LGM-35A Sentinel - Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program

[bobbymike]

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07...P37DeNaPFQfKuBEFu_7okUwrnb-5qQr918jjmZYMfaPLA

 

[kaiserd]

I’m no rocket expert but, sorry Forest Green, to my ears that doesn’t sound even remotely plausible.

So what was possible in the 1980s (from scratch) is now impossible even with all the designs? That makes no sense unless human evolution is in reverse and we are going to turn back into amoebas shortly.

Your quoting me outside the context in which my comments were made and not remotely reflecting what I meant.
I’d suggest you & other contributors read them in context.

So give us some "context" that makes building Peacekeeper analogs, "not even remotely plausible". (And let's try and keep it to a technical standpoint.)

I was responding to comments from Forrest Green that the “choice” was between a new missile and (in relative terms) extremely simple and cheap literal resurrection of the “old” missiles (Peacemakers and Midgetmen).
It was that literal resurrection and it’s promised straight forward nature that I was saying wasn’t plausible from a technical and industrial perspective.
Obviously a new missile (or new missiles) that are based on the capabilities of what came before is technically feasible and I never said it wasn’t.
However. as other contributors are also suggesting, a “son of peacemaker” is likely to be too expensive and all round too politically unpalatable, given the need to cut-ones-cloth to rebuild and sustain the overall triad and specifically the land based ICBM leg.

 

[Forest Green]

Again this need for an “opponent” to “attack” (a need being being demonstrated by a number of contributors).
Read my comments in context of those they are responding to.
I was responding to comments from Forrest Green that the “choice” was between a new missile and (in relative terms) extremely simple and cheap literal resurrection of the “old” missiles (Peacemakers and Midgetmen).
It was that literal resurrection and it’s promised straight forward nature that I was saying wasn’t plausible from a technical and industrial perspective.
Obviously a new missile (or new missiles) that are based on the capabilities of what came before is technically feasible and I never said it wasn’t.
However. as other contributors are also suggesting, a “son of peacemaker” is likely to be too expensive and all round too politically unpalatable, given the need to cut-ones-cloth to rebuild and sustain the overall triad and specifically the land based ICBM leg.

I don't see how building an MM3 replacement would be any cheaper. Even the most limited endeavour would mean building new MM3 copies and updating the electronics, which would be at least as complicated as rebuilding 30 year-old Peacekeepers and likely more so given that the MM3 is 50 years old! The MM3 was also a solid rocket design BTW. It's not like liquid rockets are a remotely plausible option unless you want to have to refuel the rockets whilst waiting to respond to a pre-emptive strike.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Phase changing fuels might be an area worth looking at again. Another possible approach might be programmable matter fuels.

 

[Sferrin]

And from what can be gleaned from the unit cost for the transport erector replacement and the payload transporter replacement programs, these
aren't systems that cost enough to be allowed to drive major GBSD specs.

Exactly.

 

[Sferrin]

Phase changing fuels might be an area worth looking at again. Another possible approach might be programmable matter fuels.

Both are probably too expensive / risky / lacking in reliability to want to mess with.

 

[bobbymike]

Phase changing fuels might be an area worth looking at again. Another possible approach might be programmable matter fuels.

Both are probably too expensive / risky / lacking in reliability to want to mess with.

And at this point in the game don’t think we can risk anything too experimental. GBSD has too work 98+% ready rate at deployment. I’m already fearing Columbia’s new propulsion system being delayed/late.

 

[Forest Green]

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07...P37DeNaPFQfKuBEFu_7okUwrnb-5qQr918jjmZYMfaPLA

That's just scary how quickly the US is falling behind.

 

[Forest Green]

And at this point in the game don’t think we can risk anything too experimental. GBSD has too work 98+% ready rate at deployment. I’m already fearing Columbia’s new propulsion system being delayed/late.

Indeed. Both Trident and MM3 are solid fuel, so I would imagine a solid-fuelled replacement is a given.

 

[RanulfC]

The information sheet I posted above mentioned 100 MX missiles in service.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ground-based-strategic-deterrent-gbsd.22898/post-357679

"In service" covers all the missiles, not only those actually deployed but those in storage or in maintenance. Congress initially authorized 100 to be deployed in a mixture of modified MMII and maybe Titan II silo's but then changed the number to only 50. The rest went to storage so they could rotate out with deployed missiles as maintenance came due.

The designs to make all those systems and equipment still exists though.

"Likely" the designs still exist somewhere but the manufacturing and production equipment don't nor does any of the maintenance and transport equipment.

If the skills base to manufacture solid rockets has been disappearing, all the more reason to renew it.

Which has been the military's argument for the last couple of decades which no one in Congress listened to.

How do you know Midgetman can't take a HGV?

The thread has been noting that a MM would have difficulty in fitting a capable HGV, and the Midgetman is MUCH smaller than the MMIII AND designed for only a single warhead at that. Given that information why would you assume it could carry one?

You've made a lot of assumptions of doom here.

Because you can't get exactly what you want because you think you need it doesn't make it an "assumption of doom" I'm simply pointing out that the actual and political reality are not likely to support what you want. Congress, (BOTH sides of the aisle mind you) have been balking at a new ICBM since the end of the Cold War and nobody is looking at expanding basing options either so we have to look at what we can do with what we have and can get not wishful thinking.

It's because this attitude doesn't exist in Russia that they can actually make progress updating their deterrent.

Oddly enough this 'attitude' very much DOES exit in Russia which is why they have ONLY deployed a few systems rather than the number and depth they have stated over the decades. The US has actually been updating its deterrent but due to the way we spend and who controls it it has been slower and less robust than it should. The main factor has been and remains mostly political rather than technical.

Hopefully they're not THAT short sighted. Not building the force you need because you can't be bothered to build a new kind of truck is stupid beyond belief. And the "foam blocks" were there as much for cold launching as shock absorption.

Not exactly 'short-sighted' as the Peacekeeper trailers and infrastructure were very different than the MM stuff and that too cost a lot extra to handle and it was clear from "Midgetman" we didn't technically NEED a bigger missile to do the job.

Well, no, that's not clear at all. That's a bit like saying we don't need B-21s because we're building the much smaller F-35.

Close, it would be much more accurate to make the comparison that we're not going to build the B-21 because all we have is F-35 hangers and the F-35 (in this case) can do most of what the B-21 could anyway. The point was that Peacekeeper was quickly found to strain the systems that were compatible between it and MM and still required even more specialized equipment and facilities that only it could use while Midgetman while still needing some specialized systems could more readily use the existing infrastructure.

Yep, and that's all that were ever deployed. Still, we're not talking about building a Panama Canal here. The original thousand-plus silos were built in a few years. Modifying them, and building a new transport system for the new missile is hardly going to break the bank. It's not like those MM3 trucks can last forever, or need to. They're not sacred cows.

Actually those thousand plus silo's DID "break the bank" and required a huge expenditure and effort to build. Couple that with most of the older silo's and bases no longer existing the cost to build new ones is NOT cheap. No the MM3 equipment isn't a 'sacred cow' it's actually more that the total infrastructure that builds and maintains those transporters and moves already exists and is still producing and replacing the support systems at a steady and affordable price. Yes in fact we DID find that building a "new" transport, maintenance and storage system WAS very expensive and difficult to deploy and maintain that was one of the lesson's learned from the exercise.

Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough. The actual Minuteman III transport, maintenance and support system is planned on being the BASIS of whatever missile comes next because it's in place. paid for, and works quite well. The ACTUAL equipment can and will change but in order to utilized the existing systems to the fullest requires that the follow-on missile fit certain parameters in order to avoid having to spend lots of money on facilities, vehicles and systems specifically for the new missile. This is done with most "new" weapons systems to keep the costs down and make development and deployment faster and easier. Does this make any more sense?

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

It's not like those MM3 trucks can last forever, or need to. They're not sacred cows.

And from what can be gleaned from the unit cost for the transport erector replacement and the payload transporter replacement programs, these
aren't systems that cost enough to be allowed to drive major GBSD specs.

As unit items no but they by themselves also drive things like bay/building requirements, crane specifications and numerous other support systems. Those ARE major drivers of the systems costs and so were made specifications on the GBSD system itself. Peacekeeper required major rebuilds of existing facilities, (ie: new bays had to be build onto existing buildings to handle the Peacekeeper and support systems, new storage facilities had to be constructed to house stored and in maintenance missiles, etc) new crane and handling systems had to be installed and new storage and maintenance facilities constructed most of which were not easily compatible with those of the MMIII. (You could, with extra work, use a Peacekeeper gantry, cradle and crane for a MMIII but it was difficult and dangerous to do so and the reverse was impossible) As already noted it took extensive and expensive modifications to put a Peacekeeper into a MM silo and neither the operation nor survive-ability were optimal. All this adds up VERY rapidly which is why over and above "development" costs, (which btw include development and deployment of any support systems as well as the missile itself) of a weapons system well over two-thirds of the total cost of the system over time can end up being JUST the support and maintenance systems. To reduce that as much as possible you WANT to use as much of any existing support infrastructure that you can.

I understand that everyone wants what they think is the 'best' possible solution but none of it is in isolation and to get a clear picture you have to look at the ENTIRE picture not just the bits you like

Randy

 

[Sferrin]

It's not like those MM3 trucks can last forever, or need to. They're not sacred cows.

And from what can be gleaned from the unit cost for the transport erector replacement and the payload transporter replacement programs, these
aren't systems that cost enough to be allowed to drive major GBSD specs.

As unit items no but they by themselves also drive things like bay/building requirements, crane specifications and numerous other support systems. Those ARE major drivers of the systems costs and so were made specifications on the GBSD system itself. Peacekeeper required major rebuilds of existing facilities, (ie: new bays had to be build onto existing buildings to handle the Peacekeeper and support systems, new storage facilities had to be constructed to house stored and in maintenance missiles, etc) new crane and handling systems had to be installed and new storage and maintenance facilities constructed most of which were not easily compatible with those of the MMIII. (You could, with extra work, use a Peacekeeper gantry, cradle and crane for a MMIII but it was difficult and dangerous to do so and the reverse was impossible) As already noted it took extensive and expensive modifications to put a Peacekeeper into a MM silo and neither the operation nor survive-ability were optimal. All this adds up VERY rapidly which is why over and above "development" costs, (which btw include development and deployment of any support systems as well as the missile itself) of a weapons system well over two-thirds of the total cost of the system over time can end up being JUST the support and maintenance systems. To reduce that as much as possible you WANT to use as much of any existing support infrastructure that you can.

I understand that everyone wants what they think is the 'best' possible solution but none of it is in isolation and to get a clear picture you have to look at the ENTIRE picture not just the bits you like

Randy

Except that you seem to be under the impression that new systems requiring new infrastructure is a new thing. On the contrary, it's almost ALWAYS the case. Should we have stayed with M60 tanks because Abrams required a new tank transporter?

 

[Forest Green]

"In service" covers all the missiles, not only those actually deployed but those in storage or in maintenance. Congress initially authorized 100 to be deployed in a mixture of modified MMII and maybe Titan II silo's but then changed the number to only 50. The rest went to storage so they could rotate out with deployed missiles as maintenance came due.

RanulfC - At time present there are warheads and missiles deployed and not but the source I provided is from 1990.

"Likely" the designs still exist somewhere but the manufacturing and production equipment don't nor does any of the maintenance and transport equipment.

The designs to produce that equipment does though, whereas the designs to produce that equipment for a new missile does not.

Which has been the military's argument for the last couple of decades which no one in Congress listened to.

No time like the present and any replacement will have to be solid fuel due to the nature of the deterrent anyway.

The thread has been noting that a MM would have difficulty in fitting a capable HGV, and the Midgetman is MUCH smaller than the MMIII AND designed for only a single warhead at that. Given that information why would you assume it could carry one?

Quite simple really, the c/s area is 1/4 that of a Peacekeeper, which was designed for 10 warheads (with a maximum of 14 if no decoys are carried) of the same design to that on Midgetman. So that single warhead on the MGM-134 has bags of space around it.

Because you can't get exactly what you want because you think you need it doesn't make it an "assumption of doom" I'm simply pointing out that the actual and political reality are not likely to support what you want. Congress, (BOTH sides of the aisle mind you) have been balking at a new ICBM since the end of the Cold War and nobody is looking at expanding basing options either so we have to look at what we can do with what we have and can get not wishful thinking.

The only 'problems' you've brought up exist for any GBSD replacement. Solid fuel issue - exists for any GBSD replacement. Manufacturing and support equipment problem - exists for any GBSD replacement. The only difference is that there is no supporting design material for the new missile and it would be completely untested.

Oddly enough this 'attitude' very much DOES exit in Russia which is why they have ONLY deployed a few systems rather than the number and depth they have stated over the decades. The US has actually been updating its deterrent but due to the way we spend and who controls it it has been slower and less robust than it should. The main factor has been and remains mostly political rather than technical.

Errr... RS-24, RS-28, RSM-56, R-29RMU/RMU2. All in the last 12 years or less.

 

[RanulfC]

Except that you seem to be under the impression that new systems requiring new infrastructure is a new thing. On the contrary, it's almost ALWAYS the case. Should we have stayed with M60 tanks because Abrams required a new tank transporter?

:::sigh::: No it's YOU that is under the impression that something "new" includes all new support systems that magically appear when required. I on the other hand actually deal with such systems and have for a bit over 40 years You seem stuck on the transporter I guess because it was the example I used? The M1 in fact could use the majority of the existing M60 facilities and systems (they needed upgrading and expansion of course) but without major rebuilding or new construction. So you pretty much understand the actual point but are missing it because.... ?

Randy

 

[Sferrin]

Except that you seem to be under the impression that new systems requiring new infrastructure is a new thing. On the contrary, it's almost ALWAYS the case. Should we have stayed with M60 tanks because Abrams required a new tank transporter?

:::sigh::: No it's YOU that is under the impression that something "new" includes all new support systems that magically appear when required. I on the other hand actually deal with such systems and have for a bit over 40 years You seem stuck on the transporter I guess because it was the example I used? The M1 in fact could use the majority of the existing M60 facilities and systems (they needed upgrading and expansion of course) but without major rebuilding or new construction. So you pretty much understand the actual point but are missing it because.... ?

Randy

What point do you think I'm missing? Would a new vehicle, training, maintenance chain, etc. cost money? Of course. Is it worth it? If you want a viable defense, then yes. If not, I guess it doesn't matter. But saying (in effect) "a new chain costs money" well, duh. Of course it does. The price of doing business. Saying it's so overburdening that we need to hamstring ourselves for the next 50 years over it is ridiculous.

 

[kaiserd]

It’s a basic cost/ benefit judgement.
Basically even most people who support it see the GBSD as like a necessary evil; they recognize that it is needed but they are not particularly enthusiastic about it and they want it as cheap and cheerful as possible.
So issues like being able to carry over infrastructure and keeping cost down are particularly important.
The comparison with the B-21 re: mirroring rather than eclipsing the capabilities of the B-2 is instructive.
You have a different view. And it may well be fair comment that the perspective above has its own blinders and limits.
But it’s not fair, accurate or productive to think that those that hold a version of the general view I spelled out above don’t want a viable defense, and it would be rather hyperbolic to suggest that a GBSD mirroring rather than eclipsing MMIII would leave you without a viable defense.

 

[RanulfC]

"In service" covers all the missiles, not only those actually deployed but those in storage or in maintenance. Congress initially authorized 100 to be deployed in a mixture of modified MMII and maybe Titan II silo's but then changed the number to only 50. The rest went to storage so they could rotate out with deployed missiles as maintenance came due.

RanulfC - At time present there are warheads and missiles deployed and not but the source I provided is from 1990.

And? I pointed out the number actually deployed into silo's versus the number totally in-service. All Peacekeeper's were destroyed and or used for launch vehicles there are none left and the facilities and manufacturing to build new ones is gone.

"Likely" the designs still exist somewhere but the manufacturing and production equipment don't nor does any of the maintenance and transport equipment.

The designs to produce that equipment does though, whereas the designs to produce that equipment for a new missile does not.

Maybe they are but it is unlikely they will be used as is simply because the companies and manufacturers no longer have those particular ability to reproduce them and the current bidders (along with the US government and military) are planning on building NEW missiles.

Which has been the military's argument for the last couple of decades which no one in Congress listened to.

No time like the present and any replacement will have to be solid fuel due to the nature of the deterrent anyway.

Again, it's what's being done so it's is even less likely that they would consider building an older missile.

The thread has been noting that a MM would have difficulty in fitting a capable HGV, and the Midgetman is MUCH smaller than the MMIII AND designed for only a single warhead at that. Given that information why would you assume it could carry one?

Quite simple really, the c/s area is 1/4 that of a Peacekeeper, which was designed for 10 warheads (with a maximum of 14 if no decoys are carried) of the same design to that on Midgetman. So that single warhead on the MGM-134 has bags of space around it.

The Midgetman was designed to carry one (1) warhead specifically, it wasn't designed to carry additional warheads or decoys. So no there isn't in fact 'bags' of space available but less room than a Minuteman. (And Peacekeeper could carry 11 Mk21's or up to 12 Mk12's with decoys which take less space than a warhead)

Because you can't get exactly what you want because you think you need it doesn't make it an "assumption of doom" I'm simply pointing out that the actual and political reality are not likely to support what you want. Congress, (BOTH sides of the aisle mind you) have been balking at a new ICBM since the end of the Cold War and nobody is looking at expanding basing options either so we have to look at what we can do with what we have and can get not wishful thinking.

The only 'problems' you've brought up exist for any GBSD replacement. Solid fuel issue - exists for any GBSD replacement. Manufacturing and support equipment problem - exists for any GBSD replacement. The only difference is that there is no supporting design material for the new missile and it would be completely untested.

Actually the point I keep making but you among others ignore is that the support equipment, facilities and systems all pretty much already exist IF the new missile isn't bigger (physically) than a Minuteman III which is why that is a requirement for the new missile. That greatly reduces the support, maintenance and deployment costs of a new missile system. Again this is why this is a requirement for the new missile. These costs would balloon greatly, (a Peacekeeper lesson) if the new missile is significantly physically different than the MMIII BUT the Midgetman has pretty much shown we don't NEED to have such a big missile in the first place.

Oddly enough this 'attitude' very much DOES exit in Russia which is why they have ONLY deployed a few systems rather than the number and depth they have stated over the decades. The US has actually been updating its deterrent but due to the way we spend and who controls it it has been slower and less robust than it should. The main factor has been and remains mostly political rather than technical.

Errr... RS-24, RS-28, RSM-56, R-29RMU/RMU2. All in the last 12 years or less.

[/quote]

The R29 is an upgraded missile in service since 1974, modernized just like Trident was. The RSM-56 is their newest SLBM and comparable to the Trident, the RS-28 is in testing but it's not clear if it will actually be deployed. Russia says yes but the money and support are not clear at this point. The RS-24 is a modernized and updated version of the Topol-M, so in all closer to 20 years of development in all. Worrying, yes which is why Congress has finally actually approved and supported a new missile program in the US but they've been saying they were going to build and deploy many more that have not come to fruition.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Except that you seem to be under the impression that new systems requiring new infrastructure is a new thing. On the contrary, it's almost ALWAYS the case. Should we have stayed with M60 tanks because Abrams required a new tank transporter?

:::sigh::: No it's YOU that is under the impression that something "new" includes all new support systems that magically appear when required. I on the other hand actually deal with such systems and have for a bit over 40 years You seem stuck on the transporter I guess because it was the example I used? The M1 in fact could use the majority of the existing M60 facilities and systems (they needed upgrading and expansion of course) but without major rebuilding or new construction. So you pretty much understand the actual point but are missing it because.... ?

Randy

What point do you think I'm missing? Would a new vehicle, training, maintenance chain, etc. cost money? Of course. Is it worth it? If you want a viable defense, then yes. If not, I guess it doesn't matter. But saying (in effect) "a new chain costs money" well, duh. Of course it does. The price of doing business. Saying it's so overburdening that we need to hamstring ourselves for the next 50 years over it is ridiculous.

The question is then is a new missile with greater capability and performance that works with the existing support systems going to address that need? The current direction says yes so that is the planned direction they are going. Going with a larger missile itself which costs more to produce and deploy AND does not fit with those systems and requires all new systems is not seen as cost effective or improving the deterrence/defense equation. The idea that it does has not been made effectively enough to change anyone's mind and past history (Peacekeeper) shows that it is not as clear as you think it is. Money is going to be an issue as is political support. We've managed to get SOME movement out of Congress on a new missile but we have to work within a budget and constraints that entails. The idea that this 'hamstrings' our capability is questionable and while it would be great to get more than one missile into development it simply isn't going to happen as there is not political support for it. Nor is there for building more silo's or the safety and security measures needed to deploy mobile missiles in the US. That is the reality we have to deal with the best we can.

Randy

 

[bobbymike]

Except that you seem to be under the impression that new systems requiring new infrastructure is a new thing. On the contrary, it's almost ALWAYS the case. Should we have stayed with M60 tanks because Abrams required a new tank transporter?

:::sigh::: No it's YOU that is under the impression that something "new" includes all new support systems that magically appear when required. I on the other hand actually deal with such systems and have for a bit over 40 years You seem stuck on the transporter I guess because it was the example I used? The M1 in fact could use the majority of the existing M60 facilities and systems (they needed upgrading and expansion of course) but without major rebuilding or new construction. So you pretty much understand the actual point but are missing it because.... ?

Randy

What point do you think I'm missing? Would a new vehicle, training, maintenance chain, etc. cost money? Of course. Is it worth it? If you want a viable defense, then yes. If not, I guess it doesn't matter. But saying (in effect) "a new chain costs money" well, duh. Of course it does. The price of doing business. Saying it's so overburdening that we need to hamstring ourselves for the next 50 years over it is ridiculous.

The question is then is a new missile with greater capability and performance that works with the existing support systems going to address that need? The current direction says yes so that is the planned direction they are going. Going with a larger missile itself which costs more to produce and deploy AND does not fit with those systems and requires all new systems is not seen as cost effective or improving the deterrence/defense equation. The idea that it does has not been made effectively enough to change anyone's mind and past history (Peacekeeper) shows that it is not as clear as you think it is. Money is going to be an issue as is political support. We've managed to get SOME movement out of Congress on a new missile but we have to work within a budget and constraints that entails. The idea that this 'hamstrings' our capability is questionable and while it would be great to get more than one missile into development it simply isn't going to happen as there is not political support for it. Nor is there for building more silo's or the safety and security measures needed to deploy mobile missiles in the US. That is the reality we have to deal with the best we can.

Randy

I thought the GBSD program RfP and follow on budget documents do provide for a considerable amount of infrastructure upgrades? Wasn’t their just an announcement that funds this years are shifting from “the missile” to testing infrastructure?

 

[Forest Green]

"In service" covers all the missiles, not only those actually deployed but those in storage or in maintenance. Congress initially authorized 100 to be deployed in a mixture of modified MMII and maybe Titan II silo's but then changed the number to only 50. The rest went to storage so they could rotate out with deployed missiles as maintenance came due.

RanulfC - At time present there are warheads and missiles deployed and not but the source I provided is from 1990.

And? I pointed out the number actually deployed into silo's versus the number totally in-service. All Peacekeeper's were destroyed and or used for launch vehicles there are none left and the facilities and manufacturing to build new ones is gone.

"Likely" the designs still exist somewhere but the manufacturing and production equipment don't nor does any of the maintenance and transport equipment.

The designs to produce that equipment does though, whereas the designs to produce that equipment for a new missile does not.

Maybe they are but it is unlikely they will be used as is simply because the companies and manufacturers no longer have those particular ability to reproduce them and the current bidders (along with the US government and military) are planning on building NEW missiles.

Which has been the military's argument for the last couple of decades which no one in Congress listened to.

No time like the present and any replacement will have to be solid fuel due to the nature of the deterrent anyway.

Again, it's what's being done so it's is even less likely that they would consider building an older missile.

The thread has been noting that a MM would have difficulty in fitting a capable HGV, and the Midgetman is MUCH smaller than the MMIII AND designed for only a single warhead at that. Given that information why would you assume it could carry one?

Quite simple really, the c/s area is 1/4 that of a Peacekeeper, which was designed for 10 warheads (with a maximum of 14 if no decoys are carried) of the same design to that on Midgetman. So that single warhead on the MGM-134 has bags of space around it.

The Midgetman was designed to carry one (1) warhead specifically, it wasn't designed to carry additional warheads or decoys. So no there isn't in fact 'bags' of space available but less room than a Minuteman. (And Peacekeeper could carry 11 Mk21's or up to 12 Mk12's with decoys which take less space than a warhead)

Because you can't get exactly what you want because you think you need it doesn't make it an "assumption of doom" I'm simply pointing out that the actual and political reality are not likely to support what you want. Congress, (BOTH sides of the aisle mind you) have been balking at a new ICBM since the end of the Cold War and nobody is looking at expanding basing options either so we have to look at what we can do with what we have and can get not wishful thinking.

The only 'problems' you've brought up exist for any GBSD replacement. Solid fuel issue - exists for any GBSD replacement. Manufacturing and support equipment problem - exists for any GBSD replacement. The only difference is that there is no supporting design material for the new missile and it would be completely untested.

Actually the point I keep making but you among others ignore is that the support equipment, facilities and systems all pretty much already exist IF the new missile isn't bigger (physically) than a Minuteman III which is why that is a requirement for the new missile. That greatly reduces the support, maintenance and deployment costs of a new missile system. Again this is why this is a requirement for the new missile. These costs would balloon greatly, (a Peacekeeper lesson) if the new missile is significantly physically different than the MMIII BUT the Midgetman has pretty much shown we don't NEED to have such a big missile in the first place.

Oddly enough this 'attitude' very much DOES exit in Russia which is why they have ONLY deployed a few systems rather than the number and depth they have stated over the decades. The US has actually been updating its deterrent but due to the way we spend and who controls it it has been slower and less robust than it should. The main factor has been and remains mostly political rather than technical.

Errr... RS-24, RS-28, RSM-56, R-29RMU/RMU2. All in the last 12 years or less.

The R29 is an upgraded missile in service since 1974, modernized just like Trident was. The RSM-56 is their newest SLBM and comparable to the Trident, the RS-28 is in testing but it's not clear if it will actually be deployed. Russia says yes but the money and support are not clear at this point. The RS-24 is a modernized and updated version of the Topol-M, so in all closer to 20 years of development in all. Worrying, yes which is why Congress has finally actually approved and supported a new missile program in the US but they've been saying they were going to build and deploy many more that have not come to fruition.

Randy

There were at least 100 deployed originally. Missiles were not laid up in 1990.

Why wouldn't they be able to build them? Part of keeping proper documentation is exactly about retaining that ability.

They're building a liquid-fuelled GBSD?

My argument was based on cross-sectional area. 1 W87 in a Midgetman has far more space around it than 10+ in a Peacekeeper.

They can use that equipment for the Midgetman.

Upgraded? Yes, massively so, in an F-18C to F-18E kind of way. Different dimensions, range, payload etc. And even the old UR-100N is now carrying HGVs.

 

[Sferrin]

The question is then is a new missile with greater capability and performance that works with the existing support systems going to address that need?

It's certainly more likely to than a less capable missile.

 

[Sferrin]

Yes, massively so, in an F-18C to F-18E kind of way.

That's not an "upgrade". It's a completely different aircraft that happens to look similar.

 

[Forest Green]

That's not an "upgrade". It's a completely different aircraft that happens to look similar.

That was my point.

An R-29RMU2 is about as similar to a vanilla R-29 as an F-18E is to an F-18C. It's 15% longer, 5% wider, 25% heavier and can carry 12x as many warheads.

 

[RanulfC]

I thought the GBSD program RfP and follow on budget documents do provide for a considerable amount of infrastructure upgrades? Wasn’t their just an announcement that funds this years are shifting from “the missile” to testing infrastructure?

It may be something of an updated announcemtne since "the missile" is obviously going to be delayed at this point. Updating and upgrading the testing infrastructure is overdue since the last ICBM moderinzation/upgrades are IIRC pushing 20 years old by now. But you need to have the missile itself defined at the very least in a general way to do anykind of upgrading of basic infrastructure which is where the requirement for utilization of existing MMIII infrastructure comes in. While the MMIII has been modernized and upgraded the actual handling and maintenance faciities and structures have not been and what was added during the Peacekeeper deployment is of limited utility in that regard.

Planning is to upgrade and expand supporting systems which includes complete replacement of some of the buildings used for maintenance and stoarge but there are limited areas in which to place those new structures in the existing bases. Eventually once the new missile gets closer to deployment there will be upgrading and modernization of the deployment systems to help accellerate deployment but again actual physical 'room' to do a lot of this is limited. That 'significant amount' of money is assuming that the infrastructure being upgraded is mostly already in place and available for the task. Quite obvioulsy if you have to go with a totally NEW (aka larger and more 'capable' such as a new-model Peacekeeper) then that "significant amount" quickly becomes a 'staggering amount' instead. LIke I said this WAS a clear lesson from the Peacekeeper itself.

