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

sferrin said:
I would hope it would be a damn sight better. It's been over 40 years after all.
Click to expand...

40m is pretty much the ragged edge of what you can do without control surfaces. Unevening burning, meteorological conditions, etc introduces a certain amount of randomness. Though presumably a modern INS is more compact and less expensive.
 
Josh_TN said:
40m is pretty much the ragged edge of what you can do without control surfaces. Unevening burning, meteorological conditions, etc introduces a certain amount of randomness. Though presumably a modern INS is more compact and less expensive.
Click to expand...
Missile units get weather data over their assigned targets as part of the regular news feeds.
 
In any case, any purely ballistic RV dropped outside the atmosphere is going to have precision limitations that no amount of technology on the warhead bus will solve.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, the UK gave up on silo ICBMs and bombers, because they didn't have enough real estate to protect the silos and airfields. Country too small physically.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect, in both cases money was the issue.

Blue Streak and its associated silos hewn into granite was simply unaffordable. It was estimated to need £600 million in 1960 to deploy, or £12 billion today.

Aircraft-delivered WE177 was withdrawn in 1998 because the RAF had a choice between continuing to fund Eurofighter or its nuclear capability.
 
sferrin said:
Sounds like they need a different system if they want it better then.
Click to expand...
They need manoeuvrable RVs with independent guidance if they want it better aka PGRVs, which was once a thing being studied 40 years ago before they fell asleep at the wheel.

kqcke for you said:
But a modern gyro could be smaller, cheaper and lighter which all are benefits we want.
Click to expand...
Especially if you can put it on RVs with control surfaces.
 
Last edited:
Kiltonge said:
That's incorrect, in both cases money was the issue.

Blue Streak and its associated silos hewn into granite was simply unaffordable. It was estimated to need £600 million in 1960 to deploy, or £12 billion today.

Aircraft-delivered WE177 was withdrawn in 1998 because the RAF had a choice between continuing to fund Eurofighter or its nuclear capability.
Click to expand...
And there was only one place in the island with granite available to put silos, which put all the eggs into one basket.
 
 
Josh_TN said:
40m is pretty much the ragged edge of what you can do without control surfaces. Unevening burning, meteorological conditions, etc introduces a certain amount of randomness. Though presumably a modern INS is more compact and less expensive.
Click to expand...
You really don't need any more accuracy for 95% of the targets, especially if you are double tapping. The silos should be within the nuclear crater at those accuracies and yields.
 
Desertfox said:
You really don't need any more accuracy for 95% of the targets, especially if you are double tapping. The silos should be within the nuclear crater at those accuracies and yields.
Click to expand...
For a 475kT warhead, the inside crater radius is actually 151m according to:
nuclearsecrecy.com

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a website for visualizing the effects of nuclear detonations.
nuclearsecrecy.com nuclearsecrecy.com
 
I think the only sites that could survive a W88 involve granite mountains, and even then “survive” probably is not the same as be functional. Assuming survival was even on the table. Half a megaton at the CEP range of a football field (US or EU for this purpose is roughly equivalent) is not a very survivable event.
 
Desertfox said:
You really don't need any more accuracy for 95% of the targets, especially if you are double tapping. The silos should be within the nuclear crater at those accuracies and yields.
Click to expand...
Crud, 40m is likely within the impact crater, nevermind the blast crater!
 
Stop work order for Command & Launch Segment as the entire programme is undergoing restructure due to triggering the Nunn-McCurdy Act:
www.airandspaceforces.com

Air Force Orders Halt to Some Work on Sentinel ICBM

The Air Force is pausing work on launch facilities for its new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program (ICBM).
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
 
I doubt you will see something official, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see video show up on someone’s social media account.
 
Last edited:
Can I ask a stupid question?
If Trident missiles are accurate enough is the only reason for a land based missile to have a heavier payload?
 
uk 75 said:
Can I ask a stupid question?
If Trident missiles are accurate enough is the only reason for a land based missile to have a heavier payload?
Click to expand...
Not just that; they are also much more expensive to build & maintain, since they were designed for much more restricted environment. But payload is also important.

To put it simply, to reach all China territory from, say, Warren AFB in Wyoming, the missile must have range of about 12.000 km. The Trident D5 is capable to achieve such range only with payload limited to three Mk-5 RV's:

1743168785177.png
 
Sorry what I meant was just relying on SLBMs and not bothering with land based.
But payload would seem to be the answer.
 
Josh_TN said:
I feel the sun has set on land mobile basing. The PRC has some -400 remote sensing satellites, with two hundred of those launched just in 2022 and 2023. Any hope of hiding massive 5-6 axle TELs and their support and security infrastructure will be gone soon. The Russians already escort their TELs with dazzler lasers for this reason. In the U.S. one would also have to contend with commercial UAVs operated by foreign agents. There is no longer much advantage to land based mobile missiles.
Click to expand...

The easiest solution is mounting them in a tractor trailer with a Kenworth extended cab. Indistinguishable from any other truck on the roads by radar, visual, and infrared. Might be determinable by hyperspectral analysis if you use special paint coats or something. We have 600 silos but 2,000 Waffle Houses. Your move, PLA Rocket Force.

The other serious alternative is space basing warheads in low or medium orbit.
 
At the end of the Cold War France developed a tactical missile carried in a typical looking French truck and trailer called Hades
I always had visions of them being disguised as very French commercial trucks
 

Attachments

  • 6288_xl~2.jpg
    6288_xl~2.jpg
    91.6 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
uk 75 said:
Sorry what I meant was just relying on SLBMs and not bothering with land based.
Click to expand...
The SLBM's are the most expensive way to deploy strategical nuclear weapons. For example:

* The LGM-118 MX was supposed to cost about 190 millions per unit (1990s, it actually costs more due to limited production run, but we would not consider that). It could carry 10 warheads max. I.e. it's about 19 millions per warhead delivered.

* The UGM-133 Trident II costs about 90 millions per unit (1990s). It could carry about the same number of warhead, albeit to reach max range it must have their numbers halved. So it's 9 millions per warhead in full load, and about 18 millions per warhead in half-load.

But. The Trident II is useless without the submarine to carry it. An Ohio-class submarine costs about 2 billions per unit (1990s costs). If we divide this cost per warhead 2000 millions / 200 (20 missiles * 10 warheads each) = 10 additional millions per warhead.

So the cost of Trident II deterrence per warhead rise to 19-28 millions. Which is not nice.

On practice the relation is even worse, due to nuclear submarines higher operational cost. The exact numbers are hard to find, but I presume that in total delivery cost of one SLBM warhead is 5-10 times greater than delivery cost of ICBM warhead of same type.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
The easiest solution is mounting them in a tractor trailer with a Kenworth extended cab. Indistinguishable from any other truck on the roads by radar, visual, and infrared. Might be determinable by hyperspectral analysis if you use special paint coats or something. We have 600 silos but 2,000 Waffle Houses. Your move, PLA Rocket Force.

The other serious alternative is space basing warheads in low or medium orbit.
Click to expand...

Security would still be an issue, and kinda hard to camouflage.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom