Ground Based Interceptor (GBI)

From >15000 Soviet/Russian warheads pointed at the US to ~1500 today (which could have been lower, but for the demise of the ABM Treaty). Not too shabby.
 
It didn't seem to. The vast majority of the reductions can be matched to arms control agreements (which started 20 years before the collapse), and a lot of it came from de-MIRVing (downloading or preferential retirement of highly MIRVed systems). In other words, delivery vehicle numbers (despite accounting for a bigger share of the cost) did not go down to the same extent, an expensive way of realizing a given cut. Add the very active post-USSR development of new delivery systems and it's obvious that Russia would've been perfectly willing and able to maintain a bigger arsenal.
 
I would have to disagree with you there. The Soviet Union had a very poor record indeed with regards as to honouring arms control treaties and the like. Along with that, the post-Soviet development of new Russian strategic weapon systems only really began gain any traction off after Putin took over, and even then progress was relatively slow until the late 2000s onwards.
 
Last edited:
What part of the argument exactly are you disagreeing with?

That warhead numbers went down at all, or that the reductions were attributable to arms control?

If the latter, see my above post - fiscal pressures from the collapse were plainly not so severe as to preclude retaining a lot of expensive delivery systems, or the development of new ones. By maintaining a higher number of warheads per delivery vehicle, Russia could have kept a substantially larger arsenal quite easily.

If the former, well, if we assume for argument's sake that warhead numbers didn't go down in the first place, what relevance does the collapse of the USSR have at all?
 
bobbymike said:
Transportable?
Click to expand...
It's somewhat of a pity that the U.S. doesn't truly live by its mantra of 'free markets'...could you imagine the effective TEL designed and built by the Russian GAZ corporation ;)

Regards
Pioneer
 
I think the U.S. just needs a little more spending on defense and offense, like better success rate tests with newer systems or not cancelling HGV flight tests when another country already air-launched a scramjet. weapons better than minuteman, boosting BMD capabilities back at home, don't mind ship capabilities being boosted for better offensive and defensive means.

Like I wouldn't mind if the U.S. made something more new and superior to S-500, tundra satellites, HARMONY SONAR system, A-235 systems, new Voronezh ground radars, talks of radars hitting the millimeter wave frequency or higher, etc. Don't understand why some are making it look like the country is paranoid for spending more money on new nuclear weapons for offensive means when they are spending as much or if not more for defensive means.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
What part of the argument exactly are you disagreeing with?

That warhead numbers went down at all, or that the reductions were attributable to arms control?

If the latter, see my above post - fiscal pressures from the collapse were plainly not so severe as to preclude retaining a lot of expensive delivery systems, or the development of new ones. By maintaining a higher number of warheads per delivery vehicle, Russia could have kept a substantially larger arsenal quite easily.

If the former, well, if we assume for argument's sake that warhead numbers didn't go down in the first place, what relevance does the collapse of the USSR have at all?
Click to expand...
My point was that not only that the reduction in Russia's warheads and delivery systems mostly occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the victors boot was on her neck so to speak, but that development let alone deployment of new strategic weapons was effectively all but stillborn for quite a long time. In addition, the fact that many of the systems that were left over were at best only nominally operational and/or in the hands of successor states other than Russia certainly didn't help her strategic outlook.
 
Topol-M went from drawing board to initial deployment before Putin came in, and much of the development work for the systems tested and mass produced on his watch necessarily happened before 2000, too. Besides, through the 1990s Russia had about 4x MORE warheads than it does now - that is precisely the point!
 
Pioneer said:
bobbymike said:
Transportable?
Click to expand...
It's somewhat of a pity that the U.S. doesn't truly live by its mantra of 'free markets'...could you imagine the effective TEL designed and built by the Russian GAZ corporation ;)

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
No need:
3099373025_1_9_GJuysBe3.jpg

And I'm sure, if need be, Oshkosh, John Deere, or even Caterpillar would be up to the task.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
Topol-M went from drawing board to initial deployment before Putin came in, and much of the development work for the systems tested and mass produced on his watch necessarily happened before 2000, too.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that Topol-M only nominally entered service in 2000 and didn't really begin to enter service until 2006, despite three regiments having been stood up to operate the silo based version in the intervening period? (I think the mobile version also finally began to enter service in 2006.) Some pre-production examples were also reportedly operated on a test basis by a couple of existing missile regiments in the late '90s, though that was widely believed to be pretty much a bluff (along with badly needed PR for domestic purposes), due to the design not being perfected until the early 2000s.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1437158183865225221
View: https://twitter.com/SLDelta30/status/1437158183865225221

Northrop Grumman Supports Successful Flight Test for the Missile Defense Agency

News Releases

VANDENBERG, Calif. – Sept. 13, 2021 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC), under contract to Boeing, successfully completed a critical non-intercept flight test (BTV-03) of the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The flight test successfully demonstrated company-developed software that enables upgraded booster capability and enhances America’s homeland defense.

“This flight test demonstrated a Northrop Grumman-designed upgrade that enables a new capability for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system,” said Scott Lehr, vice president and general manager, launch and missile systems defense, Northrop Grumman. “GMD is our nation’s only standing defense against rogue state long-range ballistic missiles, which is why we are committed to ensuring our country is always one step ahead of our adversaries.”

The GMD program is an element of the MDA’s Ballistic Missile Defense System. Its mission is to protect the United States by destroying intermediate- and long-range incoming ballistic missile threats in space. Northrop Grumman serves as a strategic partner to Boeing for the GMD program, providing the interceptor boost vehicle as well as the development, integration, operations and sustainment of the ground systems.

Northrop Grumman has provided critical elements of the GMD program for more than two decades. The company is also the leading provider of target vehicles to MDA, allowing U.S. missile defense systems to be operationally tested – validating their effectiveness in protecting our country, warfighters and allies.

news.northropgrumman.com

Northrop Grumman Supports Successful Flight Test for the Missile Defense Agency

VANDENBERG, Calif. – Sept. 13, 2021 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC), under contract to Boeing, successfully completed a critical non-intercept flight test (BTV-03) of the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency...
news.northropgrumman.com news.northropgrumman.com
 
Seeing how well earlier versions hovered over that net-did JPL use some of that tech for skycrane? Old Space does precision well-as Webb's bullseye proved. Armadillo's hover attempts were laughable-but these interceptors looked rock steady in tests years ago.
 
news.northropgrumman.com

Northrop Grumman Begins Fabrication of Key NGI Components

MAGNA, Utah – June 16, 2022 – (PHOTO RELEASE) Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE: NOC) Next Generation Interceptor (NGI) team recently began fabrication of integral throat entrances for the NGI solid rocket motors. This key milestone marks the...
news.northropgrumman.com news.northropgrumman.com
 
What they need is a MHTK missile and a Glide Phase Interceptor. Unless they can make a MHTK system that does both.

THAAD
THAAD-ER
SM-3 IIA
Mobile GBI (Like KEI)
GPI
MHTK
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom