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

[RanulfC]

This is a very interesting conversation - lots of stuff here which I didn't know about before.

And none of which your supposed to know now, so forget we had this conversation. In fact forget we exist! In fact look into this 'pen' while I use the flashy light thing... Wait is this working? Is this on... ::::Flash:::: What was I saying?

Randy

 

[Desertfox]

Yes you can remove the propulsion component of the PBV with an HGV (as long as its only 1 HGV on board) but you still need the mountings and the GN&C parts. Again that's only if you are only carrying 1 HGV. And either the booster is optimized for the HGV and less efficient for RVs or the booster is optimized for RVs and less efficient for an HGV. Take your pick.

Which Russian targets are behind the geometric shadow of a mountain that would require a US HGV, that can't be taken care of with an SLBM warhead?

 

[DrRansom]

Would an HGV be invulnerable to existing Russian point defenses? As in, yes it is traveling slower, but it is also traveling lower, potentially low enough to be below the engagement altitude of the defenses.

I know that is the case with SM-3 / GMD. They don't work in the atmosphere so a HGV will just fly under them.

 

[Desertfox]

Russian missile defense systems (A-135, S-500) are all endo-athmospheric unlike GBI/SM-3.

 

[Sferrin]

Russian missile defense systems (A-135, S-500) are all endo-athmospheric unlike GBI/SM-3.

The S-500 and A-235 systems both include exoatmospheric interceptors.

"The A-235 will have missiles capable of operating at three different ranges: long-range, based on the 51T6 and capable of destroying targets at distances up to 1500 km (930 miles), at altitudes up to 800,000 m; medium-range, an update of the 58R6, designed to hit targets at distances up to 1000 km (620 miles), at altitudes up to 120,000 m; and short-range (the 53T6M or 45T6 (based on the 53T6)), with an operating range of 350 km (215 miles) and a flight ceiling of 40,000-50,000 m.[10] The long-range missiles will most likely be equipped with nuclear warheads, while the others will have kinetic energy warheads. Testing of new missiles for the A-235 Samolyot-M system began in August 2014.[4]"

 

[Sferrin]

Yes you can remove the propulsion component of the PBV with an HGV (as long as its only 1 HGV on board) but you still need the mountings and the GN&C parts.

Multiple HGVs on one bus would certainly introduce difficulty, particularly a winged type. But say three BGRVs (albeit smaller) under one shroud? Totally doable, though you'd have to release them simultaneously. Put a bit of spin on the bus, blow off the shroud, and release the BGVs. Use CF and aerodynamics to pull them away from each other. Or you could have one larger, winged, BGV with multiple warheads.

 

[Desertfox]

Are you talking about HGVs or MARVs? There is a huge difference in how and when they are deployed. MIRVed MARVs has been done before but there has not been any MIRVed HGVs tested to date. You are talking about deploying multiple HGVs simultaneously at Mach 20, it is not an easy problem. As for putting multiple warheads into one HGV, that is going to be one big massive target.

 

[marauder2048]

Yes you can remove the propulsion component of the PBV with an HGV (as long as its only 1 HGV on board) but you still need the mountings and the GN&C parts. Again that's only if you are only carrying 1 HGV. And either the booster is optimized for the HGV and less efficient for RVs or the booster is optimized for RVs and less efficient for an HGV. Take your pick.

Which Russian targets are behind the geometric shadow of a mountain that would require a US HGV, that can't be taken care of with an SLBM warhead?

Yamantau comes immediately to mind which would require more routine patrols in the Arabian Sea from what will be a smaller SSBN force with fewer tubes.
But wider availability of cheaper tunnel and shaft boring equipment is going to require more servicing of these target types (HDBT) that what the bomber force
is likely able to provide.

 

[bobbymike]

HGVs do not re-enter. The whole point of an HGV is that it doesn't leave the atmosphere to begin with. If it behaves like an RV, re-enters, and then maneuvers, that is a MARV.

Isn't there a picture somewhere of a Mark 5 reentry vehicle doing a pull up maneuver?

 

[RanulfC]

They built 70 x $70m missiles to put in storage? I doubt that.

Linked and article where we've been putting around $120 million dollars’ worth of tanks into storage that the Army can't even use so...

You do that with an expendable weapons system, especially one that HAS to work 24/7/365. Any weapons system has that much 'back stock' at least, usually more.

It's hardly a parallel. Doing something that's never been done before and involves covering 40x the range of an ICBM and supporting humans vs rebuilding something that's been done before.

No it's actually a pretty good parallel since in both cases the infrastructure has either significantly changed to the point where you are essentially starting from scratch again anyway, or the capability, infrastructure and experience base has been degraded to the point where it almost has to start from scratch. The reason we're where we're at on both is a lack of will and politics rather than financial or ability.

It's a good job people don't make this fuss when it comes to making new tyres.

Like trying to compare it to aircraft or other things that have been in constant production for the entire time it's not the same. Close mind you but there we'd get into the incompatibility between the USAF and the Navy

I still make 50 years-old, just with a botox.

And facelift surgery, some replacement with bionic limbs, new brain, new heart, upgraded muscles, etc

But then you still have to have completely new missile designs and trying to use existing equipment creates MRA4-type problem potential. I'm not a big fan of reusing old crap after than project I can tell you.

Ahh, an epiphany! I think I see where we’re having at least some of the issues. The thing is most of the “existing equipment” in this case is new already. The oldest tractor/trailer was delivered in 2010, the cranes and buildings are older sure but the tooling and support equipment was updated, re-built and/or bought new around 2009. The silo equipment was replaced around that same time and the support and operations equipment finished replacement about 2010 or so. The shocks and silo support structure has been replaced with new parts and those themselves are regularly serviced, repaired or if needed replaced. The oldest piece of equipment in regular use* is probably the handling rings the oldest was bought new in 2014, admittedly replacing some that were built in the 70s.
(*= Not to say there isn’t older equipment out there. I recently sent a theolidite in for calibration that was made in 1962 but it’s not actually USED for anything though the regulations require they maintain one on site)

This is what the new missile will use initially with replacement as needed to bring the whole system up to the new standard. We’re not rebuilding the Minuteman 3 or even MM4 but a new missile.

So a Peacekeeper is smaller than an RS-28 and can be fielded in larger numbers.

“Larger” numbers than the RS-28 maybe I mean they probably won’t field over 50 (somewhere around 100 total) of them but we already know that 50 Peacekeepers isn’t cost effective and will be totally incompatible with the current support systems. So you’d need new silos, new support facilities and new support equipment. The chances of getting them funded isn’t zero but it’s too calculate. Again the requirement is to use the MMIII support systems with a new missile, not spend huge amounts to deploy a few missiles we can’t afford.

So if the F-18E was called the F-18P and there were several other F-18s between F-18C and this F-18P, that would make the F-18P an evolution of the F-18C?

The problem here is your comparing an actual evolution that’s traceable to a ‘leap’ to what amounts to a new vehicle as being the same. The F18E was a total rebuild of the aircraft, the R-29RM/RMU/RMU2 was a modification of the R-29/R/RK/RL. Not even the Russian’s consider it that much of a leap.

The Topol-M is also much newer than an MM3 though.

And it’s manufacturing and development infrastructure makes producing a new missile easier. Had we retained enough of the same from the MM3…

Because in the Cold War we placed an embargo on electronics and stuff so that we weren't giving the enemy stuff to replicate... like we are now. The dynamics aren't that different, except China is now the main Communist superpower and North Korea is nuclear armed. That actually sounds worse to me, not better.

We traded with our “not enemies anymore” and the public and politicians were very happy about doing so. China isn’t seen as a “Communist” adversary as they have actually embraced some capitalism so we still see that as a win. Russia is no longer the main Communist enemy, (I’ve been arguing for decades that competing capitalist systems are always more dangerous but who listens?) and while North Korea has nuclear weapons, (let’s be honest so does Iran) their only real use is intimidation and to try and ensure “we’ll all go together when we go” if the US attacks them.

Worse? Depends on your outlook and frankly I’m surprised the US hasn’t screwed up more than we have but we can manage if we face reality and make the tough decisions. As I see it we won’t because it’s easier not to and current politics are focused on the wrong issues. As I noted not only does a segment of the US population see Russia in a positive light, some of them WANT them to actively ‘help’ the US to get to where they want the US to be. That we’re getting anywhere at all under the circumstances is no less than a miracle. The really sad part is the divisions in the American public have reached a point where almost half the American population refuse to believe who’s responsible because they’ve been trained to not believe.

Warhead numbers are current START-limited anyway, so the extra capacity is just there as an option if things change.

But at this point we can neither afford to deploy nor need massive numbers of warheads per missile, and then have only a few missiles. We really need large numbers of new missiles even if they can’t carry a massive amount of warheads per missile. Having said that we do need to deploy MaRV warheads and likely some HGV’s as well and it would make sense to design the new missile around that capability. That doesn’t need a Peacekeeper sized missile to accomplish though it will be less warheads per missile than some would like

The bus diameter of MM3.

I'm peeved. The FIRST time I searched that I found a wonderful illustration of the whole MM3 with specifications of all the stages, the propulsion segment AND the warhead bus, but after a fruitless re-search effort, (seriously hundreds of searches with no clue to where that was at this point) I found this instead:

http://ed-thelen.org/Minuteman.pdf

Pages 14, 34, 48, 50, 60, and 92 all show the bus is the same size as the third stage so diameter comes out to 52in/1.32m which in a new missile could be stretched to encompass the full 1st stage diameter with minimal difficulty.

[quote[The RMU2 grew 20cm from RMU, which grew 1.4m from R-29.[/quote]

Missile Length Diameter

R29 13.20m 1.80m

R29R 14.40m 1.80m

R29RK 14.40m 1.80m

R29RL 14.09m 1.80m

R29RM 14.80m 1.90m

R29RMU 14.80m 1.90m

R29RMU2 15m 1.90m

“Stretching” a missile is actually pretty easy since it is only extending the body, within the limits of the support and maintenance systems, (in this case the transportation and deployment capsule size limitations) it is the easiest and cheapest way to enhance a design. Expanding the diameter has to be done VERY carefully for many of the same reasons because it heavily effects the handling and transportation equipment much more than length.

The D-5 carries 8-12 but mostly 8 with decoys was the original intent.

Actually normally only 4 due to treaty restrictions but pretty much.

Note it’s smaller than the Peacekeeper though and while not an ICBM, (but go ahead, ask the Navy how they feel about the land based missile leg of the system, really, though I hope you have a lot of time to spare ) an extended land based version might make some sense. It’s probably too big and would require too much modification of the MMIII silos but I’d have thought LM would have at least bid. Then again the whole Air Force/Navy thing IS a thing…

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

HGVs do not re-enter. The whole point of an HGV is that it doesn't leave the atmosphere to begin with. If it behaves like an RV, re-enters, and then maneuvers, that is a MARV.

Isn't there a picture somewhere of a Mark 5 reentry vehicle doing a pull up maneuver?

This one?:

Maneuverable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Advanced-Maneuvering-Reentr.png

Randy

 

[marauder2048]

HGVs do not re-enter. The whole point of an HGV is that it doesn't leave the atmosphere to begin with. If it behaves like an RV, re-enters, and then maneuvers, that is a MARV.

They do re-enter. They do leave the atmosphere.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Gentlemen and ladies, permit me for a moment to point out the elephant in the room. New START is highly likely not to be renewed in 2021, rendering a lot of the original design assumptions behind GBSD obsolete.

 

[Forest Green]

They built 70 x $70m missiles to put in storage? I doubt that.

Linked and article where we've been putting around $120 million dollars’ worth of tanks into storage that the Army can't even use so...

You do that with an expendable weapons system, especially one that HAS to work 24/7/365. Any weapons system has that much 'back stock' at least, usually more.

It's hardly a parallel. Doing something that's never been done before and involves covering 40x the range of an ICBM and supporting humans vs rebuilding something that's been done before.

No it's actually a pretty good parallel since in both cases the infrastructure has either significantly changed to the point where you are essentially starting from scratch again anyway, or the capability, infrastructure and experience base has been degraded to the point where it almost has to start from scratch. The reason we're where we're at on both is a lack of will and politics rather than financial or ability.

It's a good job people don't make this fuss when it comes to making new tyres.

Like trying to compare it to aircraft or other things that have been in constant production for the entire time it's not the same. Close mind you but there we'd get into the incompatibility between the USAF and the Navy

I still make 50 years-old, just with a botox.

And facelift surgery, some replacement with bionic limbs, new brain, new heart, upgraded muscles, etc

But then you still have to have completely new missile designs and trying to use existing equipment creates MRA4-type problem potential. I'm not a big fan of reusing old crap after than project I can tell you.

Ahh, an epiphany! I think I see where we’re having at least some of the issues. The thing is most of the “existing equipment” in this case is new already. The oldest tractor/trailer was delivered in 2010, the cranes and buildings are older sure but the tooling and support equipment was updated, re-built and/or bought new around 2009. The silo equipment was replaced around that same time and the support and operations equipment finished replacement about 2010 or so. The shocks and silo support structure has been replaced with new parts and those themselves are regularly serviced, repaired or if needed replaced. The oldest piece of equipment in regular use* is probably the handling rings the oldest was bought new in 2014, admittedly replacing some that were built in the 70s.
(*= Not to say there isn’t older equipment out there. I recently sent a theolidite in for calibration that was made in 1962 but it’s not actually USED for anything though the regulations require they maintain one on site)

This is what the new missile will use initially with replacement as needed to bring the whole system up to the new standard. We’re not rebuilding the Minuteman 3 or even MM4 but a new missile.

So a Peacekeeper is smaller than an RS-28 and can be fielded in larger numbers.

“Larger” numbers than the RS-28 maybe I mean they probably won’t field over 50 (somewhere around 100 total) of them but we already know that 50 Peacekeepers isn’t cost effective and will be totally incompatible with the current support systems. So you’d need new silos, new support facilities and new support equipment. The chances of getting them funded isn’t zero but it’s too calculate. Again the requirement is to use the MMIII support systems with a new missile, not spend huge amounts to deploy a few missiles we can’t afford.

So if the F-18E was called the F-18P and there were several other F-18s between F-18C and this F-18P, that would make the F-18P an evolution of the F-18C?

The problem here is your comparing an actual evolution that’s traceable to a ‘leap’ to what amounts to a new vehicle as being the same. The F18E was a total rebuild of the aircraft, the R-29RM/RMU/RMU2 was a modification of the R-29/R/RK/RL. Not even the Russian’s consider it that much of a leap.

The Topol-M is also much newer than an MM3 though.

And it’s manufacturing and development infrastructure makes producing a new missile easier. Had we retained enough of the same from the MM3…

Because in the Cold War we placed an embargo on electronics and stuff so that we weren't giving the enemy stuff to replicate... like we are now. The dynamics aren't that different, except China is now the main Communist superpower and North Korea is nuclear armed. That actually sounds worse to me, not better.

We traded with our “not enemies anymore” and the public and politicians were very happy about doing so. China isn’t seen as a “Communist” adversary as they have actually embraced some capitalism so we still see that as a win. Russia is no longer the main Communist enemy, (I’ve been arguing for decades that competing capitalist systems are always more dangerous but who listens?) and while North Korea has nuclear weapons, (let’s be honest so does Iran) their only real use is intimidation and to try and ensure “we’ll all go together when we go” if the US attacks them.

Worse? Depends on your outlook and frankly I’m surprised the US hasn’t screwed up more than we have but we can manage if we face reality and make the tough decisions. As I see it we won’t because it’s easier not to and current politics are focused on the wrong issues. As I noted not only does a segment of the US population see Russia in a positive light, some of them WANT them to actively ‘help’ the US to get to where they want the US to be. That we’re getting anywhere at all under the circumstances is no less than a miracle. The really sad part is the divisions in the American public have reached a point where almost half the American population refuse to believe who’s responsible because they’ve been trained to not believe.

Warhead numbers are current START-limited anyway, so the extra capacity is just there as an option if things change.

But at this point we can neither afford to deploy nor need massive numbers of warheads per missile, and then have only a few missiles. We really need large numbers of new missiles even if they can’t carry a massive amount of warheads per missile. Having said that we do need to deploy MaRV warheads and likely some HGV’s as well and it would make sense to design the new missile around that capability. That doesn’t need a Peacekeeper sized missile to accomplish though it will be less warheads per missile than some would like

The bus diameter of MM3.

I'm peeved. The FIRST time I searched that I found a wonderful illustration of the whole MM3 with specifications of all the stages, the propulsion segment AND the warhead bus, but after a fruitless re-search effort, (seriously hundreds of searches with no clue to where that was at this point) I found this instead:

http://ed-thelen.org/Minuteman.pdf

Pages 14, 34, 48, 50, 60, and 92 all show the bus is the same size as the third stage so diameter comes out to 52in/1.32m which in a new missile could be stretched to encompass the full 1st stage diameter with minimal difficulty.

[quote[The RMU2 grew 20cm from RMU, which grew 1.4m from R-29.

Missile Length Diameter

R29 13.20m 1.80m

R29R 14.40m 1.80m

R29RK 14.40m 1.80m

R29RL 14.09m 1.80m

R29RM 14.80m 1.90m

R29RMU 14.80m 1.90m

R29RMU2 15m 1.90m

“Stretching” a missile is actually pretty easy since it is only extending the body, within the limits of the support and maintenance systems, (in this case the transportation and deployment capsule size limitations) it is the easiest and cheapest way to enhance a design. Expanding the diameter has to be done VERY carefully for many of the same reasons because it heavily effects the handling and transportation equipment much more than length.

The D-5 carries 8-12 but mostly 8 with decoys was the original intent.

Actually normally only 4 due to treaty restrictions but pretty much.

Note it’s smaller than the Peacekeeper though and while not an ICBM, (but go ahead, ask the Navy how they feel about the land based missile leg of the system, really, though I hope you have a lot of time to spare ) an extended land based version might make some sense. It’s probably too big and would require too much modification of the MMIII silos but I’d have thought LM would have at least bid. Then again the whole Air Force/Navy thing IS a thing…

Randy
[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between putting existing equipment into storage and building new $70m ICBMs just to put them in a warehouse.

How does having 70 missiles in storage, rather than having 114 deployed improve your ability to fire back. If I have 114 missiles in silos and one fails, I still have 113 missiles ready to go wile replacement parts are made. If I have 44 in silos, then I only have 43 missiles ready while parts are salvaged.

It's a terrible comparison because the task is much harder and the designs didn't exist. And guess what, the US is going to the moon again so.

Remanufactured 50-year-old stuff.

At least 100 upgraded silos already exist though and I was thinking more like 200. And how come Minotaur IVs can be made easily enough?

The problem here is that the R-29RMU2 is nothing like the 70s R-29... at all... the end.

But the MM3 is ancient and limited to 3 warheads.

China's economy is still heavily state-controlled, they restrict the trade of imports internally and there is little in the way of freedoms. It's the Soviet Union with some neon lights and the WTO and an opponent stupid enough to manufacture high tech electronic goods in their country.

The larger missile can be built in the same number and retain a larger warhead capacity, whilst carrying more decoys in the meantime.

And so what page is the bus diameter on? It would frankly be easy to adjust that if the missile diameter is wide enough anyway.

Well there's your problem with the MM3, the final stage isn't much wider than the Midgetman.

You do go on about the complications of making what amounts to new climbing frames for the a new missile.

Umm... A 20m long D-5 is more of an interesting prospect and I believe it falls within your 7ft diameter limit (just) but it would be a new missile design. Maybe the extra length would make it capable of a LEO route to target.

 

[Forest Green]

For some odd reason this dropped off the original reply:

You could even have a MIRV HGV to really annoy the enemy. I'm sure it would just count as one warhead in START right?

Ya we had a nuclear powered cruise missile that was designed to do that But no, each 'explody' bit counts as a warhead, better men than us have tried to bypass that one

It's not just a matter of manoeuvrability, a HGV is very fast, hitting it whilst it takes a fix ballistic path is difficult but when it starts moving you will suffer huge problems with control lag. For instance, the current THAAD will not work against HGVs, even IRBM or MRBM HGVs/MARVs and they are looking at a new version that does.

Actually if we're being technically honest it IS just a matter of manuverability in that the interceptor can't manuever to match an incoming target at hypersonic speed if the target 'jinks' near intercept. (And now we understand why everyone wanted to use nuclear warheads for everything... Frustration rearing its ugly head and all that )

Yep as long as the incoming can maintain hypersonic speed the interceptor has little chance of generating a successful hit. Of course the further and more sharply the HGV/MARV manuervers the more speed it loses and the further it travels the more it loses and pretty soon even if you hit atmosphere at Mach 27 and survived to impact your speed is a LOT less near the target.

And while interceptors have a hard time making a direct kill if you launch enough of them and/or put up enough debris, (continious rods, metal/explosive mesh, chunks of shrapnel, heck beehive rounds from rapid fire cannon could do the job) the HGV/MARV is very likely to run into something that will damage it enough for its own speed to destroy it.

Terminal defense is both where the target and attacker are most vulnerable.

Now having said that, I'll also admit that as 'scary' as HGV/MARV may be there are actually worse out there

Has jamming the defence radars from space during a strike been tried?

IIRC it has but results are mixed at best since you have both range and the atmopshere working against you. Power density is an issue I think I remember. You needed a pretty big and powerful platform to get any good results and then there is the whole 'light up and everyone can see you' with ASat's with jamming trackers being a thing.

You can use the same booster, but its not as simple as swapping payloads. The GN&C has to be changed as the trajectories are not the same at all, and the booster will not be optimized for one of the two missions so there will be a payload loss.

Still unclear since there's no PBV needed for the HGV.

This. 3-stage ICBM to push an HGV platform or swap that platform out for a 4th stg PBV with MaRVs.

There isn't? Your PBV is your interface with the missile and carries you GNC and computer system for the whole missile. The PBV also provides power and support till the payload is released and coure corrections prior to atmosphereic entry. Specifically in the HGV case it likely provides you propulsion 'boost' prior to entry so you have more speed to play with. Even if the support is only minimumal you will have a PVB-like structure for mounting the HGV to the missile because there' no 'payload' connection built into the missile itself.

So you're still 'swapping' the PBV assembly between warhead types.

Two fairly easy arguments for the HGV:

a. attacking a very hard target in the geometric shadow of a mountain (a pretty obvious defensive ploy against a fixed ICBM threat)
b. delivering a nuclear earth penetrator within the angle of obliquity and velocity tolerances of penetrator

I'll buy those but will point out the penetrator is supposed to already exist in everyones arsenel?

Randy

The HGV could carry decoys though.

It's not just a matter of manoeuvrability, it's a matter of control lag too. E.g. Add an exagggerated 1s control lag and it will matter nought how manoevrable your ABM is.

 

[Forest Green]

With Sea-Based X-Band, they mentioned something about dual-polarisation helping them detect decoys too.

That was part of what I was talking about Those had resolving power to detect the standard 'radar reflector' decoys and the computers that were tied in could detect the different rates due to drag between the lighter 'simulated warhead' decoys and a regular warhead. Cool stuff but damned expensive

How could you retard a warhead in space without thrusters of some kind? Both heavy and light warheads would move at the same speed and fall at the same rate, there would be no different in their path to the same target without them being MARVs or having thrusters.

This is after atmospheric interface so simple flaps or a ballute would be used. MARVs have to enter the atmosphere to be able to manuever. Prior to atmospheric entry the only manuevering a warhead, (even a MARV or HGV) can do is by the bus propulsion system. MIRVs require the bus to position and provide thrust before release as they have no real onboard propulsion. Once released from the bus everything is ballistic till it hits the atmosphere.

Wouldn't ABM radar be hardened against EMP.

EMP isn't the problem, (yes they are hardened as is the interceptors themselves) but physical 'blinding' of the close range sensors AND the blast produces a plasma ball that screws up radar returns for several seconds. This was one of the 'downsides' to using nuclear warheads to intercept incoming missiles in that your tracking and direction radars are going to be unable to 'see' through the mess your own blast created for a second or two.

Hmm, now that's been brought up I should point out that as many ABM systems try to get exo-atmospheric intercepts where the incoming warhead is still outside the atmosphere but after the warhead has been released by the bus ANY warhead is essentialy helpless and dependent on decoy's and penatration aids to avoid intercept. Unless the warhead has on-board propulsion, (an issue in and of itself) it will be ballistic till it can hit atmosphere.

And the tactic won't work outside the atmosphere as you need the plasma fireball to block the radar.

But a HGV could mimic an RV until the last minute, head for one target then divert to another. The second target may have limited warning due to the flight altitude,

True but radical manuvers reduce your speed and once you're in the atmosphere you going to contunually lose speed the further you go. So unless the targets really nearby, (in which case it's likely shooting at the incoming anyway) your chances of surprise aren't that much greater. On the other hand the 'advantage' to boost-glide or HGV is that they enter the atmosphere earlier than the 'ballistic' warheads, (possibly causing the computer to asign them as a 'miss' and drop their tracking priority) and then manuever to the target hopefully gaining surprise.

The main problem is in this case "knowing" really is half the battle and simply programing the computer to keep tracking anything that isn't a absolute miss or watching for new tracks is going to go a long way to negating the advantages.

The only thing you really need to hit a carrier is a Pershing II with a datalink to update the missile on the ships position during flight.

Essentially But the idea was to hit them a lot further away than an IRBM could reach.

Randy

So if it retards after re-entry, it would be stuffed against exo-interceptors and the EMP affect would be reduced at lower altitudes.

You could skip outside the atmosphere again.

For longer than IRBM AShBM you need more positional updates.

 

[Forest Green]

HGVs do not re-enter. The whole point of an HGV is that it doesn't leave the atmosphere to begin with. If it behaves like an RV, re-enters, and then maneuvers, that is a MARV.

There are direct injection HGVs but most HGV delivery vehicles still leave the atmosphere in order to not seriously reduce range. Certainly if you were to open the nosecone and leave an exposed bus while still in the atmosphere, that would be beyond terrible aerodynamically.

 

[Sferrin]

HGVs do not re-enter. The whole point of an HGV is that it doesn't leave the atmosphere to begin with. If it behaves like an RV, re-enters, and then maneuvers, that is a MARV.

They do re-enter. They do leave the atmosphere.

View attachment 617103

I think it probably depends on the HGV. BGRV peaked at 130,000 feet before separating from Atlas. But then it didn't cruise as fast or as high as the HTV-2. Don't know what the Army's take on it did.

 

[Forest Green]

HGVs do not re-enter. The whole point of an HGV is that it doesn't leave the atmosphere to begin with. If it behaves like an RV, re-enters, and then maneuvers, that is a MARV.

They do re-enter. They do leave the atmosphere.

View attachment 617103

I think it probably depends on the HGV. BGRV peaked at 130,000 feet before separating from Atlas. But then it didn't cruise as fast or as high as the HTV-2. Don't know what the Army's take on it did.

A Minotaur IV carried the HTV-2 to 100 miles (161km) altitude prior to release. This is described as a sub-orbital altitude because 185km is about the lowest constant height orbit you can have without degradation and descent, but is still exo-atmospheric.

Interestingly the Minotaur IV is based on the "impossible to re-manufacturer, because all the equipment is gone," Peacekeeper.

 

[Sferrin]

Minotaur uses repurposed Peacekeeper motors. They aren't new builds.

 

[Forest Green]

Minotaur uses repurposed Peacekeeper motors. They aren't new builds.

So couldn't a new ICBM also use these motors making the system ultra-cheap and effective? I note only about 8 MIV launches have been completed or planned, so there must still be 100+ motors lying around just waiting for some warheads. Then work on building 100 new motors.

 

[Desertfox]

Solid rocket boosters have a fixed service life that starts counting down the day it comes out of the casting pit. Yes we have a lot of spare Peacekeeper boosters lying around, but they are over 30 years old and nearing the end of their service life. They are good enough for satellite launches in the next few years when you can x-ray the booster before launch but not for being place in silos for another 30 years. Also I'm pretty sure all the Peacekeeper silos were destroyed as part of New START or START II. All our current silos are MM3 only.

LEO and depressed trajectories are less efficient that a minimum energy ballistic trajectory.

HTV-2 was an R&D payload. Operational HGVs will be closer to direct injection as you want to conserve as much energy as possible and HGVs have no control authority outside the atmosphere without adding a PBV.

What decoys can an HGV carry? Mid-course (you need another HGV basically)? Terminal (they better be heavy to match the HGV)? Remember its in the atmosphere the whole time.

What are you talking about control lag?

New START might not get renewed in 2021 but you also don't want to start another arms race and you want to set yourself up for a new treaty in the future. Russia is upgrading alot in recent years, but they also don't want an expensive arms race, they have budget constraints as well.

 

[RanulfC]

HGVs do not re-enter. The whole point of an HGV is that it doesn't leave the atmosphere to begin with. If it behaves like an RV, re-enters, and then maneuvers, that is a MARV.

They do re-enter. They do leave the atmosphere.

I suspect the thinking is it's a 'depressed trajectory' flight path which does leave the effective atmosphere but could be confusing.
1992 paper on use with SLBM's:

http://www.scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs03gronlund.pdf

Gentlemen and ladies, permit me for a moment to point out the elephant in the room. New START is highly likely not to be renewed in 2021, rendering a lot of the original design assumptions behind GBSD obsolete.

I suspect Congress finally coming to that conclusion as well was what finally gave them a kick in the pants to start something going. The thing is most of the design assumptions are based on getting 'something' into modified Minuteman silo's in large numbers as soon as possible, so those are unlikely to change. If the treaty isn't renewed it's a good assumption that there will be enough leverage to push political will to then support at least a couple of development and deployment plans so we can look forward to a NEXT missile that can be built to cover future requirements with more efficiency.

But one thing that doesn't change in the short term is whatever the US deploys has to come on-line as soon as possible, it has to be as cost effective as it is an effective deterrent even if it isn't the 'best' we could do or as versatile as we'd like.

A Minotaur IV carried the HTV-2 to 100 miles (161km) altitude prior to release. This is described as a sub-orbital altitude because 185km is about the lowest constant height orbit you can have without degradation and descent, but is still exo-atmospheric.

It was a suborbital flight because it was launched on a suborbital rocket. The LV was a Minotaur IV LITE with only three stages rather than the minimum 4 stages needed to achieve orbit. Unfortunately upon release the HTVs failed after about 9 minutes into a planned at least 30 minute flight.

Interestingly the Minotaur IV is based on the "impossible to re-manufacturer, because all the equipment is gone," Peacekeeper.

I know where you're going with this Let me again point out that there are OTHER reasons NOT to build another "Peacekeeper" missile. Again conversion costs of the silos was marginal as was expected survivability due to the reduced shock dampening. You literally had to strip the silo bare, install a new shock and support system, new cranes, new liner, new mounts, everything which is why the requirement is to leave as much possible to expedite installing the new missile. Conversion took a huge amount of time, effort and money and was one of the main reasons Congress cut the actual deployment number for the Peacekeeper from 100 to only 50. Another was that, as I pointed out, new specifically designed and built storage and maintenance facilities were having to be constructed which also ran up the costs.

As the goal here is to replace as many older missiles as possible, as soon as possible, as inexpensively as possible why do you feel the need to continue to advocate for the most expensive option possible? The equipment that is gone btw is NOT really the stuff to manufacture the Peacekeeper, or at least not most of the first stage, but the specialized handling, transport and storage equipment along with the converted silos. The US has 450 Minuteman III silos, 400 active with alert missiles in them and 50 are combined "ready-spare" silos, test silos, and training silos. Now keep in mind the cost of converting 50 silos at during the Cold War drove Congress to reduce the active deployment number from 100 to only 50 and you want to demand that this be done to 450 silos under the current conditions?

