As far as I know existing silos and control centers are being renovated. I haven't seen hot launch confirmed but it seemed likely. The missile appears to be more MMIII in size and arrangement than the MX, which was cold launched from MM silos because it was too large for a hot launch in the existing infrastructure.
Yeah, looking at the CGI again it does appear to closely match the Minuteman III silo; I'd mistakenly thought they had quite a different door configuration. The LCC does look to be a substantially new design, though - I'm sure I've seen assessments before that the LCCs are the least-hard part of the system, so that makes sense.
They really missed the ball here. I'm guessing they just wanted to check the box, so they could say they did, and weren't actually looking for useful capability.
Depends on the TEL. Midgetman, while not as hard as a silo, was much harder than your average TEL. A silo is more likely to suffer a incapacitating hit as they know exactly where it is. The reason silos have deterrent value is because you actually have attack the other guy's homeland. An SSBN sunk at sea doesn't have the same impact on the headlines. Mobile ICBMs give you the best of both worlds, which is why everybody else is using them (and why the US intended to use them before the "Peace Dividend".
https://keyt.com/news/santa-maria-n...vandenberg-space-force-base-thursday-morning/
Believe this video was shot at Malmstrom Air Force Base... late 1980s?
Good, once an ICBM gets past 40 years-old it starts to become more of a joke than a deterrent.
There was a pic of either the 1st or 2nd stage being wound at it was TINY for an ICBM. I'd have thought it was more like an ATACMS or Iskander, if that.
My Twitter connections still believe it will be MMIII size and payload comparable.
I don't know, if they put a MaRV on it it would have some increased capability but I would have preferred an LGM-118-sized missile that warheads can be added to later after START inevitably gets scrapped.
It matters what's IN them however. One MM3 with a single warhead does not equate to one SS-18/SARMAT with 10-20.
With MM3. If GBSD is designed for single-warhead only then that is not a possibility. Also, by uploading MM3s. you lose range. So now you have to task something else to address targets previously handled by MM3. We should have modified all remaining silos for cold-launch. That way, if we wanted to, we could have something as capable as Peacekeeper. Russia already has, and plans to continue so, and China will have shortly (if it doesn't already) in the form of the 10 warhead DF-41. Which is mobile.
I have a hard time believing GBSD will be single warhead only. The paper with the list of options that was linked to above seemed to discount the idea of a "Migetman" type missile. As for range, that isn't really a problem for Russia - I don't think any of the country is more than 5500 miles from say, Minot. Targets in China might be harder to reach with fully loaded MM3s; hopefully GBSD also increases range/throw weight.
There's nothing that says you HAVE to put a Peacekeeper in it. Modify the silo for cold-launching a Peacekeeper-sized missile and if you want something smaller stuff a liner in it.
I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.
Yes, hopefully it will be MM3 base width all the way up, which should provide enough space to carry 4 W88-sized MaRVs or 1 HGV.
More over China has given no indication it will negotiate over any of its missile inventory. It seems clear they intend to build up to nuclear parity long term or else they will always have issues controlling the escalation cycle of any conflict.
