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

[Forest Green]

I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.

New START will expire Feb 2026 before Sentinel enters service. There is no mechanism to renew it and I think it will be the last strategic arms reduction treaty to exist for a long time given that any future agreement would likely have to involve China, which will complicate things at best and seems more likely to just be a non starter.

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.

Yes, nuclear agreements are pointless if they don't include China, and given how close China and Russia are, or can be, it's unlikely that a 3-way equal agreement would be wise.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.

New START will expire Feb 2026 before Sentinel enters service. There is no mechanism to renew it and I think it will be the last strategic arms reduction treaty to exist for a long time given that any future agreement would likely have to involve China, which will complicate things at best and seems more likely to just be a non starter.

Yes, hopefully it will be MM3 base width all the way up, which should provide enough space to carry 3 W88-sized MaRVs or 1 HGV.

Yes, nuclear agreements are pointless if they don't include China, and given how close China and Russia are, or can be, it's unlikely that a 3-way equal agreement would be wise.

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.

 

[Forest Green]

Many would say they already have parity or better, it's not like anyone counts them.

 

[Josh_TN]

Many would say they already have parity or better, it's not like anyone counts them.

It seems unlikely to me China is concealing hundreds of extra launchers and a thousand more deployed warheads.

 

[sferrin]

Many would say they already have parity or better, it's not like anyone counts them.

It seems unlikely to me China is concealing hundreds of extra launchers and a thousand more deployed warheads.

Or 400 silos?

 

[Josh_TN]

Many would say they already have parity or better, it's not like anyone counts them.

It seems unlikely to me China is concealing hundreds of extra launchers and a thousand more deployed warheads.

Or 400 silos?

I have a hard time believing there are actually launchers in all those silos or that they all are in fact operational silos. Your mileage may differ.

 

[sferrin]

Many would say they already have parity or better, it's not like anyone counts them.

It seems unlikely to me China is concealing hundreds of extra launchers and a thousand more deployed warheads.

Or 400 silos?

I have a hard time believing there are actually launchers in all those silos or that they all are in fact operational silos. Your mileage may differ.

I'd rather be wrong my way than yours.

 

[Desertfox]

The US is keeping close eye on Chinese developments and has a much better understanding of exactly how many there are and what kinds of loadouts they have, than you or me.

 

[Dreamfighter]

Tangential: The 'Sentinel' design with but one (1) MIRV-type head... Call it the 'Skinny-man' ??

That's basically what it is. Think Midgetman-light. Will almost certainly be the least capable "ICBM" on the planet it when (if) it ever gets fielded. It'd almost be better to keep MM3.

Have the requirements or dimensions ever been published? The documentation I’ve read quite explicitly threw out the idea of a “midget man” sized weapon. The conceptional art if anything seems to have a less tapered upper stage.

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.

If it’s single warhead only in the age of Sarmat and DF-41s I’m gonna be pissed.

I went through several pages of this thread but I certainly didn´t read all of them, so this might have been posted before:

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11681.pdf

Modern rocket boosters, like the Navy’s D5 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile, use composite material to save weight and increase potential payload. The boosters designed for the new missile will use a composite material, making GBSD (Sentinel) significantly lighter than the MMIII. Most notably, this will increase the missile’s throw weight, which is a measure of the weight of the payload that the missile can deliver to a particular range. The Air Force asserts that the greater throw weight will allow the new missile to carry different payloads and give it more flexibility for future missions. Specifically, as adversaries develop ballistic missile defensive systems in the future, the increased throw weight could potentially allow the Air Force to develop countermeasures that would help the missile overcome the defenses. The Air Force plans to deploy the GBSD (Sentinel) with one warhead per missile. However, with the greater throw weight available on the missile, the Air Force could, potentially, deploy it with two or three warheads in response to changes in the international security environment. Moreover, some argue that if the Air Force deployed multiple warheads on each missile, it might be able to meet targeting requirements with a smaller number of deployed missiles. Currently, the United States disperses single-warhead missiles across a large area of the upper Midwest, which both reduces the value of each individual missile and complicates an adversary’s ability to attack the entire force. A smaller number of multiple warhead missiles could change this calculus but also might provide a less costly alternative for the ICBM force.

