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

one question, why LGM-35A Sentinel and Minuteman III seem to be pretty pointy looking compared to China ICBM like DF-4, DF-5 Or Russia ICBM like RS-28

​

 
I don't think MM3 is that sharp comparing to DF-5B, but comparing MM3 and MX to the others, the nosecone is a definite distinction. Dunno. Maybe different RV assembly shape? Aero requirements?
 
Ronny said:
one question, why LGM-35A Sentinel and Minuteman III seem to be pretty pointy looking compared to China ICBM like DF-4, DF-5 Or Russia ICBM like RS-28

​

Click to expand...
Probably to do with the payload footprint and position relative to missile head diameter. The 3 MIRVs in MMIII are a tight squeeze I think, so the nosecone needs to go up more before coming across to meet the other side.

And sorry but couldn't resist:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mUbmJ1-sNs
 
Kiltonge said:
Well I would hope that it's at least a "generational leap" given that it's arriving two generations after Peacekeeper and three after MM3...
Click to expand...
Kinda doubt that, especially considering that its intended to reuse existing RV's and warheads, and probably bus too. Also, silo size limitations matters.
 
Dilandu said:
Kinda doubt that, especially considering that its intended to reuse existing RV's and warheads, and probably bus too. Also, silo size limitations matters.
Click to expand...
According to various DOD/Industry news/information release, it ostensively a new RV, new or totally refurbished warhead.

- The U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] conducted a planned flight test of the unarmed, developmental Mk21A reentry vehicle in the Pacific Ocean on June 17.

- The W87-1 Modification Program marks the first time since the end of the Cold War that the nation’s NSE will be putting a 100 percent newly manufactured nuclear warhead into the stockpile

Also, depending on what you were trying to achieve the program limited the missile not the silo as MX was housed in existing silos plus there were studies on different missiles one called “Silo Stuffer” that was close to 3x the weight of MMIII able to carry 25 RVs.

My car is limited to 60mph because I don’t push the peddle down further is my limitation not the car’s.
 

Attachments

  • 35F8C11F-6DE0-4F31-AA55-066B4A804BB8.jpeg
    35F8C11F-6DE0-4F31-AA55-066B4A804BB8.jpeg
    138.9 KB · Views: 48
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
According to various DOD/Industry news/information release, it ostensively a new RV, new or totally refurbished warhead.
Click to expand...
Both Mk-21 RV and Mk-87 warheads are legacy designs from MX program. AFAIK, there were no mention of any significant redesing of those. The Mk-21A and Mk-87-1 are merely new production models of 1980s designs.
 
We just have to accept that Sentinel won't be that groundbreaking, it's still doubtful if it's even on par with Peacekeeper performance for the moment. But indeed it will feature many new 21st century rocket tech, all fruits of the last 20 years of commercial spacelift maturity.
 
Dilandu said:
Both Mk-21 RV and Mk-87 warheads are legacy designs from MX program. AFAIK, there were no mention of any significant redesing of those. The Mk-21A and Mk-87-1 are merely new production models of 1980s designs.
Click to expand...
Given all I’ve read and the politics of nuclear modernization combined with the quotes above these are brand new weapons/designs.

Saying they are just like their 70-80s design is like saying my brand new 2025 Corvette is the same as an 80s corvette cause “hey they’re both corvettes”.
 
bobbymike said:
Given all I’ve read and the politics of nuclear modernization combined with the quotes above these are brand new weapons/designs.

Saying they are just like their 70-80s design is like saying my brand new 2025 Corvette is the same as an 80s corvette cause “hey they’re both corvettes”.
Click to expand...
Brand-new nuclear warhead design would require testing. Nobody would rely on untested design for nuclear deterrence.
 
Dilandu said:
Brand-new nuclear warhead design would require testing. Nobody would rely on untested design for nuclear deterrence.
Click to expand...
The W87-1 is a brand new weapon. Yes not a new design. A new design is not needed but comparing it to an original W-87 is just not an accurate representation. There’s also a testing moratorium, yes US is not a party but she my first comment about “political issues”.

Also the Navy is building the all new W93 WITHOUT testing so there’s that.

The Mk-21a from LockMart

“Lockheed Martin is maturing its Mk21A design, which includes the arming and fuzing subsystem and support equipment, using advanced digital engineering tools, including advanced modeling and simulation. This allows for efficiency in schedule, reduced cost and risk, and increased confidence in system performance.”

They are testing so by your previous statement sounds therefore new to me.
 
independent review to hold Pentagon officials accountable for wasting and mismanaging billions of taxpayer dollars
Click to expand...
We've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. The ages old trick.
Regraining is "feasible" I suppose, not like they haven't been doing it for the last decades of stagnation, but the Ship of Theseus remains. If the MM3(1/2) still carries on the mantle of the land based deterrence, through an evaluation of capabilities, then it should be emphasised so that Sentinel exists to revitalize the US rocket force and the industry behind it. That's what we should be talking about. If we're to continue humping on "rebuilds" then all we have is a depreciated large SRM base to work on and when adversaries start introducing capabilities that invalidates the maximum potential of the MM3 platform then what do we have? Because China is looking more and more like that boogeyman.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, yes, upgrading MIRVs to MARVs would be a big improvement at the business end.
Click to expand...
There is no need at this time, since accuracy is fine and Russian BMD can be defeated as is currently. I do expect to see MARVs in the future but MIRVs will do the job just fine.
 
The fact that Russia China and even North Korea are building new ICBMs leaves me disheartened to say the least.

We should have reduced, yes obviously, after Cold War but never stopped modernizing. This stuff is too important.

We should have MXs and SICBMs being contemplated for replacement not MMIIIs
 
bobbymike said:
The fact that Russia China and even North Korea are building new ICBMs leaves me disheartened to say the least.

We should have reduced, yes obviously, after Cold War but never stopped modernizing. This stuff is too important.

We should have MXs and SICBMs being contemplated for replacement not MMIIIs
Click to expand...
Hysteria 3.jpg
 
The decision to go ahead with GBSD was made under Obama, while the NGRV was under Biden. The core of the US nuclear forces is its SLBMs not its ICBMs (in reality its conventional over its nuclear forces). Every other nation in the meme depends on its ICBMs over its SLBMs and in the case of RUssia and NK they heavily depend on their nuclear forces for deterrence.
 
Desertfox said:
The decision to go ahead with GBSD was made under Obama, while the NGRV was under Biden. The core of the US nuclear forces is its SLBMs not its ICBMs (in reality its conventional over its nuclear forces). Every other nation in the meme depends on its ICBMs over its SLBMs and in the case of RUssia and NK they heavily depend on their nuclear forces for deterrence.
Click to expand...
Not the point I’m making. Although I am a strong proponent of modernization of the ICBM force the fact that we, as a country, have said these weapons are extremely important and therefore we need to modernize and we seemingly can’t is very troubling notwithstanding any separate argument about efficacy and need.
 
Except we can, the missile part of the Sentinel program is moving relatively smoothly, its the silos that are causing issues because they were not part of the original proposal. The D5 program is also just fine. We can make missiles, we just don't put the same amount of effort others do. For Russia, ICBMs are a matter of national survival, for the US... well the USAF would get rid of them faster than A-10s if they could.
 
bobbymike said:
Not the point I’m making. Although I am a strong proponent of modernization of the ICBM force the fact that we, as a country, have said these weapons are extremely important and therefore we need to modernize and we seemingly can’t is very troubling notwithstanding any separate argument about efficacy and need.
Click to expand...
The issue with the Sentinel isn't that we can't make missiles. It's that USAF, Inc decided to not include replacing all the old hacked up wiring or digging new silos in the original contracts. The silos we can maybe make an argument about the USAF thinking they were in better material condition than they actually were, but there's zero excuse for not including the wiring.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The issue with the Sentinel isn't that we can't make missiles. It's that USAF, Inc decided to not include replacing all the old hacked up wiring or digging new silos in the original contracts. The silos we can maybe make an argument about the USAF thinking they were in better material condition than they actually were, but there's zero excuse for not including the wiring.
Click to expand...
WASHINGTON — An ongoing restructuring of the beleaguered Sentinel ICBM program has left its flight testing schedule up in the air, and a new date for the missile’s first flight is now unknown, an Air Force official tells Breaking Defense.

Officials previously planned to fly the missile for the first time in 2026, itself a delay of over two years. But as part of the program’s overhaul, mandated after an 81 percent cost spike last year, “the team is actively assessing the overall schedule, including potential impacts on the timeline for the first full-system flight,” the Air Force official said today.

The revelation of the shifting flight test plan came in response to Breaking Defense’s query about a Government Accountability Office report published Wednesday [PDF], which stated that the Sentinel’s first flight is now set for March 2028, a total delay of over four years. The Air Force official did not comment directly on the GAO timeline, saying only, “Updated schedule details, including key milestone dates, will be available once” officials complete the program’s restructuring — a statement that does not deny 2028 as a possible date, but leaves open options for it to be both sooner and later.
————————-
I’m assuming they wouldn’t be using an active MMIII silo nor the need to refurbish/build new silos to test Sentinel.
 
bobbymike said:
WASHINGTON — An ongoing restructuring of the beleaguered Sentinel ICBM program has left its flight testing schedule up in the air, and a new date for the missile’s first flight is now unknown, an Air Force official tells Breaking Defense.

Officials previously planned to fly the missile for the first time in 2026, itself a delay of over two years. But as part of the program’s overhaul, mandated after an 81 percent cost spike last year, “the team is actively assessing the overall schedule, including potential impacts on the timeline for the first full-system flight,” the Air Force official said today.

The revelation of the shifting flight test plan came in response to Breaking Defense’s query about a Government Accountability Office report published Wednesday [PDF], which stated that the Sentinel’s first flight is now set for March 2028, a total delay of over four years. The Air Force official did not comment directly on the GAO timeline, saying only, “Updated schedule details, including key milestone dates, will be available once” officials complete the program’s restructuring — a statement that does not deny 2028 as a possible date, but leaves open options for it to be both sooner and later.
————————-
I’m assuming they wouldn’t be using an active MMIII silo nor the need to refurbish/build new silos to test Sentinel.
Click to expand...
Stop doing a thing for 30+ years and you forget how. Who could have guessed? But I'm sure if we cancel this and start over we'll get it right next time. We were clearly too ambitious this time around. Should have started with something more like a . . . Sergeant. Not mobile of course though.

sergeant_05.jpg
 
bobbymike said:
I’m assuming they wouldn’t be using an active MMIII silo nor the need to refurbish/build new silos to test Sentinel.
Click to expand...
No, that would be launched from Vandenburg AFB test silos. There may also be test silos at Cape Canaveral.

But when the whole contract has to be rewritten, even the production of test articles pauses.


In_A_Dream said:
I hope they decide to build 2 silos per launch site, we're going to need it.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the usual was 10 silos per launch control center.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom