Common Ballistic Missile for USAF and US ?

[Orionblamblam]

I would go with a D5 diameter sized replacement with a longer first stage for global range from CONUS.

The USN and USAF use very different propellants for their ballistic missiles. The Navy propellant allows for higher impulse density, for better performance in a smaller missile... at the cost of being somewhat twitchy compared to the staid USAF propellant. The USN probably wouldn't be able to meet performance requirements with USAF propellant; the USAF would probably be unwilling to use the less stable Navy propellant. And the difference in propellant is sufficient that you couldn't simply put different propellants in the same missile hardware. So there's little utility in common booster stages.

That said... no reason they couldn't use the same RV's. No reason they couldn't use the same propulsion module, guidance system and software.

 

[bobbymike]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY

I would go with a D5 diameter sized replacement with a longer first stage for global range from CONUS.

The USN and USAF use very different propellants for their ballistic missiles. The Navy propellant allows for higher impulse density, for better performance in a smaller missile... at the cost of being somewhat twitchy compared to the staid USAF propellant. The USN probably wouldn't be able to meet performance requirements with USAF propellant; the USAF would probably be unwilling to use the less stable Navy propellant. And the difference in propellant is sufficient that you couldn't simply put different propellants in the same missile hardware. So there's little utility in common booster stages.

That said... no reason they couldn't use the same RV's. No reason they couldn't use the same propulsion module, guidance system and software.

......But ATK said that technically, using the same set of ingredients the Navy uses today -- only in different quantities -- could produce a fuel that is higher-performance than the Air Force's today while falling into the same classification as the Navy's. Such a move would significantly strengthen the limited ballistic missile industrial base and most likely save the Pentagon money as well........
----------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like they are trying for some propellant commonality unless I am reading this passage wrong.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY

Well, if the USAF is okay with moving to nitrocellulose & nitroglycerine based double-base propellant... shrug. Then a common ICBM would be at least theoretical feasible, probably by adding a booster stage to the Navy SLBM to create the longer-ranged USAF ICBM.

Of course, note that it seems to be ATK saying that it would be awesome to go to a common ICBM, not the USAF & USN. ATK would of course love to gt the joint contract to build the next-gen nukelobber, and if that's to replace both Minuteman *and* Trident, so much the better.