So couldn't a new ICBM also use these motors making the system ultra-cheap and effective? I note only about 8 MIV launches have been completed or planned, so there must still be 100+ motors lying around just waiting for some warheads. Then work on building 100 new motors.

Actually that's incorrect, there have only been 6 Minotaur IV LV, (including Minotaur IV+ and Lite models) but that kind of ignores the REST of the Peacekeeper LV launcher family and work such as the Minotaur's IV/V/VI/C and C in total which have flown 17 flights, Others were expending in testing, training, and a few were deliberately destroyed for various reasons.

And no the motors have been 'de-miled' or de-militarized so they can't be used on missiles any longer. Turning them back into working (and viable) missiles would be a waste of effort. I mentioned above that I shouldn't have suggested it was 'impossible' to build new Peacekeeper motors if we wanted to as we've kept a small production of commercial motors going over the years in the General Dynamics, (was Thiokol, then ATK) Castor-120 booster used on the commercial Taurus XL (which became the Minotaur C, though several Air Force missions specifically still used the Peacekeeper first stage instead) as well as the Athena I and II.

Keep on mind these are not military missiles though and a lot of work would need to be done to make them missiles but it's not impossible per-se. So you could see a future missile based on the Castor 120 but likely not in the near future. It would be a follow-on to the current replacement missile. Further, and thanks for making me look this up which gives me more hope than I had, there is still a better US solid rocket infrastructure than I'd thought and we're not nearly as far behind as I thought. The downside is that it’s still pretty small overall but it has more depth than I’d known. Between the Castor 30 and 120 I think we've got a lot better shot than I did two weeks ago on getting a decent GDSD replacement for the Minuteman III AND some ability to develop and deploy a second system or replacement if needed.

Solid rocket boosters have a fixed service life that starts counting down the day it comes out of the casting pit. Yes we have a lot of spare Peacekeeper boosters lying around, but they are over 30 years old and nearing the end of their service life. They are good enough for satellite launches in the next few years when you can x-ray the booster before launch but not for being place in silos for another 30 years. Also I'm pretty sure all the Peacekeeper silos were destroyed as part of New START or START II. All our current silos are MM3 only.

Which is why the propellant in the MM3's has been replaced on a regular basis and we inspect the heck out of them on an even MORE regular basis. Yes all the converted silos used for Peacekeeper deployment were destroyed. We have a couple of test, training and maintenacne silos that have been filled with concrete.

Randy

 

[Forest Green]

It was a suborbital flight because it was launched on a suborbital rocket. The LV was a Minotaur IV LITE with only three stages rather than the minimum 4 stages needed to achieve orbit. Unfortunately upon release the HTVs failed after about 9 minutes into a planned at least 30 minute flight.

Interestingly the Minotaur IV is based on the "impossible to re-manufacturer, because all the equipment is gone," Peacekeeper.

I know where you're going with this Let me again point out that there are OTHER reasons NOT to build another "Peacekeeper" missile. Again conversion costs of the silos was marginal as was expected survivability due to the reduced shock dampening. You literally had to strip the silo bare, install a new shock and support system, new cranes, new liner, new mounts, everything which is why the requirement is to leave as much possible to expedite installing the new missile. Conversion took a huge amount of time, effort and money and was one of the main reasons Congress cut the actual deployment number for the Peacekeeper from 100 to only 50. Another was that, as I pointed out, new specifically designed and built storage and maintenance facilities were having to be constructed which also ran up the costs.

As the goal here is to replace as many older missiles as possible, as soon as possible, as inexpensively as possible why do you feel the need to continue to advocate for the most expensive option possible? The equipment that is gone btw is NOT really the stuff to manufacture the Peacekeeper, or at least not most of the first stage, but the specialized handling, transport and storage equipment along with the converted silos. The US has 450 Minuteman III silos, 400 active with alert missiles in them and 50 are combined "ready-spare" silos, test silos, and training silos. Now keep in mind the cost of converting 50 silos at during the Cold War drove Congress to reduce the active deployment number from 100 to only 50 and you want to demand that this be done to 450 silos under the current conditions?

So couldn't a new ICBM also use these motors making the system ultra-cheap and effective? I note only about 8 MIV launches have been completed or planned, so there must still be 100+ motors lying around just waiting for some warheads. Then work on building 100 new motors.

Actually that's incorrect, there have only been 6 Minotaur IV LV, (including Minotaur IV+ and Lite models) but that kind of ignores the REST of the Peacekeeper LV launcher family and work such as the Minotaur's IV/V/VI/C and C in total which have flown 17 flights, Others were expending in testing, training, and a few were deliberately destroyed for various reasons.

And no the motors have been 'de-miled' or de-militarized so they can't be used on missiles any longer. Turning them back into working (and viable) missiles would be a waste of effort. I mentioned above that I shouldn't have suggested it was 'impossible' to build new Peacekeeper motors if we wanted to as we've kept a small production of commercial motors going over the years in the General Dynamics, (was Thiokol, then ATK) Castor-120 booster used on the commercial Taurus XL (which became the Minotaur C, though several Air Force missions specifically still used the Peacekeeper first stage instead) as well as the Athena I and II.

Keep on mind these are not military missiles though and a lot of work would need to be done to make them missiles but it's not impossible per-se. So you could see a future missile based on the Castor 120 but likely not in the near future. It would be a follow-on to the current replacement missile. Further, and thanks for making me look this up which gives me more hope than I had, there is still a better US solid rocket infrastructure than I'd thought and we're not nearly as far behind as I thought. The downside is that it’s still pretty small overall but it has more depth than I’d known. Between the Castor 30 and 120 I think we've got a lot better shot than I did two weeks ago on getting a decent GDSD replacement for the Minuteman III AND some ability to develop and deploy a second system or replacement if needed.

I doubt a silo is surviving a strike in this day and age anyway, so the 'reduced shock dampening', even if that were the case is irrelevant. The aim is to get the missiles launched prior to the strike hitting. Is a silo that difficult to build? Nope. And there are 100+ Peacekeeper missile motors and 100+ converted silos by my reckoning.

How do you demilitarise a rocket motor exactly? Right so actually Peacekeeper first stages are still being built, the Castor 120. That wasn't so hard was it?

 

[Sferrin]

New START might not get renewed in 2021 but you also don't want to start another arms race and you want to set yourself up for a new treaty in the future.

Uhm, what? In this race both China and Russia have been circling the track while we've been sitting in the locker room. The notion that WE would be "starting an arms race" is ridiculous.

 

[Forest Green]

Solid rocket boosters have a fixed service life that starts counting down the day it comes out of the casting pit. Yes we have a lot of spare Peacekeeper boosters lying around, but they are over 30 years old and nearing the end of their service life. They are good enough for satellite launches in the next few years when you can x-ray the booster before launch but not for being place in silos for another 30 years. Also I'm pretty sure all the Peacekeeper silos were destroyed as part of New START or START II. All our current silos are MM3 only.

LEO and depressed trajectories are less efficient that a minimum energy ballistic trajectory.

HTV-2 was an R&D payload. Operational HGVs will be closer to direct injection as you want to conserve as much energy as possible and HGVs have no control authority outside the atmosphere without adding a PBV.

What decoys can an HGV carry? Mid-course (you need another HGV basically)? Terminal (they better be heavy to match the HGV)? Remember its in the atmosphere the whole time.

What are you talking about control lag?

New START might not get renewed in 2021 but you also don't want to start another arms race and you want to set yourself up for a new treaty in the future. Russia is upgrading alot in recent years, but they also don't want an expensive arms race, they have budget constraints as well.

We can build more after a few years though. They are still being built as launch vehicles right now, the Castor 120.

But LEO trajectories get to the target faster than ballistic ones though, about 35-40% faster and show up on target ground radar later.

I don't think you can say that unequivocally. Direct injection reduces the bus separation speed as the rocket is accelerating against air resistance the whole way.

It could carry reasonably heavy decoys, which might not exactly follow the path but would confuse the enemy defences at the last minute.

The time it takes between sensing an ABM is off-course and actually instituting a correction by way of the actuators (DACT or fins). We're looking at closing speeds of Mach 45 if we hypothetically put say an Avangard up against a 53T6. That's 9 miles a second. Manoeuvrability alone doesn't cut it unless the missile can respond fast enough to the corrections required by an evasively manoeuvring HGV. If the lag is too great, 180+ degrees of a change cycle, then super-manoeuvrable (say 1,000g) corrections will just put the ABM further and further off-course.

That's why I say we should match Russia and China, which right now we're not doing.

 

[Desertfox]

Silos are not "difficult" to build, they are "expensive" to build, two different things. Also we do NOT have any Peacekeeper silos left and the Peacekeeper motors are not usable for long-term silo use anymore. The Castor 120 is based on the Peacekeeper 1st stage but its not the same and would have to be modified for long-term silo use.

China is beating us in the IRBM and MRBM arena due primarily to INF. ICBMs they are just now getting close to what we've have for decades. Russia is merely updating their current inventory and replacing their Soviet era missiles. Topol -> Topol-M/Yars, Satan -> Sarmat, UR-100N -> Topol-M/Yars.

LEO trajectories are faster but they are less efficient -> less payload available.

If you are adding heavy decoys to the HGV, it has to carry them the whole way, making it even larger, and they will be useful for only a short amount of time, that's even if they can match the RCS of the HGV and its huge thermal signature.

So you now want to add sensors to the HGV to detect an ABM? More cost, more weight, more complexity. I don't know where you are getting this Mach 45, the HGV won't be doing Mach 20 in the terminal phase, Mach 5 might be closer, it takes energy to glide those ICBM range miles. Evasive maneuverability is a factor of G ratios. If the interceptor can pull 60 Gs, the HGV needs at least 20 Gs to escape, that is asking a lot for a vehicle that has been soaking heat up for a long time and is already thermally stressed. Note also the HGV is limited to aerodynamic control, while the interceptor can also use TVC.

We have to match Russia's overall strategic capability not specific tactical capabilities, and yes the SLBMs also play a part in that.

 

[RanulfC]

I doubt a silo is surviving a strike in this day and age anyway, so the 'reduced shock dampening', even if that were the case is irrelevant. The aim is to get the missiles launched prior to the strike hitting. Is a silo that difficult to build? Nope.

A direct hit no but that's never been the issue. Ground shock and overpressure hardening are required. No the "aim" is not to launch as soon as possible and never has been despite what Hollywood and fiction may tell you Especially when you get into multiple warheads on missiles because your targets will change a lot even during the initial launch. Since the policy is not to launch unless we are attacked you have to plan to take some hits before ANY of your birds are in the air. Why? Because SLBM's and other short range weapons are a thing and they will get to you likely before you can launch some of the closer sites. Considering how close some of those may be you need to ensure you missile can ride out the initial shock and THEN launch before more warheads hit.

Initial launch is usually generally planned to be about half to one-third of your force assuming it's not a first strike. (And by policy and outlook we don't really plan a first strike anyway. Mind you we HAVE a plan for such as do the Russian's, Chinese, Indians, etc, etc. But it's not very high on the decision tree) With updated info between that launch and first incoming strikes of the main wave you can adjust and get about another third out of the hole and outbound before main impact. US and NATO policy is to hold back a 'second wave' of weapons because we're well aware we won't get everything in the first round. Ours are mostly SLBM and Bomber based the former because of the higher survivability factor and the latter due to the time-to-target ratio. In any case if it looks like a full attack then you of course "launch for survival" and get everything into the air but you really want good targeting information first. In any case you'll have some problems and some birds may not get off before everything hits so it behooves you to be able to survive a near miss and save the bird.

Lastly of course is by having obviouse plans to and building to survive an incoming strike gives the enemy something to think about because, (and the reason it is called "MAD" in the first place) if he can't kill all yours then you can still kill him.

How do you demilitarise a rocket motor exactly?

Very carefully Seriously, military motors are built like tanks with extra reinforcing and multiple redundent and robust systems, in many cases that a "commercial" motor wouldn't even have in the first place. Since a lot of this stuff isn't meant to be removed in the first place that will compromise the stage for military use but is still likely way over built for a commercial booster. The only reason the commercial's even use them is because they are 'cheap' but they are really terrible for the purpose.

Right so actually Peacekeeper first stages are still being built, the Castor 120. That wasn't so hard was it?

Not at all actually because the Castor 120 is far to fragile and complex for use as a missile first stage. Add in the propellant combination isn't usable for a military missile, (it has a lousy shelf life, slowly destabilizing even in a controled environment and develops cracks within a couple of months) The basic tooling is from the Peacekeeper program but only a little of it is used. To turn a Castor 120 into a working missile stage you'd have to use a different propellant mix and process, (which they don't have anymore, the formula yes, but the mixers and slurry pour system was scrapped due to contamination), increase the casing thickness, set up new jigs and forms to allow placement of the systems I mentioned they tore out above and some of those have to have specially cast/constructed fittings and housings in the case. Additional rocket control housings for RCS and vector control for the main engines needs to be added back in.

The HGV could carry decoys though.

Not really, HGV by it's nature needs to get back into the atmosphere as soon as possible so any decoy's are gone early on. You might put some decoy's and pen-aids on the vehicle itself but that increases the size and complexity which decreases survivabilty.

It's not just a matter of manoeuvrability, it's a matter of control lag too. E.g. Add an exagggerated 1s control lag and it will matter nought how manoevrable your ABM is.

How so?

So if it retards after re-entry, it would be stuffed against exo-interceptors and the EMP affect would be reduced at lower altitudes.

We're talking a regular warhead here keep in mind so exo-intercept is handled (we hope) by decoys and penetration aids. This was only for 'terminal' defense and you don't WANT EMP as it's not effective against military systems anyway.

You could skip outside the atmosphere again.

You'd need an actual manueverable warhead and likley something with a really good L/D ratio.

For longer than IRBM AShBM you need more positional updates.

Which was one reason the Soviets invested so much in orbital communications, sensor and radar satellites They REALLY didn't like the US Navy.

I think it probably depends on the HGV. BGRV peaked at 130,000 feet before separating from Atlas. But then it didn't cruise as fast or as high as the HTV-2. Don't know what the Army's take on it did.

This actually since everything depends on how the HGV is designed, what it's designed to do and what the mission parameters are.

We tend to mix and match as the converstaion goes on

LEO and depressed trajectories are less efficient that a minimum energy ballistic trajectory.

HTV-2 was an R&D payload. Operational HGVs will be closer to direct injection as you want to conserve as much energy as possible and HGVs have no control authority outside the atmosphere without adding a PBV.

What decoys can an HGV carry? Mid-course (you need another HGV basically)? Terminal (they better be heavy to match the HGV)? Remember its in the atmosphere the whole time.

What are you talking about control lag?

New START might not get renewed in 2021 but you also don't want to start another arms race and you want to set yourself up for a new treaty in the future. Russia is upgrading alot in recent years, but they also don't want an expensive arms race, they have budget constraints as well.

But LEO trajectories get to the target faster than ballistic ones though, about 35-40% faster and show up on target ground radar later.

Maybe faster, but definatly will show up on radar sooner as they are higher above the horizon. The lower angle 'ballistic' trajectory isn't a low-energy trajectory it's a high-energy 'powered' trajectory specifically to keep the warhead lower than a standard trajectory. The 'depressed trajectory' profile is even less efficent but moves the free-flight (ballistic) path even lower so as to reduce the warning time even more.

I don't think you can say that unequivocally. Direct injection reduces the bus separation speed as the rocket is accelerating against air resistance the whole way.

I've been looking at this stuff online and from what I can tell Direct Injection isn't really seen as a good option since it requires the entire upper-stage/bus assebly be not only able to accellerate through the atmosphere but be able to seperate the HGV while there which is 'challenging' to say the least. (Essentially the 'bus' and upper stage have to be an HGV for it to work at all and likely the actual HGV is the 'nose' of the vehicle. The problem with this is the modifications to allow the booster/missile to do this are significant enough that it becomes only usable for the HGV mission. Keeping a lot of the accelleration outside the atmosphere is rated as far better) So the main plan seems to be a depressed trajectory outside the atmosphere to upper stage cut off, usually at a negative angle and high thrust to push the HGV into the atmosphere so it can manuever and give it the highest "starting' velocity, followed by an extended hypersonic glide with steadily lowering altitude as atmospheric effect allow.

It could carry reasonably heavy decoys, which might not exactly follow the path but would confuse the enemy defences at the last minute.

The "decoys" would have to be HGV's themselves for that to have any chance of working. It's the same problem with 'light' decoys and standard warheads, they don't behave at ALL like the real thing in the environment unless they ARE the real thing.

That's why I say we should match Russia and China, which right now we're not doing.

Matching them tit-for-tat is a loosing game since we're already behind, but we need to keep somewhat even to stay in the game at all. Hence building what we can with what we have and then looking to push ahead as soon as possible. Trying to leap ahead at this point isn't really viable given where we're lacking in progress. We do know however how to get the most out of what we have and can field in a timely manner. Past that it's getting back into the mindset, (and spending habits which is going to be the hard part because that includes TAXING habits that are not going to be plesant at all) of facing peer adversaries instead of planning on being able to "Shock-n-Awe" the bad guys into submission.

It's going to go VERY far past just a new ICBM too and we'll have to make that decision real soon too.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

There's a difference between putting existing equipment into storage and building new $70m ICBMs just to put them in a warehouse.

There is, but you keep ignoring WHY it was done and I'm only pointing out we used what happened to our advantage.

How does having 70 missiles in storage, rather than having 114 deployed improve your ability to fire back. If I have 114 missiles in silos and one fails, I still have 113 missiles ready to go wile replacement parts are made. If I have 44 in silos, then I only have 43 missiles ready while parts are salvaged.

Bottom line: No more than 48 silos were ever converted to base Peacekeeper's in so no more than 48 COULD ever be deployed. That hadn't been the original plan but the plan was changed.

100 Peacekeeper missiles were ordered initially while efforts were on-going to get them deployed. Congress has only authorized 100 'active' (in silo) missiles and the conversion of the first 50 silos was underway. The COST of that conversion, and the delays in finishing JUST those first 50 silos caused Congress to reduce the deployment number from 100 to only 50. Meanwhile the next 50 would go into storage until the issues with silo conversion could be resolved or new basing was agreed on. These would mean that the planned 'follow-on' build of another 100 missiles as replacements and backups was initially delayed, then canceled when no further authorizations were made.

Congress was never satisfied with planning to continue conversions of existing silos and frankly neither was the military. Not only had costs been greatly under-estimated but actual data from deployments was worrying that the conversions were less survivable than the original systems. And upkeep and maintenance costs were higher as well and none of these looked to be solvable without even MORE investment which Congress was unwilling to do. So Peacekeeper was offered up for trading in the next arms control talks.

It's a terrible comparison because the task is much harder and the designs didn't exist. And guess what, the US is going to the moon again so.

The task was not so much "harder' as what was needed was understood. No the exact designs didn't exist but we knew what we needed and only needed the money and will to get to the end point. Unfortunately that was ALL we did and ALL we designed the system to do. And then we scrapped it and most of the infrastructure and have had to rebuild a lot of it to get where we are now. Going back to the Moon? Maybe, considering Congress still hasn't authorized actual Lander development it remains to be seen. Worse we're likely going 'back' in a very similar manner to Apollo which means it won't last either. We know HOW this should be done if we want to make this sustainable but the political will to do so does not exist.

Remanufactured 50-year-old stuff.

No the basic design, (and frankly these are modern designs so not really) may be 50 years old but the stuff is brand new. Most of the stuff you use every day is "old" designs built using modern technology and techniques. Your stretching to try and make this point but it’s not working.

At least 100 upgraded silos already exist though and I was thinking more like 200.

Never had more than 48 that had been converted for use and those were destroyed. Building new ones will be more expensive than converting old ones was. Keep in mind it's NOT just the silo but a complete launch complex if new and a complete rebuild to convert. The US has been looking at new basing operations, (including building new silos and the bases to support them) for decades and there’s a good reason why we haven’t done it.

Similarly, ‘mobile’ ICBMs tend to have more disadvantages than advantages unless you’ve already heavily invested in them. I know people like to bring up Desert Storm for an example of why mobile platforms are supposed to be good but ask how they would have fared if the coalition was carpet bombing with tactical nuclear weapons instead of trying to limit the damage? Contrary to what one might have been given the impression, (looking at you “Spies Like Us” yes RIGHT at you) a mobile nuclear weapons NEVER goes ‘off-the-grid’ and it’s never ‘alone’ in the middle of nowhere. The USSR used to get away with some of that due to having some areas with low population but that’s not the case in the US nor the USSR, (even China) today.

And how come Minotaur IVs can be made easily enough?

Note it's not exactly 'easy' nor are they common since their performance is terrible. Part of the reason GD developed the Castor 120 was to 'fix' as many issues with the converted Peacekeeper stages as possible to try and get better performance out of the stage. Doing so means it can't in any way be used as a missile stage though.

The problem here is that the R-29RMU2 is nothing like the 70s R-29... at all... the end.

Except it's the same basic design and mission and evolved from the original R-29 with improvements for time and technology. But we're not going to agree so may as well leave it.

But the MM3 is ancient and limited to 3 warheads.

Yes but don't assume that a missile that is designed to use the existing MM3 infrastructure would have the same limitations.