There were at least 100 deployed originally. Missiles were not laid up in 1990.

Peacekeeper's? 100 were 'deployed' into the system but no more than 50 were every availble on alert in silo's. Most of them were laid up in storage buildings and/or at the manufacuter's site in 'ready-storage' to be shipped into the system.

Why wouldn't they be able to build them? Part of keeping proper documentation is exactly about retaining that ability.

What part of having to rebuild the productin and manufacturing systems and supplies lines is not clear? What part of the Peacekeeper NOT being either effective or economical in actuality was not clear? Sure it was a nice 'big' missile with a lot of warheads but it turned out to be very expensive, (even more so when Congress cut the productin and deployment numbers which should be a familar story) and difficult to maintain and didn't fullfill the role replacing the Titan II as originally envisioned. Sure we've got all the documentation and history at our finger tips and it will be shared with the new missile developers but it should be telling that the requirement is specifically NOT for another big missile like the Peacekeeper.

They're building a liquid-fuelled GBSD?

The Russians? Yes. The US? No. We're quite satisfied with the utility and economics of solid propellant missiles.

My argument was based on cross-sectional area. 1 W87 in a Midgetman has far more space around it than 10+ in a Peacekeeper.

Oh, so we're NOT talking about an HGV then but the amount of room a W87 has? Bit different from what we were supposed to be discussing but lets see...
Peacekeeper had around a 7ft diameter "payload" interface, MMIII has about a 5ft interfce while Midgetman had a bit over 3ft. The Mk-21RV has a base diamter of about 22 inches, so yes a single W87 in a Mk21 has room to allow decoy's and counter-measures which WERE carred in all the above missiles with or without multiple warheads.

HGV's on the other hand have been much larger than the '21in' Mk21, so we're back to the same point: If the MMIII with around 5ft of space may have problems them it is very unlikely that it could be crammed into a 3ft space.

They can use that equipment for the Midgetman.

The equipment was never produced in any number as the program was cancled before deployment. What they WILL use is modified and new build MMIII equipment as it's available and in production. Like the Peacekeeper equipment as it was not going to be used the equipment was destroyed and scrapped. Do we have the plans and designs available? Why yes we do and what can be used to design and build equipment compatable with the new missile will be used but it won't be the "Midgetman Equipment" or systems.

Upgraded? Yes, massively so, in an F-18C to F-18E kind of way. Different dimensions, range, payload etc.

That's not an "upgrade". It's a completely different aircraft that happens to look similar.

That was my point.

An R-29RMU2 is about as similar to a vanilla R-29 as an F-18E is to an F-18C. It's 15% longer, 5% wider, 25% heavier and can carry 12x as many warheads.

Wow, that's amazing! Except... Well it's NOT. The R-29RMU2 IS pretty advanced over the R-29 which were initially deployed in the mid-70s but that's not that impressive when you consider the R-29RMU2 is derived from the R-29RMU which makes the supposed 'gains' much less impressive. Longer? Nope or it wouldn't fit in the tube. Heavier? Why yes but this is actually a problem not an advantage. Bigger around? Yep, added a whole 0.1m to it to allow more propellant to carry the extra weight. Can carry 13X as many warheads? Eh, no, not even if we're talking the actual R-29 rather than the missile it was developed from. The R-29 was deployed with two (2) medium to high yeild thermonuclear warheads. The R-29RMU carried 4 medium to high yeild warheads with advancec penatration aids as well. The R-29RMU2 CAN carry up to 12 warheads, (10 more than the R-29, 8 more than the R-29RMU) but only if they are all low-yeild warheads and no penatration aids are carried. It can carry 10 low yeild warheads AND standard penatration aids, or 8 with enchanced penatration aids or 4 medium yeild warheads with standard penatration aids.

Low and medium yeild warheads can be carried as a mix such as four low and four medium but no penatration aids down to 4 medium and four low yeild with some standard penatration aids. It does not seem to be able to carry an HGV warhead due to the size of the HGV, (about 1.5m in length)

More like going from the F-18B to the F-18C not the E.

And even the old UR-100N is now carrying HGVs.

Actually the UR-100N-UTTKh which the HGV was specifically designed to be carried on. The missile can carry one (1) HGV with no penatration aids as opposed the normal load of six (6) medium to high yeild warheads and penatration aids. It is reported that the warhead yeild of the HGV is supposed to be around 2mt but this is not confirmed though likely given large size (again 1.5m/5ft long) and mass (40mt/88,185lbs) with the expected loss or range on most platforms to be 'made-up' (one hopes) by the boost-glide ability of the HGV itself. Even carrying more than one HGV on such large missiles as the R-36, (standard throw weight to maximum distance is 8,800kg/19,402lb) is problematical. Note below the R-100N-UTTKh with the HGV managed to hit a target a little over half its nominal range, (6,000km compared to 10,000km standard) and this would be expected to carry across all platforms.
https://www.freemaptools.com/how-fa...ssile-test-range_-kamchatka-krai.htm?units=KM

The question is then is a new missile with greater capability and performance that works with the existing support systems going to address that need?

It's certainly more likely to than a less capable missile.

My point exactly Which is why they are looking at it from that direction rather than planning an 'all-new' missile and infrastructure. So we are on the same page then?

Randy

 

[Sferrin]

The question is then is a new missile with greater capability and performance that works with the existing support systems going to address that need?

It's certainly more likely to than a less capable missile.

My point exactly Which is why they are looking at it from that direction rather than planning an 'all-new' missile and infrastructure. So we are on the same page then?

Randy

No. Aside from being able to use MM3 silos (whether modified or not) support equipment shouldn't even enter the equation. Are we seriously going to determine whether or not we build an effective force structure on the ability to use a few trucks?

 

[RanulfC]

The question is then is a new missile with greater capability and performance that works with the existing support systems going to address that need?

It's certainly more likely to than a less capable missile.

My point exactly Which is why they are looking at it from that direction rather than planning an 'all-new' missile and infrastructure. So we are on the same page then?

Randy

No. Aside from being able to use MM3 silos (whether modified or not) support equipment shouldn't even enter the equation. Are we seriously going to determine whether or not we build an effective force structure on the ability to use a few trucks?

And silo's, (they are part of the whole equation so trying to exclude them from it isn't helping) and trailers, cranes, buildings, both for storage and maintenance and including long-term storage bunkers and buildings, transport systems for long range movement, (used to do a lot with trains, and planes but that's all trucks and highways now) support and mainteance systems, equipment and personnel for the MISSILE support and maintenance personnel and buildings, security needs for all this and similar support and maintenance personnel for all that as well.

You keep trying to insist it's "only a few trucks" when it is VERY much not and the point I'm trying to make is it is a much deeper and broader depth than you might think. We, as usual, are trying to build as an effective force as we can given the economic, polticial and social constraints we have to deal with. In those calculations one thing we already know is a larger missile while it looks more 'capable' isn't really as effective as one would think. Therefore it makes much more sense to design the system to utalize as much existing support systems as it can.

This isn't anything new after all the F-22 greatly uses facitities, support systems and other things that have not fundementally changed since the P-51/F-51 was in service. Sure it's been updated and often modernized with newer and more capable equipment or electronics but it IS still essentially the same function if not form and in most cases it IS the same form for the same reason as this: So much is built to support similar forms and systems with the same efficency as previous systems so that constant updating and modernization allow the foucus to be on the NEW system rather than what supports it. ICBM's are more of a niche system to begin with so there is even more incentive to utlize what we have to a fuller extent but it does not mean we're less 'effective' as that is more effected by the actual missile and capability than what supports it.

RAndy

 

[marauder2048]

And silo's, (they are part of the whole equation so trying to exclude them from it isn't helping) and trailers, cranes, buildings, both for storage and maintenance and including long-term storage bunkers and buildings, transport systems for long range movement, (used to do a lot with trains, and planes but that's all trucks and highways now) support and mainteance systems, equipment and personnel for the MISSILE support and maintenance personnel and buildings, security needs for all this and similar support and maintenance personnel for all that as well.

Excluding MILCON (for the silos and even the choose-your-own-inflation-index cost for the MX upgrades wasn't horrible), this list is an ascending order with respect to cost.

Personnel costs dominate over just about everything else so worrying about equipment or infrastructure commonality isn't particularly useful unless
you expect retraining or recruiting to horribly distort personnel costs.

This isn't anything new after all the F-22 greatly uses facitities, support systems and other things that have not fundementally changed since the P-51/F-51 was in service.

I just find that funny since the big criticism of the F-22 (and the F-35) is precisely the opposite: they are fundamentally different than their predecessors wrt support, facilities and personnel.

 

[Sferrin]

The question is then is a new missile with greater capability and performance that works with the existing support systems going to address that need?

It's certainly more likely to than a less capable missile.

My point exactly Which is why they are looking at it from that direction rather than planning an 'all-new' missile and infrastructure. So we are on the same page then?

Randy

No. Aside from being able to use MM3 silos (whether modified or not) support equipment shouldn't even enter the equation. Are we seriously going to determine whether or not we build an effective force structure on the ability to use a few trucks?

And silo's, (they are part of the whole equation so trying to exclude them from it isn't helping)

Where did I do that? In fact I specifically state they SHOULD be included. This conversation is going nowhere. You appear to think we should limit the new missile to being able to use current equipment. I disagree. And there it sits.

 

[Sferrin]

I just find that funny since the big criticism of the F-22 (and the F-35) is precisely the opposite: they are fundamentally different than their predecessors wrt support, facilities and personnel.

The F-22's wingspan was limited to the size of NATO hardened aircraft shelters. That said, it's not uncommon at all for new weapons to require new equipment. Imposing artificial limitations in the name of commonality needs to be worth it to do it.

 

[Forest Green]

I thought the GBSD program RfP and follow on budget documents do provide for a considerable amount of infrastructure upgrades? Wasn’t their just an announcement that funds this years are shifting from “the missile” to testing infrastructure?

It may be something of an updated announcemtne since "the missile" is obviously going to be delayed at this point. Updating and upgrading the testing infrastructure is overdue since the last ICBM moderinzation/upgrades are IIRC pushing 20 years old by now. But you need to have the missile itself defined at the very least in a general way to do anykind of upgrading of basic infrastructure which is where the requirement for utilization of existing MMIII infrastructure comes in. While the MMIII has been modernized and upgraded the actual handling and maintenance faciities and structures have not been and what was added during the Peacekeeper deployment is of limited utility in that regard.

Planning is to upgrade and expand supporting systems which includes complete replacement of some of the buildings used for maintenance and stoarge but there are limited areas in which to place those new structures in the existing bases. Eventually once the new missile gets closer to deployment there will be upgrading and modernization of the deployment systems to help accellerate deployment but again actual physical 'room' to do a lot of this is limited. That 'significant amount' of money is assuming that the infrastructure being upgraded is mostly already in place and available for the task. Quite obvioulsy if you have to go with a totally NEW (aka larger and more 'capable' such as a new-model Peacekeeper) then that "significant amount" quickly becomes a 'staggering amount' instead. LIke I said this WAS a clear lesson from the Peacekeeper itself.

There were at least 100 deployed originally. Missiles were not laid up in 1990.

Peacekeeper's? 100 were 'deployed' into the system but no more than 50 were every availble on alert in silo's. Most of them were laid up in storage buildings and/or at the manufacuter's site in 'ready-storage' to be shipped into the system.

Why wouldn't they be able to build them? Part of keeping proper documentation is exactly about retaining that ability.

What part of having to rebuild the productin and manufacturing systems and supplies lines is not clear? What part of the Peacekeeper NOT being either effective or economical in actuality was not clear? Sure it was a nice 'big' missile with a lot of warheads but it turned out to be very expensive, (even more so when Congress cut the productin and deployment numbers which should be a familar story) and difficult to maintain and didn't fullfill the role replacing the Titan II as originally envisioned. Sure we've got all the documentation and history at our finger tips and it will be shared with the new missile developers but it should be telling that the requirement is specifically NOT for another big missile like the Peacekeeper.

They're building a liquid-fuelled GBSD?

The Russians? Yes. The US? No. We're quite satisfied with the utility and economics of solid propellant missiles.

My argument was based on cross-sectional area. 1 W87 in a Midgetman has far more space around it than 10+ in a Peacekeeper.

Oh, so we're NOT talking about an HGV then but the amount of room a W87 has? Bit different from what we were supposed to be discussing but lets see...
Peacekeeper had around a 7ft diameter "payload" interface, MMIII has about a 5ft interfce while Midgetman had a bit over 3ft. The Mk-21RV has a base diamter of about 22 inches, so yes a single W87 in a Mk21 has room to allow decoy's and counter-measures which WERE carred in all the above missiles with or without multiple warheads.

HGV's on the other hand have been much larger than the '21in' Mk21, so we're back to the same point: If the MMIII with around 5ft of space may have problems them it is very unlikely that it could be crammed into a 3ft space.

They can use that equipment for the Midgetman.

The equipment was never produced in any number as the program was cancled before deployment. What they WILL use is modified and new build MMIII equipment as it's available and in production. Like the Peacekeeper equipment as it was not going to be used the equipment was destroyed and scrapped. Do we have the plans and designs available? Why yes we do and what can be used to design and build equipment compatable with the new missile will be used but it won't be the "Midgetman Equipment" or systems.

Upgraded? Yes, massively so, in an F-18C to F-18E kind of way. Different dimensions, range, payload etc.

That's not an "upgrade". It's a completely different aircraft that happens to look similar.

That was my point.

An R-29RMU2 is about as similar to a vanilla R-29 as an F-18E is to an F-18C. It's 15% longer, 5% wider, 25% heavier and can carry 12x as many warheads.

Wow, that's amazing! Except... Well it's NOT. The R-29RMU2 IS pretty advanced over the R-29 which were initially deployed in the mid-70s but that's not that impressive when you consider the R-29RMU2 is derived from the R-29RMU which makes the supposed 'gains' much less impressive. Longer? Nope or it wouldn't fit in the tube. Heavier? Why yes but this is actually a problem not an advantage. Bigger around? Yep, added a whole 0.1m to it to allow more propellant to carry the extra weight. Can carry 13X as many warheads? Eh, no, not even if we're talking the actual R-29 rather than the missile it was developed from. The R-29 was deployed with two (2) medium to high yeild thermonuclear warheads. The R-29RMU carried 4 medium to high yeild warheads with advancec penatration aids as well. The R-29RMU2 CAN carry up to 12 warheads, (10 more than the R-29, 8 more than the R-29RMU) but only if they are all low-yeild warheads and no penatration aids are carried. It can carry 10 low yeild warheads AND standard penatration aids, or 8 with enchanced penatration aids or 4 medium yeild warheads with standard penatration aids.

Low and medium yeild warheads can be carried as a mix such as four low and four medium but no penatration aids down to 4 medium and four low yeild with some standard penatration aids. It does not seem to be able to carry an HGV warhead due to the size of the HGV, (about 1.5m in length)

More like going from the F-18B to the F-18C not the E.

And even the old UR-100N is now carrying HGVs.

Actually the UR-100N-UTTKh which the HGV was specifically designed to be carried on. The missile can carry one (1) HGV with no penatration aids as opposed the normal load of six (6) medium to high yeild warheads and penatration aids. It is reported that the warhead yeild of the HGV is supposed to be around 2mt but this is not confirmed though likely given large size (again 1.5m/5ft long) and mass (40mt/88,185lbs) with the expected loss or range on most platforms to be 'made-up' (one hopes) by the boost-glide ability of the HGV itself. Even carrying more than one HGV on such large missiles as the R-36, (standard throw weight to maximum distance is 8,800kg/19,402lb) is problematical. Note below the R-100N-UTTKh with the HGV managed to hit a target a little over half its nominal range, (6,000km compared to 10,000km standard) and this would be expected to carry across all platforms.
https://www.freemaptools.com/how-fa...ssile-test-range_-kamchatka-krai.htm?units=KM

The question is then is a new missile with greater capability and performance that works with the existing support systems going to address that need?

It's certainly more likely to than a less capable missile.

My point exactly Which is why they are looking at it from that direction rather than planning an 'all-new' missile and infrastructure. So we are on the same page then?

Randy

Based on what? In service in 1990 meant deployed.

What part of all that being laid out in documentation is not clear? Funny how Russia and China don't see it that way.

So what exactly are you talking about wrt a skills shortage around building solid propellant rockets when they're being built either way.

Peacekeeper had a 2.34m diameter and Midgetman 1.18m. I believe this from an earlier thread covers it.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/early-maneuverable-reentry-vehicle-studies.8981/
58.42cm vs 118cm. You could almost fit 2 at a push.



Even more advanced HGVs fit.

111.5cm vs 118cm.

Err... oh no you don't, you referenced a missile dating back to the 1970s, whiich is the R-29 not the R-29RMU, which came in 2007. So let's not start the pigeon chess.

The R29 is an upgraded missile in service since 1974, modernized just like Trident was.

Given that most MM3s are only carrying one warhead, 1 HGV is still better.

 

[Forest Green]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-strategically-withdraws-air-force-111600188.html

 

[RanulfC]

Excluding MILCON (for the silos and even the choose-your-own-inflation-index cost for the MX upgrades wasn't horrible), this list is an ascending order with respect to cost.

Personnel costs dominate over just about everything else so worrying about equipment or infrastructure commonality isn't particularly useful unless
you expect retraining or recruiting to horribly distort personnel costs.

Personnel costs shouldn't 'dominate' given the depth of the system. People are simply retrained, usually on-the-job, to the new system. Designing, prototyping, and manufacturing new equipment and facilities, especially for larger or oversized systems, if expensive and produces parallel supply and support lines that now also have to be maintained. This is made worse when the support systems are not compatable with cross-platform use which was a major issue with the Peacekeeper vis-a-vis the emplaced MMIII support systems.

I just find that funny since the big criticism of the F-22 (and the F-35) is precisely the opposite: they are fundamentally different than their predecessors wrt support, facilities and personnel.

I haven't heard that such was a 'big' criticism but I recall a big deal was made over the sudden change from "mixed" Depot maintenance as the initial plan was for Lockheed to do most of the Depot maintenancne at Palmdale with some overflow work at Hill AFB. When it was found that Lockheed work was sub-par and that Hill was already doing more than planned a decision was made to simply consolidate the depot at Hill AFB. As part of this the facilites at Hill had to be expanded, including a new depot maintenance building and new euipment as well as hiring additional personnel. The majority of depot equipment, facitities and personnel are the same ones that worked F-15 and F-16. (The F-35 uses the same buildings, stands and equipment the F-16 did with some modification. The only new equipment is some wash equipment and factilities and electronics test equipment)
The F-22 and F-35 use the same hanger, maintenance and support equipment and the personnel are the same ones that supported and maintained the F-15 and F-16. Again there's some specialied test and maintenance equipment but the majority of systems and equipment are the same and the personnel are the same only retrained in the new systems.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Where did I do that? In fact I specifically state they SHOULD be included.

Apologies I missread that

This conversation is going nowhere. You appear to think we should limit the new missile to being able to use current equipment. I disagree. And there it sits.

Current INFRASTRUCTURE not neccessarily current equipment per-se but yes the ability to use a majority of the current equipment isn't what "I" think but what the plan calls for. This does not mean limiting the missile to using 1950s technology and equipment or something but using existing support equipment rather than totally new facilities and equipment that would have to be built from scratch and integrated into a new support and maintenance system.

I realize you disagree and I was hoping that explaining WHY doing so is seen as a bad idea would help.

Look, using the historic example the Peacekeeper was to large to allow the use of the MMIII support infrastructure. While we tried and in some cases managed to convert some Titan II facilities and equipment to support the MX it turned out to be difficult and more expensive than originaly thought and still required numerous new facilities and systems to be installed. Things like environmental requirements and electronic support required the older Titan buildings having to be basically rebuilt from the ground up and they still did not fully meet the requirments. (Power was always a problem and the building HVAC systems were constantly an issue) Storage buildings that were built to handle a fairly light weight liquid propellant stage had to be re-built to handle a very heavy solid motor stage. And again power and HVAC systems had to be significantly upgraded to meet the requirements of the new missile in storage. The basic structure of the transporter/erector truck and trailer were in fact the same as the MMIII, though modified to handle the heavier loading. But a totally new contianment and support system had to be designed and built to handle the new missile, As I noted special "high-bay" facilities had to be built and new equipment able to handle the bigger missile had to be installed. New transport, storage and maintenance support equipment had to be designed and installed to handle the new missile. These themsleves could not be stored or moved by the MMIII buildings and support equipment and had to have new storage and maintenance facilities built.

So for the entire time the MX was in service there were two mutually exclusive servicing were in use and had themselves to be supported and maintained with the MX being the more expensive of the two. Now had we gone all MX that would have changed but it was one of the drivers that made the MX more expensive.

Now having said all this there was a vast majority of equipment that was still cross-compatible and used such as handling equipment, trucks, power systems, (where it didn't have to be significantly upgrades such as the inadequate wiring, or HVAC systems of the Titan II buildings) and such.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

I just find that funny since the big criticism of the F-22 (and the F-35) is precisely the opposite: they are fundamentally different than their predecessors wrt support, facilities and personnel.

The F-22's wingspan was limited to the size of NATO hardened aircraft shelters. That said, it's not uncommon at all for new weapons to require new equipment. Imposing artificial limitations in the name of commonality needs to be worth it to do it.

Some new equipment and systems always happens but if you need totally new towing tractors, new heating units, new power generators, new handling and mainteance equipment, new stands and lifts.. And those will ONLY work on this one system... It isn't an 'artificial' limitation but a request to not repeat a previous mistake.

Randy

 

[Sferrin]

I just find that funny since the big criticism of the F-22 (and the F-35) is precisely the opposite: they are fundamentally different than their predecessors wrt support, facilities and personnel.

The F-22's wingspan was limited to the size of NATO hardened aircraft shelters. That said, it's not uncommon at all for new weapons to require new equipment. Imposing artificial limitations in the name of commonality needs to be worth it to do it.

Some new equipment and systems always happens but if you need totally new towing tractors, new heating units, new power generators, new handling and mainteance equipment, new stands and lifts.. And those will ONLY work on this one system... It isn't an 'artificial' limitation but a request to not repeat a previous mistake.

Randy

Look at Atlas coffins to Titan I silos. Or Titan silos to MM3 silos. Or Polaris SSBNS to Trident. Or Hawk launchers to Patriot to THAAD, etc. Price of doing business.

 

[bobbymike]

I just find that funny since the big criticism of the F-22 (and the F-35) is precisely the opposite: they are fundamentally different than their predecessors wrt support, facilities and personnel.

The F-22's wingspan was limited to the size of NATO hardened aircraft shelters. That said, it's not uncommon at all for new weapons to require new equipment. Imposing artificial limitations in the name of commonality needs to be worth it to do it.

Some new equipment and systems always happens but if you need totally new towing tractors, new heating units, new power generators, new handling and mainteance equipment, new stands and lifts.. And those will ONLY work on this one system... It isn't an 'artificial' limitation but a request to not repeat a previous mistake.

Randy

Look at Atlas coffins to Titan I silos. Or Titan silos to MM3 silos. Or Polaris SSBNS to Trident. Or Hawk launchers to Patriot to THAAD, etc. Price of doing business.

Still think they should have taken this opportunity to build new ultra hard silos using cutting edge materials

 

[Desertfox]

Silos are crazy expensive, you will kill GBSD at birth if you try to add new silos to the equation, and it is much easier to increase the accuracy of an RV than it is to harden the silo to resist that RV, especially now with MARVs and GPS. If you can drop a nuke within say 50 meters it wont matter how hard the silo is.

 

[Sferrin]

Silos are crazy expensive, you will kill GBSD at birth if you try to add new silos to the equation, and it is much easier to increase the accuracy of an RV than it is to harden the silo to resist that RV, especially now with MARVs and GPS. If you can drop a nuke within say 50 meters it wont matter how hard the silo is.

Probably need to be closer than that. I've seen pictures from superhard silo testing in the 80s with a relatively unscathed silo protruding from the bottom of the evacuated crater. That said, I think as positive attack verification gets more reliable the need for anything harder than that required to ride out a near miss goes down. A terminally guided RV will kill the hardest silo.

 

[RanulfC]

Based on what? In service in 1990 meant deployed.

"In-service" has meant the same thing since the begining it means the missile is in the 'deployed' into the military missile storage, transport, maintenance AND on-alert system. 100 "deployed" simply means that many missiles in total are in the system not that they are installed in silo's and ready for use. The word is often used to MEAN such but it technically is not used that way by people who work in the field. In fact we use "in-storage", "in-maintenance", "in-transport" and "in-the-field" to specify where "in deployment" a missile is.

In this case 100 were 'deployed' into the system while only 48 were "in-the-field" deployed in silo's.

What part of all that being laid out in documentation is not clear? Funny how Russia and China don't see it that way.

What part of the documentation not being applicable when not building a past missile is not clear? The US could currently build a modernized version of the MMIII missile with little effort except where the legacy equipment no longer exists. Just like Russia and China can build missiles using their existing manufacturing process. The US could not build an MX or Midgetman as the manufacturing systems and equipment no longer exist. We'd have to build new ones and go from there. Could we? Yes, pretty easily but that's not the requirement because using what we have to build a new missile makes more sense. Russia and China are not building 'new' missiles using 'new' manufacturing systems but the same ones that built the original missiles in the first place. The US has been 'building' missiles as well to replace our older missiles and that manufacturing system is being used as the basis of the requirements for out 'new' missile system.

So what exactly are you talking about wrt a skills shortage around building solid propellant rockets when they're being built either way.

The last MMIII upgrade required that new mixing and pouring equipment be constructed and put into use and personnel be trained in it's use. Both the systems and personnel have been transfered away from those jobs since the upgrade was completed and there have been questions of the ability to get both back into service if we wait to long. There is also the issue with there being only two, (it may in fact be down to one now I'm not sure) manufacturer capable of producing large, monolithic pour solid motors.

Peacekeeper had a 2.34m diameter and Midgetman 1.18m. I believe this from an earlier thread covers it.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/early-maneuverable-reentry-vehicle-studies.8981/

So why were there questions up-thread of fitting them to a MMIII? It in fact states that over three years three test vehicles, (prototype warheads basiclly) were successfully launched using MMI's as launch vehicles so there should be no issues fitting them to the MMIII? Length may be an issue as they look to be longer than the Mk21 but that shouldn't be an issue with land based missiles.

58.42cm vs 118cm. You could almost fit 2 at a push.

Only one a the Midgetman only had a single mounting point. Further a second warhead would require a significant upgrade of the guidance and warhead bus avionics and computers.

Even more advanced HGVs fit.

111.5cm vs 118cm.

The more advanced HGV would need a redesign/rebuild of the payload interface for one. Both would need new guidance and control, not a big issue but something to keep in mind for an operational system.

Err... oh no you don't, you referenced a missile dating back to the 1970s, which is the R-29 not the R-29RMU, which came in 2007. So let's not start the pigeon chess.

Well actually you stated that "An R-29RMU2 is about as similar to a vanilla R-29 as an F-18E is to an F-18C. It's 15% longer, 5% wider, 25% heavier and can carry 12x as many warheads.[/quote] So it wasn't I that brought up the comparision. Howver the R-29RMU2 is a basic advancment of of and from the R-29RMU, which was evolved from the basic R-29 from the 70s. In total it gained 10cm in diameter, 1.8m in length, (most of which was in the first modification in the late 70s where it went from 13.20m to 14.40m) of which it only grew 2cm on the R-29RMU. It has gained about 8,000kg of mass since the initial version but has lost around 3,000kg in the newest version despite the increased warhead load. Overall payload throw weight has remained the same since the mid-80s. You're assertion that it is a completely different missile doesn't hold up. F-18C to F-18E isn't an applicable comparision even to the original R-29 let alone the R-29RM or R-29RMU. F-18A to F-18C at best.

Given that most MM3s are only carrying one warhead, 1 HGV is still better.

Given the above examples I'd agree, As I said originally I was going off the up-thread discussion as if this was an issue. Thanks for the correction.

But then I also have to point out why are we worried about the Russian's and the Chinese then? We successfully tested and set-aside a working prototype of an HGV capable of being carried on our MM fleet so using that as a basis we should be able to deploy an updated version in short order. The main issue is it likely can't be carried on our SLBM's which are length limited but a redesign of the MM payload fixture should allow at least two to be carried along with penetration aids.

Randy

 

[Desertfox]

I'll ask again, what target or operation scenario would be better served by an HGV over an RV + penaids/MIRVed RVs? Note this is relating to the nuclear triad so completely separate from CPS which is a different topic.