile system outweigh potential benefits and possible development cost reductions," the report states.

"To meet Air Force requirements, modifications would be needed for payload, performance, survivability, storage and transport, infrastructure, command and control, and production," it continues. "This would raise significant technical issues and would substantially increase overall program costs -- far outweighing any potential savings from enhanced commonality."

The subsystems and components the team is studying for potential commonality across the Air Force's and Navy's missile systems include avionics; post-boost systems; power and distribution parts; ordnance; controls; flight-test ranges and systems; booster components; reentry systems; missile-system structures; and other ground and shipboard control systems, the report shows.

The document does not give any figures for how much money could be saved by pursuing commonality, but it notes that the Air Force estimates it has avoided nearly $600 million in its ICBM fuze modernization effort by leveraging common components in the Navy's fuze development program.

The risks of pursuing commonality, the report states, includes scenarios in which common components fail, which in this case would impact two legs of the nuclear triad. It could also lead to a "loss of supplier diversity, innovation and design flexibility" across the strategic industrial base, the document continues, as well as "technical and manufacturing obsolescence."

"Joint programs that extend continuous production of common components over a long period of time risk creating future dependencies on obsolete parts and manufacturing processes," the report states. "The key challenge is sustaining critical design, engineering, and production capabilities over time."

Kendall's report notes that the assessment team is studying those risks, in addition to the opportunities for pursuing commonality.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2016, 12:54:41 pm by bobbymike »
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #110 on: January 22, 2016, 12:55:07 pm »
CHASER

DOD: Domestic solid rocket motor industrial base fragile, 'atrophying'

The Pentagon is concerned about the domestic solid rocket motor industrial base as budgets continue to be strained, the workforce ages and competitive opportunities are limited, according to a recent report sent to lawmakers by Defense Department acquisition chief Frank Kendall.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #111 on: January 22, 2016, 03:42:30 pm »
CHASER

DOD: Domestic solid rocket motor industrial base fragile, 'atrophying'

The Pentagon is concerned about the domestic solid rocket motor industrial base as budgets continue to be strained, the workforce ages and competitive opportunities are limited, according to a recent report sent to lawmakers by Defense Department acquisition chief Frank Kendall.

It's depressing how many former ATK rocket people work where I do.  We call it "ATK North". 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1590
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #112 on: January 22, 2016, 03:43:02 pm »
Quote
The Pentagon is concerned about the domestic solid rocket motor industrial base
And so it should be!
Quote
as budgets continue to be strained
? I'm sorry but it's the Pentagon which has created such self-made, self perceived budget strain on itself, with decades of wasted and unfocussed weapons programs! Now that a 'real' conventional threat has risen, the Pentagon, so self-infatuated by its own power, has specifically contributed to the neglect of its Strategic Deterrent force.
I think it ironic that during the Cold War, the United States (eligibly) did everything in its power to both curtail the Soviet's economy, and denying transfer of the most rudimentary technology - especially that could be used in military application! And yet the United States has done the complete opposite with the PRC! It can not and should not be forgotten or overlooked, the United States more than any other country and politic created and supported the coming of the PRC as a rising superpower in terms of technology and economics!
The United States is going to continue to suffer
Quote
'industrial base fragility'
,
Quote
'budget strain'
, and
Quote
'workforce ageing and limited competitive opportunities'
so long as its 'Corporatocracy'-based business/political collusion keep handing over its industrial and intellectual base to China for expeditious corporate profits - as opposed to the fundamental foundations of a nation, let alone one that calls itself a superpower.
My biggest concern is that the United States (with China's strategic and purposeful strategy) is doing to itself, specifically what it strategized and executed against the former Soviet Union - economic demise and collapse. I'm really concerned that the United States miraculous realisation that it has fundamentally and ignorantly neglected its nuclear force, whilst its potential principle adversaries China and Russia have not! A decade and a half of enacting its ideological War on Terrorism has not just taken the eye off the resurgence of China and Russia as recognised and serious foes. It's exhausted both the United States economy and military.

Sorry about frustrating rant!  :-[

Regards
Pioneer             
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #113 on: January 22, 2016, 05:45:23 pm »
It can not and should not be forgotten or overlooked, the United States more than any other country and politic created and supported the coming of the PRC as a rising superpower in terms of technology and economics!

Because the Japanese, Russians, South Koreans, Taiwanese and Europeans had no technology or economic exchanges with the PRC whatsoever.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #114 on: March 01, 2016, 02:38:11 am »
Trident D5 / GBSD Commonality Document
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 #115 on: March 02, 2016, 02:44:51 pm »
Trident D5 / GBSD Commonality Document

For the Post Boost System, I'm curious if they could scale-up TDACS.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #116 on: March 02, 2016, 08:37:36 pm »
Replacing Minuteman III


—Jennifer Hlad

3/3/2016

​The Minuteman III will have a difficult time surviving in the active anti-access, area denial environment of the future, which makes it critical that the US have the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent fully operational by 2030, Gen. Robin Rand, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, told the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, on Tuesday. “We must continue efforts to modernize the Minuteman III weapons systems, where appropriate, until we bring the ground based strategic deterrent online. This is an absolute critical national interest that will provide strategic deterrence, and if needed, global strike, for years to come,” Rand said. “The Minuteman III with each year becomes more and more obsolete, and I am concerned that if we don’t replace it … we will not be able to provide the capabilities that are needed.” Upgrades to the Minuteman III in lieu of replacement would likely be very costly and also wouldn’t give the Air Force the capabilities it needs, Rand said. (See Also: Budget Reaffirms Commitment to Nuclear Enterprise)
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #117 on: March 04, 2016, 04:50:40 pm »
Air Force and industry project final GBSD request for proposals for April

March 04, 2016

With a modernization bow wave on the horizon in the 2020s, the Air Force's Ground Based Strategic Deterrent system is still forging ahead and is expected to reach a milestone A decision by April, according to Air Force and industry officials.

Gen. Robin Rand, head of Air Force Global Strike Command and Ted Kerzie, director of Boeing Strategic Systems, confirmed this week that the program should release its final requests for proposals this April. The Air Force will release its second draft RFP on March 4 and will host a March 8 industry day at Hill Air Force Base, UT. The service is also expected to launch the technology maturation and risk-reduction phase of the program this month.

"So they're moving quickly and moving smartly," Kerzie said in March 2 interview with Inside the Air Force.

The Air Force plans to recapitalize its legacy Intercontinental Ballistic Missile fleet with the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent system. It will replace the infrastructure of the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, including its entire flight system, weapons 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 summer of 2017, Kerzie said.

The Air Force, Navy and industry partners have also teamed up to find potential commonalities in the services' future strategic missiles, Inside the Navy previously reported. The services could leverage common avionics, ordnances and missile-system structures for the Air Force's GBSD and the Navy's Trident II D5 sub-launched ballistic missile, which could be fielded in the 2040s.

Although Boeing is not contracted to do work on the GBSD, the company has participated in a conceptual design architecture guidance with General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. During the work, Boeing assessed the potential risks of new guidance system integration, analyzed technology and manufacturing readiness for critical and enabling technologies, proposed risk mitigation strategies, and recommended a test and evaluation strategy, Boeing spokeswoman Queena Jones said in a March 2 email to ITAF.

Following the yearlong study, Boeing will execute a final report this summer, Kerzie said.

"[Pentagon acquisition chief Frank] Kendall directed the Air Force and the Navy to continue to exhaust all avenues to make sure we can find every area [where] there can be commonality," Rand said during a House Armed Services hearing March 2. "We're committed to doing that, and I know of no roadblocks interfering in the progress we're making."

Boeing also completed two successful operational flight tests of the legacy Minuteman III ICBM on Feb. 20 and Feb. 25 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. Boeing delivers a telemetry instrumentation wafer, called the Mod 7, which is placed in a stack on the missile. The telemetry wafer captures data during each flight test, Kerzie said.

"We help the Air Force monitor the missile from a guidance standpoint, make sure everything's operational," he said. "Then the Air Force launches it and then we do a post-mortem analysis to make sure that it performed as predicted."
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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #118 on: March 20, 2016, 08:50:34 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #119 on: April 07, 2016, 10:19:48 pm »
USAF and industry exploring mobile ballistic missile option for ICBM replacement

April 07, 2016


The Air Force is examining a mobile option for the recapitalization of its intercontinental ballistic missile fleet, according to service and industry officials.

As part of its technology maturation and risk reduction draft request for proposals, the Air Force has asked industry to explore a mobile basing option for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent System, Ted Kerzie, the director of Boeing Strategic Systems, said in an April 6 interview with Inside the Air Force. 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.

Boeing expects another draft RFP this Friday and the final RFP by May, Kerzie said. The details of the draft RFP have been released only to prospective bidders.

"Silo basing is the baseline, but [the Air Force wants] to hedge and be able to look at future mobile basing for the missile," Kerzie said. "There is a study that they would like to perform that talks about mobile launches as an option."

Boeing already addressed the mobile option during a recent conceptual design architecture guidance effort, which the company participated in with General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. During the work, Boeing assessed the potential risks of new guidance system integration, analyzed technology and manufacturing readiness for critical and enabling technologies, proposed risk-mitigation strategies and recommended a test and evaluation strategy, ITAF previously reported.

"We basically looked at impacts to the architecture [and] what we would have to do with the design to make it compatible with a mobile launcher," Kerzie said. "It's doable, the Russians do it right. There's different tactics or strategies you could use to make a mobile option work."

The Air Force plans to recapitalize its legacy intercontinental ballistic missile fleet with the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent system. It will replace the infrastructure of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, including its entire flight system, weapons 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 summer of 2017.

A mobile ground missile fleet is not a new concept for the Air Force or Boeing, which built the original Minuteman system. In 1961, the Pentagon quashed plans for a railroad operated system, instead opting for more underground sites, the Chicago Tribune then reported. Still, the theory that moving missiles could increase the system's survivability has remained the same since.

Today, Boeing could provide lighter technology, propulsion, propellant and casing materials than it could have 50 years ago, making the mobile option easier, Kerzie said. Whether the new missiles would be transported by rail or road would be determined in the TMRR, he said.

A mobile missile fleet would not only require a lighter design, but a different guidance set than the legacy fleet. With a silo-based system, the missile launches from a fixed location, while a mobile launch begins from an unknown location, Kerzie said. Industry could look to the Navy's Trident submarine launched ballistic missile guidance set, which tracks missiles using star positioning, he said.

The Air Force has hinted in recent years at a mobile option, which the service has often characterized as a modular design. During an Air Force Association event in 2014, Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command discussed a more flexible missile system for the future.

"So if we need to replace the system, we should probably build into it the flexibility to do some other things in the future that the current Minuteman can't," he said.

That year, the Air Force completed an analysis of alternatives examining extending the ICBM system through 2075, an improved system recapitalizing existing infrastructure and a hybrid system that would institute mobile forces in the 2050s. The AOA recommended the improved system, which would cost $159 billion over the system's life cycle, compared to the hybrid system that would cost $242 billion.

Industry may not develop an entirely mobile missile, but rather a plug-and-play system that could be turned into a mobile missile if needed, Kerzie said. The TMRR would help determine whether components, pieces, parts or large subsystems could be used for a mobile missile, he said.

The Air Force, Navy and industry partners are also focusing on common missile components between the future GBSD and Navy's Trident II D5 sub-launched ballistic missile. The services could leverage common avionics, ordnance and missile-system structures for the two systems.

Lockheed's vice president and manager of strategic and missile defense systems also confirmed the discussion over the last eight months has moved toward leveraging common subsystems, rather than a common missile option between the Air Force and Navy.

"The requirements are so different and some of the constraints are so different, really no one at this point is talking about a common missile," Mathew Joyce said during a March 15 Lockheed media day. "We've migrated to a point called intelligent commonality and so that means a range of commonality, it could be a subsystem, it could be components, it could be a technology."

While the Air Force could not address the GBSD's survivability in an anti-access, area denial environment, Leese said the future solution will address threats that could emerge in an A2/AD environment, in addition to the aging and attrition concerns associated with the ICBM fleet. However, a mobile option would not make the missile system more survivable in an A2/AD environment, since it would not affect the re-entry system coming into the target area, Kerzie said. -- Leigh Giangreco
________________________________________________________________________________
From what this reads like the GBSD will be MMIV or smaller but with only 400, likely, ICBMs under New START they need to be a modernized Peacekeeper sized system IMHO as the very uncertain future may see the need to re-MIRV. Even with one warhead if they are worries about future A2AD environments then the excess payload can be decoys and penaids.
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #120 on: April 20, 2016, 10:21:41 pm »
Moving Forward on GBSD

—Will Skowronski

4/21/2016

A request for proposal for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program’s first phase is “a couple weeks away,” Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall told lawmakers Wednesday. Kendall told the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense panel on Wednesday the GBSD program, which is meant to replace the Air Force's Minuteman III weapons system, is on track. Risk reduction and preliminary design will be the first substantive work on the project, he said, and the Pentagon will work to cut costs in anticipation of having to fund the nuclear triad upgrade. "It’s going to be an expensive system by any metric,” he said, referring to the GBSD program. (See also: Funding the Nuclear Bow Wave.)
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #121 on: April 29, 2016, 11:24:59 am »
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
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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #122 on: April 29, 2016, 11:31:08 am »
With 'friends' like these...

 ::)
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #123 on: April 29, 2016, 02:05:46 pm »
With 'friends' like these...

 ::)

No kidding.  I find it absolutely stupefying that we have lawyers making decisions on technical or strategic matters.  Larsen (a Democrat) with silos in his state. . ..  Nah, no conflict of interest there.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 02:07:54 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #124 on: May 06, 2016, 10:40:16 pm »
Senate lawmaker seeks clarity from Air Force on GBSD time line

May 06, 2016

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) has requested a meeting with Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James to discuss the milestone A review for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent System, congressional sources told Inside the Air Force this week.

Daines previously questioned why the Air Force had not reached its milestone A decision for the Minuteman III's replacement during an April 20 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall.

Kendall assured Daines that GBSD's timeline remains on track, but that his office was waiting on an independent cost estimate, a legal prerequisite to declaring milestone A.

"So I have to satisfy that legal requirement in order to have the milestone A, as a dot-on-the-wall of something you did," he said. "That does not slow down releasing the RFP industry, which is the substance of what we're doing. So I'm going to hit milestone A as soon as I can."

The RFP release will come within weeks, but signing milestone A is dependent upon the cost analysis office giving the Pentagon a better cost estimate, Kendall said. Milestone A could come in June, but Kendall cautioned he did not have control over that aspect of the time line.

The milestone A shift is a fairly new change, Eric Single, chief of Air Force Global Strike Division acquisition, told ITAF in an April 11 interview. Although the Air Force would like to complete milestone A before releasing the RFP, the key documents for the RFP are the acquisition strategy, test plan and systems engineering plan, he said. Those three documents are complete and are in final work, so the Air Force was comfortable receiving proposals while the service continues to track additional requirements such as the independent cost estimate, he said.

"Milestone A is a statutory certification before you start [technology maturation risk and reduction]," he said. "So it really needs to be done just prior to contract award."

The Air Force is able to release the RFP without an independent cost estimate because the service already has a program cost estimate, he said. However, the cost estimate doesn't impact the RFP since the service will have a negotiated settlement with industry, Single added.

"What is important for the RFP is the scope of the work that we want done in TMRR, so we have to very much detail and describe that," he said. "The proposal itself details the exact work in TMRR and then industry will come back with a proposal on how they would accomplish that work, what they think the cost would be to do that and then we do the negotiation."

Meanwhile, GBSD's potential mobile option could face political headwinds as the Senate draws up its defense policy bill. 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 GBSD, ITAF previously reported. 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 Air Force first tossed up the idea of a mobile ground missile fleet during the Cold War. But in 1961, the Pentagon quashed plans for a rail-operated system, instead opting for more underground sites.

"I sponsored this amendment to press the Air Force to focus on modernizing the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad, instead of developing unnecessary capabilities," Larsen said in a May 4 email to ITAF. "By prohibiting mobility, [the House Armed Services Committee] is saving taxpayers billions by rejecting a scheme that was unwanted and unworkable even when our country was facing grave nuclear threats during the height of the Cold War."
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #125 on: May 08, 2016, 12:08:44 am »
The Case for the Ground Deterrent

—Brian Everstine

5/9/2016

A healthy nuclear deterrent without a large, healthy intercontinental ballistic missile force just isn’t possible. The Air Force currently has 450 missiles on three bases, spread out across five states, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, deputy commander of US Strategic Command. Without those, a potential adversary could launch an attack focused on the small number of bomber bases and submarine bases, and effectively take out the US nuclear option. During a 2013 visit to China, Chinese officials said North Korea had 10 missiles, a number that potentially could destroy the intellectual capability at national laboratories, along with the production, delivery, and weapons storage of nuclear bombs. “I think having a very affordable deterrent capability, like today’s ground-based deterrent … makes great sense to our country,” Wilson said. “It means an adversary has to go all in with a large number of weapons.” (See also: Moving Forward on GBSD and Needed Nuclear Investment)
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #126 on: May 08, 2016, 11:08:43 pm »
42 years ago in Aviation Week the perfect, IMHO, MMIII replacement is described
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 TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #127 on: May 09, 2016, 05:00:17 am »
A healthy nuclear deterrent without a large, healthy intercontinental ballistic missile force just isn’t possible. The Air Force currently has 450 missiles on three bases, spread out across five states, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, deputy commander of US Strategic Command. Without those, a potential adversary could launch an attack focused on the small number of bomber bases and submarine bases, and effectively take out the US nuclear option.

This seems to ignore the fact that a substantial fraction of the US SSBN force is at sea at any given time.  Killing their bases still leaves a hundred or more submarine-based warheads available.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #128 on: May 09, 2016, 05:06:15 am »
A healthy nuclear deterrent without a large, healthy intercontinental ballistic missile force just isn’t possible. The Air Force currently has 450 missiles on three bases, spread out across five states, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, deputy commander of US Strategic Command. Without those, a potential adversary could launch an attack focused on the small number of bomber bases and submarine bases, and effectively take out the US nuclear option.

This seems to ignore the fact that a substantial fraction of the US SSBN force is at sea at any given time.  Killing their bases still leaves a hundred or more submarine-based warheads available.

At best 7 SSBNs are out at any given time.  That's seven targets that could be taken out in minutes. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #129 on: May 09, 2016, 05:15:38 am »
A healthy nuclear deterrent without a large, healthy intercontinental ballistic missile force just isn’t possible. The Air Force currently has 450 missiles on three bases, spread out across five states, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, deputy commander of US Strategic Command. Without those, a potential adversary could launch an attack focused on the small number of bomber bases and submarine bases, and effectively take out the US nuclear option.

This seems to ignore the fact that a substantial fraction of the US SSBN force is at sea at any given time.  Killing their bases still leaves a hundred or more submarine-based warheads available.

At best 7 SSBNs are out at any given time.  That's seven targets that could be taken out in minutes.

With what magical ASW capability?  No one yet has demonstrated anything that can reliably find and kill US SSBNs in open ocean. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #130 on: May 09, 2016, 05:27:39 am »
With what magical ASW capability?  No one yet has demonstrated anything that can reliably find and kill US SSBNs in open ocean.

Which doesn't preclude one appearing tomorrow.  Nor does it mean that just because one can't read about it on Gawker that something doesn't exist.  And there's always just tailing them 24/7.  Scoffing at the idea of a counter is usually considered unwise.   I'd prefer making the other guy risk 400 ICBMs launched at my own country than allowing them to take out my entire nuclear force with a handful of torpedoes.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #131 on: May 09, 2016, 05:55:22 am »
With what magical ASW capability?  No one yet has demonstrated anything that can reliably find and kill US SSBNs in open ocean.

Which doesn't preclude one appearing tomorrow.  Nor does it mean that just because one can't read about it on Gawker that something doesn't exist.  And there's always just tailing them 24/7.  Scoffing at the idea of a counter is usually considered unwise.   I'd prefer making the other guy risk 400 ICBMs launched at my own country than allowing them to take out my entire nuclear force with a handful of torpedoes.

Re: Tailing 24/7. It's not a trivial task -- total track time against US SSBNs is still measured in hours, including the entire Cold War. 

People have been worrying about the magical "make the oceans transparent" technology since the 1980s at least -- it's still magical.   It's not going to change overnight. 




Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #132 on: May 09, 2016, 06:34:10 am »
With what magical ASW capability?  No one yet has demonstrated anything that can reliably find and kill US SSBNs in open ocean.

Which doesn't preclude one appearing tomorrow.  Nor does it mean that just because one can't read about it on Gawker that something doesn't exist.  And there's always just tailing them 24/7.  Scoffing at the idea of a counter is usually considered unwise.   I'd prefer making the other guy risk 400 ICBMs launched at my own country than allowing them to take out my entire nuclear force with a handful of torpedoes.
There is no benefit to getting rid of the ground based leg of the Triad. You don't enhance security, your allies are worried about your commtiment to extended deterrence, you don't really save money in any real sense given the cost of ICBMs to the defense budget/federal budget and in fact leave yourself potentially more vulnerable with two legs that can be destroyed by conventional means.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #133 on: May 09, 2016, 08:25:00 am »
With what magical ASW capability?  No one yet has demonstrated anything that can reliably find and kill US SSBNs in open ocean.

Which doesn't preclude one appearing tomorrow.  Nor does it mean that just because one can't read about it on Gawker that something doesn't exist.  And there's always just tailing them 24/7.  Scoffing at the idea of a counter is usually considered unwise.   I'd prefer making the other guy risk 400 ICBMs launched at my own country than allowing them to take out my entire nuclear force with a handful of torpedoes.
There is no benefit to getting rid of the ground based leg of the Triad. You don't enhance security, your allies are worried about your commtiment to extended deterrence, you don't really save money in any real sense given the cost of ICBMs to the defense budget/federal budget and in fact leave yourself potentially more vulnerable with two legs that can be destroyed by conventional means.

Dumping the triad is all downside.  Sure, you might save a few bucks but it'll cost you far more than you'll save in the end.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #134 on: May 09, 2016, 11:02:06 am »
Does GBSD also have money allocated for new computer systems and software? Or are they going to try to keep the legacy equipment going with the new missiles? Do the legacy silos need any structural or mechanical updates since they are now over 50 years old?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #135 on: May 09, 2016, 12:25:22 pm »
Does GBSD also have money allocated for new computer systems and software? Or are they going to try to keep the legacy equipment going with the new missiles? Do the legacy silos need any structural or mechanical updates since they are now over 50 years old?
My understanding is yes if you look at an earlier post that contains the FBO RfP it details the totality of the program.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 03:42:17 pm by bobbymike »
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #139 on: July 02, 2016, 02:37:42 pm »
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2014/07/09/air-force-icbm-technologies.aspx

Found this article just searching ICBM/GBSD terms but don't see it posted at SPF. Anyway, found this interesting:

Quote
The announcement is looking to develop an open architecture thrust vector system for a three-stage, medium-class, ICBM launch vehicle that can be used across all three stages.

Now do they mean 'medium' in the arms control sense up to 100 tons (Peacekeeper) or in the booster size class which would be MMIII sized as they call the Peacekeeper solid rocket a "Large Class Size" booster? I'm guessing the latter.

Also, for questions up the thread about what encompasses the program

Quote
Additional studies focus on developing propulsion and thermal protection systems, adapting multiple independent reentry vehicle capabilities into the Minuteman III, increasing penetration capabilities, improving battery designs, designing advanced ordnance initiation systems and safeties, examining the possible use of a Trajectory Correcting Vehicle or a Trajectory Shaping Vehicles, and improving missile stage separations.

Although I have read elsewhere it includes the C2 and modernized MMIII silos.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2016, 02:44:05 pm by bobbymike »
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #140 on: September 01, 2016, 07:42:32 am »
http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-much-does-new-icbm-cost?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20160901_AW-19_829&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=6906&utm_medium=email&elq2=bc5a0778c2af492d8fbadeeca5f03a74

$62 billion over 30 years is literally peanuts considering total federal government spending over next 30 years will potentially exceed $200 TRILLION. Modernizing ICBMs equal to 0.031% of this figure. Why the "it's unaffordable" argument is so disingenuous.
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #141 on: September 05, 2016, 09:23:59 pm »
GBSD Enters Technology Maturation, Risk Reduction Phase

9/6/2016

​The Air Force’s Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, which will eventually replace the service’s aging intercontinental ballistic missiles, received milestone A approval on Aug. 23, moving the program into the next phase of acquisition, according to a release. GBSD will now enter the technology maturation and risk reduction phase, where the Air Force anticipates awarding up to two contracts by the end of Fiscal 2017. The Air Force wants to keep the new system in service through 2075 and is expected to deploy it beginning in the late 2020s. The Minuteman III missile dates to the 1970s and was designed with a 10-year service life. Hill AFB, Utah, is managing the acquisitions process for the new ICBM. (See previously: Ground Based Question Mark from the July issue of Air Force Magazine.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/2612/Article/933679/af-reaches-first-milestone-in-acquisition-of-new-icbm.aspx
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 Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7163
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #142 on: September 06, 2016, 01:57:52 am »
The Air Force wants to keep the new system in service through 2075 and is expected to deploy it beginning in the late 2020s.


So, what's sadder:
1) That the USAF assumes that there won't be any meaningful improvements in propulsion or structures in *fifty* years
2) That they're probably right
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #143 on: September 06, 2016, 05:11:07 am »
The Air Force wants to keep the new system in service through 2075 and is expected to deploy it beginning in the late 2020s.


So, what's sadder:
1) That the USAF assumes that there won't be any meaningful improvements in propulsion or structures in *fifty* years
2) That they're probably right

At least in the US anyway.  Hell, I can't help but wonder if (computers aside) GBSD will even be as advanced as Peacekeeper or Midgetman.
"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 #144 on: September 06, 2016, 05:50:00 am »
So, what's sadder:
1) That the USAF assumes that there won't be any meaningful improvements in propulsion or structures in *fifty* years
2) That they're probably right

Even more *sadder*

USAF assumes that Missile Defense will not make any major advances in *fifty* years.

As I see it, GBSD will have a very limited service life (2025-2029 out to 2035) before it's just obsoleted wholesale by either decently high powered lasers or a nation-state deciding to build out a GBI style system to the maximum possible capability.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #145 on: September 06, 2016, 06:29:04 am »
So, what's sadder:
1) That the USAF assumes that there won't be any meaningful improvements in propulsion or structures in *fifty* years
2) That they're probably right

Even more *sadder*

USAF assumes that Missile Defense will not make any major advances in *fifty* years.

As I see it, GBSD will have a very limited service life (2025-2029 out to 2035) before it's just obsoleted wholesale by either decently high powered lasers or a nation-state deciding to build out a GBI style system to the maximum possible capability.

Good luck with that.  That's a lot of money.  Furthermore, the US is far ahead of either Russia or China in the strategic ABM department, and neither of those two nations share your view as they are both pursuing new ICBMs and SLBMs.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2016, 06:36:58 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #146 on: September 06, 2016, 06:36:45 am »
The Air Force wants to keep the new system in service through 2075 and is expected to deploy it beginning in the late 2020s.


So, what's sadder:
1) That the USAF assumes that there won't be any meaningful improvements in propulsion or structures in *fifty* years
2) That they're probably right

At least in the US anyway.  Hell, I can't help but wonder if (computers aside) GBSD will even be as advanced as Peacekeeper or Midgetman.
And this from a 1987 issue of Air Force Monthly 

Smaller Boosters, Bigger Loads

Rocket engines are also in for a big shot of change as a result of re­search rallied by Forecast II. Such research is generating a new class of fuels—"high-energy-density pro­pellants"—that are expected to dou­ble the thrust of existing solid and liquid propellants in space boosters.  Their energy density—thrust per unit of mass—may be ten times or more that of current propellants. This will make them amenable to containment in boosters of dwarfish dimensions and of puny poundage in comparison with the boosters that now loom like skyscrapers on planetary launchpads.  The implications for the US space program are profound. It has always been plagued by the extraordinarily high cost of boosting payloads into orbit. Smaller boosters capable of carrying larger and more numerous payloads at the same total system weight will translate into far greater cost-effectiveness, capability, and versatility for the US space pro­gram, which is currently short on all such attributes.  Forecast II sees the advanced fuels as powering the heavy-lift launch vehicles of the future. USAF has a crying need for such lifters. The Space Shuttle fleet has a limited and uncertain future, and the Stra­tegic Defense Initiative program, the Space Station program, and oth­ers to involve outsize payloads will make strong demands on US spacelaunch capabilities in the 1990s and beyond.  The first of the heavy lifters—the Advanced Launch System (ALS)­is being developed and will be op­erational well before Forecast II's futuristic propellants come on the scene—but maybe not all that long before.


The Air Force plans to demon­strate the technologies of such fuels by 1990. Experiments on them be­gan this year, and researchers be­lieve that the technologies will be under control in relatively short order.  Such work stands as yet another example of going nature one better in Forecast II research. It involves exciting the outer-shell electrons of such inherently stable chemical ele­ments as argon and krypton to make them unstable. Once this state is reached, the agitated electrons are "bound" in ionic or covalent com­pounds that expend enormous, pent-up energy upon combustion.  Air Force Astronautics Labora­tory (formerly Rocket Propulsion Laboratory) and AFOSR have awarded twelve contracts to univer­sities to master the chemistry and the "excited-state physics" in­volved in producing the powerful propellants.  Forecast II officials are confident that such mastery is well within reach. Supercomputer calculations have told them so. 
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #147 on: September 06, 2016, 06:37:55 am »
Anything ever come of that? 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #148 on: September 06, 2016, 08:00:31 am »
"Excited-state physics" is the key phrase.  Hard to make that happen and if you could, hard to store the result for any useful length of time.

Also (off-topic but on-topic), shouldn't this topic be in Aerospace instead of The Bar?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7163
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #149 on: September 06, 2016, 09:33:05 am »
Anything ever come of that?

Seemingly no. A generation ago there was excitement over high energy density propellants such as N20 (that's N-Twenty, not N-Two-Oh, a Buckeyball of nitrogen) and metastable helium and metallic hydrogen, but it's been years and more years since I've heard anything but theory. More than a decade ago there were reports of an exciting new development in explosives, some new molecule that would provide a few percent better bang than HMX or RDX; and for that few percent the cost was insanely high.

Something people often don't realize is that nature has limits. Chemical rockets are about as good as chemistry will allow... and have been since the 1960's. To get *meaningful* improvements in performance, you'll need to go to wholly different technologies (scramjets, nuclear rockets, etc.) or rely on some pretty hand-wavy theories.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #150 on: September 06, 2016, 10:17:56 am »
Anything ever come of that?

Seemingly no. A generation ago there was excitement over high energy density propellants such as N20 (that's N-Twenty, not N-Two-Oh, a Buckeyball of nitrogen) and metastable helium and metallic hydrogen, but it's been years and more years since I've heard anything but theory. More than a decade ago there were reports of an exciting new development in explosives, some new molecule that would provide a few percent better bang than HMX or RDX; and for that few percent the cost was insanely high.

Something people often don't realize is that nature has limits. Chemical rockets are about as good as chemistry will allow... and have been since the 1960's. To get *meaningful* improvements in performance, you'll need to go to wholly different technologies (scramjets, nuclear rockets, etc.) or rely on some pretty hand-wavy theories.

'bout what I figured.  It's why the RL10 is still so popular. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7163
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #151 on: September 06, 2016, 11:14:26 am »

'bout what I figured.  It's why the RL10 is still so popular.

Yup. Engines like the RL-10 and SSME produce very nearly every last little bit of performance. There is only just so much energy to be had in hydrogen and oxygen chemical reactions, and once you have effectively captured and utilized  half of that energy you start running up against diminishing returns. You can play tricks... turn the SSME into an aerospike and you'll produce better results for a ground-to-space booster. Ad a *really* big expansion nozzle and you'll improve performance in a vacuum (this ha been done to great success with the RL-10). But the best course for improvement available would be in maintaining the performance while reducing complexity and cost while improving reliability. Jack up chamber pressure and you might get a slight improvement in performance, but you'll reduce the size of the engine.

If you want *really* better performance, you need to use something very different. And apart from nukes, there's nothing else that has been demonstrated to work. And I have doubts about the likelihood of nuclear-powered ICBMs.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #152 on: September 06, 2016, 03:42:05 pm »
So, what's sadder:
1) That the USAF assumes that there won't be any meaningful improvements in propulsion or structures in *fifty* years
2) That they're probably right

Even more *sadder*

USAF assumes that Missile Defense will not make any major advances in *fifty* years.

As I see it, GBSD will have a very limited service life (2025-2029 out to 2035) before it's just obsoleted wholesale by either decently high powered lasers or a nation-state deciding to build out a GBI style system to the maximum possible capability.

It's not like the US hasn't been investing in MaRVs (all of the CPGS risk reduction flights) and next-gen penetration aids.  I'd actually be more concerned with defeating EMRG-based terminal defenses.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #153 on: September 06, 2016, 06:46:36 pm »
Mark my words they are laying the ground work for cancellation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-06/new-nuclear-armed-missile-seen-costing-u-s-85-billion-up-36

Quote
Kendall wrote that inflation assumptions and the defense industry’s capability to produce the missiles are major sources of cost uncertainty. Still, he said the $85 billion placeholder is “the most reasonable estimate of program cost at this point.”

Did you ever think you would read, although many of us suspected, a statement like this?

Quote
The last ICBM development occurred in the 1980s, she said.

The state of the Triad and nuclear enterprise is to the point, IMHO, many, many politicians Republican and Democrat could be charged with Treasonous neglect of our national security.

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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #154 on: September 06, 2016, 09:25:04 pm »
I'll bet if we cancel it it will magically be easier ten years down the road. How pathetic is it that even North Korea has more ambition?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #155 on: September 10, 2016, 10:51:30 am »
Air Force Challenges Pentagon Cost Estimate of Next-Generation Nuclear Missiles

More work needs to be done before the Defense Department can accurately estimate the cost of modernizing the nation’s arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James said Sept. 7.

The Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office recently projected that the ground-based strategic deterrent program, known as GBSD, would cost at least $85 billion in the coming decades, according to Bloomberg News. That number is $23 billion higher than the latest estimate put forth by the Air Force.

The large discrepancy was partly the result of differing methodology and assumptions about various facets of the program, James told reporters during a media roundtable at the Pentagon.

“The CAPE used one program and extrapolated forward. We used a variety of components of programs and extrapolated forward to build up our estimates,” she said. “We had certain assumptions about efficiencies in manufacturing, CAPE had different assumptions about efficiencies in manufacturing. And there was probably 15 other different assumptions as well.”

The latest estimates may not be reliable because they are based on antiquated data, she said.

“The difference in the cost estimates basically, fundamentally comes down to: We have not collectively done a cost estimate of this type for probably more than 40 years,” she said. “The data that everybody is using to try to build up these cost estimates is somewhat dated simply because we haven’t done it in so long.”

James expects the projections to change as more information is gathered.

“As we go forward, as we get the proposals back from industry, this will inform what I believe will be refinements in that cost estimate over time as we learn more,” she said. “The point is, if you haven’t done it in 40 years you need to refine it as you go along.”

Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are all vying to build the next-generation of ICBMs. James voiced optimism about the program, despite concerns about the price tag.

“It’s an important program,” she said. “We’re going to work through this. There’s just no question in my mind.”

The project has already reached an important milestone, with the request for proposals from industry having been released in July, she noted.

“We’re moving ahead and we will work through these different cost estimates. And then whatever the cost estimate will be, we will put it into our five-year defense plan” at the end of this year, she said.
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 #156 on: September 10, 2016, 12:48:59 pm »
SECNAV Mabus' call to abolish OSD (and by extension CAPE) is sounding better and better.

...

The various inflation indices used in DOD is a recurring theme here (at least with me).
It can lead to wildly different estimates especially for a program as big and as long running as GBSD.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #158 on: September 21, 2016, 05:33:28 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/james-new-icbm-cost-question-will-not-impact-next-budget

Why do the words 'train wreck' come to mind?

Because those paying attention have been talking about the train wreck since the Clinton administration.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #159 on: September 21, 2016, 07:38:18 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/james-new-icbm-cost-question-will-not-impact-next-budget

Why do the words 'train wreck' come to mind?

Because those paying attention have been talking about the train wreck since the Clinton administration.

Quote
Deborah Lee James told reporters at the Air Force Association conference that the delta between the cost estimates for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program is “not that high” and indicated she was not surprised by the difference in numbers, given how long it has been between the last ICBM program and its replacement.

“We haven’t done this in 40 years. There were different approaches used to build up the costs,” James said.
  :'(

This was not too long ago called the Land Based Strategic Deterrent to be deployed in 2018.
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 #160 on: September 21, 2016, 11:35:11 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/james-new-icbm-cost-question-will-not-impact-next-budget

Why do the words 'train wreck' come to mind?

CAPE just revised its B-21 APUC down by ~ 7% which translates into a multi billion dollar swing in total program cost. Is that a train wreck?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #161 on: September 21, 2016, 11:39:20 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/james-new-icbm-cost-question-will-not-impact-next-budget

Why do the words 'train wreck' come to mind?

CAPE just revised its B-21 APUC down by ~ 7% which translates into a multi billion dollar swing in total program cost. Is that a train wreck?

Typically "train wreck" refers to the fact that, because certain administrations pushed off modernization due to the mythical "Peace Dividend", EVERYTHING needs to be replaced at the same time.  Cruisers, our entire nuclear forces, (and they're not even discussing replacing old warheads), bombers, fighters, tankers, tanks, self-propelled guns, cargo aircraft, you name it.  We really ought to add torpedoes and a slew of tactical missiles to the list as well.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #162 on: September 21, 2016, 12:53:12 pm »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/james-new-icbm-cost-question-will-not-impact-next-budget

Why do the words 'train wreck' come to mind?

CAPE just revised its B-21 APUC down by ~ 7% which translates into a multi billion dollar swing in total program cost. Is that a train wreck?

Typically "train wreck" refers to the fact that, because certain administrations pushed off modernization due to the mythical "Peace Dividend", EVERYTHING needs to be replaced at the same time.  Cruisers, our entire nuclear forces, (and they're not even discussing replacing old warheads), bombers, fighters, tankers, tanks, self-propelled guns, cargo aircraft, you name it.  We really ought to add torpedoes and a slew of tactical missiles to the list as well.

I appreciate the sentiment but I have to slightly disagree on the GBSD side; even if the AF had gotten the full planned quantity of Peacekeepers
we'd still be in the present situation just by virtue of the system's age and the reduction in inventory due to the need  for testing and proficiency.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #163 on: September 21, 2016, 01:09:13 pm »
I appreciate the sentiment but I have to slightly disagree on the GBSD side; even if the AF had gotten the full planned quantity of Peacekeepers
we'd still be in the present situation just by virtue of the system's age and the reduction in inventory due to the need  for testing and proficiency.

Except we were suppose to get Midgetman as well.  We'd have been left with a Peacekeeper/Midgetman force and Minuteman would have been retired.  That would have made today's situation much less urgent.  The last MMII was produced in 1977.  Peacekeeper was a decade+ newer than that. Midgetman would have been newer still.  Also, it isn't just GBSD creating the train wreck.  It's ALL of it.  That's why there's a train wreck.  If it was only GBSD that needed replacing and not bombers, cruise missiles, SSBNs, etc. etc. funding would be no big deal.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2016, 01:11:06 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #164 on: September 21, 2016, 03:00:30 pm »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/james-new-icbm-cost-question-will-not-impact-next-budget

Why do the words 'train wreck' come to mind?

CAPE just revised its B-21 APUC down by ~ 7% which translates into a multi billion dollar swing in total program cost. Is that a train wreck?

Typically "train wreck" refers to the fact that, because certain administrations pushed off modernization due to the mythical "Peace Dividend", EVERYTHING needs to be replaced at the same time.  Cruisers, our entire nuclear forces, (and they're not even discussing replacing old warheads), bombers, fighters, tankers, tanks, self-propelled guns, cargo aircraft, you name it.  We really ought to add torpedoes and a slew of tactical missiles to the list as well.
I had such high hopes in 2001 that after a decade of neglect and coming on the heels of a Nuclear Posture Review and talk of the New Triad that comprised three corners of a) responsive [nuclear] infrastructure 2) Nuclear delivery vehicles and 3) Conventional prompt global strike we would see a robust modernization plan.

Early in Bush 43's Presidency warhead modernization was also contemplated in the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Reliable Replacement Warhead and R&D on Advanced Concepts.

While I expected broad and vituperative opposition from arms control zealots and Democrats what I didn't foresee was the REPUBLICAN majorities in the relevant House defense committees (along with 100% Democrat support) zeroed out funding for all of this. But it was Republican support that then shifted the issue to the sacred realm of "bipartisan" and when combined with 911 and the war on terror made nuclear modernization not worth the political capital for its dwindling number of proponents.

So here's where we sit not knowing how to cost a new ICBM because we don't remember, really, what it takes to build one anymore.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #165 on: September 21, 2016, 04:49:37 pm »
So here's where we sit not knowing how to cost a new ICBM because we don't remember, really, what it takes to build one anymore.

And yet little old North Korea continues to plug along.  The pathetic state of things in the US was really brought home the other day.  There was an article wherein the author was gushing, almost in disbelief, that North Korea continues to progress despite, "being willing to fail".  The author was completely oblivious to the fact that willingness to fail is the ONLY way one can progress.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #166 on: September 21, 2016, 06:20:45 pm »
I guess my earlier point was that under the *original* Air Force MX plan, we'd have 200 MX in either MPS or in silos that would need to be replaced now anyway.
The Scowcroft compromise more than anything else managed to kill both MX and SICBM. 

On other strategic systems: the AF should have taken NG up on their offer for the B-2C circa 2001 and the Navy should have elected to build a new D6 rather than life extending the D5 in 2002.
The latter might have jump started a refresh on GBSD earlier. Having said that, cost estimate disputes also go back to MX/MPS and the Air Force vs. OTA. So in that sense, it's frustrating.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2016, 09:15:09 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #167 on: September 21, 2016, 09:10:58 pm »
I appreciate the sentiment but I have to slightly disagree on the GBSD side; even if the AF had gotten the full planned quantity of Peacekeepers
we'd still be in the present situation just by virtue of the system's age and the reduction in inventory due to the need  for testing and proficiency.

Except we were suppose to get Midgetman as well.  We'd have been left with a Peacekeeper/Midgetman force and Minuteman would have been retired.  That would have made today's situation much less urgent.  The last MMII was produced in 1977.  Peacekeeper was a decade+ newer than that. Midgetman would have been newer still.  Also, it isn't just GBSD creating the train wreck.  It's ALL of it.  That's why there's a train wreck.  If it was only GBSD that needed replacing and not bombers, cruise missiles, SSBNs, etc. etc. funding would be no big deal.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-needs-more-submarines-match-russia-china-17775
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #170 on: September 24, 2016, 10:45:01 pm »
Given the financial situation, the difficulty in targeting mobile ballistic missiles that was demonstrated by "the great SCUD hunt" and the need for speed in procurement, why do they not just dust off Midgetman?I'm  deeply concerned about the deteriorating deterrent, but the ever increasing budget of this thing looks dubious when a Minuteman replacement is available. Obviously tooling up would be required and a few test shot failures to relearn the bits that were institutional knowledge and not actually in the plans, but most of the development is done. The Midgetman was not MIRVED, but Minuteman isn't anymore either so it's a wash.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #172 on: September 26, 2016, 05:49:32 am »
Given the financial situation, the difficulty in targeting mobile ballistic missiles that was demonstrated by "the great SCUD hunt" and the need for speed in procurement, why do they not just dust off Midgetman?I'm  deeply concerned about the deteriorating deterrent, but the ever increasing budget of this thing looks dubious when a Minuteman replacement is available. Obviously tooling up would be required and a few test shot failures to relearn the bits that were institutional knowledge and not actually in the plans, but most of the development is done. The Midgetman was not MIRVED, but Minuteman isn't anymore either so it's a wash.

No.  Just. . .no.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #173 on: September 29, 2016, 03:40:08 pm »
Want to get depressed?



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

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #176 on: October 01, 2016, 06:32:01 am »
Given the financial situation, the difficulty in targeting mobile ballistic missiles that was demonstrated by "the great SCUD hunt" and the need for speed in procurement, why do they not just dust off Midgetman?I'm  deeply concerned about the deteriorating deterrent, but the ever increasing budget of this thing looks dubious when a Minuteman replacement is available. Obviously tooling up would be required and a few test shot failures to relearn the bits that were institutional knowledge and not actually in the plans, but most of the development is done. The Midgetman was not MIRVED, but Minuteman isn't anymore either so it's a wash.

No.  Just. . .no.

I gathered from the notable lack of it being proposed that there was probably a catch. I'm curious as to what that catch is. Most people here know more about the matter than me and aren't invested in the companies involved so I was hoping for a reason not to dust off Midgetman other than "Not enough money in it for campaign contributors." Given the budget situation and the inherent survivability of mobile missiles, Midgetman really seems like a decent option to me, but I'm far from an expert in these matters. I'm genuinely curious; What are the technical, or geopolitical factors that cause this option to be so emphatically opposed?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #177 on: October 01, 2016, 07:01:33 am »
Damn.  My bad.  I read, "dust off Minuteman" not Midgetman.  Midgetman wouldn't be a bad idea, and I think I've actually suggested it elsewhere.  A new Peacekeeper-sized silo based missile (200-300) and 500 Midgetmen on their TELs would be my preference.  The mobility of Midgetman would give you the best of all worlds and the heavier throw weight of Peacekeeper (or larger) would give you options for things like boost gliders, larger MaRVs, etc.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2016, 07:05:50 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #178 on: October 01, 2016, 07:11:39 am »
Given the financial situation, the difficulty in targeting mobile ballistic missiles that was demonstrated by "the great SCUD hunt" and the need for speed in procurement, why do they not just dust off Midgetman?I'm  deeply concerned about the deteriorating deterrent, but the ever increasing budget of this thing looks dubious when a Minuteman replacement is available. Obviously tooling up would be required and a few test shot failures to relearn the bits that were institutional knowledge and not actually in the plans, but most of the development is done. The Midgetman was not MIRVED, but Minuteman isn't anymore either so it's a wash.

No.  Just. . .no.

I gathered from the notable lack of it being proposed that there was probably a catch. I'm curious as to what that catch is. Most people here know more about the matter than me and aren't invested in the companies involved so I was hoping for a reason not to dust off Midgetman other than "Not enough money in it for campaign contributors." Given the budget situation and the inherent survivability of mobile missiles, Midgetman really seems like a decent option to me, but I'm far from an expert in these matters. I'm genuinely curious; What are the technical, or geopolitical factors that cause this option to be so emphatically opposed?

A large part of it is that there are those in the U.S. political establishment who consider mobile ICBMs as 'destabilizing'.  ::) Another arguably even bigger problem is that much of the U.S. based industrial infrastructure necessary for a mobile ICBM (among many other things) was, starting in the 1990s and it's infamous End of History/Peace Dividend, dismantled, scrapped, or sold off to the People's Republic of China and elsewhere. This textbook example of stupidity & insanity combined has continued right up into this decade.

Bearing that last point in mind and to be fair, there are those who are quite in favour of a new ICBM, but that feel given the current shortages in just about every resource category (with the exception of hot air) including skilled/experienced manpower it is better to use those limited resources to build a silo based heavy ICBM in the Peacekeeper to Satan class with much more throw weight (meaning more warheads, pentaids, a more capable warhead bus, etc.) rather than a lighter more mobile ICBM.

Damn.  My bad.  I read, "dust off Minuteman" not Midgetman.  Midgetman wouldn't be a bad idea, and I think I've actually suggested it elsewhere.  A new Peacekeeper-sized silo based missile (200-300) and 500 Midgetmen on their TELs would be my preference.  The mobility of Midgetman would give you the best of all worlds and the heavier throw weight of Peacekeeper (or larger) would give you options for things like boost gliders, larger MaRVs, etc.

Preaching to the choir, sir.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #179 on: October 11, 2016, 09:48:30 pm »
Boeing Responds to GBSD Solicitation

—Brian Everstine 10/12/2016

​Boeing on Tuesday said it responded to the Air Force’s request for proposal for the next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile system. The company, in a brief statement, said it created the first Minuteman ICBM almost 60 years ago “and we are ready to again offer an ICBM that will meet the Air Force mission requirements through 2075.” The Air Force released the RFP in early August, with a deadline of Wednesday. The service plans to award up to two cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts next summer, with eventual deployment in the late 2020s. The expected value of the program is about $62.3 billion. Lockheed Martin is expected to announce its proposal later this week. (See also: GBSD: The Biggest Operational Test Program Ever? And Ground-Based Question Mark from the July issue of Air Force Magazine.)
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #180 on: October 13, 2016, 08:27:47 am »
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-bars-exclusive-teaming-rocket-shops-new-icbm

This caught my eye, up to 10 MIRVs, fingers crossed

Quote
The operational requirement is for 400 alert GBSD missiles capped with government-provided Mark 12A or Mark 21 re-entry vehicles containing anywhere from one to 10 independently targetable warheads.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #181 on: October 13, 2016, 10:46:50 am »
If they want 400 missiles with anything like more than one warhead they better learn how to build them all over again.  RVs, warheads, producing the bomb materials, etc.  IIRC it's all gone.  Sure, they can scrounge up some material here and there for a NASA prob. but enough of the right stuff to make new warheads?  I'm skeptical. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #182 on: October 13, 2016, 12:28:46 pm »
If they want 400 missiles with anything like more than one warhead they better learn how to build them all over again.  RVs, warheads, producing the bomb materials, etc.  IIRC it's all gone.  Sure, they can scrounge up some material here and there for a NASA prob. but enough of the right stuff to make new warheads?  I'm skeptical.
For me let's start with a 'big' missile first that in and of itself gives me some hope.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #183 on: October 13, 2016, 12:45:27 pm »
If they want 400 missiles with anything like more than one warhead they better learn how to build them all over again.  RVs, warheads, producing the bomb materials, etc.  IIRC it's all gone.  Sure, they can scrounge up some material here and there for a NASA prob. but enough of the right stuff to make new warheads?  I'm skeptical.
For me let's start with a 'big' missile first that in and of itself gives me some hope.

Just looked up the size of the tiny W68.  This will make you cry:

"A total of 5,250 W68 warheads were produced, the single largest production run of any American nuclear weapon model. It was manufactured starting in June 1970 and ending in June 1975. Each Poseidon missile could carry up to 14 warheads; at the peak deployment, there were 41 US Poseidon submarines with 16 missiles each, for a total of 656 deployed missiles, at a density of about 10 warheads per missile.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #184 on: October 13, 2016, 12:50:31 pm »
If they want 400 missiles with anything like more than one warhead they better learn how to build them all over again.  RVs, warheads, producing the bomb materials, etc.  IIRC it's all gone.  Sure, they can scrounge up some material here and there for a NASA prob. but enough of the right stuff to make new warheads?  I'm skeptical.
For me let's start with a 'big' missile first that in and of itself gives me some hope.

Just looked up the size of the tiny W68.  This will make you cry:

"A total of 5,250 W68 warheads were produced, the single largest production run of any American nuclear weapon model. It was manufactured starting in June 1970 and ending in June 1975. Each Poseidon missile could carry up to 14 warheads; at the peak deployment, there were 41 US Poseidon submarines with 16 missiles each, for a total of 656 deployed missiles, at a density of about 10 warheads per missile.
How about 5,250 warheads OF ONE TYPE produced in FIVE years  :o would take us 50 years today (if we could even do it)

I would prefer about a 5 ton payload with 4 - 5Mt W-71s  ;D

Lockheed announces GBSD team

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2330
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #185 on: October 13, 2016, 03:59:02 pm »
Hell, the Nike Hercules (a SAM at that) had 2550 W31s built for it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #186 on: October 13, 2016, 11:00:43 pm »
Lockheed, Northrop Also Submit GBSD Proposals

—Wilson Brissett10/14/2016

Lockheed Martin announced Thursday that it has submitted a proposal to develop and produce the Air Force’s new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) system, including a new ICBM. The proposal was submitted Tuesday ahead of the Oct. 12 deadline. In a conference call with reporters, John Karas, vice president and GBSD program manager, said the new missile design would include three stages and a fourth post-boost stage, similar to Minuteman III, the USAF’s current ICBM. Lockheed Martin said it would design the system within a “total digital environment,” which Karas said would be a first for the Air Force. The “digital tapestry” design approach will lead to both cost savings in development scheduling and adaptability of the system design to emerging technologies, since the new GBSD is expected to be deployed up to 2075.

The Air Force has not released a full list of proposals received, but Boeing and Northrop Grumman also have delivered proposals, according to company officials. Northrop Grumman, which has served as the "developer and systems integrator on every ICBM weapon system since 1954," submitted its proposal on Oct. 11, according to a company statement. “Northrop Grumman is leveraging its comprehensive ICBM weapon systems understanding to fully integrate flight systems, launch systems, and command and control into a sustainable, capable, and affordable ICBM weapon system,” the company said.
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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #187 on: October 14, 2016, 01:14:17 am »
Lockheed Martin said it would design the system within a “total digital environment,” which Karas said would be a first for the Air Force. The “digital tapestry” design approach will lead to both cost savings in development scheduling and adaptability of the system design to emerging technologies, since the new GBSD is expected to be deployed up to 2075.

Famous Last Words, to put it politely.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #188 on: October 14, 2016, 04:27:58 am »
Lockheed Martin said it would design the system within a “total digital environment,” which Karas said would be a first for the Air Force. The “digital tapestry” design approach will lead to both cost savings in development scheduling and adaptability of the system design to emerging technologies, since the new GBSD is expected to be deployed up to 2075.

Famous Last Words, to put it politely.

I'd tend to agree, given our complete lack of any recent experience in the field.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #189 on: October 14, 2016, 12:49:04 pm »
Lockheed aims to leverage commonality, best practices in GBSD design

October 13, 2016

Lockheed Martin will look at commonality between Air Force, Navy and Missile Defense Agency programs and requirements to cut down on time, cost and risk when designing their pitch for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, John Karas, the company's vice president and program manager for the effort, said Oct. 13.

Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and Boeing submitted their proposals Oct. 11 in hopes of winning the technology maturation and risk reduction contract. GBSD achieved milestone A in August, and the service expects to award up to two risk-reduction contracts by late fiscal year 2017.

Lockheed will collaborate with General Dynamics, Draper Labs, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Orbital ATK, Moog Inc. and Bechtel Corp. The most cost-efficient, least-risky technologies from each company may be combined into new hybrid products, though Karas said it's too early to tell. Karas, who spoke with reporters in an Oct. 13 conference call, expects the three-stage solid rocket and four-stage post-boost design to mirror the existing Minuteman III fleet.

Karas noted that Lockheed is exploring commonality of airborne and ground-based programs that are pertinent to both Air Force and Navy requirements. While Air Force and Navy requirements aren't always identical, he said, they are very close in many cases. The Navy is also pursuing a modernization effort for its submarine-launched ballistic missile.

"Several of the components that first and foremost meet the Air Force requirements, we're looking at to provide derivatives of those things specifically for the GBSD program, so it's a mix and a blend," Karas said. "We also have not only just on the airborne side, but on the ground side, other cyber-hard operational [operations and sustainment] systems that Lockheed Martin has for other Air Force programs we're leveraging, too."

Commonality is a major concern when fielding large numbers of new weapons -- 600 missiles and 450 launch sites as the Air Force has asked, Karas said. He suggested that digital similarities will help shorten the production schedule and save money, while hardware commonality is key as well because the physical missile plays a large part in initial life-cycle cost estimates.

He added that it's important for Lockheed not to be presumptive in deciding what common systems to pursue, and that those decisions will be driven by Air Force requirements and needs. Lockheed anticipates it could save more than $10 million a year through model-based systems engineering and the digital improvements, which would pair with savings earned through broader commonality.

Lockheed's missile design accounts for cybersecurity needs from the beginning to protect against hacking, Karas said. Nuclear surety designs will prevent the missiles from erroneous launch, and cybersecurity pieces will defend against infiltration and compromise. Those systems will be stress-tested later in the process, Karas added.

Lockheed has also conducted studies of fixed and mobile ground control sites to determine the right mix that would allow the silo-based missiles to survive in case of a first attack and subsequent launch. The company is attempting to reduce the number of sites to lower operation and sustainment costs while keeping the same level of survivability, Karas said.

Lockheed will continue discussions with the Air Force before choosing their final configuration of fixed and mobile sites, the mix of which was not a requirement but is dictated in part by survivability objectives.

The company will also analyze which of its sites can best handle the production of 666 missiles over the next decade or so. Arms Control Today reported earlier this month that Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall approved an $85 billion cost baseline that would pay for 666 new missiles and rebuild existing missile infrastructure as part of the milestone A decision.

The new ICBMs are projected to start replacing the Minuteman III fleet in the late 2020s. The Air Force estimates the life-cycle cost of the GBSD at $159 billion through 2075.

Northrop Grumman and Boeing also issued statements on their ability to design the next ICBM.

"As the developer and systems integrator on every ICBM weapons system since 1954, Northrop Grumman is uniquely qualified to design and develop the next ICBM weapon system for the Air Force," the company said in an Oct. 13 email. "Northrop Grumman is leveraging its comprehensive ICBM weapon systems understanding to fully integrate flight systems, launch systems and command and control into a sustainable, capable and affordable ICBM weapon system."

Boeing contends that its experience creating the Minuteman ICBM in 1958 and related expertise "has influenced a GBSD concept that is readily capable and affordable . . . that will meet the Air Force mission requirements through 2075."
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #191 on: October 20, 2016, 05:15:11 am »
LM is also the only US company that has built large ballistic missiles in the last 25 years.  (Trident D-5 and Midgetman.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #192 on: October 20, 2016, 06:22:01 pm »
The knowledge base for American ICBM design and production is not solely within Lockheed.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #193 on: October 20, 2016, 07:47:08 pm »
The knowledge base for American ICBM design and production is not solely within Lockheed.

I didn't say it was.  I said they were the only company that has built ICBMs in the last 25 years.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #194 on: November 04, 2016, 06:51:11 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/labor-costs-data-questions-driving-icbm-replacement-cost-estimate

Quote
“So I would characterize all of the estimates in this area as lower fidelity than we would like. It’s unavoidable now because we just didn’t make those choices to collect that data ten or 20 years ago.”

Quote
Those in the nonproliferation community opposed to the ICBM replacement have pointed to the cost uncertainty as a sign that the GBSD program needs to be rethought. Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association calls the ICBM the “least valuable triad leg” and sees the price tag as a potential weakness for the program’s future.

Question why in a "news" article about building the GBSD would you even get a comment from the ACA? They have no insight into how to build or at what cost they are proponents of unilateral disarmament and this IS NOT an article about arms control.
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #196 on: November 12, 2016, 10:14:38 pm »
From Inside Defense

Boeing delays choosing partners in GBSD bid, explores broad commonality
November 11, 2016

A Boeing official said this week the company does not plan to choose subcontractors in its bid to create the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent until the Air Force firms up its requirements, trying to ensure they choose industry partners who are best-suited to work on the service's final proposal instead of preempting Air Force needs.

"We think it's wise to wait until the requirements are firm to give the government the maximum flexibility as they establish those requirements, and then we can proceed to the supply competition with certainty around the requirements to make sure we bring the right kind of value," GBSD Program Manager Frank McCall said in a Nov. 8 phone interview with Inside the Air Force.

Boeing's approach contrasts with that of Lockheed Martin, which announced its industry partners last month, and Northrop Grumman, which declined to disclose its team in an Oct. 19 interview with ITAF.

Lockheed will collaborate with General Dynamics, Draper Labs, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Orbital ATK, Moog Inc. and Bechtel Corp., its GBSD program manager John Karas said in an Oct. 13 call with reporters.

GBSD is the Air Force's replacement for the fleet of aging LGM-30G Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are planned to be retired by the late 2020s, as part of an overhaul of the entire nuclear arsenal. An Air Force report sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee in July estimates the life-cycle cost of the GBSD at $159 billion through 2075.

The three prime contractors, who have already submitted their proposals to vie for the technology maturation and risk-reduction contracts, will need to select subcontractors for their weapon system command and control, guidance navigation and control, cross-vector control and launch sites. Up to two TMRR contracts are expected to be awarded in late fiscal year 2017.

"We have a complete and comprehensive team of suppliers who will provide component solutions within our system architecture, and we have chosen not to commit any content to any subcontractor so that we maintain the broadest possible range of solutions for the Air Force as they finalize their requirements, and it enables us to bring competition or affordability once the requirements are locked down," McCall said.

Multiple Boeing suppliers can take on the Air Force's requirements, he continued, and said the company's approach will help the Air Force control the technical baseline going into design and development. Keeping options open will also provide more possibilities for commonality, McCall said.

"We believe actually that we should cast a broader net for commonality," he said. Air Force-Navy commonality poses an area of opportunity, "but there's a much broader set of systems and commonalities that can be utilized on GBSD for benefit to the Air Force. So we're casting a very broad net and bringing solutions that certainly encompass Navy commonality but bring other elements of commonality to the Air Force as well."

McCall declined to give examples of where commonality gains could be made, but pointed to Boeing's work in Ohio to refurbish all three legs of the nuclear triad.

"We view commonality as important, but I would say subordinate to the mission," he said. "Smart commonality is identifying those things that enable us to optimize the mission at low risk to the government."

While McCall declined to discuss specifics of Boeing's TMRR proposal, he noted that in addition to a study on the trade-offs of fixed and mobile ground stations, the company came up with a solution for GBSD ground units that enables government flexibility while "substantially" reducing operations and sustainment costs compared to the current Minuteman system at the same level of security.

Boeing is drawing upon its history as the prime contractor, chosen in 1958, for the original Minuteman missiles as proof it should win the next-generation nuclear contracts as well.
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #197 on: November 21, 2016, 06:26:01 am »
Boeing from their website

http://www.boeing.com/defense/weapons/minuteman-iii/index.page?cm_mmc=BDS2016-_-AdBanner-_-GBSD_WashExam-_-300+x+250

Yes I realize they are starting from a "look at our history" perspective but I really hope the thinking for the GBSD is not just Minuteman IV but more Peacekeeper II.
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #198 on: November 21, 2016, 07:19:53 am »
Boeing from their website

http://www.boeing.com/defense/weapons/minuteman-iii/index.page?cm_mmc=BDS2016-_-AdBanner-_-GBSD_WashExam-_-300+x+250

Yes I realize they are starting from a "look at our history" perspective but I really hope the thinking for the GBSD is not just Minuteman IV but more Peacekeeper II.

Minuteman IV might not be too bad:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-75.html

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

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #199 on: November 21, 2016, 11:42:05 am »
Boeing from their website

http://www.boeing.com/defense/weapons/minuteman-iii/index.page?cm_mmc=BDS2016-_-AdBanner-_-GBSD_WashExam-_-300+x+250

Yes I realize they are starting from a "look at our history" perspective but I really hope the thinking for the GBSD is not just Minuteman IV but more Peacekeeper II.

Given that the Navy and Air Force are looking at a common RV/RB it's not inconceivable that future Trident D5 RVs would be uploaded to GBSDs while the host sub is
undergoing refit.   

I also tend to think that Lockheed and its team have a huge advantage since they won most of the recent GBSD DemVal study contracts (penaids, re-entry technologies, guidance)
and have been running guidance experiments on Trident D5 LE DASO flights (e.g. multiple stellar sightings) on a modern guidance stack for years now.

Having said that, NG, Boeing and Honeywell have been working on other strategic guidance technologies that were not mature enough for Trident D5 LE but
have been matured and are maturing possibly sufficiently for their inclusion on GBSD.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #200 on: November 21, 2016, 12:33:16 pm »
Boeing from their website

http://www.boeing.com/defense/weapons/minuteman-iii/index.page?cm_mmc=BDS2016-_-AdBanner-_-GBSD_WashExam-_-300+x+250

Yes I realize they are starting from a "look at our history" perspective but I really hope the thinking for the GBSD is not just Minuteman IV but more Peacekeeper II.

Minuteman IV might not be too bad:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-75.html

 ;)

As long as it's not anything like that 'Minuteman IV' fiasco from the early Obama administration. [shudders]
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #201 on: November 21, 2016, 01:02:22 pm »
Wasn't aware he actually tried to do anything  Must have been impressive indeed.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #202 on: November 21, 2016, 05:39:38 pm »
Wasn't aware he actually tried to do anything  Must have been impressive indeed.

Add some bipartisan incompetence the "Land Based Strategic Deterrent" was supposed to deploy in 2018. Republicans and Democrats killed it in committee IIRC.
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 Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #203 on: November 22, 2016, 02:24:39 am »
Wasn't aware he actually tried to do anything  Must have been impressive indeed.

In the worst possible sense of the word, yes. 'Minuteman IV' in this context was the nickname for the late 2000s/early 2010s project to replace the first stages of all the remaining missiles in the Minuteman III fleet with a new first stage using 'environmentally friendly propellants'. I seem to recall that they believed they could dispense with such 'old fashioned' concepts as ground testing by relying totally on computer simulation (uncomfortable shades of some of the current GBSD proposals), simplifying development while lowering costs (or at least so they thought). Needless to say it all ended in tears.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 02:38:48 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #204 on: November 22, 2016, 05:18:35 am »
Wasn't aware he actually tried to do anything  Must have been impressive indeed.

In the worst possible sense of the word, yes. 'Minuteman IV' in this context was the nickname for the late 2000s/early 2010s project to replace the first stages of all the remaining missiles in the Minuteman III fleet with a new first stage using 'environmentally friendly propellants'.

I thought they actually DID that, and lost a lot of range as a result. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #205 on: November 22, 2016, 08:49:00 am »
The most recent round of MMIII life extension work was awarded in the late 90s and early 2000s, the preliminary development work was done in the mid 90s.  The range and accuracy problems came not from the desire for "green" propellants, but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business). The stages grew heavier than anticipated and hurt performance. Rest assured, TP-H1011 Type II is still incredibly toxic when burned.

I know of no Obama Administration-specific "Environmentally Friendly Minuteman IV" proposal. There have been MMIV concepts bandied about since MMIII went into production, with various configurations mooted, but nothing which specifically matches that statement. Until the 2010 NPR, there was little about the ICBM force in general from the OA, in fact some expected the NPR to announce a plan to sunset the ICBM force. Then the Review came out and it was fairly conservative: keep the MMIII Life Extension work going and start studies for a new missile. Since then, the march toward GBSD had been fairly mundane.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #206 on: November 22, 2016, 09:57:53 am »
but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).

Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #207 on: November 22, 2016, 11:06:11 am »
but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).

Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
To my knowledge, the bulk of the range shortfall comes from the Propulsion Replacement Program changing the solid stages' insulation material in favor of one less toxic to the people who have to work with it. The replacement was a bit thicker and massed a bit more, so performance took a hit. Accuracy was mostly on the Guidance Replacement Program, which was its own nightmare. I believe much of the shortfall in both has all, or mostly, been smoothed out by software and PSRE upgrade work.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #208 on: November 22, 2016, 11:53:10 am »
but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).

Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
To my knowledge, the bulk of the range shortfall comes from the Propulsion Replacement Program changing the solid stages' insulation material in favor of one less toxic to the people who have to work with it. The replacement was a bit thicker and massed a bit more, so performance took a hit. Accuracy was mostly on the Guidance Replacement Program, which was its own nightmare. I believe much of the shortfall in both has all, or mostly, been smoothed out by software and PSRE upgrade work.

Specifically, they were forced, due to EPA regulations, to switch the first stage SRM TPS from the low-density AVCOAT to the higher density Vamac.
NASA was confronted with the same dilemna but had the time and money to reformulate AVCOAT in an EPA compliant manner.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #209 on: November 22, 2016, 05:32:21 pm »
but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).

Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
To my knowledge, the bulk of the range shortfall comes from the Propulsion Replacement Program changing the solid stages' insulation material in favor of one less toxic to the people who have to work with it. The replacement was a bit thicker and massed a bit more, so performance took a hit. Accuracy was mostly on the Guidance Replacement Program, which was its own nightmare. I believe much of the shortfall in both has all, or mostly, been smoothed out by software and PSRE upgrade work.

but from the requirement to manufacture the propellant and refurbish the stages in compliance with modern workplace and environmental regulations about handling toxic materials (as well as a supply base issue caused when important fuel subcontractor Phillips Petroleum literally burned out of the business).

Any idea what, specifically, was the cause of the reduced range and accuracy?
To my knowledge, the bulk of the range shortfall comes from the Propulsion Replacement Program changing the solid stages' insulation material in favor of one less toxic to the people who have to work with it. The replacement was a bit thicker and massed a bit more, so performance took a hit. Accuracy was mostly on the Guidance Replacement Program, which was its own nightmare. I believe much of the shortfall in both has all, or mostly, been smoothed out by software and PSRE upgrade work.

Specifically, they were forced, due to EPA regulations, to switch the first stage SRM TPS from the low-density AVCOAT to the higher density Vamac.
NASA was confronted with the same dilemna but had the time and money to reformulate AVCOAT in an EPA compliant manner.


Now I'm just depressed  :'(
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #210 on: January 08, 2017, 02:13:31 pm »
GBSD article in Air Force Monthly, a few months old but did not see it here.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2016/July%202016/0716gb.pdf
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #211 on: January 22, 2017, 06:48:24 am »
From Inside the Air Force

Air Force-Navy study finds total nuclear commonality unrealistic

January 20, 2017

A joint assessment by the Air Force and Navy found pursuing full commonality for the future Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent and the Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile is "not feasible or practical," the Pentagon told lawmakers in a report delivered last month.

In analyzing potential overlap between the full systems, subsystems and components, the services determined that using the Navy's Trident II life-extension program, which redesigns and replaces missile electronics and handles additional procurement and testing, to replace the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile fleet would not work due to "unique operating environments, nuclear surety features and mission requirements."

"Leveraging the following components, technologies and processes showed potential benefit: flight systems and testing, ground/shipboard systems, acquisition and sustainment activities, weapon system architecture, requirements and concept of operations," the November 2016 report stated.

The assessment, intended to explore the possibility of cutting costs for the two replacement systems, wrapped up last March. During that process, the services looked at Trident II subsystems and components that could be procured off-the-shelf or slightly modified to work with GBSD; Trident II components that could be resized or redesigned for GBSD; and GBSD technologies that could be newly developed and applied to the SLBM.

Its results were included in the GBSD acquisition strategy approved in July 2016 and the subsequent request for proposals for the technology maturation and risk reduction phase. The Air Force plans to award up to two TMRR contracts in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017.

"Potential future cost savings to the Navy (or other mission areas) are not addressed in the GBSD TMRR contract award criteria," the report stated.

As part of the RFP, the GBSD program categorized Trident II components and subsystems as either "prescribed" or "candidate" technologies. "Prescribed" areas offer "such clear benefit that the GBSD program will require their compliance in the RFP and incorporate them into the resultant contract," according to the report.

Those include model-based systems engineering, so the Air Force can own the technical baseline; modularity; using a common electronic parts program that relies on Navy investments in radiation-hardened parts; and a "test missile kit" that "enables ease of both services conducting flight tests on common ranges through joint development, range safety certification and telemetry acquisition."

"Candidate" technologies are thought to be beneficial to commonality, but the bidding companies have more flexibility to work out the details, according to the report.

"The prescribed and candidate items provide more benefit overall than any risks they introduced," the report stated. "The Air Force plans to continue to work with the Navy on risk assessments when specific contractor designs for GBSD are received during the TMRR phase."

Though the Air Force has asked companies to keep cost savings in mind when designing the new land-based missile, specific aspects of commonality and the money saved won't become clear until TMRR contracts are awarded.

The price tag of nuclear modernization is disputed because projections rely on assumptions made about a program that has not been revamped in several decades. The Pentagon's cost assessment and program evaluation office estimates replacing Boeing's Minuteman III will cost at least $85 billion, including $22.6 billion for research and development, $61.5 billion for procurement and $718 million for military construction. That projection is expected to be revised by March 2018.

GBSD is expected to be fielded starting in 2028, with the SLBM to follow about a decade later.
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #213 on: January 26, 2017, 09:17:36 pm »


Mitchell Institute presentation on the report linked to last comment
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #214 on: January 28, 2017, 07:48:49 am »
Inside the Air Force - January 27, 2017

STRATCOM adviser says current GBSD plan is best path to deterrence
January 26, 2017

A retired Air Force major general who commanded the 20th Air
Force and now advises U.S. Strategic Command said this week a hypersonic
nuclear missile capability could be considered at a later point, but would not
necessarily improve the deterrent offered now by America's intercontinental
ballistic missiles.

Roger Burg's comments came at a Jan. 25 Mitchell Institute
for Aerospace Studies event where he debuted a report on the need for
intercontinental ballistic missiles as the core of America's nuclear deterrent.
Much of Burg's analysis centered on defending against Russia and China's
evolving nuclear arsenal, including weapons intended to defeat anti-ballistic
missile systems, and the nuclear futures of other regional players like Iran
and North Korea.

Burg's report touts the ICBM force's capabilities that cannot
be duplicated by air- or submarine-launched nuclear missiles, citing global
instability that requires the most flexible, capable nuclear deterrent
possible.

"The extensive nuclear modernization programs of potential
adversary nations require U.S. recapitalization to avoid a serious erosion of
American nuclear deterrent capability," the report stated. "Failing to invest
in the recapitalization of the nuclear deterrent, especially in the ICBM force,
will merely clear a path to obsolescence and eventual dissolution."

Although the U.S. needs to continue with its modernization
effort for the Minuteman III fleet, now more than four decades old on average,
Burg said the country should not necessarily pursue the same updates as its
competitors.

"High-speed maneuvering weapons pose a very significant
change in how we've addressed strategic capabilities over the last 30 or 40
years," he said. "They fit inside a gap organizationally, technologically, that
we have not yet addressed. They have potentially intercontinental range, they
fly at hypersonic speeds, they maneuver and they have been tested by Russian
scientists and Chinese scientists and they've had some very good success."

The Air Force needs to retain the capacity to build those
capabilities, Burg added, but he doesn't "see a need for it in the initial
deployment of a ground-based strategic deterrent."

"I think our force of 400 Minuteman III is a competent,
capable, reliable, credible part of our deterrent," Burg said. "I don't think
we need more, I don't think we need more re-entry vehicles. That might be a
method of responding to some challenge in the future, but it's not necessary
today. I wouldn't go very far below 400 to assert that it's still credible as a
land-based strategic deterrent."

Burg noted the Air Force's unwillingness to pursue a
road-mobile missile despite the service's repeated recognition that it could be
beneficial. Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence
and nuclear integration, told reporters last summer the service was not looking
at a mobile ICBM.

"We've evaluated ICBM mobility at least four times in the
last 40 years, and we've chosen every time to look seriously at mobility, but
we've never deployed a launch system capable of it," Burg said. "We looked hard
at whether GBSD should have a mobile basing mode, and every time we run into
very significant public interface and environmental questions that we answer by
saying, 'Those silos we built in the 1960s look pretty good.'"

Silo-based missiles, not mobile, were required in the GBSD
program's latest request for proposals. In bidding on that contract, however,
companies could study fixed and mobile ground control sites to determine the
right mix for survival in case of a first attack and subsequent launch, John Karas, Lockheed Martin vice president and GBSD program
manager, said in an October 2016 phone call with reporters.

The study called the current plan to field the Ground Based
Strategic Deterrent in the 2030s the cheapest and most effective route. Burg
also ruled out incremental modernization as a way to cut costs because
technology added earlier on could become obsolete by the time modernization is
fully complete and would be difficult to plan.

While Burg noted the cost-saving benefits of installing
common parts in the ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic missile systems, he
cautioned that doing so could delay the Air Force's program schedule.

"The Navy needs to release the technical designs of its
proposed common elements," the report stated. "However, it may well be that a
subsequent technical review, concomitant reevaluation of requirements, and
refining of the acquisition strategy would force the Air Force to slip the
acquisition timetable further. . . . Officials must balance commonality's
hoped-for cost savings with the possible acquisition and operational risks that
commonality may introduce to the GBSD effort."

A recent joint Air Force-Navy analysis found that total
commonality between the two missiles would be infeasible. However, companies
bidding on the GBSD program are told to include: model-based systems
engineering, so the Air Force can own the technical baseline; modularity; a
common electronic parts program that relies on Navy investments in
radiation-hardened parts; and a "test missile kit" that "enables ease of both
services conducting flight tests on common ranges through joint development,
range safety certification and telemetry acquisition."

Commonality has sparked concerns that if an adversary is able
to control or shut down any parts shared by the newly cyber-enabled ICBM and
SLBM, the air-launched cruise missile would be the only leg of the triad left
standing. Questions have also been raised about the cost overruns and schedule
delays that frequently surface in other joint programs. -- Rachel S. Karas
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #215 on: March 19, 2017, 07:56:44 pm »
GBSD Price: Once We Know, We’ll Know

—John A. Tirpak

3/20/2017

​The Air Force and the rest of the Defense Department have not yet resolved their differences on what the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program should cost, Air Force uniformed acquisition chief Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch said at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast on March 16. “We did have the pretty significant difference in cost estimates that came out of the CAPE (the Pentagon’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation shop)” and the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency, Bunch said, referring to a $22 billion discrepancy ​at the time of the GBSD’s last milestone. “What we said then was we’ll fund it to a level, we’ll update those cost estimates as we get those proposals in and we learn more of what the state of the art is, and the art of the possible,” Bunch explained. He noted that GBSD is “now in source selection” and “we haven’t updated anything, and we won’t until we get through the source selection and decide where we’re going to go.” Summing up, Bunch said, the choice “will be informed but it hasn’t happened yet.”
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 #216 on: March 19, 2017, 08:58:39 pm »
Lt. Gen. Bunch mentioned that the contract award is expected in September for both GBSD and LRSO.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #217 on: March 24, 2017, 10:37:44 pm »
Lockheed GBSD chief expects August award, awaits nuclear review results
March 24, 2017

The head of Lockheed Martin's Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent effort said this week the Air Force plans to have as many as two companies on contract in September, and he sees no indication the service will delay that goal, despite asking for more details on bidders' proposals, an upcoming nuclear posture review and scrutiny by the executive and legislative branches.

John Karas, Lockheed's GBSD vice president and program manager, told Inside the Air Force in a March 21 interview the Air Force asked Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and Boeing in February to clarify the details of their teams' cost and design proposals. Lockheed updated its proposal and provided those answers March 6, Karas said.

The service initially intended to award up to two technology maturation and risk-reduction contracts without discussion after the bids were submitted last October, Karas said. He added the Air Force may ask more questions and has reserved the right to issue a final price offering.

Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Stephen Wilson and Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the service's top uniformed acquisition officer, told ITAF March 22 they see the follow-up questions as part of an ongoing dialogue with industry.

"That would have been done through the source-selection team and they would have done . . . evaluation notices," Bunch told ITAF at a McAleese and Associates conference. "That's frequent and common in source selections and it's not anything unusual."

The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center did not comment by press time (March 23).

Karas said if the Air Force makes good on its promise to be on contract by September, an award would need to come in August.

"There's a pretty good resolve across the board that that's not going to slip," Karas said of talking to government stakeholders about the [technology maturation and risk-reduction] contract award date, noting that plenty of outside factors could still change by September. He continued: "In near-term, I don't see any reason why we would slow down. If the government does, we'll go figure out how will we smooth out the budget they're going to give us, and/or the investment we have."

GBSD will replace the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile as the land-based leg of the nuclear triad starting in 2028. The Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office pegs GBSD costs at $85 billion for 642 missiles, though estimates vary due to outdated information and different baselines. One company will win an engineering and manufacturing development contract in 2020, with initial operating capability slated for around the middle of the decade.

As Air Force officials preach the need to concurrently, immediately replace the air-, land- and sea-based legs of the nuclear triad, and President Trump indicates he wants to improve the arsenal -- without offering more details -- Karas said he is "guardedly optimistic" the administration and Congress are leaning toward modernization across the board.

"I'm a firm believer that the Air Force should continue all those programs in this next phase because you have focused attention by the government and focused attention and the resources by the contractors," he said. "It's good for industry and good for the government if they just award those contracts. After that, who knows, but now you can have consistency of purpose, you have consistent design and data, but if you let that delay, I don't think that serves anybody."

In January, Trump ordered the Pentagon to produce a nuclear posture review by January 2018 to ensure the triad is "modern, robust, flexible, resilient, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure our allies and partners," according to his executive order. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told reporters last month he expects the Pentagon to begin the review this spring.

TMRR is the easiest phase in which to make changes because the first year of the program focuses on the trade space rather than production, Karas said. If the nuclear posture review gets completed within a year as instructed and recommends changing the Air Force's objectives, he believes that would be the perfect time to tweak GBSD proposals.

Todd Harrison, a budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ITAF in a recent interview the NPR probably won't affect GBSD's time line. He doubts the review could realistically speed up the program, but that it wouldn't be too late to change direction.

"It would slow the program down if they changed direction, so probably extend the time line, but it's possible," he said. "Between now and January, I don't think the NPR is going to have any effect. It's only after it comes out that it may have an effect on some of these programs. I don't think they're going to put the brakes on a program now to wait and see what the NPR says."

Karas said trades for options like fewer missiles, launch sites and silos and mobile missiles were considered early in the process, so each company should have enough data to revisit those ideas, should the NPR suggest them.

Lockheed chose a three-stage solid rocket and four-stage post-boost design that mirrors the existing Minuteman III fleet, Karas told reporters in an October 2016 conference call. He added during the March 21 interview that the GBSD design draws on the company's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and Atlas-Centaur expendable launch system as well as on the Navy's ballistic missiles.

Lockheed's approach was constrained by program requirements dictating the missiles fit in Minuteman III silo holes and work with the current suspension system, among other stringent rules. Solid rocket motor technology hasn't improved enough to spur a significant performance boost, Karas said, and changing the propellant would raise life-cycle costs.

"You end up with something that's not a large trade space because of the requirements we were given," he said. "The trades we could make that we were allowed to make, you'd go, 'That's a simple trade, I don't want to be changing a lot of that.'"

If no requirements change as a result of the NPR, Karas said the greatest variable will be the budget and considering what aspects can be completed early, what can be deferred and what deals can be made to stabilize prices.
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #218 on: April 04, 2017, 06:15:42 pm »
Lockheed to Use Virtual Prototyping to Develop GBSD

​—Wilson Brissett

Lockheed Martin is hoping to demonstrate the full capabilities of its virtual prototyping lab if it wins a contract to develop the next Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.

Lockheed also thinks its digital tapestry approach can help accurately pinpoint the total cost of the system, estimates of which have varied widely within the Department of Defense. “The more you can mature a cost model the better,” John Karas, vice president and GBSD program manager told reporters at the Lockheed Martin facility Monday in Littleton, Colo.

Lockheed built its Collaborative Human Immersive Lab in 2010, and the company has already used it to refine the design and engineering of systems like the GPS III satellites and the Orion spacecraft, CHIL manager Darin Bolthouse told reporters. The lab consists of a full motion capture studio to create realistic digital environments that mirror the technical details of systems still in development, and a Cave System that uses 3-D glasses and holograms to place engineers within an immersive virtual experience of that digitally designed system.

CHIL creates a “virtual build environment,” Bolthouse said, that allows engineers to rehearse production, maintenance, and sustainment tasks on products that have not yet been built in the real world. Program engineers can then learn from the virtual experience and alter the program’s design before real world prototyping, reducing the time and cost of refining a program design.

In connection with remote locations outfitted with a smaller “package system,” CHIL can also create “shared virtual reality environments across the country,” Bolthouse said. Such remote VR systems could fit inside a “conference room or any 15 by 15 space,” Bolthouse said.

This VR network is where Lockheed imagines CHIL bringing unique advantages for GBSD development, said Karas. He said CHIL could help the GBSD be “operated and developed first in a very affordable environment.” CHIL’s network of VR environments and digital redesigns could be tailor-made for modernizing the infrastructure of far-flung missile silos and their sustainment apparatus, “site to site virtually and in real time,” Karas told reporters.

CHIL would allow Lockheed to “map the inside” of existing underground missile silos and ground control systems, using data from nuclear bases around the country, and manipulate those environments digitally to maximize the spaces for the new system design. Throughout the process, CHIL could incorporate networked input from “airmen in the field that have to maintain the system,” Karas said.

If awarded the GBSD contract, Karas said Lockheed would use CHIL to “lay out the whole manufacturing flow” of the program as they have already with other, fully-developed systems. He also said that Lockheed would like to make use of 3-D printing of some GBSD components. While 3-D printing was not included in the proposal Lockheed submitted to the Air Force in October 2016, Karas said the three years of technology maturation would be more than enough to fully incorporate 3-D printing into the GBSD design.

Boeing and Northrop Grumman also submitted proposals in October 2016 in response to the Air Force RFP to develop the next GBSD system. USAF expects to award as many as two contracts before the end of Fiscal 2017.
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #220 on: May 25, 2017, 07:32:39 pm »
Attachment borrowed from marauder2048 h/t

Large Class booster for strategic missile is, if I recall, 92" diameter or Peacekeeper sized. Let's hope it's for the GBSD. .

 
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 03:34:02 pm by bobbymike »
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 #223 on: July 21, 2017, 12:39:59 pm »
Lt. Gen. Bunch mentioned that the contract award is expected in September for both GBSD and LRSO.

According to Lockheed Martin's CEO, as of July 16th 2017, September is still the timeframe for GBSD and LRSO.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #224 on: July 21, 2017, 02:56:29 pm »
Lt. Gen. Bunch mentioned that the contract award is expected in September for both GBSD and LRSO.

According to Lockheed Martin's CEO, as of July 16th 2017, September is still the timeframe for GBSD and LRSO.
Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #225 on: July 21, 2017, 03:52:09 pm »

Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?

I really hope I'm wrong but I'm expecting "new" refurbished MMIIIs with "new" "4th generation" Tomahawks.  The same that lost to the AGM-86 30+ years ago.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #226 on: July 21, 2017, 04:54:26 pm »

Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?

I'm also hoping that there will be a new road mobile ICBM like the MGM-134.


I really hope I'm wrong but I'm expecting "new" refurbished MMIIIs with "new" "4th generation" Tomahawks.  The same that lost to the AGM-86 30+ years ago.

I guess that also depends on if the LRSO is manufactured by Raytheon.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #227 on: July 21, 2017, 11:05:29 pm »

Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?

I really hope I'm wrong but I'm expecting "new" refurbished MMIIIs with "new" "4th generation" Tomahawks.  The same that lost to the AGM-86 30+ years ago.
Refurbishing MM indefinitely was discarded as an option in 2015. Unless someone making decisions today stops the current work and brings the idea back, it's dead. And Tomahawk is not going to be the LRSO in any form, I don't think anyone would even pitch it.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #228 on: July 22, 2017, 09:49:36 am »

Really hoping for a Peacekeeper sized ICBM expecting to be disappointed. Maybe LRSO will be hypersonic?

I'm also hoping that there will be a new road mobile ICBM like the MGM-134.

Of course my real dream (Bond villain style) would be to bring back the concept of the WS-120a in deeply buried hard rock basing.  :o
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 #229 on: July 22, 2017, 03:42:00 pm »
Pretty fascinating account of nuclear hardening and survivability testing
from one of the technical leads at the Defense Nuclear Agency

https://www.dsiac.org/resources/journals/dsiac/winter-2017-volume-4-number-1/mxpeacekeeper-and-sicbm-search-survivable

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 #231 on: August 21, 2017, 02:14:02 pm »
Lockheed out?

Aug. 21, 2017


The Boeing Co., Huntsville, Alabama, has been awarded a $349,159,962 contract for Ground-based Strategic Deterrent. This contract is to conduct technology maturation and risk reduction to deliver a low technical risk, affordable total system replacement of Minuteman III to meet intercontinental ballistic missiles operational requirements. Work will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama, and other various locations as needed and is expected to be completed by Aug. 20, 2020. This award is the result of competitive acquisition and three offers were received. Fiscal 2017 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $5,700,000 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA819-17-C-0001).

 

Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Redondo Beach, California, has been awarded a $328,584,830 contract for Ground-based Strategic Deterrent. This contract is to conduct technology maturation and risk reduction to deliver a low technical risk, affordable total system replacement of Minuteman III to meet intercontinental ballistic missiles operational requirements. Work will be performed in Redondo Beach, California, and other various locations as needed and is expected to be completed by Aug. 20, 2020. This award is the result of competitive acquisition and three offers were received. Fiscal 2017 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $5,700,000 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA819-17-C-0002).

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #232 on: August 21, 2017, 03:06:58 pm »
Air Force awards two contracts for a new intercontinental ballistic missile weapon system

Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center Public Affairs / Published August 21, 2017

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. -- The Air Force announced Aug. 21 the award of two Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction
contracts for its Ground Based Strategic Deterrent intercontinental ballistic missile weapon system program. Contracts were awarded to
Boeing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Redondo Beach, California.

The GBSD is the weapon system replacement for the aging LGM-30 Minuteman III ICBM.

“We are moving forward with modernization of the ground-based leg of the nuclear triad,” said Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson.
“Our missiles were built in the 1970s. Things just wear out, and it becomes more expensive to maintain them than to replace them.
We need to cost-effectively modernize.”

The Minuteman III first became operational in the early 1970s. While certain components and subsystems have been upgraded over the
years, most of the fundamental infrastructure in use today is the original equipment supporting more than 50 years of continuous operation.

"Airmen must always be ready in this no-fail mission," said Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David Goldfein. "As others have stated, the
only thing more expensive than deterrence is fighting a war. The Minuteman III is 45 years old. It is time to upgrade."

The aging Minuteman III system will continue to face increasingly significant operational and sustainment challenges until replaced.

“The Minuteman III is the enduring ground-based leg of our nuclear triad. However, it is an aging platform and requires major
investments to maintain its reliability and effectiveness,” said Gen. Robin Rand, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command.
“GBSD is the most cost-effective ICBM replacement strategy, leveraging existing infrastructure while also implementing mature,
modern technologies and more efficient operations, maintenance and security concepts.”

For the GBSD acquisition effort, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center is focused on developing and delivering an integrated GBSD
weapon system, including launch and command-and-control segments. The weapon’s developers will pursue a modular systems architecture,
 which will encourage continued competition across the lifecycle of the program. Additionally, a modular system will make the GBSD weapon
 system responsive to the challenges posed by the pace of technological change and new threat environments.

“The new GBSD weapon system will meet the combatant commander’s current requirements, while having the adaptability to affordably
address changing technology and emerging threats through 2075,” said Maj. Gen. Scott Jansson, AFNWC commander and the Air Force
program executive officer for strategic systems.

Two contracts, valued at no more than $359 million each, were awarded after a full and open competition. The companies selected were
determined to provide the best overall value to the warfighter and taxpayers based on the source selection’s evaluation factors.
The period of performance for each TMRR contract is approximately 36 months.

“I am proud of the hard work, professionalism and dedication of the GBSD program office members. We would not have gotten here without them,”
said Col. Heath Collins, GBSD program manager for AFNWC. “Over the last year, we have executed a thorough and fair source selection while
 also putting in place the tools, infrastructure and analytic capability to execute the GBSD program. We are ready, excited and honored to begin
working with our industry partners to develop and deliver an affordable, low-risk ICBM replacement, guaranteeing uninterrupted nuclear deterrence
capabilities for the nation.”

The GBSD program office is part of AFNWC’s ICBM Systems Directorate at Hill AFB, Utah. The center is responsible for synchronizing
 all aspects of nuclear materiel management on behalf of Air Force Materiel Command in direct support of AFGSC.

Headquartered at Kirtland AFB, the center has about 1,100 personnel assigned to 17 locations worldwide, including at Hanscom AFB,
Massachusetts; Hill AFB, Utah; Eglin AFB, Florida; Tinker AFB, Oklahoma; and at Ramstein Air Base, Germany.

http://www.robins.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1284835/air-force-awards-two-contracts-for-a-new-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-wea/

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #234 on: August 23, 2017, 05:44:58 pm »
Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #235 on: August 23, 2017, 06:37:48 pm »
Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
The amounts reflect what the companies bid for this phase of the program.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #236 on: August 24, 2017, 09:07:43 am »
Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
The amounts reflect what the companies bid for this phase of the program.

What I find amusing in the line about it being effective until 2075. Good grief, how do you design a missile that drops MIRVs and decoys to be effective so far out into the future. By then there are going to be hundreds of GBLs in enemy/aggressor hands to shoot down everything detectable.

Or maybe they are going to design a LO re-entry vehicle along with multiple decoys deployed on each missile? Or pre-emptively strike early warning systems?

Maybe logically it is time go to a nuclear DIAD? Stealthy ALCMs on stealth bombers and undersea deployed nukes that don't give as much warning time. Or maybe we go a hybrid DIAD / TRIAD where we deploy a few dozen land based missiles to keep countries like NK and IRAN in check.... "Hey NK, all we have to do is push a button a 15 minutes later your country is gone."

I just don't know how you design a missile today that will be survivable in 2075.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 09:10:52 am by Airplane »
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #237 on: August 24, 2017, 09:31:46 am »
Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
The amounts reflect what the companies bid for this phase of the program.

What I find amusing in the line about it being effective until 2075. Good grief, how do you design a missile that drops MIRVs and decoys to be effective so far out into the future. By then there are going to be hundreds of GBLs in enemy/aggressor hands to shoot down everything detectable.

Or maybe they are going to design a LO re-entry vehicle along with multiple decoys deployed on each missile? Or pre-emptively strike early warning systems?

Maybe logically it is time go to a nuclear DIAD? Stealthy ALCMs on stealth bombers and undersea deployed nukes that don't give as much warning time. Or maybe we go a hybrid DIAD / TRIAD where we deploy a few dozen land based missiles to keep countries like NK and IRAN in check.... "Hey NK, all we have to do is push a button a 15 minutes later your country is gone."

I just don't know how you design a missile today that will be survivable in 2075.

Supercavitating Project Pluto that "flies" underwater, pops out of the water just offshore, and runs into the target at Mach 4 on the deck.  Heard of another concept where the ICBM deploys a boost gliding upper stage that flies the final phase at Mach 10 on the deck.  What I wonder is if the ionization layer around it at those altitudes/speeds would be enough to keep a laser beam from reaching the missile itself.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #238 on: August 24, 2017, 11:56:38 am »
Why were the actual contract amounts different for the 2 companies?
The amounts reflect what the companies bid for this phase of the program.

What I find amusing in the line about it being effective until 2075. Good grief, how do you design a missile that drops MIRVs and decoys to be effective so far out into the future. By then there are going to be hundreds of GBLs in enemy/aggressor hands to shoot down everything detectable.

Or maybe they are going to design a LO re-entry vehicle along with multiple decoys deployed on each missile? Or pre-emptively strike early warning systems?

Maybe logically it is time go to a nuclear DIAD? Stealthy ALCMs on stealth bombers and undersea deployed nukes that don't give as much warning time. Or maybe we go a hybrid DIAD / TRIAD where we deploy a few dozen land based missiles to keep countries like NK and IRAN in check.... "Hey NK, all we have to do is push a button a 15 minutes later your country is gone."

I just don't know how you design a missile today that will be survivable in 2075.

It's not particularly difficult to harden RVs against GBLs and even a basic course correcting MaRV would detect uneven ablation
and compensate for it; a combined course-correcting/evading MaRV could probably induce precession or spin. And there's aerosol
release or other expendable CMs.

I would think the bigger threat would be EMRGs

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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"

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #243 on: September 29, 2017, 06:42:12 am »
On GBSD, No Miracles Required

In developing the requirements for its Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, the Air Force has surveyed existing technologies and likes what it sees. The Air Force is not looking for “technology miracles” for the Minuteman III replacement, program manager Col. Heath Collins said at a Task Force 21-Minot event in Washington, D.C., Thursday. He said his team looked long and hard at “the state of industry today,” and it has identified a lot of technology that already “meets our requirements.” Moving the GBSD program forward, he said, will be a matter of “integrating existing technologies” rather than achieving new technical breakthroughs. The program is taking this approach to stay ahead of the timeline and keep costs down, a strategy developed after studying the “acquisition woes” of recent Air Force development programs, Collins added. His program office is also looking into cost savings from commonality with similar programs. The GBSD shop has investigated links with the Navy’s Trident missile, and has also looked for parallels “from the space community” and the Missile Defense Agency. “We will beg, steal, and borrow anything we can,” Collins admitted, in order to complete the mission with reliability, speed, and affordability. —Wilson Brissett
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 NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #244 on: September 29, 2017, 11:32:34 am »
On GBSD, No Miracles Required
....


Looks like they're learning from B-21 program. 

1.  Make it open source so it's easy to upgrade.
2.  Using existing tech.
3.  Eliminate risk where possible.  e.g existing silos and awards to both NG and Boeing
4.  Don't change the specs.

Now if they can get this new rig to fit in the 87" Virginia Payload Tubes then that would be something.  Sixty+ additional "mobile" launchers.   ;)




Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #245 on: September 29, 2017, 11:36:44 am »
On GBSD, No Miracles Required
....


Looks like they're learning from B-21 program. 

1.  Make it open source so it's easy to upgrade.
2.  Using existing tech.
3.  Eliminate risk where possible.  e.g existing silos and awards to both NG and Boeing
4.  Don't change the specs.

Now if they can get this new rig to fit in the 87" Virginia Payload Tubes then that would be something.  Sixty+ additional "mobile" launchers.   ;)

It'd be easier to drop a D-5 in there.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #246 on: September 29, 2017, 04:29:25 pm »
On GBSD, No Miracles Required
....


Looks like they're learning from B-21 program. 

1.  Make it open source so it's easy to upgrade.
2.  Using existing tech.
3.  Eliminate risk where possible.  e.g existing silos and awards to both NG and Boeing
4.  Don't change the specs.

Now if they can get this new rig to fit in the 87" Virginia Payload Tubes then that would be something.  Sixty+ additional "mobile" launchers.   ;)

It'd be easier to drop a D-5 in there.


Whatever works.



Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #247 on: September 29, 2017, 11:42:06 pm »
Now if they can get this new rig to fit in the 87" Virginia Payload Tubes then that would be something.  Sixty+ additional "mobile" launchers.   ;)

New START restricts SLBMs to boomers only.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #248 on: September 30, 2017, 11:48:25 am »
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #249 on: September 30, 2017, 02:14:52 pm »
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.

Not D5 but there has been some argument for something like C4:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/build-strategic-fast-attack-submarines

IMHO, exploiting the gaping New START loophole on SLCMs is a better use of the Virginia class.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #250 on: September 30, 2017, 11:06:30 pm »
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.

Not D5 but there has been some argument for something like C4:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/build-strategic-fast-attack-submarines

IMHO, exploiting the gaping New START loophole on SLCMs is a better use of the Virginia class.

I'll reiterate, whatever works for GBSD

But to tie a bow on this SLBM discussion.  I think a new SLBM and skipping CCS there could be US$100 Billion in additional funds for GBSD program. 

Requirements include...

Need new GBSD
Planning on new Columbia-Class submarine - CCS
Need Virginia Class Replacement - VC(R)
Need new SLBM
Building 12 boats of a class is incredibly expensive
If a larger boat is required, making it the VC(R) and spreading cost, labor build efficiencies and total build time reductions (time in yard) will reduce costs significantly.  Think F-35 (3k planes) vs B-2 costs (20 planes).

An exercise in identifying potential advantages:

1.  Skip CCS and move design to Virginia Class Replacement - VC(R).  CCS design work can be redirected  with eye making it the VC(R).  Perhaps VC(R) will need a larger diameter boat in future.  Perhaps it won't be 43' but maybe it will.  Modifying design work is cheaper than new boats.  With additional time, new tech for use in VPT's can be developed and tested.  Other uses for VPT's will be found.  New electric motor and stern can be better developed and tested, reducing risk.  Expect VC(R) design completed and ready for 1st boat build start in 2025 w/expected 7yr build.

2.  It would be much easier to increase VCS production without CCS.  Two VCS funded 2018, two VCS in 2019 with the 2nd accommodating the VPM.  Modify shipbuilding plan by adding three VCS w/VPM in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. 

Then 10 boats in the next 5 year MYB, 2024-2028 w/1 boat in 2025 and 1 boat in 2027 being VCS Replacement.  New, larger boats may take up to 2x labor to build at first. Blk V production reduced to add labor for VC(R).  Some labor moved to overhaul jobs for VCS.

MYB
Yr       Blk V   VPM   VC(R)
2019    1         1
2020               3
2021               3
2022               3
2023               3
   
2024               3
2025               2       1
2026               1
2027               1       1
2028               1

2029                        2
2030                        2
2031                        2
2032                        2
2033                        2

3.  2018 start new SLBM with deployment planned by 2026 when first Ohio is retired.  By then you've got 7 VCS w/VPM commissioned and three new boats delivered for each of the next three years.  Much quicker to produce new SLBM's than boats.

That's the equivalent # of warheads for ~2.5 CCS's by 2026 and 7.5 CCS's by 2031 using VPM Block V boats.  All while saving ~US100Billion. 

What's the risk?  US can't build a new SLBM by 2026.  OK, how about by 2031 when the 1st CCS was set to deploy?  If the US can't build a SLBM in in 14 years...

4.  Crew training.  Everyone is on the same boats.  Another reduction in cost.  Even if SLBM function uses blue - gold crew the underlying boat is basically the same.

5.  Wartime production.  If VCS production is 2-3 per year, that's 2-3 replacements in the pipeline each year - with VC(R) accelerated. 

6.  Cost.  2-4 boats a year will increase labor knowledge and likely reduce build time to 48 months over time - saving more money.  Increasing Blk V labor pool will prep for VC(R) and build capacity for overhaul teams - reducing costs.

7.  Force level dramatically changes.

Year        Proj. Force                         Proposed Force          688/SW/774      VC(R)

2022              48               +2 Blk IV VCS 2018 budget             48                     
2023              49               +1Blk IV +1 BlkV VCS 2019 budget  49
2024              48               +3 BlkV VCS 2020 budget                49
2025              47               +3 BlkV VCS 2021 budget                52
2026              45               +3 BlkV VCS 2022 budget                53
2027              44               +3 BlkV VCS 2023 budget                55
2028              42               +3 BlkV VCS 2024 budget                56
2029              41               +2 BlkV VCS 2025 budget                57  because 1st VC(R) has 7 yr build
2030              42               +1 BlkV VCS 2026 budget                58
2031              43               +1 BlkV VCS 2027 1 VC(R) 2025      60                 1    total = 61
2032              43               +1 BlkV VCS 2028                          61                 1    total = 61
2033              44               +1 VC(R) 2027                               62                 2    total = 64
2034              45               + 1 VC(R) 2029  1@7yr build           62                 3    total = 65
2035              46               + 2 VC(R) 2030  2@6yr build           62                 6    total = 68
                                        + 1 VC(R) 2029  1@7yr build

2036              47               + 2 VC(R) 2031  2@6yr build            62                8    total = 70
2037              48               + 2 VC(R) 2032                               62               10   total = 72
2038              47               + 2 VC(R) 2033                               62               12   total = 74

VC(R) build time will likely drop as has VCS over time.
VCS Block 1 begin retirement in 2036.


Downside?  UK may be upset but they're still getting the tubes they need. 

It's late.  I expect I'm missing something.  Lot's of reasons to try and make this work.  Over 100Billion reasons.






Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #251 on: October 02, 2017, 09:14:08 am »
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.

Not D5 but there has been some argument for something like C4:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/build-strategic-fast-attack-submarines

IMHO, exploiting the gaping New START loophole on SLCMs is a better use of the Virginia class.
"Something like C4" means a new missile specifically for the VPM tubes. Entirely possible, but would be for Prompt Global Strike or some other non-nuclear mission.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #252 on: October 02, 2017, 03:19:18 pm »
And a 774 doesnt have the diameter to support a Trident anyway.

Not D5 but there has been some argument for something like C4:

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-10/build-strategic-fast-attack-submarines

IMHO, exploiting the gaping New START loophole on SLCMs is a better use of the Virginia class.
"Something like C4" means a new missile specifically for the VPM tubes. Entirely possible, but would be for Prompt Global Strike or some other non-nuclear mission.

Since this is a GBSD thread I'll stop.   ;)







Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #253 on: October 13, 2017, 10:35:25 am »
https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Air-Force-to-Fire-New-Ground-Based-Strategic-Deterrent-Next-Gen--108784109

Will be disappointed if the USAF doens't take this opportunity to build a Peacekeeper+ sized MMIII replacement missile.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 10:38:03 am by bobbymike »
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #255 on: November 12, 2017, 07:34:01 am »
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 sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #256 on: November 16, 2017, 04:35:21 am »
Looking at this ATK brochure, I'm wondering what the burn time of GBSD will be.  One wants it to be as short as possible so it's easily visible for less time.  Peacekeeper's, as I recall, was about 150 seconds total.  (Compared to ~200 for GBI.) 
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 04:54:03 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #257 on: November 16, 2017, 07:46:30 pm »
Air Force sets industry day for nuclear reentry vehicle acquisition

Air Force Global Strike Command and the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center will host an industry day Nov. 29-30 to discuss the Mark 21A reentry vehicle, which is planned to hold an inter-operable warhead on the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, the service said last week.
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 bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #258 on: December 02, 2017, 01:46:06 am »
Inside the Air Force - December 1, 2017

GBSD program clears Air Force review, proceeding to design, development

November 30, 2017

Boeing's initial blueprint for a new intercontinental ballistic missile recently passed muster with the Air Force during a key review, clearing the defense contractor to proceed with initial systems development as part of an $18 billion project to develop two competing designs as part of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program.

In a Nov. 30 press release, Boeing said its GBSD program "successfully completed" the System Requirements Review with the Air Force, "validating program technical requirements." The assessment cross-walked the proposed GBSD system and performance requirements with cost, schedule, risk and technology readiness -- establishing a baseline for the Boeing effort to proceed with design and development.

"The SRR is used to review a program's system requirements and assess a prime contractor's understanding of those requirements down to the subsystem and component levels," Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center spokeswoman Leah Bryant told Inside the Air Force Oct. 26. "Specific exit criteria have been established for each program that the prime contractors are required to demonstrate they have met in order to successfully complete the SRR."

On Aug. 23, the Air Force awarded a $349 million contract to Boeing and a $328 million contract to Northrop Grumman to develop prototypes to replace the Minuteman III missile fleet. These technology maturation and risk-reduction contracts are to support work through a planned downselect decision in September 2020, a milestone B review that would launch the engineering and manufacturing development phase.

At press time (Nov. 30), Northrop Grumman did not respond to a query about whether its GBSD design proposal completed the System Requirements Review.

"The Air Force set clear system design requirements early in the acquisition process," Frank McCall, Boeing GBSD program manager, said in a statement. "Thanks to this straightforward guidance, the Boeing team was able to focus on options that would meet those requirements and provide the capability needed to deter an evolving threat. We concentrated on modularity and affordability to enable efficient government ownership of the system through 2075 and beyond."

After the System Requirements Reviews, Air Force spokeswoman Bryant said Boeing and Northrop "will continue to establish baselines at the subsystem and component levels in preparation for future technical reviews. In addition, the GBSD Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase's prime contractors will complete a number of cost-capability studies to identify areas that may be adjusted to improve the overall affordability of the GBSD weapon system."

The Air Force's fiscal year 2018 budget request disclosed for the first time the GBSD development cost estimate is $18 billion, including $5.1 billion through FY-22 and another $12.6 billion in the years beyond that to complete development. -- Jason Sherman and Rachel Karas
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
  • ***