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

Forest Green said:
Anything not NBC is definitely non-WMD, although arguably a theoretical pure impact fusion weapon using small pellets that generates a blast smaller than say a FOAB could also be deemed non-WMD too.
Click to expand...
In the absence of a definition in the Treaty, it's open to argument... which in extremis includes arguing to use the US anti-terrorism definition, which includes any explosive bomb or grenade.

Which is a silly definition to use. But I've seen it used as an argument that Iraq had WMDs in 2003, and it was silly there as well.
 
Yellow Palace said:
In the absence of a definition in the Treaty, it's open to argument... which in extremis includes arguing to use the US anti-terrorism definition, which includes any explosive bomb or grenade.

Which is a silly definition to use. But I've seen it used as an argument that Iraq had WMDs in 2003, and it was silly there as well.
Click to expand...
The WMDs Iraq had in 2003 were chemicals. Not nukes.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The WMDs Iraq had in 2003 were chemicals. Not nukes.
Click to expand...
Be that as it may - I distinctly remember some commentators arguing that it didn't matter if they found chemicals or nukes, because they'd definitely found explosive bombs, and those (to their mind) counted.
 
breakingdefense.com

Air Force now expects Sentinel ICBMs will 'predominantly' need new silos - Breaking Defense

“Part of the requirements, initially — ten years ago when this program was started — was to reuse the holes, the missile holes at the launch facilities,” said Air Force Gen. Thomas Bussiere. “Shockingly enough, if we look at it, that may not be the answer.”
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Air Force now expects Sentinel ICBMs will ‘predominantly’ need new silos
“Part of the requirements, initially — ten years ago when this program was started — was to reuse the holes, the missile holes at the launch facilities,” said Air Force Gen. Thomas Bussiere. “Shockingly enough, if we look at it, that may not be the answer.”
By Michael Marrow on May 05, 2025 at 11:42 AM

WASHINGTON — The Air Force now believes its new nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles will “predominantly” require digging fresh missile silos, a significant change of plans to reuse existing silos and a move the service has previously assessed will come with major costs.

To house the new Sentinel ICBM, officials previously planned to refurbish 450 existing silos currently used by the Sentinel’s predecessor, the aging Minuteman III (MMIII). But as the Pentagon works through a cost breach analysis for Sentinel after its price tag ballooned last year, officials now expect existing silos will largely not be reusable after all.

“The Air Force continues to assess its options and design concepts as part of doing good systems engineering. While no decision has been made, we expect Sentinel to use predominantly AF-owned real estate to build new missile silos instead of re-using MMIII silos,” an Air Force spokesperson told Breaking Defense.

The Sentinel’s prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, referred a request for comment to the Air Force.

When the Pentagon certified Sentinel to continue last year amid a cost breach known as Nunn-McCurdy, officials explained that they would adopt changes to launch facilities, which would make them “more cost-effective as well as less complex.” Yet digging new silos would represent a dramatic change, particularly because a previous analysis of alternatives conducted around the time of the program’s inception reportedly found that doing so would incur prohibitive costs. Defense Daily previously reported the potential silo switchup, citing dialogues Air Force leaders have held with local communities.

The Sentinel program aims to procure 634 missiles — along with an additional 25 for development and testing — and deploy 400 of them in silos spread across vast missile fields in the Great Plains, stretching from Colorado to North Dakota near the Canadian border. A need to dig new silos means hundreds may have to be built.

During remarks at the Advanced Nuclear Weapons Alliance Deterrence Center on April 30, Air Force Global Strike Command chief Gen. Thomas Bussiere explained reusing the MMIII silos may not be feasible.

“Part of the requirements, initially — ten years ago when this program was started — was to reuse the holes, the missile holes at the launch facilities. That was believed to be more efficient, more cost effective and quicker,” Bussiere said. “Shockingly enough, if we look at it [now], that may not be the answer.” A decision has not been made, the general emphasized.

Sentinel has four different segments, according to Bussiere: command and launch consisting of facilities like silos and command centers; the missile itself; the missile’s payload; and support equipment. Officials have said the launch facility segment, consisting of the large-scale silo construction work and attendant features like modern cabling and new buildings, is the chief source of a roughly 81 percent budget breach and a new price tag of $141 billion. The program’s woes have also pushed back initial operational capability several years beyond an original 2029 forecast.

Upgrading the ICBMs are part of a massive nuclear modernization effort that one government organization says will cost $946 billion over the next decade.

Bussiere explained that officials are currently exploring different paths forward under Nunn-McCurdy, where “part of this process … is to look at the viability of using the same landscape, but potentially looking at maybe doing a different hole for the weapon, versus reusing the current hole,” he said.

The general then stated that officials are “pretty seriously” considering a plan to “reus[e] federal lands” that are “within our current footprint in our missile wings.” Calling the land “green fields,” Bussiere said that some of that land still in possession of the federal government could be utilized to “potentially expand our sequential fielding.” (Part of Sentinel’s vast construction is expected to require the federal government to negotiate easements with private property owners.)

“As we transition from the Minuteman III to the Sentinel… we have to maintain our minimum numbers of ICBMs on alert for the nation,” Bussiere said. “And that’s going to be a graceful ballet between ops and maintenance, acquisition, you know, a bunch of partners that are part of this program to make sure we get this right.”
Click to expand...
 
What kind of risk do you hostile drones pose to the new ICBM launch and missile control sites? Could a swarm of drones over a launch facility disrupt operations during the launch window? I’ve also wondered about that with bomber bases. What would happen if a drone swarm occupied the takeoff corridor while aircraft were still on the tarmac? They're such a cheap, creative, and asymmetric method of warfare.
 
The most serious risk to America's silos are intercontinental stealth bombers with GBU-53 type hard target penetrating glide bombs.

Drones are literally not a risk at all to a ICBM force. They never will be.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Drones are literally not a risk at all to a ICBM force. They never will be.
Click to expand...
(shrugginng) One-way stealth drone bomber with dual-penetration glide bombs. No need to fly back, no crew - could be order of magnitude cheaper than proper bomber.

P.S. Or drone Q-ship - a missile carrier, made on basic of civilian airliner and inserted into American airspace by replacing a civilian plane identifications. At proper moment it would release a hundred of stealth cruise missiles from within the NORAD perimeter (by the way, plot is copyrighted)
 
Dilandu said:
(shrugginng) One-way stealth drone bomber with dual-penetration glide bombs. No need to fly back, no crew - could be order of magnitude cheaper than proper bomber.

P.S. Or drone Q-ship - a missile carrier, made on basic of civilian airliner and inserted into American airspace by replacing a civilian plane identifications. At proper moment it would release a hundred of stealth cruise missiles from within the NORAD perimeter (by the way, plot is copyrighted)
Click to expand...
Drone bombers are a threat to silos, yes.

A swarm of drone quadcopters is not a threat to silos but could be a threat to bombers.
 
Kat Tsun said:
The most serious risk to America's silos are intercontinental stealth bombers with GBU-53 type hard target penetrating glide bombs.

Drones are literally not a risk at all to a ICBM force. They never will be.
Click to expand...
Depends. For example if you have automated enemy drones hidden near silos programmed, upon receipt of an wartime activation signal, to deploy and then attack silos when they open for launch, then you have may have a major problem on your hands.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Depends. For example if you have automated enemy drones hidden near silos programmed, upon receipt of an wartime activation signal, to deploy and then attack silos when they open for launch, then you have may have a major problem on your hands.
Click to expand...

It would be easy to store drones in a couple barns out in all of that rural country. Maybe they could disrupt communications, harass security forces, or do something else no one's thought of.
 
In_A_Dream said:
It would be easy to store drones in a couple barns out in all of that rural country. Maybe they could disrupt communications, harass security forces, or do something else no one's thought of.
Click to expand...
You'd have to own land by military bases. Oh, wait. I wonder if China would be stupid kind enough to let us buy land next to their military sites.
 
Dilandu said:
no crew - could be order of magnitude cheaper than proper bomber.
Click to expand...
Not really. Because for that payload and range requirement it would still need to be a very large aircraft. Very large stealth aircraft are always expensive, regardless if manned or not.

Aside from that, when you want to create a low observable strike platform that's only intended to be single use you literally just want a stealth cruise missile.
 
In_A_Dream said:
It would be easy to store drones in a couple barns out in all of that rural country. Maybe they could disrupt communications, harass security forces, or do something else no one's thought of.
Click to expand...
That's not easy at all, especially not near the silos. Especially not in the future where electronic warfare and jamming around high value assets will only increase.

The prospect of having any enemy force act near your literal ICBM silos in an attempt to sabotage them is pretty much near zero for any large nuclear power.
 
Sferrin said:
You'd have to own land by military bases. Oh, wait. I wonder if China would be stupid kind enough to let us buy land next to their military sites.
Click to expand...
My fear is a new hole will require a full environmental review adding years to the process or some outside environmental group sues and delays deployment for a decade or more.

Think I’m exaggerating one lefty judge is all it takes.
 
Arjen said:
I see that maintaining the rule of law is a leftist hobby these days.
Click to expand...
Not understanding Article II or purposeful ignorance or exercising [unelected] judicial tyranny over the proper authority and function of the executive branch is more accurate.

But let’s stick to the topic which I transgressed to my eternal shame in my original post.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom