GBSD: LGM-182A: Sentinel ICBM Development/Operations Dicussion/Updates Thread

[russianhalo117]

USAF has awarded the Preliminary Design downselect to two corporations instead of three:

Boeing Awarded Design Work for New Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

U.S. Air Force seeking replacement for Minuteman III ICBM Boeing, Air Force partnership on ICBM force began in 1958

ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 21, 2017 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will develop its preliminary design for America’s next intercontinental ballistic missile through a $349 million U.S. Air Force contract announced today.

Boeing and Northrop Grumman each received risk-reduction contracts for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, which will replace the Minuteman III ICBM. In 2020, the Air Force will choose one company to develop the new land-based element of America’s nuclear triad. Missiles launched from submarines and aircraft are the other elements of the triad.

“Since the first Minuteman launch in 1961, the U.S. Air Force has relied on our technologies for a safe, secure and reliable ICBM force,” said Frank McCall, Boeing director of Strategic Deterrence Systems and GBSD program manager. “As the Air Force prepares to replace the Minuteman III, we will once again answer the call by drawing on the best of Boeing to deliver the capability, flexibility and affordability the mission requires.”

Boeing’s work will be done in Huntsville, Ala.; Ogden, Utah; Heath, Ohio; and other locations.

The Minuteman III replacement effort will include flight, command and control, and launch systems. The Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase of the program will be awarded to one company in 2020.

For more information on Defense, Space & Security, visit www.boeing.com. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.

# # #

Contact:

Queena Jones
Space and Missile Systems
Office: +1 256-937-4054
Mobile: +1 256-698-5783
[email protected]

Maribeth Davis
Space and Missile Systems
Office: +1 703-414-6475
Mobile: +1 703-209-9984
[email protected]

Jerry Drelling
External Communications
Defense, Space & Security
Office: +1 703-872-4255
Mobile: +1 714-318-7594
[email protected]

Caption: Boeing will develop its preliminary design for America’s next intercontinental ballistic missile through a $349 million U.S. Air Force contract announced today. Boeing and one other company each received risk-reduction contracts for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, which will replace the Minuteman III ICBM. (Boeing photo)


-------------------


GBSD (Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent)   August 21, 2017

FALLS CHURCH, Va. – Aug. 21, 2017 – The U.S. Air Force has selected Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) as one of two companies to mature designs for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program, the nation’s next Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) system.

The company was awarded a $328 million contract to execute the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase of the GBSD program.

“We look forward to the opportunity to provide the nation with a modern strategic deterrent system that is secure, resilient and affordable,” said Wes Bush, chairman, chief executive officer and president, Northrop Grumman. “As a trusted partner and technical integrator for the Air Force’s ICBM systems for more than 60 years, we are proud to continue our work to protect and defend our nation through its strategic deterrent capabilities.”

To learn more about Northrop Grumman’s GBSD program visit: www.northropgrumman.com/gbsd.

Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in autonomous systems, cyber, C4ISR, strike, and logistics and modernization to customers worldwide. Please visit news.northropgrumman.com and follow us on Twitter, @NGCNews, for more information.

[Mike Jones]

Which major subcontractors will support Boeing and Northrop  ?
For propulsion, with whom Orbital ATK and Aerojet-Rocketdyne will partner respectively?

[gongora]

Which major subcontractors will support Boeing and Northrop  ?
For propulsion, with whom Orbital ATK and Aerojet-Rocketdyne will partner respectively?

The Air Force doesn't want the primes pairing up with the propulsion vendors yet.

[butters]

I know there have been several rounds of modernizations on the Minuteman III, for amongst other reasons to replace obsolete hardware which cannot be readily obtained anymore. What new features would justify a new land-based ICBM?

[Star One]

I know there have been several rounds of modernizations on the Minuteman III, for amongst other reasons to replace obsolete hardware which cannot be readily obtained anymore. What new features would justify a new land-based ICBM?

The fact that the Minuteman III is exceptionally long in the tooth, even with all its upgrades it's still basically a 50/60s design. The Airforce have been quite clear they need a missile to last into the 2070s, the Minuteman cannot achieve that.

[Eric Hedman]

I know there have been several rounds of modernizations on the Minuteman III, for amongst other reasons to replace obsolete hardware which cannot be readily obtained anymore. What new features would justify a new land-based ICBM?

I'm guessing they are looking at ways to get past potential ABM systems that could emerge in the next few decades.  Since they probably won't have to worry about boost phase, they will have to figure out what can be done  to make he missile survivable during mid-course and terminal phase.  They have to consider kinetic kill vehicles and beam weapons to get by.  So like any other system the choices are usually stealth, electronic warfare, armor, and maneuverability.  It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

[russianhalo117]

Which major subcontractors will support Boeing and Northrop  ?
For propulsion, with whom Orbital ATK and Aerojet-Rocketdyne will partner respectively?

The Air Force doesn't want the primes pairing up with the propulsion vendors yet.

Minuteman-IV is a separate upgrade programme to LGM-30H version with a new first stage and modernized GSE and Avionics. The new ICBM's Name and designation would become announced once the Critical Design contract is awarded.

[kevin-rf]

They have to consider kinetic kill vehicles and beam weapons to get by.  So like any other system the choices are usually stealth, electronic warfare, armor, and maneuverability.  It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Kinda hard to do stealth during reentry with the plasma sheath of hot gasses that will envelope the reentry vehicle. Think it's going to have to rely more on maneuverability and countermeasures.

Being a clean sheet and ground based, hopefully they will include the mass margins needed for countermeasures.

[Star One]

They have to consider kinetic kill vehicles and beam weapons to get by.  So like any other system the choices are usually stealth, electronic warfare, armor, and maneuverability.  It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Kinda hard to do stealth during reentry with the plasma sheath of hot gasses that will envelope the reentry vehicle. Think it's going to have to rely more on maneuverability and countermeasures.

Being a clean sheet and ground based, hopefully they will include the mass margins needed for countermeasures.

It's weird how any modern ICBMs with countermeasures are described as having stealth features, I remember reading an article on a fairly decent site about one of the latest Russian ICBMs and that was stated as incorporating stealth features.

[russianhalo117]

I know there have been several rounds of modernizations on the Minuteman III, for amongst other reasons to replace obsolete hardware which cannot be readily obtained anymore. What new features would justify a new land-based ICBM?

The fact that the Minuteman III is exceptionally long in the tooth, even with all its upgrades it's still basically a 50/60s design. The Airforce have been quite clear they need a missile to last into the 2070s, the Minuteman cannot achieve that.

The new ICBM must be cold start capable and fit inside existing silos. It must also be capable of using horizontal store and launch methods developed for MX Peacekeeper. While not initially planned operationally, the new ICBM must also be designed for Air (C-5M) and Mobile (road and rail) launch to replace existing and retired launch methods. These will be tested. Surface Ship launch method is not part of the PD requirements.

[RonM]

They have to consider kinetic kill vehicles and beam weapons to get by.  So like any other system the choices are usually stealth, electronic warfare, armor, and maneuverability.  It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Kinda hard to do stealth during reentry with the plasma sheath of hot gasses that will envelope the reentry vehicle. Think it's going to have to rely more on maneuverability and countermeasures.

Being a clean sheet and ground based, hopefully they will include the mass margins needed for countermeasures.

It's weird how any modern ICBMs with countermeasures are described as having stealth features, I remember reading an article on a fairly decent site about one of the latest Russian ICBMs and that was stated as incorporating stealth features.

Radar stealth can be useful before reentry. It can prevent midcourse intercept. Once the warhead is in reentry it would be easy to spot, but there's only a couple of minutes for terminal intercept.

[deruch]

Radar stealth can be useful before reentry. It can prevent midcourse intercept. Once the warhead is in reentry it would be easy to spot, but there's only a couple of minutes for terminal intercept.

Terminal intercept from ICBM speeds is really difficult.

[Zed_Noir]

Radar stealth can be useful before reentry. It can prevent midcourse intercept. Once the warhead is in reentry it would be easy to spot, but there's only a couple of minutes for terminal intercept.

Terminal intercept from ICBM speeds is really difficult.

Only if you are thinking of conventional interceptor warheads.

Always thought that the Midgetman ICBM is also capable as Anti-Ballistic missile.

[zubenelgenubi]

Radar stealth can be useful before reentry. It can prevent midcourse intercept. Once the warhead is in reentry it would be easy to spot, but there's only a couple of minutes for terminal intercept.

Terminal intercept from ICBM speeds is really difficult.

Only if you are thinking of conventional interceptor warheads.

Always thought that the Midgetman ICBM is also capable as Anti-Ballistic missile.

Since Minuteman III was designed to carry MIRVs and now by treaty only carries single warheads, perhaps Midgetman's time has come.

Pegasus is a sort of Midgetman derivative in part, and Pegasus propulsion served as the starting point for OBV, used for today's GBI.  Full circle!

 - Ed Kyle

Advance apologies if these questions veer OT.  (If it gets too political, then it would be better thread-splintered to Space Policy Discussion.)

Point of international law: Are land-based MIRVed missiles still banned by treaty?

I see that Russia has deployed MIRVed land-based ICBMs since they withdrew from the START II treaty.

Would the US be within its current treaty obligations if it returned to a land-based MIRV ICBM?  (This could very well be politically improbable, but legally and technically possible?)

Would the old argument for/against MIRV offensive missiles (and against/for large scale ABM systems) still apply--that they would overwhelm any "realistic" ABM system in a full-scale nuclear assault?

Technology has vastly improved since the end decades of the Cold War.  And, we have other potential nuclear-ICBM-armed adversaries than just Russia. 

EDIT: (I see RH117 has partially answered my question below.)

[russianhalo117]

Radar stealth can be useful before reentry. It can prevent midcourse intercept. Once the warhead is in reentry it would be easy to spot, but there's only a couple of minutes for terminal intercept.

Terminal intercept from ICBM speeds is really difficult.

Only if you are thinking of conventional interceptor warheads.

Always thought that the Midgetman ICBM is also capable as Anti-Ballistic missile.

Since Minuteman III was designed to carry MIRVs and now by treaty only carries single warheads, perhaps Midgetman's time has come.

Pegasus is a sort of Midgetman derivative in part, and Pegasus propulsion served as the starting point for OBV, used for today's GBI.  Full circle!

 - Ed Kyle

Payload requirements are based off of Peacekeeper MIRV load in addition to being able to fly warheads of conventional, EKV and new design. To be capable of flying warheads for both strategic and tactical strike missions.

[russianhalo117]

Radar stealth can be useful before reentry. It can prevent midcourse intercept. Once the warhead is in reentry it would be easy to spot, but there's only a couple of minutes for terminal intercept.

Terminal intercept from ICBM speeds is really difficult.

Only if you are thinking of conventional interceptor warheads.

Always thought that the Midgetman ICBM is also capable as Anti-Ballistic missile.

Since Minuteman III was designed to carry MIRVs and now by treaty only carries single warheads, perhaps Midgetman's time has come.

Pegasus is a sort of Midgetman derivative in part, and Pegasus propulsion served as the starting point for OBV, used for today's GBI.  Full circle!

 - Ed Kyle

Advance apologies if these questions veer OT.  (If it gets too political, then it would be better thread-splintered to *.)

Point of international law: Are land-based MIRVed missiles still banned by treaty?

I see that Russia has deployed MIRVed land-based ICBMs since they withdrew from the START II treaty.

Would the US be within its current treaty obligations if it returned to a land-based MIRV ICBM?  (This could very well be politically improbable, but legally and technically possible?)

Would the old argument for/against MIRV offensive missiles (and against/for large scale ABM systems) still apply--that they would overwhelm any "realistic" ABM system in a full-scale nuclear assault?

Technology has vastly improved since the end decades of the Cold War.  And, we have other potential nuclear-ICBM-armed adversaries than just Russia. 

