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

Inside Defense pay site

Pentagon plans to revisit GBSD price tag in late spring
The Defense Department plans to update the cost estimate for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent in late spring of next year, setting the stage for a potential major recalibration of the price tag for the new ballistic missile program that generated a pair of valuations in 2017 that varied by more than $20 billion
 
www.realcleardefense.com

GBSD: An Imperative Without Delay

The Air Force has been working for some seven years to replace the Minuteman III ICBM, which is rapidly approaching the end of its sustainable life through the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrence (GBSD)
www.realcleardefense.com www.realcleardefense.com
 
Interesting image from NG website.

Others I’ve seen had the “Minuteman” stage taper while this is more Midgetman? Although I’m hoping for a much larger ICBM

1574967680943.jpeg
 
www.reuters.com

Special Report - Nuclear strategists call for bold move: scrap ICBM arsenal

Imagine it is 3 a.m., and the president of the United States is asleep in the White House master bedroom. A military officer stationed in an office nearby retrieves an aluminium suitcase - the “football” containing the launch codes for the U.S. nuclear arsenal - and rushes to wake the commander...
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
bobbymike said:
Interesting image from NG website.

Others I’ve seen had the “Minuteman” stage taper while this is more Midgetman? Although I’m hoping for a much larger ICBM
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm more in favor of a "Midgetman II" than a "Peacekeper II", Midgetman keeps the option of a road-mobile solution on the table, while Peacekeeper almost handcuffs you into silos only. We also still have a decent upload potential on the Tridents so in case of no New START follow-on, I would rather have more small missiles, than fewer large missiles with more warheads. The ICBMs work best as warhead sinks and for that you want numbers.
 
Desertfox said:
Personally, I'm more in favor of a "Midgetman II" than a "Peacekeper II", Midgetman keeps the option of a road-mobile solution on the table, while Peacekeeper almost handcuffs you into silos only. We also still have a decent upload potential on the Tridents so in case of no New START follow-on, I would rather have more small missiles, than fewer large missiles with more warheads. The ICBMs work best as warhead sinks and for that you want numbers.
Click to expand...

Perhaps something similar to the Midgetman Platform will be available via one of the newer hypersonic projects going on right now.
 
Desertfox said:
bobbymike said:
Interesting image from NG website.

Others I’ve seen had the “Minuteman” stage taper while this is more Midgetman? Although I’m hoping for a much larger ICBM
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm more in favor of a "Midgetman II" than a "Peacekeper II", Midgetman keeps the option of a road-mobile solution on the table, while Peacekeeper almost handcuffs you into silos only. We also still have a decent upload potential on the Tridents so in case of no New START follow-on, I would rather have more small missiles, than fewer large missiles with more warheads. The ICBMs work best as warhead sinks and for that you want numbers.
Click to expand...
While Midgetman handcuffs you to a single, tiny warhead of limited versatility.
 
sferrin said:
Desertfox said:
bobbymike said:
Interesting image from NG website.

Others I’ve seen had the “Minuteman” stage taper while this is more Midgetman? Although I’m hoping for a much larger ICBM
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm more in favor of a "Midgetman II" than a "Peacekeper II", Midgetman keeps the option of a road-mobile solution on the table, while Peacekeeper almost handcuffs you into silos only. We also still have a decent upload potential on the Tridents so in case of no New START follow-on, I would rather have more small missiles, than fewer large missiles with more warheads. The ICBMs work best as warhead sinks and for that you want numbers.
Click to expand...
While Midgetman handcuffs you to a single, tiny warhead of limited versatility.
Click to expand...
Tiny? Midgetman was capable of carrying the same RV as Peacekeeper and with improvements in accuracy, that RV is capable of taking out any possible target including Russian ICBM silos. That same RV has also been converted into a MaRV.

The land-based ICBM force has two jobs, 1) Be a warhead sink, the Russians would require about 500 (out of 1500 available warheads) to take them out. 2) Force Russia to go nuclear (and more specifically, mass nuclear strike) to take them out. A Midgetman with a single Mk 12A or Mk 21, in a silo or hardened shelter is perfectly capable of achieving both jobs. A Peacekeeper (in the numbers it would be deployed) would fail at #1 and only partially succeed at #2 (Russia could take it out with a limited nuclear strike).
 
Desertfox said:
The land-based ICBM force has two jobs, 1) Be a warhead sink, the Russians would require about 500 (out of 1500 available warheads) to take them out. 2) Force Russia to go nuclear (and more specifically, mass nuclear strike) to take them out. A Midgetman with a single Mk 12A or Mk 21, in a silo or hardened shelter is perfectly capable of achieving both jobs. A Peacekeeper (in the numbers it would be deployed) would fail at #1 and only partially succeed at #2 (Russia could take it out with a limited nuclear strike).
Click to expand...

10 Midgetmen cost more than one Peacekeeper. If you want to carry a larger warhead than the Mk21 you're SOL with Midgetman. If you want to download RVs to increase range you're SOL with Midgetman. If you want to swap out your warheads for BGRVs you're SOL with Midgetman. Ideally, you'd want a mix force of the two. If you only get one then Peacekeeper it is.
 
Maybe not 10 to 1, but say cost is 4 to 1 (including cost of converting Minuteman silos to Peacekeeper), I'll still take 400 Midgetmen (in silos) over 100 Peacekeepers.

You do realize that extra mass margins can be built into this theoretical Midgetman II? Say its designed for 500 kg to 10,000 km, a Mk21 is 270 kg (475 Kt), plenty of reserve mass for a bigger warhead*, or say AMaRV (470 kg), or even multiple (3?) Mk4s (100 kg).

*With accuracy improvements, what target even needs more than 0.5 Mt?

One other consideration, what if Sarmat runs into major problems and the Russians agree to cut MIRVed silo-based ICBMs (like with START II) on a New START follow-on? Now you are stuck with 100 Peacekeepers with a single RV vs 400 Midgetmen with a single RV. It also makes it harder to push for eliminating MIRVed silo-based ICBMs, which in nuclear strategy are destabilizing.
 
Desertfox said:
Maybe not 10 to 1, but say cost is 4 to 1 (including cost of converting Minuteman silos to Peacekeeper), I'll still take 400 Midgetmen (in silos) over 100 Peacekeepers.

You do realize that extra mass margins can be built into this theoretical Midgetman II? Say its designed for 500 kg to 10,000 km, a Mk21 is 270 kg (475 Kt), plenty of reserve mass for a bigger warhead*, or say AMaRV (470 kg), or even multiple (3?) Mk4s (100 kg).
Click to expand...

It's not a Midgetman at that point.

Desertfox said:
*With accuracy improvements, what target even needs more than 0.5 Mt?
Click to expand...

"Who needs more than 640k?" Anybody who doesn't want to have to spend a significant portion of their arsenal on area targets. I'd rather spend one warhead hitting Beijing with 25 Mt than using a dozen ICBMs to accomplish less.

Desertfox said:
One other consideration, what if Sarmat runs into major problems and the Russians agree to cut MIRVed silo-based ICBMs (like with START II) on a New START follow-on? Now you are stuck with 100 Peacekeepers with a single RV vs 400 Midgetmen with a single RV. It also makes it harder to push for eliminating MIRVed silo-based ICBMs, which in nuclear strategy are destabilizing.
Click to expand...

What if they don't, and decide Sarmat is their SMALL ICBM? And did you forget about China?
 
Interesting the new state of the art carbon fibre motor casing machine can make 22” up to 72” diameter solid rocket motors.

MMIII is 66” at its fattest. Does this mean for sure we won’t get anything bigger than 72” diameter GBSD?

www.marketwatch.com

Aerojet Rocketdyne Huntsville Site Set for Large Solid Rocket Motor Production

HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Dec 04, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne is ready to begin producing large solid rocket motor carbon fiber cases in...
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com
 
bobbymike said:
Interesting the new state of the art carbon fibre motor casing machine can make 22” up to 72” diameter solid rocket motors.

MMIII is 66” at its fattest. Does this mean for sure we won’t get anything bigger than 72” diameter GBSD?

www.marketwatch.com

Aerojet Rocketdyne Huntsville Site Set for Large Solid Rocket Motor Production

HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Dec 04, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne is ready to begin producing large solid rocket motor carbon fiber cases in...
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com
Click to expand...

How big do you want it to be? lol.
 
In_A_Dream said:
bobbymike said:
Interesting the new state of the art carbon fibre motor casing machine can make 22” up to 72” diameter solid rocket motors.

MMIII is 66” at its fattest. Does this mean for sure we won’t get anything bigger than 72” diameter GBSD?

www.marketwatch.com

Aerojet Rocketdyne Huntsville Site Set for Large Solid Rocket Motor Production

HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Dec 04, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne is ready to begin producing large solid rocket motor carbon fiber cases in...
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com
Click to expand...

How big do you want it to be? lol.
Click to expand...
1000 ” :cool:
 
In_A_Dream said:
bobbymike said:
Interesting the new state of the art carbon fibre motor casing machine can make 22” up to 72” diameter solid rocket motors.

MMIII is 66” at its fattest. Does this mean for sure we won’t get anything bigger than 72” diameter GBSD?

www.marketwatch.com

Aerojet Rocketdyne Huntsville Site Set for Large Solid Rocket Motor Production

HUNTSVILLE, Ala., Dec 04, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne is ready to begin producing large solid rocket motor carbon fiber cases in...
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com
Click to expand...

How big do you want it to be? lol.
Click to expand...
Peacekeeper is 92” and ATK in the near past has tested a modern LCS solid at this size for “strategic strike”
 
sferrin said:
It's not a Midgetman at that point.
Click to expand...
Its not? Midgetman was capable of 300 kg to 11,000 km, 500 kg to 10,000 km should definitely be doable for a "Midgetman II".

"Who needs more than 640k?" Anybody who doesn't want to have to spend a significant portion of their arsenal on area targets. I'd rather spend one warhead hitting Beijing with 25 Mt than using a dozen ICBMs to accomplish less.
Click to expand...
There is no way you are getting a 25 Mt warhead on any current, or projected future ICBM much less a Peacekeeper. The largest warhead on a US ICBM was the 9 Mt Mark 6 on the Titan II at 3,700 kg. I'll take 13 Mk 21s over 1 Mk 6 any day. More flexibility, more survivability, and if properly targeted more damage to the target. Multi-megaton warheads where for city busting when accuracy (CEP) was measured in miles

What if they don't, and decide Sarmat is their SMALL ICBM? And did you forget about China?
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe Russia will bring back the Proton ICBMs? Where are they going to deploy them? They only have so many heavy ICBM silos and new silos are expensive. Russia does not have unlimited money and their ICBM force is already significantly more expensive than the US one.

I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.
 
Desertfox said:
I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.
Click to expand...

China hasn't been willing to give up anything really, it cites its "No First Use" policy as a reason for why countries shouldn't worry about them.
 
How many warheads does China really have anyway? It uses its small official claim as a reason not to engage in START or the INF but does anyone know for sure?
 
Forest Green said:
How many warheads does China really have anyway? It uses its small official claim as a reason not to engage in START or the INF but does anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...
Their infrastructure is twice the size of ours employing 2 1/2 times the people. Apparently there are massive underground facilities no one in the West has seen. I believe every new nuke system they are building is MIRV capable.

I’ve never trusted the “official” number.
 
Its not just about the number of warheads. The majority of China's missile force are not capable of reaching the US. The number of deployed ICBMs is limited and probably comparable in throw-weight to the UK or France. Of course that is changing and China is capable of reaching US and Russia numbers. In such a scenario they could be more willing to engage in discussions. Also all of China's heavy silo-based ICBMs are old vulnerable designs, they are moving towards small road-mobile ICBMs, so it would likely be easier to convince them to get rid of their heavy ICBMs than restrict their new road-mobiles.
 
Desertfox said:
Its not just about the number of warheads. The majority of China's missile force are not capable of reaching the US. The number of deployed ICBMs is limited and probably comparable in throw-weight to the UK or France. Of course that is changing and China is capable of reaching US and Russia numbers. In such a scenario they could be more willing to engage in discussions. Also all of China's heavy silo-based ICBMs are old vulnerable designs, they are moving towards small road-mobile ICBMs, so it would likely be easier to convince them to get rid of their heavy ICBMs than restrict their new road-mobiles.
Click to expand...
Their latest most advanced is a Peacekeeper sized mobile missile capable of a 14k range and 10-14 warheads.

en.m.wikipedia.org

DF-41 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Yeah... Don't believe everything you read. The TEL is about the same size as the Topol-M/YaRS one, you are not carrying a Peacekeeper on that chassis. I'd say 11k range with 1-3 warheads, about the same as the Topol-M/YaRS and the Minuteman III.
 
Wiki source is CSIS Missile Threat Page so more than internet rumors or whatever
 
Ah yes Bill Gertz... Their page doesn't even match their source which is iffy to say the least. Note that the DF-41 has only been tested with 2 warheads and anything else is pure speculation, also the claimed max range is up to 12k not 12-16k. Physics don't lie, look at the size of the TEL and then look at the size of the proposed Peacekeeper TEL.
 
In_A_Dream said:
Desertfox said:
I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.
Click to expand...

China hasn't been willing to give up anything really, it cites its "No First Use" policy as a reason for why countries shouldn't worry about them.
Click to expand...

However much I may personally dislike their government (and their ongoing crimes) it should be noted that China isn’t and hasn’t to this point been party to any nuclear arms agreement that has required it to give up classes or numbers of nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Considering that, and that (despite paranoid-inflected comment above) the PRC’s nuclear forces have been and remain dwarfed by their US and Russian equivalents then what are we actually talking about them ever refusing to give up re: nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Amounting to anything much beyond non-specific “I don’t trust them-Chinese” sentiments by certain posters?
 
kaiserd said:
In_A_Dream said:
Desertfox said:
I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.
Click to expand...

China hasn't been willing to give up anything really, it cites its "No First Use" policy as a reason for why countries shouldn't worry about them.
Click to expand...

However much I may personally dislike their government (and their ongoing crimes) it should be noted that China isn’t and hasn’t to this point been party to any nuclear arms agreement that has required it to give up classes or numbers of nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Considering that, and that (despite paranoid-inflected comment above) the PRC’s nuclear forces have been and remain dwarfed by their US and Russian equivalents then what are we actually talking about them ever refusing to give up re: nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Amounting to anything much beyond non-specific “I don’t trust them-Chinese” sentiments by certain posters?
Click to expand...
I trust them as much as a Uighurs do
 
bobbymike said:
kaiserd said:
In_A_Dream said:
Desertfox said:
I didn't forget China, but the idea is the same. China might be more willing to give up its vulnerable heavy silo-based ICBMs than its new small road-mobiles. Heavy, silo-based, MIRVed ICBMs are destabilizing no matter who has them.
Click to expand...

China hasn't been willing to give up anything really, it cites its "No First Use" policy as a reason for why countries shouldn't worry about them.
Click to expand...

However much I may personally dislike their government (and their ongoing crimes) it should be noted that China isn’t and hasn’t to this point been party to any nuclear arms agreement that has required it to give up classes or numbers of nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Considering that, and that (despite paranoid-inflected comment above) the PRC’s nuclear forces have been and remain dwarfed by their US and Russian equivalents then what are we actually talking about them ever refusing to give up re: nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Amounting to anything much beyond non-specific “I don’t trust them-Chinese” sentiments by certain posters?
Click to expand...
I trust them as much as a Uighurs do
Click to expand...
So that's a "No" then.......
I would probably agree with most/all of your sentiments re: the crimes being inflicted on the Uighurs but that's well off topic.
 
kaiserd said:
However much I may personally dislike their government (and their ongoing crimes) it should be noted that China isn’t and hasn’t to this point been party to any nuclear arms agreement that has required it to give up classes or numbers of nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Considering that, and that (despite paranoid-inflected comment above) the PRC’s nuclear forces have been and remain dwarfed by their US and Russian equivalents then what are we actually talking about them ever refusing to give up re: nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Amounting to anything much beyond non-specific “I don’t trust them-Chinese” sentiments by certain posters?
Click to expand...

Deception & cunning are hallmarks of traditional Chinese strategy, which is interesting to watch because it only inflames their own paranoia at home when they think another country is trying to undermine them. With that said, I don't have many positive things to say about the CPC.
 
Why the fetish for giant boosters? Smaller means more efficient, more missiles, cheaper, more basing options, less chance to get canceled. Give me an ICBM that can fit in a standard 40' shipping container.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom