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

I think the only way around the motor conundrum is to weight the ATK acquisition as null as far as this competion is concerned. Effectively, the only thing "Nothrop Grumman" about it's motor company acquisition is the sign on the front of the building, and it should be treated as such. NG should get no benefits in this competition from owning ATK. And also no, "winner take all" on the stages. IMO keeping Aerojet viable is VITAL.
 
Desertfox said:
FOBS was banned under SALT II but is not currently banned by New START, note Russia's constant talk about a "South pole" capability on their new Sarmat. FOBS is also not considered to fall under the Outer Space Treaty. Any "South pole" attack will suffer accuracy issues which can be solved via the use of GPS, this is not a FOBS-specific problem.
Click to expand...

The US has consistently interpreted FOBS of the actual LEO type as being banned by the Outer Space Treaty.
The accuracy issues tend to be worse for the full orbit types which has merit on the LUA-without-apocalypse front.

Desertfox said:
So Russia would be concerned about SLBMs but not by a FOBS attack on China?
Click to expand...

The Russians don't yet have a satellite constellation that can consistently detect random ocean launches, their
radar coverage of the Pacific is worse, their ASW isn't great, the SLBMs have actual short time of flight capability
and the entire US SLBM warhead inventory will be capable of threatening their mobile/fixed arsenal.

A CONUS based launch is well within their ability to consistently detect and with their southern radar coverage
track as well.

Desertfox said:
Do note that such an attack could very well be aimed at Russia, all the warheads have to do is keep going a bit more before deorbiting.
Click to expand...

The point is that it won't blindside them and doesn't attempt to exploit gaps in their early warning.

And per your own argument, their are fewer weapons required to attack China than Russia so in combination
with the above, a China-sized attack is much less likely to be construed as an attack on Russia.

Desertfox said:
MM3 is more likely to be used if it is under threat. Since China can not threaten MM3 there would be less need to use it against China.
Click to expand...

Only a small portion of the US ICBM force was ever LUA.
China "today" cannot threaten MMIII but GBSD is supposed to be a 50 year system.


Desertfox said:
You say there are fewer tubes on the subs but the subs carry more than twice as much warheads as the MM3 force
Click to expand...

And fewer subs.

And world + dog regards them as the first strike option.
Not what you want to be slinging around in a bad neighborhood if you don't have to.
 
Desertfox said:
While I'll agree mobile launchers are more survivable they are also more expensive and have logistical and security issues. A tractor-trailer in the highway can easily disappear but people will hate nuclear weapons randomly driving around the highways. That's why we went with Midgetman's off-road concept in the first place.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want ICBMs cruising the highways mostly from a security standpoint. I doubt many would be concerned about it provided the media didn't make an issue of it. There are nuclear storage facilities all over the place and most people don't bat an eye. But why take the chance when we don't have to? I would think silos, with terminal defenses, and launch on verification would do the trick. One could either have one ABM and radar per silo, like the LoADS concept, or defend a group. I wouldn't have dozens of ABMs for each silo, nor would I want something more than terminal defense. The idea is to deter attack (increase uncertainty) rather than defeat an attack.

I loved Midgetman, but not as the ONLY ICBM. Midgetman with Peackeeper would have been perfect.
 
Desertfox said:
Russia has radars looking south (concerned with China and to a lesser extend Pakistan and Israel).
Click to expand...
Does that mean "Russia is to some extent concerned about a nuke attack from Israel"? Hrmm. In what kind of scenario, with what goals?

And Russia would be more concerned about a nuke attack from Israel than, say, from Iran and its godcrazy proxies?

Even with Putin's special outlook on the world, isn't it a stretch?
 
Desertfox said:
The Outer Space Treaty entered into effect on October 1967, the R-36ORB entered service in November 1968 and was retired in January 1983, as part of SALT II which was signed in June 1979. The Outer Space Treaty does not forbid FOBS, it does however forbid MOBS (Multiple Orbital Bombardment System). Technically speaking any ICBM is a FOBS, since ballistic trajectories are "fractional" orbits.
Click to expand...
As I understood it, FOBS only applied to weapons capable of putting warheads into orbit, the warheads would travel a fraction of a fixed altitude orbit en route to target. An ICBM is not FOBS because it uses a ballistic arc, not a fraction of a fixed altitude orbit. It was during SALT II talks that they agreed it was prohibited under The Outer Space Treaty.
 
Article VII
2. The Parties agree that:
Second Agreed Statement.
Second Common Understanding. Of the eighteen launchers of fractional orbital missiles at the test range where ICBMs are tested in the area of Tyura-Tam, twelve launchers shall be dismantled or destroyed and six launchers may be converted to launchers for testing missiles undergoing modernization.
Click to expand...
SALT II did not mention the Outer Space Treaty, what it did was specifically call for the R-36ORB to be eliminated.

Yes FOBS applies only to warheads that are placed into a circular orbit and then de-orbited over the target. But semantically speaking ballistic trajectories are fractional orbits that just happen to intersect the ground. That said the Soviets argued that FOBS was not under the Outer Space Treaty back in the 60's and Russia appears to be ready to do the same with Sarmat.

Does that mean "Russia is to some extent concerned about a nuke attack from Israel"? Hrmm. In what kind of scenario, with what goals?

And Russia would be more concerned about a nuke attack from Israel than, say, from Iran and its godcrazy proxies?
Click to expand...
Its quite simple, Russia and Iran are allies, Russia and Israel are not. Israel has nukes, Iran does not. I'm sure if Russia and Iran stop being allies and the Iranians get nukes, then Russia will be concerned about Iranian nukes.
 
Oh I know, but the reason the R-36O came up in SALT II was because the US saw it as a breach of that earlier treaty, due to its capability to put a nuclear weapon in orbit. Just like the Iskander-K is a breach of the INF Treaty whether it actually carries a nuke or not.
 
The ground based missiles force the adversaries to target them and not out cities. Without MIRV's it's a 1:1 exchange.
 
(I don't know whether this is the right place for this, but the Bar seemed like a good spot)

May I ask how I can sign up to join the TBOverse forum? My browser doesn't display any means of signing up, and I think they recently locked all nonmembers out of the forum entirely, so I can't see any posts at all. All those lovely detailed Valkyrie and F-12B posts, locked away forever...
 
chimeric oncogene said:
(I don't know whether this is the right place for this, but the Bar seemed like a good spot)

May I ask how I can sign up to join the TBOverse forum? My browser doesn't display any means of signing up, and I think they recently locked all nonmembers out of the forum entirely, so I can't see any posts at all. All those lovely detailed Valkyrie and F-12B posts, locked away forever...
Click to expand...

So start a thread. Dropping your request in the middle of a random thread. . .
 
sferrin said:
chimeric oncogene said:
(I don't know whether this is the right place for this, but the Bar seemed like a good spot)

May I ask how I can sign up to join the TBOverse forum? My browser doesn't display any means of signing up, and I think they recently locked all nonmembers out of the forum entirely, so I can't see any posts at all. All those lovely detailed Valkyrie and F-12B posts, locked away forever...
Click to expand...

So start a thread. Dropping your request in the middle of a random thread. . .
Click to expand...

My apologies. I shall do just that.
 
breakingdefense.com

FTC Investigates Northrop: GBSD? - Breaking Defense

WASHINGTON: The Federal Trade Commission appears to be investigating whether Northrop Grumman acted in restraint of trade and violated an order requiring the company to sell its solid motor rocket engines on “a non-discriminatory basis to all competitors for missile contracts.” Northrop...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Stories from Inside Defense pay site:

Boeing transitions GBSD employees, issues stop-work order to suppliers
Following the Air Force's decision to stop funding Boeing's contract supporting the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, the company has transitioned its employees to other internal jobs and issued a stop-work order to its suppliers.

Smith says he tried to ensure competition in ICBM replacement program, but was rebuffed by Boeing
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) is concerned the Air Force's $85 billion nuclear missile replacement will likely proceed with Northrop Grumman absent any competition, though he said he offered to help Boeing address its concerns about the program after the company announced it would not bid.

NNSA technical issues cause rebaselining of $2 billion ICBM fuze modernization program
The effort to replace the Mk21 reentry vehicle fuze -- intended to be deployed on the Air Force's legacy and future intercontinental ballistic missile systems -- is being rebaselined as a result of technical issues with energy storage components called capacitors
 
bobbymike said:
Stories from Inside Defense pay site:

Boeing transitions GBSD employees, issues stop-work order to suppliers
Following the Air Force's decision to stop funding Boeing's contract supporting the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, the company has transitioned its employees to other internal jobs and issued a stop-work order to its suppliers.

Smith says he tried to ensure competition in ICBM replacement program, but was rebuffed by Boeing
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) is concerned the Air Force's $85 billion nuclear missile replacement will likely proceed with Northrop Grumman absent any competition, though he said he offered to help Boeing address its concerns about the program after the company announced it would not bid.

NNSA technical issues cause rebaselining of $2 billion ICBM fuze modernization program
The effort to replace the Mk21 reentry vehicle fuze -- intended to be deployed on the Air Force's legacy and future intercontinental ballistic missile systems -- is being rebaselined as a result of technical issues with energy storage components called capacitors
Click to expand...

Two BILLION dollars to modernize something as trivial as a fuse?
 
sferrin said:
Two BILLION dollars to modernize something as trivial as a fuse?
Click to expand...

While I will point out that a fuze that can operate properly after being flung half-way across the planet and reentry at over orbital speeds will be anything BUT "trivial" $2 billion DOES seem a bit excessive. I'm going to point out, (but since I'm blocked you won't see this :) ) that it includes future missiles so it will be a heavily redesigned fuze so there's that.

And so we're clear, I'm not being 'nit-picky' by spelling it "fuze" instead of "fuse" as the former initiates an explosive train leading to a nuclear reaction while the other 'blows' open an electrical circuit to prevent down-line damage :)
(And I'm ex-Ammo which means I dealt I get nit-picky professionally :) )

Randy
 
Fuse and fuze can be used for either. American English tends to favour 'z', UK English favours 's'.

Is the fuse also part of the arm and kill security protocol? Maybe that explains the expense, or it maybe a typo. $2m seems more reasonable.
 
Forest Green said:
Fuse and fuze can be used for either. American English tends to favour 'z', UK English favours 's'.

Is the fuse also part of the arm and kill security protocol? Maybe that explains the expense, or it maybe a typo. $2m seems more reasonable.
Click to expand...

Yes it would be part of those systems since it is going to be the primary means of initiating the detonation chain.

Being in a career field where it was VERY important to know if you were working with a 'fuse' or a 'fuze', why yes we tended to emphisise the pronunciation a bit :)

Randy
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom