Register here

Author Topic: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)  (Read 61806 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10624
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #270 on: March 21, 2018, 07:03:00 am »
From Inside Defense pay site

USAF report shows GBSD reentry vehicle draft RFP slated for late FY-18

The Air Force plans to release a draft request for proposals for the Mark 21A nuclear reentry vehicle in late fiscal year 2018, according to a new acquisition report published this week.

One would have hoped they'd have come up with something better in the last 30 years. Obviously they aren't considering terminal guidance or maneuverability for the RV.  SAD.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #271 on: May 17, 2018, 07:00:13 pm »
From Inside Defense

USAF: Five companies could compete as primes for $3B GBSD reentry vehicle program

May 15, 2018

Designing and buying a new reentry vehicle for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent is expected to cost around $3 billion, although the Air Force isn't sure whether it will choose one or more contractors for the first development phase, a service spokeswoman said this week.

Five major defense contractors -- Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK and Raytheon -- are interested in competing as prime contractors for the Mark 21A reentry vehicle program's three-year technology-maturation and risk-reduction phase, the Air Force said in an April 9 notice. Boeing and Northrop are already maturing their next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile designs under contract for the GBSD program, although Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center spokeswoman Leah Bryant said May 14 the service would not prioritize their Mk21A bids.

The reentry vehicle will carry a new configuration of the Air Force and Navy's refurbished W78 and W88-1 warheads known as the Interoperable Warhead 1, starting in FY-30. GBSD is slated to begin entering missile silos in FY-29, and will initially use existing reentry vehicles until the Mark 21A is ready.

A Mark 21A solicitation is expected out this August and the contract award is slated for September 2019, according to the recent notice. In its fiscal year 2019 budget request, the Air Force stated it plans to competitively award two contracts in FY-19.

"The Mk21A RV team will hold a 'requirement deep dive' with companies that have self-identified as filling a prime role for the subject program," the notice stated. "The deep dive will consist of the government releasing an updated version of the program system requirements document and statement of work available for review."

The company -- or companies -- chosen for TMRR will mature their preliminary designs, develop ground and flight test plans for prototypes and begin developing test vehicles in FY-19.

In the program's third request for information, the Air Force indicated it is exploring its options for competing an engineering and manufacturing development contract as well.

"The government has been considering program-level strategy and is seeking feedback on a tentative evaluation criteria for EMD," the April 9 RFI stated. "One possible criteria to compete is that an offeror have a prototype design developed and requirements verified through component- and system-level [modeling and simulation] and component-level ground tests in qualification environments."

The Air Force asked industry whether that approach would make competition more possible for EMD and wants to know how the program could judge a design's risk level without requiring test flights. Bryant said TMRR and EMD will include trade studies and prototyping efforts but did not elaborate on those plans.

Mk21A risk reduction is an $18.4 million new-start effort in the FY-19 budget request, for which the Air Force is still refining its cost projection. The service is also researching reentry vehicles through multiple related efforts.

TMRR is projected to last from FY-19 to the third quarter of FY-22. A preliminary design review is slated for January 2021, followed by milestone B in July 2022. After the Air Force chooses one company's design, the program will enter EMD from the fourth quarter of FY-22 to FY-27.

When asked if the Air Force is looking at whether its future reentry vehicle could be used with the Navy's Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile or the planned Sea-Launched Cruise Missile, Bryant said the Air Force "intends to explore the possibility of common reentry systems with the U.S. Navy as described in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review."

In written testimony submitted for an April 11 Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing, Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Robin Rand said IW-1 could also be used on Navy missiles.

"The replacement warhead will use a [Mark 21] aeroshell and will deploy on GBSD after fiscal year 2030," Rand's testimony said. "The Navy will study the feasibility of using the same nuclear explosive package with their flight vehicle."

The NPR, published in February, directs the National Nuclear Security Administration to speed up its W78 warhead replacement by one year to start in FY-19 so it can be fielded on GBSD by 2030. NNSA was also told to investigate whether it is feasible to field the new warhead in a Navy flight vehicle.

Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Emily Grabowski told Inside Defense the services do not have a requirement to field a common reentry vehicle, meaning the Navy could use IW-1 without packaging it in the Mark 21A.

"Determining the feasibility of fielding the nuclear explosive package in a Navy flight vehicle will be studied as part of the department's NPR implementation process, to include cost, timing and decision points," Grabowski said.

Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, wrote in January the interoperable warhead programs could cost around $50 billion and require nuclear weapon labs to produce more than 80 pits a year.

The Navy did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See bolded - I think sferrin once commented that US produced 3000 W68s in five years along with several other warhead types.
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: 10624
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #272 on: May 18, 2018, 03:13:03 am »
Yep.  80 a year is a pittance.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #273 on: May 31, 2018, 10:25:38 pm »
From Inside Defense (pay site)

Air Force looking to reprogram $183 million for GBSD in FY-18

The Air Force confirmed this week it will ask Congress to reprogram an additional $183 million for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent this year, hoping the intercontinental ballistic missile modernization program would remain ahead of schedule.

GBSD program could threaten solid-rocket motor industrial base, DOD report says

The Pentagon's annual assessment of the defense industrial base shares concerns with Capitol Hill about the future of solid-rocket motors, including the potential for competition and continued research and development in the face of the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program.
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: 8346
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #274 on: July 25, 2018, 05:03:23 am »
https://spacenews.com/air-force-gets-first-real-look-at-future-icbm-designs/

Quote
WASHINGTON — Boeing and Northrop Grumman have presented design options to the U.S. Air Force for a new intercontinental ballistic missile. The companies are pitted in a head-to-head competition to build hundreds of ICBMs that will replace decades-old Minuteman 3 missiles.

Both firms recently discussed their proposed ideas with Air Force leaders as the service faces a 2019 deadline to specify requirements and map out a procurement strategy for the ground-based strategic deterrent, or GBSD.

The companies submitted what is known as “trade studies” to help the Air Force draft program requirements before it releases a final “request for proposals” possibly a year from now.

Better match Sarmat and the DF-41 for range and payload
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: 10624
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #275 on: July 25, 2018, 07:55:14 am »
https://spacenews.com/air-force-gets-first-real-look-at-future-icbm-designs/

Quote
WASHINGTON — Boeing and Northrop Grumman have presented design options to the U.S. Air Force for a new intercontinental ballistic missile. The companies are pitted in a head-to-head competition to build hundreds of ICBMs that will replace decades-old Minuteman 3 missiles.

Both firms recently discussed their proposed ideas with Air Force leaders as the service faces a 2019 deadline to specify requirements and map out a procurement strategy for the ground-based strategic deterrent, or GBSD.

The companies submitted what is known as “trade studies” to help the Air Force draft program requirements before it releases a final “request for proposals” possibly a year from now.

Better match Sarmat and the DF-41 for range and payload

Yep.  DF-41 is basically a mobile Peacekeeper and Sarmat much larger still.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #276 on: July 26, 2018, 04:10:42 pm »
https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/future-weapons/air-force-to-have-operational-new-nuclear-armed-icbm-by-late-2020s-LuzmtV4jdkKGyPRRO6ajcw/

Quote
The Air Force plans to fire off new prototype ICBMs in the early 2020s as part of a long-range plan to engineer and deploy next-generation nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles by the late 2020s – by building weapons with improved range, durability, targeting technology and overall lethality, service officials said.

The service is already making initial technological progress on design work and “systems engineering” for a new arsenal of ICBMs to serve well into the 2070s – called Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD.

“GBSD initial operating capability is currently projected for the late 2020s,” Capt. Hope Cronin, Air Force spokeswoman, told Warrior Maven.

Northrop Grumman and Boeing teams were awarded Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction deals from the Air Force last year as part of a longer-term developmental trajectory aimed at developing, testing, firing and ultimately deploying new ICBMs.

http://www.asdnews.com/news/defense/2018/07/20/boeing-reviews-new-icbm-design-options-with-usaf?hash=72df8b8c8020f12b2ac54cd2eb01d2bd&campaignid=53526&messageid=54438&l=3&utm_source=asdnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chl-c56-n1-hlb&utm_content=btn
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 08:15:53 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 LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2004
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #277 on: July 29, 2018, 03:23:47 pm »
I'd be interested in hearing the strategic arguments for spending $$ on a larger ICBM - given that the US is developing a robust triad-and-a-half - and what you'd give up to pay for it. Given also that a switch to a much larger missile would slow GBSD down.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #278 on: July 29, 2018, 06:45:37 pm »
I'd be interested in hearing the strategic arguments for spending $$ on a larger ICBM - given that the US is developing a robust triad-and-a-half - and what you'd give up to pay for it. Given also that a switch to a much larger missile would slow GBSD down.
I've posted my strategic arguments several times but basically my answer is flexibility. Under New START limits the additional flexibility to upload more warheads or be able to carry heavier BGVs or AMaRVs could become relevant over the life of the system (to 2070) We have no assurance of future Russian compliance or possible Chinese intentions out 50 years. Chinese nuclear program is currently very opaque to the West. Also, with the expected one warhead configuration at deployment you could vastly increase range to potentially fly non-Russian overflight profiles on the way to Iran for example. One Land Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD precursor) proposal called for 'a global ranged' missile for this purpose

Note the following estimates are based on numbers from different sources so I attempt to use the range of figures and average figures over the various ranges.

I think the current estimated cost of just the missile is $65 to $105 billion or about 6.5% to 10.5% of Triad modernization budget over the next 30 years. My understanding this already takes into account a possible larger missile. Also 'just' modernization of all three legs is around $400-$500 billion of the estimated $1,000 to $1,300 billion total cost of modernization AND ongoing maintenance of the existing Triad. Total Triad costs are expected to average 5% of total defense spending over these 30 years, modernization therefore will equal only 2%. So adding 50% to the cost of GBSD (high in my estimate as it was factored into the range already) to an extra $50 billion would be only one quarter of one percent of defense spending over the next 30 years.

Sorry I don't know what a "Triad-and-a-half" is (I don't believe I've ever seen the term used before do you have a source for term?), please define.
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: 10624
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #279 on: July 29, 2018, 07:16:08 pm »
given that the US is developing a robust triad-and-a-half - and what you'd give up to pay for it. Given also that a switch to a much larger missile would slow GBSD down.

Options.  You don't know what that ICBM might be required to do, or what you might want to do with it over the life of the program, and a Peacekeeper-sized ICBM will have more versatility than a MMIII.  Obviously you can't have your entire fleet be those large missiles ($$$).  Both Russia and China seem to be going for a mixed fleet.  Russia with it's Topol / SS-18/Sarmat and China with it's DF-31 and DF-41. Where the US seems to be going for one design only let's pick one that isn't going to be so limited.

As for "triad-and-a-half" that's news to me.  Could you elaborate?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 07:17:55 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD)
« Reply #280 on: July 31, 2018, 09:13:30 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/07/31/unarmed-us-missile-test-flight-terminated-due-to-anomaly/?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

Quote

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — An unarmed U.S. Air Force Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missile was intentionally destroyed in flight when an anomaly occurred during a test launch from California.

An Air Force Global Strike Command statement says the flight was safely terminated over the Pacific Ocean at 4:42 a.m. Tuesday.

The Minuteman system’s accuracy and reliability is routinely tested with launches from Vandenberg that send a missile’s re-entry vehicle on a 4,200-mile (6,759-kilometer) flight to a target in the Kwajalein Atoll of the Marshall Islands.

The Air Force says an anomaly is any unexpected event during a test and could arise from different factors.

A launch analysis group is being formed from various Air Force organizations.
Can't get the GBSD soon enough
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