 

[Forest Green]

Or 400 silos?

Exactly. Does any other country have more missile silos than warheads? Even the US and Russia, which are know to have had way more warheads and missiles in the past, don't.

 

[jsport]

The nuclear 3 body problem: STRATCOM 'furiously' rewriting deterrence theory in tripolar world - Breaking Defense

In the near term, STRATCOM Commander Adm. Charles Richard said that missile warning is his top priority, and expressed concern over China's FOBS test.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Forest Green]

The solution may involve Britain and France becoming a sort of 4th body, with a subsequent increase in warheads.

 

[sferrin]

A smaller number of multiple warhead missiles could change this calculus but also might provide a less costly alternative for the ICBM force.

Because what we really want to cheap out on is the defense of the nation.

 

[Josh_TN]

In the short term it seems clear the US will have to increase its deployable warheads. It has a enough reserve capacity to do so post New START. In the long term there may need to be an expansion of nuclear delivery systems - however this isn't a foregone conclusion. Politics and economics will play a role in this. Will China continue to become a near peer nuclear power as its economy inevitably cools off and is forced to accept a more western level of growth? Will Russia be able to maintain its current inventory indefinitely under sanctions? Will all countries involved be politically stable for the next decade? Who knows. So long as the US has systems in production, presumably it can alter its strategic posture as the situation changes.

 

[sferrin]

In the short term it seems clear the US will have to increase its deployable warheads. It has a enough reserve capacity to do so post New START. In the long term there may need to be an expansion of nuclear delivery systems - however this isn't a foregone conclusion. Politics and economics will play a role in this. Will China continue to become a near peer nuclear power as its economy inevitably cools off and is forced to accept a more western level of growth? Will Russia be able to maintain its current inventory indefinitely under sanctions? Will all countries involved be politically stable for the next decade? Who knows. So long as the US has systems in production, presumably it can alter its strategic posture as the situation changes.

The most pressing thing to fix is the machine. It's broke. We can't just turn out warheads on demand like we used to be able to. A new missile is relatively easy by comparison.

 

[Josh_TN]

In the short term it seems clear the US will have to increase its deployable warheads. It has a enough reserve capacity to do so post New START. In the long term there may need to be an expansion of nuclear delivery systems - however this isn't a foregone conclusion. Politics and economics will play a role in this. Will China continue to become a near peer nuclear power as its economy inevitably cools off and is forced to accept a more western level of growth? Will Russia be able to maintain its current inventory indefinitely under sanctions? Will all countries involved be politically stable for the next decade? Who knows. So long as the US has systems in production, presumably it can alter its strategic posture as the situation changes.

The most pressing thing to fix is the machine. It's broke. We can't just turn out warheads on demand like we used to be able to. A new missile is relatively easy by comparison.

There isn't a warhead or pit shortage in the near or medium term, though I agree the means of production needs to be re-established. If nothing else, weapons grade uranium is necessary for the USNs reactors. I think currently they are raiding the material in storage from retired weapons.

 

[sferrin]

I think currently they are raiding the material in storage from retired weapons.

God, that's absolutely pathetic if true.

 

[bobbymike]

Assessing U.S. Options for the Future of the ICBM Force

One of the most salient issues that surfaced in this study is the projected medium-term increase in the vulnerability of silo-based ICBMs to attack by precision conventional weapons.

carnegieendowment.org

 

[sferrin]

Assessing U.S. Options for the Future of the ICBM Force

One of the most salient issues that surfaced in this study is the projected medium-term increase in the vulnerability of silo-based ICBMs to attack by precision conventional weapons.

carnegieendowment.org

They should have gone mobile from the getgo. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, else does.

 

[Grey Havoc]

As I have noted on a fair few occasions previously, Sanity has been an ever increasingly scarce global commodity in recent decades...

 

[Forest Green]

I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.

New START will expire Feb 2026 before Sentinel enters service. There is no mechanism to renew it and I think it will be the last strategic arms reduction treaty to exist for a long time given that any future agreement would likely have to involve China, which will complicate things at best and seems more likely to just be a non starter.

I'm finding it difficult to get an accurate base diameter for Minuteman III, some sources say 1.68m, some 1.85m. If it's the latter with no taper for Sentinel, then it could hold 6 warheads.

They should have gone mobile from the getgo. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, else does.

Mobile ones have their own security issues wrt terrorists. A mobile underground system between silos laid out in a grid could work though.

 

[Josh_TN]

Assessing U.S. Options for the Future of the ICBM Force

One of the most salient issues that surfaced in this study is the projected medium-term increase in the vulnerability of silo-based ICBMs to attack by precision conventional weapons.

carnegieendowment.org

They should have gone mobile from the getgo. Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, else does.

It's the wrong time to go to mobile launchers, IMO. That ship has sailed. Satellite detection is increasingly making that a less desirable option; the Russians already deploy laser dazzlers in an attempt to counter this. The Chinese are actually adopting silos. If we assume China will soon be able to deploy an Iridium sized constellation of EO and SAR satellites with sufficient resolution to ID large vehicles, the survivability of a massive ICBM TEL which can't easily be camouflaged as anything else is definitely in doubt. We can probably add in the drone threat to that, both high altitude persistent and locally run by foreign agents. Additionally, "everyone" (Ru, PRC, DPRK) uses mobile launchers because they have a lack of faith in (or lack of) their SSBN force, which isn't a pressing concern for the US.

 

[Tool_Shed_Toker]

I'm sure there's no way to know, but how likely is it that the recent Minuteman III launches are being used as testbeds for GBSD components?

 

[sferrin]

It's the wrong time to go to mobile launchers, IMO. That ship has sailed. Satellite detection is increasingly making that a less desirable option; the Russians already deploy laser dazzlers in an attempt to counter this. The Chinese are actually adopting silos. If we assume China will soon be able to deploy an Iridium sized constellation of EO and SAR satellites with sufficient resolution to ID large vehicles, the survivability of a massive ICBM TEL which can't easily be camouflaged as anything else is definitely in doubt. We can probably add in the drone threat to that, both high altitude persistent and locally run by foreign agents.

That's a lot of hand-waving. The notion there would be a high altitude, persistent, and LOCALLY run ICBM tracking system over this country is ridiculous. And the Chinese are using silos AND mobile launchers. They have TWO mobile ICBMs in production. That's hardly a testament to them having no faith in them.

Additionally, "everyone" (Ru, PRC, DPRK) uses mobile launchers because they have a lack of faith in (or lack of) their SSBN force, which isn't a pressing concern for the US.

No, it's because they're harder to hit than an undefended silo. And putting all of your faith in SSBNs is short-sighted at best. When (not if) persistent SSBN detection become a thing their deterrent value becomes almost nil.

 

[Josh_TN]

It's the wrong time to go to mobile launchers, IMO. That ship has sailed. Satellite detection is increasingly making that a less desirable option; the Russians already deploy laser dazzlers in an attempt to counter this. The Chinese are actually adopting silos. If we assume China will soon be able to deploy an Iridium sized constellation of EO and SAR satellites with sufficient resolution to ID large vehicles, the survivability of a massive ICBM TEL which can't easily be camouflaged as anything else is definitely in doubt. We can probably add in the drone threat to that, both high altitude persistent and locally run by foreign agents.

That's a lot of hand-waving. The notion there would be a high altitude, persistent, and LOCALLY run ICBM tracking system over this country is ridiculous. And the Chinese are using silos AND mobile launchers. They have TWO mobile ICBMs in production. That's hardly a testament to them having no faith in them.

Additionally, "everyone" (Ru, PRC, DPRK) uses mobile launchers because they have a lack of faith in (or lack of) their SSBN force, which isn't a pressing concern for the US.

No, it's because they're harder to hit than an undefended silo. And putting all of your faith in SSBNs is short-sighted at best. When (not if) persistent SSBN detection become a thing their deterrent value becomes almost nil.

Fine, disregard the drones. Satellite tracking is not at all unobtanium; it is basically happening on a small scale now. As I noted, the Russians are already defending against it. The US Army has done experiments in its Convergence 21 exercise using commercial satellites as intel sources, washing their raw data through AIs and generating fire missions (PROMETHEUS and SHOT). Those are real things happening now; would you really want to gamble that by the time Sentinel enters service, a ten axle TEL surrounded by a security element can't easily be identified in near real time by a modestly sized constellation in LEO backed by AI? I think that is a horrible bet.

We disagree on the viability of successfully engaging a SSBN at depth over a thousand miles off a country's coast, even assuming air/satellite detection and tracking of submarines became possible. I won't rehash that argument.

 

[Desertfox]

I'm sure there's no way to know, but how likely is it that the recent Minuteman III launches are being used as testbeds for GBSD components?

Its happening

 

[Desertfox]

Road-mobiles can be taken out conventionally, silos are not there yet.
Road-mobiles are used by Russia and China as a secondary retaliatory strike component of their triads, equivalent to the US SSBNs. The US does not need road-mobiles which in the US would be alot more vulnerable unless you used a shell-game harden garages which is not the same equivalent of other nation's road mobile forces, which are also much more expensive to operate.

 

[sferrin]

We disagree on the viability of successfully engaging a SSBN at depth over a thousand miles off a country's coast, even assuming air/satellite detection and tracking of submarines became possible. I won't rehash that argument.

One possibility would be to use the new Poseidon torpedoes in such a role. They're nuclear powered. Plenty of power for an active sonar and lots of endurance. Park a carrier off Kings Bay or Bangor and wait for SSBNs to come out. One comes out you set a Poseidon to follow it for the duration of it's deployment. If things go south the nuclear warhead on the Poseidon goes *BOOM*. Hell, it's big enough you could just put a thousand kilo conventional warhead on it. Sink an SSBN without using a nuke. You think the US is going to start a nuclear war with Russia if it loses an SSBN? Nope.

 

[Calphor]

I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.

New START will expire Feb 2026 before Sentinel enters service. There is no mechanism to renew it and I think it will be the last strategic arms reduction treaty to exist for a long time given that any future agreement would likely have to involve China, which will complicate things at best and seems more likely to just be a non starter.

I'm finding it difficult to get an accurate base diameter for Minuteman III, some sources say 1.68m, some 1.85m. If it's the latter with no taper for Sentinel, then it could hold 6 warheads.

Considering that the US Air Force publishes MMIII diameter at 5.5 ft (1.67m), I would go with that. Sentinel will look very similar to MMIII. Think MMIII scaled up. It will not be uniform diameter like Peacekeeper or Trident C4/D5.

 

[Josh_TN]

We disagree on the viability of successfully engaging a SSBN at depth over a thousand miles off a country's coast, even assuming air/satellite detection and tracking of submarines became possible. I won't rehash that argument.

One possibility would be to use the new Poseidon torpedoes in such a role. They're nuclear powered. Plenty of power for an active sonar and lots of endurance. Park a carrier off Kings Bay or Bangor and wait for SSBNs to come out. One comes out you set a Poseidon to follow it for the duration of it's deployment. If things go south the nuclear warhead on the Poseidon goes *BOOM*. Hell, it's big enough you could just put a thousand kilo conventional warhead on it. Sink an SSBN without using a nuke. You think the US is going to start a nuclear war with Russia if it loses an SSBN? Nope.

This assumes:
1) that launching platform goes undetected

2) that the nuclear mini sub (effectively what Status-6 is) also goes undetected

3) Poseidon has sufficient sonar and AI to detect and then track a target


Both China and Russia have a very limited ability to stalk USN nuke boats in open water and it’s hard to see that situation changing drastically even in the long term. The range of the D5 is such that not only can an Ohio stay well off the coast, it also to some extent can choose which body of water it wants to operate in.

 

[sferrin]

We disagree on the viability of successfully engaging a SSBN at depth over a thousand miles off a country's coast, even assuming air/satellite detection and tracking of submarines became possible. I won't rehash that argument.

One possibility would be to use the new Poseidon torpedoes in such a role. They're nuclear powered. Plenty of power for an active sonar and lots of endurance. Park a carrier off Kings Bay or Bangor and wait for SSBNs to come out. One comes out you set a Poseidon to follow it for the duration of it's deployment. If things go south the nuclear warhead on the Poseidon goes *BOOM*. Hell, it's big enough you could just put a thousand kilo conventional warhead on it. Sink an SSBN without using a nuke. You think the US is going to start a nuclear war with Russia if it loses an SSBN? Nope.

This assumes:
1) that launching platform goes undetected

2) that the nuclear mini sub (effectively what Status-6 is) also goes undetected

3) Poseidon has sufficient sonar and AI to detect and then track a target


Both China and Russia have a very limited ability to stalk USN nuke boats in open water and it’s hard to see that situation changing drastically even in the long term. The range of the D5 is such that not only can an Ohio stay well off the coast, it also to some extent can choose which body of water it wants to operate in.

None of that needs to be undetected. That drone could be pinging away 24/7. What could the SSBN do about it? Run? Complain?

 

[bobbymike]

I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.

New START will expire Feb 2026 before Sentinel enters service. There is no mechanism to renew it and I think it will be the last strategic arms reduction treaty to exist for a long time given that any future agreement would likely have to involve China, which will complicate things at best and seems more likely to just be a non starter.

I'm finding it difficult to get an accurate base diameter for Minuteman III, some sources say 1.68m, some 1.85m. If it's the latter with no taper for Sentinel, then it could hold 6 warheads.

Considering that the US Air Force publishes MMIII diameter at 5.5 ft (1.67m), I would go with that. Sentinel will look very similar to MMIII. Think MMIII scaled up. It will not be uniform diameter like Peacekeeper or Trident C4/D5.

If it’s a “new” MMIII what a waste and lost opportunity. If Russia builds more Sarmats than we expect and those 300 new Chinese silos hold 10 warhead Df-41s (not even including the mobile 10 warhead version) we have no ability to upload to any great degree the land based leg of the Triad.

 

[sferrin]

I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.

New START will expire Feb 2026 before Sentinel enters service. There is no mechanism to renew it and I think it will be the last strategic arms reduction treaty to exist for a long time given that any future agreement would likely have to involve China, which will complicate things at best and seems more likely to just be a non starter.

I'm finding it difficult to get an accurate base diameter for Minuteman III, some sources say 1.68m, some 1.85m. If it's the latter with no taper for Sentinel, then it could hold 6 warheads.

Considering that the US Air Force publishes MMIII diameter at 5.5 ft (1.67m), I would go with that. Sentinel will look very similar to MMIII. Think MMIII scaled up. It will not be uniform diameter like Peacekeeper or Trident C4/D5.

If it’s a “new” MMIII what a waste and lost opportunity. If Russia builds more Sarmats than we expect and those 300 new Chinese silos hold 10 warhead Df-41s (not even including the mobile 10 warhead version) we have no ability to upload to any great degree the land based leg of the Triad.

This. From Russia, both Yars (mobile and silo based) and SARMAT will outperform it by a significant margin. From China the DF-41 & DF-31A (again, mobile and silo based) as well. What a pathetic joke. The bare minimum should be several hundred Peacekeeper-class in both silo-based AND mobile configurations. As it is this joke of a US ICBM will barely manage 5th position in the world and it hasn't even been built yet.

 

[Josh_TN]

We disagree on the viability of successfully engaging a SSBN at depth over a thousand miles off a country's coast, even assuming air/satellite detection and tracking of submarines became possible. I won't rehash that argument.

One possibility would be to use the new Poseidon torpedoes in such a role. They're nuclear powered. Plenty of power for an active sonar and lots of endurance. Park a carrier off Kings Bay or Bangor and wait for SSBNs to come out. One comes out you set a Poseidon to follow it for the duration of it's deployment. If things go south the nuclear warhead on the Poseidon goes *BOOM*. Hell, it's big enough you could just put a thousand kilo conventional warhead on it. Sink an SSBN without using a nuke. You think the US is going to start a nuclear war with Russia if it loses an SSBN? Nope.

This assumes:
1) that launching platform goes undetected

2) that the nuclear mini sub (effectively what Status-6 is) also goes undetected

3) Poseidon has sufficient sonar and AI to detect and then track a target


Both China and Russia have a very limited ability to stalk USN nuke boats in open water and it’s hard to see that situation changing drastically even in the long term. The range of the D5 is such that not only can an Ohio stay well off the coast, it also to some extent can choose which body of water it wants to operate in.

None of that needs to be undetected. That drone could be pinging away 24/7. What could the SSBN do about it? Run? Complain?

Sink it.

 

[sferrin]

We disagree on the viability of successfully engaging a SSBN at depth over a thousand miles off a country's coast, even assuming air/satellite detection and tracking of submarines became possible. I won't rehash that argument.

One possibility would be to use the new Poseidon torpedoes in such a role. They're nuclear powered. Plenty of power for an active sonar and lots of endurance. Park a carrier off Kings Bay or Bangor and wait for SSBNs to come out. One comes out you set a Poseidon to follow it for the duration of it's deployment. If things go south the nuclear warhead on the Poseidon goes *BOOM*. Hell, it's big enough you could just put a thousand kilo conventional warhead on it. Sink an SSBN without using a nuke. You think the US is going to start a nuclear war with Russia if it loses an SSBN? Nope.

This assumes:
1) that launching platform goes undetected

2) that the nuclear mini sub (effectively what Status-6 is) also goes undetected

3) Poseidon has sufficient sonar and AI to detect and then track a target


Both China and Russia have a very limited ability to stalk USN nuke boats in open water and it’s hard to see that situation changing drastically even in the long term. The range of the D5 is such that not only can an Ohio stay well off the coast, it also to some extent can choose which body of water it wants to operate in.

None of that needs to be undetected. That drone could be pinging away 24/7. What could the SSBN do about it? Run? Complain?

Sink it.

And start a war? Awesome.

 

[Josh_TN]

We disagree on the viability of successfully engaging a SSBN at depth over a thousand miles off a country's coast, even assuming air/satellite detection and tracking of submarines became possible. I won't rehash that argument.

One possibility would be to use the new Poseidon torpedoes in such a role. They're nuclear powered. Plenty of power for an active sonar and lots of endurance. Park a carrier off Kings Bay or Bangor and wait for SSBNs to come out. One comes out you set a Poseidon to follow it for the duration of it's deployment. If things go south the nuclear warhead on the Poseidon goes *BOOM*. Hell, it's big enough you could just put a thousand kilo conventional warhead on it. Sink an SSBN without using a nuke. You think the US is going to start a nuclear war with Russia if it loses an SSBN? Nope.

This assumes:
1) that launching platform goes undetected

2) that the nuclear mini sub (effectively what Status-6 is) also goes undetected

3) Poseidon has sufficient sonar and AI to detect and then track a target


Both China and Russia have a very limited ability to stalk USN nuke boats in open water and it’s hard to see that situation changing drastically even in the long term. The range of the D5 is such that not only can an Ohio stay well off the coast, it also to some extent can choose which body of water it wants to operate in.

None of that needs to be undetected. That drone could be pinging away 24/7. What could the SSBN do about it? Run? Complain?

Sink it.

And start a war? Awesome.

If you’re going to have an automated nuclear reactor/bomb follow SSBNs around, you better be willing to lose it. No one is going to tolerate that; not the US, not Russia, not China.

 

[sferrin]

We disagree on the viability of successfully engaging a SSBN at depth over a thousand miles off a country's coast, even assuming air/satellite detection and tracking of submarines became possible. I won't rehash that argument.

One possibility would be to use the new Poseidon torpedoes in such a role. They're nuclear powered. Plenty of power for an active sonar and lots of endurance. Park a carrier off Kings Bay or Bangor and wait for SSBNs to come out. One comes out you set a Poseidon to follow it for the duration of it's deployment. If things go south the nuclear warhead on the Poseidon goes *BOOM*. Hell, it's big enough you could just put a thousand kilo conventional warhead on it. Sink an SSBN without using a nuke. You think the US is going to start a nuclear war with Russia if it loses an SSBN? Nope.

This assumes:
1) that launching platform goes undetected

2) that the nuclear mini sub (effectively what Status-6 is) also goes undetected

3) Poseidon has sufficient sonar and AI to detect and then track a target


Both China and Russia have a very limited ability to stalk USN nuke boats in open water and it’s hard to see that situation changing drastically even in the long term. The range of the D5 is such that not only can an Ohio stay well off the coast, it also to some extent can choose which body of water it wants to operate in.

None of that needs to be undetected. That drone could be pinging away 24/7. What could the SSBN do about it? Run? Complain?

Sink it.

And start a war? Awesome.

If you’re going to have an automated nuclear reactor/bomb follow SSBNs around, you better be willing to lose it. No one is going to tolerate that; not the US, not Russia, not China.

And if you get your SSBN sunk for your effort? "You attacked our drone. We have a right to defend ourselves." No different than torpedo-armed Soviet "trawlers" following US carriers around.

 

[Josh_TN]

Well preferably I'd have an SSN do the sinking if at all practical, but I think we're giving Poseidon a lot of capabilities that haven't been ascribed to it in open source. It now has an active sonar system, enough AI to ID a particular target and follow it, and then has a torpedo it can fire at the target when it can sense its death...or perhaps simply detonates its nuke, because putting AI in charge of those decisions is a good idea...

 

[Calphor]

I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.

New START will expire Feb 2026 before Sentinel enters service. There is no mechanism to renew it and I think it will be the last strategic arms reduction treaty to exist for a long time given that any future agreement would likely have to involve China, which will complicate things at best and seems more likely to just be a non starter.

I'm finding it difficult to get an accurate base diameter for Minuteman III, some sources say 1.68m, some 1.85m. If it's the latter with no taper for Sentinel, then it could hold 6 warheads.

Considering that the US Air Force publishes MMIII diameter at 5.5 ft (1.67m), I would go with that. Sentinel will look very similar to MMIII. Think MMIII scaled up. It will not be uniform diameter like Peacekeeper or Trident C4/D5.

If it’s a “new” MMIII what a waste and lost opportunity. If Russia builds more Sarmats than we expect and those 300 new Chinese silos hold 10 warhead Df-41s (not even including the mobile 10 warhead version) we have no ability to upload to any great degree the land based leg of the Triad.

Not a “new” MMIII, it just resembles it from the outside. I don’t know what the load out will be, but it will be significantly more capable than MMIII. Not as capable as PK, but that is a given based on the tapered diameters of the stages. Remember that MMIII carried 3 MRVs/MIRVs for much of its deployed history. It was downloaded due to treaty obligations.

Based on the awarded contract, there will be a one to one replacement of Sentinel for current deployed MMIIIs.

 

[bobbymike]

I'm hoping for four warheads as well; the artist rendering they've released show much less taper than MM3.

New START will expire Feb 2026 before Sentinel enters service. There is no mechanism to renew it and I think it will be the last strategic arms reduction treaty to exist for a long time given that any future agreement would likely have to involve China, which will complicate things at best and seems more likely to just be a non starter.

I'm finding it difficult to get an accurate base diameter for Minuteman III, some sources say 1.68m, some 1.85m. If it's the latter with no taper for Sentinel, then it could hold 6 warheads.

Considering that the US Air Force publishes MMIII diameter at 5.5 ft (1.67m), I would go with that. Sentinel will look very similar to MMIII. Think MMIII scaled up. It will not be uniform diameter like Peacekeeper or Trident C4/D5.

If it’s a “new” MMIII what a waste and lost opportunity. If Russia builds more Sarmats than we expect and those 300 new Chinese silos hold 10 warhead Df-41s (not even including the mobile 10 warhead version) we have no ability to upload to any great degree the land based leg of the Triad.

Not a “new” MMIII, it just resembles it from the outside. I don’t know what the load out will be, but it will be significantly more capable than MMIII. Not as capable as PK, but that is a given based on the tapered diameters of the stages. Remember that MMIII carried 3 MRVs/MIRVs for much of its deployed history. It was downloaded due to treaty obligations.

Based on the awarded contract, there will be a one to one replacement of Sentinel for current deployed MMIIIs.

I will withhold judgement until I see the specifications. Remember they did a MMIII LEP replacing the first stage solid propellant with “green” fuel and found it less energetic than what it replaced.

I’m not optimistic it will be some technological leap.