China's economy is still heavily state-controlled, they restrict the trade of imports internally and there is little in the way of freedoms. It's the Soviet Union with some neon lights and the WTO and an opponent stupid enough to manufacture high tech electronic goods in their country.

China is still heavily government controlled yes, but it actually has opened up a lot. Call it a work in progress. Russia is no the Soviet Union despite how much Putin might pine for the old days. It's not an open democracy, (semi-democratic oligarchy maybe) but it's not the USSR. The US always ends up trading with its "enemy's" at some point, it's what our economy is based on. High tech manufacturing was going to be a thing so the US companies decided to jump in first and get a slice of the pie. Government restrictions would have hindered the process so none were instigated. Short term profits over long term security, it's not like this isn't a well-known issue with US business and barring turning into a "state-controlled" economy and such is going to always be. Fix what you can and move on.

The larger missile can be built in the same number and retain a larger warhead capacity, whilst carrying more decoys in the meantime.

It assumes we need a larger missile at this time. Yes at this time because our number one priority AT THE MOMENT is to replace the MM3 missiles in the silos with a modern, more effective missile without breaking the bank. Building a bigger missile that we already know is not compatible with that goal is not going to work.

And so what page is the bus diameter on? It would frankly be easy to adjust that if the missile diameter is wide enough anyway.

Bus diameter is the same as the third stage diameter. They got rid of the original 'neck-down' reducer and built the new mountings directly on the Bus. This allowed more room for decoys and penetration aids. The second and third stage diameter is still less than the first stage so there's room to expand the diameter and frankly as long as your main missile core diameter remains somewhere around or below 7ft the modifications to the silo are minimal. Once you go over 7ft you have to tear the silo apart and rebuild it.

Well there's your problem with the MM3, the final stage isn't much wider than the Midgetman.

Which is why you'd expand the diameter in a new missile to match the first stage. Frankly if we hadn't gotten permission to start a new missile development program that is probably what would have been done in an 'upgrade' plan. Expanding the second and third stage would have increased performance for little cost/effort but we need to replace it.

You do go on about the complications of making what amounts to new climbing frames for the a new missile.

Climbing frames? You have pretty much admitted you have no idea what it takes to support the missiles let alone deploy them or keep them maintained yet you go on about how 'easy' it would be to just build bigger new ones and rebuild from scratch that entire support system and infrastructure. I'll admit in a way I agree that would be the ideal outcome but reality does not lend itself to idealism over realism.

The situation is that the US needs to update its deterrent and one specific of that is the ICBM leg of the triad. Over time we've reduced out capability to a single missile system and its support system because it was cheaper and more efficient. We tried fielding a Titan replacement using that missile infrastructure and it didn't work. Worse the key driver behind any such effort went away and we lost all political and public support for a new system. Recently we've swung enough support to push a replacement for our current GBSD but with the caveat that funding and support are limited. So we have constraints to work in that have to be considered. We need this replacement in a few years, not decades. We need better and more effective capability but it can't be hugely expensive or require major disruptions in the current system because they will, for a while, need to operate together.

In essence the need to have something NOW within a budget we can afford so we can deploy over 400 of these missile into existing silo's along with the rest of the support and logistics train as soon as possible is the driver behind using the existing infrastructure and that's not going to change. So it' limits our response options somewhat but that's what innovation and hard work are for in the first place. If you can't understand why I go on about "new climbing frames" in dealing with these issues then all I can say is there's a REALLY good reason why the actual 'missile' itself is less important to me that the logistics of its maintenance, transport and support

Umm... A 20m long D-5 is more of an interesting prospect and I believe it falls within your 7ft diameter limit (just) but it would be a new missile design. Maybe the extra length would make it capable of a LEO route to target.

Interesting and yes it barely meets that limit though I hadn't included the launcher or capsule which may be an issue. (Though IIRC I've been told by people who worked on the MX that "those extra 7inches" were fine when the idea was to build new silos, use the racetrack or put them in converted Titan silos but they were a HUGE issue with putting them into the Minuteman silos. Part of the problem they are trying to avoid this time around is starting out with a diameter restriction so we don't run into the same problem. Peacekeeper suffered from being designed and built without a firm plan for basing and an overdependence on 'compatibility' with the existing infrastructure which was actually false. (Amusingly I've pointed out more than once it actually WAS very compatible with an existing infrastructure.. Just not the Air Force one )

Randy

 

[Desertfox]

Similarly, ‘mobile’ ICBMs tend to have more disadvantages than advantages unless you’ve already heavily invested in them. I know people like to bring up Desert Storm for an example of why mobile platforms are supposed to be good but ask how they would have fared if the coalition was carpet bombing with tactical nuclear weapons instead of trying to limit the damage? Contrary to what one might have been given the impression, (looking at you “Spies Like Us” yes RIGHT at you) a mobile nuclear weapons NEVER goes ‘off-the-grid’ and it’s never ‘alone’ in the middle of nowhere. The USSR used to get away with some of that due to having some areas with low population but that’s not the case in the US nor the USSR, (even China) today.

That is why I'm a proponent of the mobile MPS basing scheme. The goal being not to make the missiles disappear but to increase the number of targets beyond the enemy's ability to target them. Simply having 200 missiles with 4 shelters each doubles the number of targets to 800. You don't even have to increase your missile number to increase their survivability, you just have to build more shelters. Having 10 shelters increases the targets to 2,000, that's more than the current deployed warheads (~1500) available to Russia.

Would it be costly? Yes, it won't be able to use current MM3 infrastructure and will require new shelters (which will be a lot cheaper than new silos). But you could get it thru congress by passing it as a "denuclearization" (half as many missiles deployed) and the lost warheads could go on Trident IIs. The missiles to be road-mobile would likely be smaller than MM3 so you could always go back to MM3 silo basing if necessary.

As far as needing new "heavy" ICBMs, don't forget that the majority of new Russian ICBMs are the Topol-m/Yars family which is similar size to MM3. And with improved propellants and materials, you could get MM3 performance from a smaller missile. Anything with more than 3 warheads is a waste of resources, since politically we won't be going back to Cold War era 10,000 warhead forces.

 

[DrRansom]

Here is a question, what does the US actually need from the ICBM force?

 

[bobbymike]

Immediately responsive hyper accurate deterrent force whose very existence makes our adversaries think twice before contemplating aggression against us or our allies.

 

[DrRansom]

Immediately responsive hyper accurate deterrent force whose very existence makes our adversaries think twice before contemplating aggression against us or our allies.

That's kind of vague - what type of deterrence? What level of aggression? You aren't going to go to ICBMs if China blows up a few US ships or Russia seizes Narva. Clearly we're talking something different.

 

[bobbymike]

Immediately responsive hyper accurate deterrent force whose very existence makes our adversaries think twice before contemplating aggression against us or our allies.

That's kind of vague - what type of deterrence? What level of aggression? You aren't going to go to ICBMs if China blows up a few US ships or Russia seizes Narva. Clearly we're talking something different.

Won’t I?

Obviously my brevity was not meant to compete with Kahn

 

[Sferrin]

Here is a question, what does the US actually need from the ICBM force?

Here is an answer: this thread is about the GBSD system, not policy. Take it to another thread.

 

[fredymac]

Similarly, ‘mobile’ ICBMs tend to have more disadvantages than advantages unless you’ve already heavily invested in them. I know people like to bring up Desert Storm for an example of why mobile platforms are supposed to be good but ask how they would have fared if the coalition was carpet bombing with tactical nuclear weapons instead of trying to limit the damage? Contrary to what one might have been given the impression, (looking at you “Spies Like Us” yes RIGHT at you) a mobile nuclear weapons NEVER goes ‘off-the-grid’ and it’s never ‘alone’ in the middle of nowhere. The USSR used to get away with some of that due to having some areas with low population but that’s not the case in the US nor the USSR, (even China) today.

The US never had a mobile ICBM but Russia has had them for a long time. That being the case, I don't recall reading any articles analyzing the percentage of nuclear inventory required to put lethal overpressure over 1000 square miles to obtain a Pk of 90%. I would assume even a nuke has to be within a mile or two of a buttoned up, hardened TEL to assure a kill. That would take a lot of nukes even assuming no fratricide effects (remember "Dense Pack"?). What is the actual US policy for mobile ICBMs? Again, I am not sure if I have ever seen any policy indicating we have some idea how to defeat them.

China is still heavily government controlled yes, but it actually has opened up a lot. Call it a work in progress. Russia is no the Soviet Union despite how much Putin might pine for the old days. It's not an open democracy, (semi-democratic oligarchy maybe) but it's not the USSR. The US always ends up trading with its "enemy's" at some point, it's what our economy is based on. High tech manufacturing was going to be a thing so the US companies decided to jump in first and get a slice of the pie. Government restrictions would have hindered the process so none were instigated. Short term profits over long term security, it's not like this isn't a well-known issue with US business and barring turning into a "state-controlled" economy and such is going to always be. Fix what you can and move on.

The last effort to genuinely "open up" China's government was Tiananmen Square. The most recent indicator of "work in progress" was the official proclamation of Xi Jinping as "president for life". The citizens of Hong Kong and Taiwan don't seem to share your outlook on where this progress is heading.

US trade policy has never bothered with public consent leading to the massive outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. It finally looks like this issue has been dragged into the purview of political discussion and the realm of "fix what you can".

 

[Forest Green]

There's a difference between putting existing equipment into storage and building new $70m ICBMs just to put them in a warehouse.

There is, but you keep ignoring WHY it was done and I'm only pointing out we used what happened to our advantage.

How does having 70 missiles in storage, rather than having 114 deployed improve your ability to fire back. If I have 114 missiles in silos and one fails, I still have 113 missiles ready to go wile replacement parts are made. If I have 44 in silos, then I only have 43 missiles ready while parts are salvaged.

Bottom line: No more than 48 silos were ever converted to base Peacekeeper's in so no more than 48 COULD ever be deployed. That hadn't been the original plan but the plan was changed.

100 Peacekeeper missiles were ordered initially while efforts were on-going to get them deployed. Congress has only authorized 100 'active' (in silo) missiles and the conversion of the first 50 silos was underway. The COST of that conversion, and the delays in finishing JUST those first 50 silos caused Congress to reduce the deployment number from 100 to only 50. Meanwhile the next 50 would go into storage until the issues with silo conversion could be resolved or new basing was agreed on. These would mean that the planned 'follow-on' build of another 100 missiles as replacements and backups was initially delayed, then canceled when no further authorizations were made.

Congress was never satisfied with planning to continue conversions of existing silos and frankly neither was the military. Not only had costs been greatly under-estimated but actual data from deployments was worrying that the conversions were less survivable than the original systems. And upkeep and maintenance costs were higher as well and none of these looked to be solvable without even MORE investment which Congress was unwilling to do. So Peacekeeper was offered up for trading in the next arms control talks.

It's a terrible comparison because the task is much harder and the designs didn't exist. And guess what, the US is going to the moon again so.

The task was not so much "harder' as what was needed was understood. No the exact designs didn't exist but we knew what we needed and only needed the money and will to get to the end point. Unfortunately that was ALL we did and ALL we designed the system to do. And then we scrapped it and most of the infrastructure and have had to rebuild a lot of it to get where we are now. Going back to the Moon? Maybe, considering Congress still hasn't authorized actual Lander development it remains to be seen. Worse we're likely going 'back' in a very similar manner to Apollo which means it won't last either. We know HOW this should be done if we want to make this sustainable but the political will to do so does not exist.

Remanufactured 50-year-old stuff.

No the basic design, (and frankly these are modern designs so not really) may be 50 years old but the stuff is brand new. Most of the stuff you use every day is "old" designs built using modern technology and techniques. Your stretching to try and make this point but it’s not working.

At least 100 upgraded silos already exist though and I was thinking more like 200.

Never had more than 48 that had been converted for use and those were destroyed. Building new ones will be more expensive than converting old ones was. Keep in mind it's NOT just the silo but a complete launch complex if new and a complete rebuild to convert. The US has been looking at new basing operations, (including building new silos and the bases to support them) for decades and there’s a good reason why we haven’t done it.

Similarly, ‘mobile’ ICBMs tend to have more disadvantages than advantages unless you’ve already heavily invested in them. I know people like to bring up Desert Storm for an example of why mobile platforms are supposed to be good but ask how they would have fared if the coalition was carpet bombing with tactical nuclear weapons instead of trying to limit the damage? Contrary to what one might have been given the impression, (looking at you “Spies Like Us” yes RIGHT at you) a mobile nuclear weapons NEVER goes ‘off-the-grid’ and it’s never ‘alone’ in the middle of nowhere. The USSR used to get away with some of that due to having some areas with low population but that’s not the case in the US nor the USSR, (even China) today.

And how come Minotaur IVs can be made easily enough?

Note it's not exactly 'easy' nor are they common since their performance is terrible. Part of the reason GD developed the Castor 120 was to 'fix' as many issues with the converted Peacekeeper stages as possible to try and get better performance out of the stage. Doing so means it can't in any way be used as a missile stage though.

The problem here is that the R-29RMU2 is nothing like the 70s R-29... at all... the end.

Except it's the same basic design and mission and evolved from the original R-29 with improvements for time and technology. But we're not going to agree so may as well leave it.

But the MM3 is ancient and limited to 3 warheads.

Yes but don't assume that a missile that is designed to use the existing MM3 infrastructure would have the same limitations.

China's economy is still heavily state-controlled, they restrict the trade of imports internally and there is little in the way of freedoms. It's the Soviet Union with some neon lights and the WTO and an opponent stupid enough to manufacture high tech electronic goods in their country.

China is still heavily government controlled yes, but it actually has opened up a lot. Call it a work in progress. Russia is no the Soviet Union despite how much Putin might pine for the old days. It's not an open democracy, (semi-democratic oligarchy maybe) but it's not the USSR. The US always ends up trading with its "enemy's" at some point, it's what our economy is based on. High tech manufacturing was going to be a thing so the US companies decided to jump in first and get a slice of the pie. Government restrictions would have hindered the process so none were instigated. Short term profits over long term security, it's not like this isn't a well-known issue with US business and barring turning into a "state-controlled" economy and such is going to always be. Fix what you can and move on.

The larger missile can be built in the same number and retain a larger warhead capacity, whilst carrying more decoys in the meantime.

It assumes we need a larger missile at this time. Yes at this time because our number one priority AT THE MOMENT is to replace the MM3 missiles in the silos with a modern, more effective missile without breaking the bank. Building a bigger missile that we already know is not compatible with that goal is not going to work.

And so what page is the bus diameter on? It would frankly be easy to adjust that if the missile diameter is wide enough anyway.

Bus diameter is the same as the third stage diameter. They got rid of the original 'neck-down' reducer and built the new mountings directly on the Bus. This allowed more room for decoys and penetration aids. The second and third stage diameter is still less than the first stage so there's room to expand the diameter and frankly as long as your main missile core diameter remains somewhere around or below 7ft the modifications to the silo are minimal. Once you go over 7ft you have to tear the silo apart and rebuild it.

Well there's your problem with the MM3, the final stage isn't much wider than the Midgetman.

Which is why you'd expand the diameter in a new missile to match the first stage. Frankly if we hadn't gotten permission to start a new missile development program that is probably what would have been done in an 'upgrade' plan. Expanding the second and third stage would have increased performance for little cost/effort but we need to replace it.

You do go on about the complications of making what amounts to new climbing frames for the a new missile.

Climbing frames? You have pretty much admitted you have no idea what it takes to support the missiles let alone deploy them or keep them maintained yet you go on about how 'easy' it would be to just build bigger new ones and rebuild from scratch that entire support system and infrastructure. I'll admit in a way I agree that would be the ideal outcome but reality does not lend itself to idealism over realism.

The situation is that the US needs to update its deterrent and one specific of that is the ICBM leg of the triad. Over time we've reduced out capability to a single missile system and its support system because it was cheaper and more efficient. We tried fielding a Titan replacement using that missile infrastructure and it didn't work. Worse the key driver behind any such effort went away and we lost all political and public support for a new system. Recently we've swung enough support to push a replacement for our current GBSD but with the caveat that funding and support are limited. So we have constraints to work in that have to be considered. We need this replacement in a few years, not decades. We need better and more effective capability but it can't be hugely expensive or require major disruptions in the current system because they will, for a while, need to operate together.

In essence the need to have something NOW within a budget we can afford so we can deploy over 400 of these missile into existing silo's along with the rest of the support and logistics train as soon as possible is the driver behind using the existing infrastructure and that's not going to change. So it' limits our response options somewhat but that's what innovation and hard work are for in the first place. If you can't understand why I go on about "new climbing frames" in dealing with these issues then all I can say is there's a REALLY good reason why the actual 'missile' itself is less important to me that the logistics of its maintenance, transport and support

Umm... A 20m long D-5 is more of an interesting prospect and I believe it falls within your 7ft diameter limit (just) but it would be a new missile design. Maybe the extra length would make it capable of a LEO route to target.

Interesting and yes it barely meets that limit though I hadn't included the launcher or capsule which may be an issue. (Though IIRC I've been told by people who worked on the MX that "those extra 7inches" were fine when the idea was to build new silos, use the racetrack or put them in converted Titan silos but they were a HUGE issue with putting them into the Minuteman silos. Part of the problem they are trying to avoid this time around is starting out with a diameter restriction so we don't run into the same problem. Peacekeeper suffered from being designed and built without a firm plan for basing and an overdependence on 'compatibility' with the existing infrastructure which was actually false. (Amusingly I've pointed out more than once it actually WAS very compatible with an existing infrastructure.. Just not the Air Force one )

Randy

I see no evidence that it was done prior to removal from service.

Except they didn't stop at 100 missiles, 114 were built. So that makes no sense.

So going to the moon for the first time was easy but rebuilding Peacekeepers is too difficult, even with the first stages still being built for launch vehicles? Mm'kay.

Evidence?

Yeah, but we had complete control of the skies above Iraq. There may be times where the location of a mobile launcher is known but most of the time it won't be and in 30 minutes it won't be where it was. The Midgetman also travelled in more of a mobile bunker.

Why can't it be used as a missile stage exactly?

The RMU2 is still as close to a 70s R-29 as an F-18E is to an F-18C.

The only reason it opened up at all was because the collapse of the USSR pointed out that there were some things that had to change. Other than that, it's same old same old. Now it's fixed those things, there are no other changes in progress.

The goal should be matching the enemy. A small MM3 replacement is like continuing to build P-51s through to the 90s.

So basically the Midgetman is almost as wide as the MM3 third stage.

The new missile proposed wouldn't be mobile though.

Jeez, it's a wonder we even bothered building silos in the first place. What happened to the old Titan silos anyway? Surely they were big enough?

After the missile is built, it sits in a silo.

An elongated D5-derived missile is probably a good option then.

 

[Forest Green]

I doubt a silo is surviving a strike in this day and age anyway, so the 'reduced shock dampening', even if that were the case is irrelevant. The aim is to get the missiles launched prior to the strike hitting. Is a silo that difficult to build? Nope.

A direct hit no but that's never been the issue. Ground shock and overpressure hardening are required. No the "aim" is not to launch as soon as possible and never has been despite what Hollywood and fiction may tell you Especially when you get into multiple warheads on missiles because your targets will change a lot even during the initial launch. Since the policy is not to launch unless we are attacked you have to plan to take some hits before ANY of your birds are in the air. Why? Because SLBM's and other short range weapons are a thing and they will get to you likely before you can launch some of the closer sites. Considering how close some of those may be you need to ensure you missile can ride out the initial shock and THEN launch before more warheads hit.

Initial launch is usually generally planned to be about half to one-third of your force assuming it's not a first strike. (And by policy and outlook we don't really plan a first strike anyway. Mind you we HAVE a plan for such as do the Russian's, Chinese, Indians, etc, etc. But it's not very high on the decision tree) With updated info between that launch and first incoming strikes of the main wave you can adjust and get about another third out of the hole and outbound before main impact. US and NATO policy is to hold back a 'second wave' of weapons because we're well aware we won't get everything in the first round. Ours are mostly SLBM and Bomber based the former because of the higher survivability factor and the latter due to the time-to-target ratio. In any case if it looks like a full attack then you of course "launch for survival" and get everything into the air but you really want good targeting information first. In any case you'll have some problems and some birds may not get off before everything hits so it behooves you to be able to survive a near miss and save the bird.

Lastly of course is by having obviouse plans to and building to survive an incoming strike gives the enemy something to think about because, (and the reason it is called "MAD" in the first place) if he can't kill all yours then you can still kill him.

How do you demilitarise a rocket motor exactly?

Very carefully Seriously, military motors are built like tanks with extra reinforcing and multiple redundent and robust systems, in many cases that a "commercial" motor wouldn't even have in the first place. Since a lot of this stuff isn't meant to be removed in the first place that will compromise the stage for military use but is still likely way over built for a commercial booster. The only reason the commercial's even use them is because they are 'cheap' but they are really terrible for the purpose.

Right so actually Peacekeeper first stages are still being built, the Castor 120. That wasn't so hard was it?

Not at all actually because the Castor 120 is far to fragile and complex for use as a missile first stage. Add in the propellant combination isn't usable for a military missile, (it has a lousy shelf life, slowly destabilizing even in a controled environment and develops cracks within a couple of months) The basic tooling is from the Peacekeeper program but only a little of it is used. To turn a Castor 120 into a working missile stage you'd have to use a different propellant mix and process, (which they don't have anymore, the formula yes, but the mixers and slurry pour system was scrapped due to contamination), increase the casing thickness, set up new jigs and forms to allow placement of the systems I mentioned they tore out above and some of those have to have specially cast/constructed fittings and housings in the case. Additional rocket control housings for RCS and vector control for the main engines needs to be added back in.

The HGV could carry decoys though.

Not really, HGV by it's nature needs to get back into the atmosphere as soon as possible so any decoy's are gone early on. You might put some decoy's and pen-aids on the vehicle itself but that increases the size and complexity which decreases survivabilty.

It's not just a matter of manoeuvrability, it's a matter of control lag too. E.g. Add an exagggerated 1s control lag and it will matter nought how manoevrable your ABM is.

How so?

So if it retards after re-entry, it would be stuffed against exo-interceptors and the EMP affect would be reduced at lower altitudes.

We're talking a regular warhead here keep in mind so exo-intercept is handled (we hope) by decoys and penetration aids. This was only for 'terminal' defense and you don't WANT EMP as it's not effective against military systems anyway.

You could skip outside the atmosphere again.

You'd need an actual manueverable warhead and likley something with a really good L/D ratio.

For longer than IRBM AShBM you need more positional updates.

Which was one reason the Soviets invested so much in orbital communications, sensor and radar satellites They REALLY didn't like the US Navy.

I think it probably depends on the HGV. BGRV peaked at 130,000 feet before separating from Atlas. But then it didn't cruise as fast or as high as the HTV-2. Don't know what the Army's take on it did.

This actually since everything depends on how the HGV is designed, what it's designed to do and what the mission parameters are.

We tend to mix and match as the converstaion goes on

LEO and depressed trajectories are less efficient that a minimum energy ballistic trajectory.

HTV-2 was an R&D payload. Operational HGVs will be closer to direct injection as you want to conserve as much energy as possible and HGVs have no control authority outside the atmosphere without adding a PBV.

What decoys can an HGV carry? Mid-course (you need another HGV basically)? Terminal (they better be heavy to match the HGV)? Remember its in the atmosphere the whole time.

What are you talking about control lag?

New START might not get renewed in 2021 but you also don't want to start another arms race and you want to set yourself up for a new treaty in the future. Russia is upgrading alot in recent years, but they also don't want an expensive arms race, they have budget constraints as well.

But LEO trajectories get to the target faster than ballistic ones though, about 35-40% faster and show up on target ground radar later.

Maybe faster, but definatly will show up on radar sooner as they are higher above the horizon. The lower angle 'ballistic' trajectory isn't a low-energy trajectory it's a high-energy 'powered' trajectory specifically to keep the warhead lower than a standard trajectory. The 'depressed trajectory' profile is even less efficent but moves the free-flight (ballistic) path even lower so as to reduce the warning time even more.

I don't think you can say that unequivocally. Direct injection reduces the bus separation speed as the rocket is accelerating against air resistance the whole way.

I've been looking at this stuff online and from what I can tell Direct Injection isn't really seen as a good option since it requires the entire upper-stage/bus assebly be not only able to accellerate through the atmosphere but be able to seperate the HGV while there which is 'challenging' to say the least. (Essentially the 'bus' and upper stage have to be an HGV for it to work at all and likely the actual HGV is the 'nose' of the vehicle. The problem with this is the modifications to allow the booster/missile to do this are significant enough that it becomes only usable for the HGV mission. Keeping a lot of the accelleration outside the atmosphere is rated as far better) So the main plan seems to be a depressed trajectory outside the atmosphere to upper stage cut off, usually at a negative angle and high thrust to push the HGV into the atmosphere so it can manuever and give it the highest "starting' velocity, followed by an extended hypersonic glide with steadily lowering altitude as atmospheric effect allow.

It could carry reasonably heavy decoys, which might not exactly follow the path but would confuse the enemy defences at the last minute.

The "decoys" would have to be HGV's themselves for that to have any chance of working. It's the same problem with 'light' decoys and standard warheads, they don't behave at ALL like the real thing in the environment unless they ARE the real thing.

That's why I say we should match Russia and China, which right now we're not doing.

Matching them tit-for-tat is a loosing game since we're already behind, but we need to keep somewhat even to stay in the game at all. Hence building what we can with what we have and then looking to push ahead as soon as possible. Trying to leap ahead at this point isn't really viable given where we're lacking in progress. We do know however how to get the most out of what we have and can field in a timely manner. Past that it's getting back into the mindset, (and spending habits which is going to be the hard part because that includes TAXING habits that are not going to be plesant at all) of facing peer adversaries instead of planning on being able to "Shock-n-Awe" the bad guys into submission.

It's going to go VERY far past just a new ICBM too and we'll have to make that decision real soon too.

Randy

That's why you have mobile launchers and SSBNs that can't be targeted pre-emptively.

Seems like a simple modification.

Yes but this was about logistics and support remember. We know how to build Peacekeeper stages already.

No. There's clearly a trade-off between size and presenting false targets.

If your control lag is over 180deg of change cycle, your ABM will simply get further and further of course every correction it makes, even if it can pull 1,000g. Even near 1180deg it will be too slow to obtain a solution. Basically, it will oscillate around the desired demand and never achieve it, or be too slow to.

Except modern ABM radars can detect decoys.

The skip was always a planned capability for such warheads.

Yet they never had such weapons.

A 185km LEO orbit is not higher above the horizon that a regular ICBM RV apogee, which well over 1,000km.

All you need is two darts that come out the side to serve as decoys.

"Matching them is a losing game and trying to leap ahead isn't viable." Did I really just read that? Perhaps you should give a speech entitled, "No we can't," or "We choose not to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hardish."

 

[Forest Green]

Silos are not "difficult" to build, they are "expensive" to build, two different things. Also we do NOT have any Peacekeeper silos left and the Peacekeeper motors are not usable for long-term silo use anymore. The Castor 120 is based on the Peacekeeper 1st stage but its not the same and would have to be modified for long-term silo use.

China is beating us in the IRBM and MRBM arena due primarily to INF. ICBMs they are just now getting close to what we've have for decades. Russia is merely updating their current inventory and replacing their Soviet era missiles. Topol -> Topol-M/Yars, Satan -> Sarmat, UR-100N -> Topol-M/Yars.

LEO trajectories are faster but they are less efficient -> less payload available.

If you are adding heavy decoys to the HGV, it has to carry them the whole way, making it even larger, and they will be useful for only a short amount of time, that's even if they can match the RCS of the HGV and its huge thermal signature.

So you now want to add sensors to the HGV to detect an ABM? More cost, more weight, more complexity. I don't know where you are getting this Mach 45, the HGV won't be doing Mach 20 in the terminal phase, Mach 5 might be closer, it takes energy to glide those ICBM range miles. Evasive maneuverability is a factor of G ratios. If the interceptor can pull 60 Gs, the HGV needs at least 20 Gs to escape, that is asking a lot for a vehicle that has been soaking heat up for a long time and is already thermally stressed. Note also the HGV is limited to aerodynamic control, while the interceptor can also use TVC.

We have to match Russia's overall strategic capability not specific tactical capabilities, and yes the SLBMs also play a part in that.

So, just do it.

So Russia is operating 4 ICBM types and 2 SLBM types, updated to carry 24 warheads and HGVs. Only for sanctions, they'd be building the RS-26 and a new missile train and missile too.

Only if you don't build a bigger missile.

You could have the sensors off board and communicate with it.

You're confusing g's with time response.

We ain't even close to matching it right now.

 

[RanulfC]

Here is a question, what does the US actually need from the ICBM force?

Immediately responsive hyper accurate deterrent force whose very existence makes our adversaries think twice before contemplating aggression against us or our allies.

That's kind of vague - what type of deterrence? What level of aggression? You aren't going to go to ICBMs if China blows up a few US ships or Russia seizes Narva. Clearly we're talking something different.

Vague is pretty much standard for general policy and it actually 'sounds' about right. In reality we need an ICBM force that is a credible enough threat than ANY aggressor will hesitate to launch an offensive attack against us that might trigger a launch. China blows up a few US ships? The US is going to war with them and nuclear weapons are now on the table. Russia seizes Narva? Again they just went to war with both NATO and by definition the US with all that implies. If the US having a credible nuclear land based deterrent force in any way may prevent those acts then that's what we want. If it doesn't prevent such incidents then we want to be able to attack them our nuclear weapons should the conflict escelate that way.

The thing to keep in mind is that any time nuclear armed nations enter into conflict with each other the possibity of escelation to a nuclear exchanage level will always be there.. In either of the above cases conventional weapons and systems will be used first but, those other weapons will always be in the background as a threat.

Deterrence and MAD are not actually the same thing though people often think they are. Deterrence is the policy of keeping force elements between possible adversaries to level where noone has enough of an advantage or disadvantage at any point so that the other players feel that they are under overwhelming threat but they also never feel they have enough advantage to launch a first strike. Remember that historically it was initially assumed by many that conflict against a nation that had nuclear weapons would be unthinkable but this quickly proved to be false. Worse the main players in the Cold War soon realized that on the battefield level in an major conflict to come nuclear escelation was likely inevitable at some point and the only other question then becomes at what point does it become a full scale nuclear war and how close to that point can the conventional conflict be pushed. It was and still is a given that nuclear armed nations can and probably will still get into conflicts with each other and other non-nuclear nations but the deterrance gives everyone incentive to not escelate.

Deterrence depends on all participants adhering to and understanding certain "ground-rules" on which the policy is based which can be problematical with nations that have such weapons but do not follow those rules. Great examples being North Korea and Iran which have no credible ability to defeat or deter the larger armed nuclear nations but can do large amounts of local damage and possibly some damage to nations further away. The only means these nations have of 'deterrence' is the threat such weapons can have against some direct aggression against themselves, (attacking invading forces for example) or applying schorched Earth to deny the enemy a clean win. It is less "deterrence" than it is a verson of MAD.

MAD is actually a LOT easier to achieve but in most cases the deterrent value is low or non-existant. MAD simply means that if someone goes nuclear then everyone loses and getting to that point is frighteningly easy if anyone was willing to build a "Doomsday" system. In context to how it works currently the underlying concept is that if deterrence does not work and a full scale nuclear war begins then the US requires the capability that the majority of missiles launched with find thier target and anyone who attacks the US with nuclear weapons will themselves be destroyed by the US nuclear weapons.

Here is a question, what does the US actually need from the ICBM force?

Here is an answer: this thread is about the GBSD system, not policy. Take it to another thread.

But policy drives design so while an in-depth discussion should be in another thread the basic policy is very much applicable

Randy