No because the major 3 countries have either never signed or have withdrawn from all treaties prohibiting the use of MIRV's hence why the new ICBM system is being developed which was prohibited under ABM and START-II treaties. Currently MM-III flies with 10 of its 11 MIRV slots occupied. MM-IV (LGM-30H) is still being developed as a stopgap until Full Operational Capability with the new ICBM System is achieved at which MM-III/IV will be transferred to OSP for use as conversional launchers.

[zubenelgenubi]

Currently MM-III flies with 10 of its 11 MIRV slots occupied.

I believe that Minuteman 3 only had 3 MIRVs when first deployed.  Most test flights since START 2 carry a single inert warhead, presumably simulating the currently deployed situation, though there was a MIRV test last year.  In 2014, the U.S. announced that it had removed the last MIRV from its deployed Minuteman 3 missiles.  http://allthingsnuclear.org/emacdonald/the-end-of-mirvs-for-u-s-icbms

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, I think it's Peacekeeper that carried 10 warheads.

[Arch Admiral]

If the design requirements cited by previous posters are real, this program will be far too expensive for the USAF to afford, especially in competition with the OHIO-class SSBN replacement program. The only way in which Minuteman III or IV is behind the times is that has no mobile launcher like Topol/Topol-M/Yars, and mobile deployment on public roads is politically impossible in America.

Anti-ABM features seem pointless, since nobody but the USA has a serious ABM program or the budget to fund one. Even our systems perform poorly in carefully staged tests.

So I predict this program will never go beyond a paper study.

[Star One]

If the design requirements cited by previous posters are real, this program will be far too expensive for the USAF to afford, especially in competition with the OHIO-class SSBN replacement program. The only way in which Minuteman III or IV is behind the times is that has no mobile launcher like Topol/Topol-M/Yars, and mobile deployment on public roads is politically impossible in America.

Anti-ABM features seem pointless, since nobody but the USA has a serious ABM program or the budget to fund one. Even our systems perform poorly in carefully staged tests.

So I predict this program will never go beyond a paper study.

The USAF has made it clear it is a high priority program and as usual I can't see them budging just because the navy thinks it has priority on funds.

[russianhalo117]

If the design requirements cited by previous posters are real, this program will be far too expensive for the USAF to afford, especially in competition with the OHIO-class SSBN replacement program. The only way in which Minuteman III or IV is behind the times is that has no mobile launcher like Topol/Topol-M/Yars, and mobile deployment on public roads is politically impossible in America.

Anti-ABM features seem pointless, since nobody but the USA has a serious ABM program or the budget to fund one. Even our systems perform poorly in carefully staged tests.

So I predict this program will never go beyond a paper study.

The Minuteman, Midgetman and Peacekeeper families were all designed to be mobile launched (road, rail, off-road, air (Minuteman was later designed for these launch methods)). There was never a reason for these other launch methods because of the inordinate amount of Silos available the these families. Only Midgetman was planned from the beginning to be only mobile launched but its programme was cancelled.

[Star One]

If the design requirements cited by previous posters are real, this program will be far too expensive for the USAF to afford, especially in competition with the OHIO-class SSBN replacement program. The only way in which Minuteman III or IV is behind the times is that has no mobile launcher like Topol/Topol-M/Yars, and mobile deployment on public roads is politically impossible in America.

Anti-ABM features seem pointless, since nobody but the USA has a serious ABM program or the budget to fund one. Even our systems perform poorly in carefully staged tests.

So I predict this program will never go beyond a paper study.

The USAF has made it clear it is a high priority program and as usual I can't see them budging just because the navy thinks it has priority on funds.

FWIW, the following story states that "The Trump administration is conducting a nuclear posture review that will debate whether the U.S. should maintain the triad". 
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/competition-to-replace-us-nuclear-missiles-is-down-to-2-companies.html

There are, of course, people who advocate things like either eliminating the ground-based option altogether or simply putting Trident II missiles into the silos to save money.  The USAF obviously doesn't agree, since it eliminated Lockheed Martin from the preliminary round.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-u-s-must-get-rid-of-its-land-based-nuclear-mis-1796677582

 - Ed Kyle

Many I see posting on such topics would put the second link as coming from a non-credible source?

[Lar]

Rocket motors are within the charter for this site, clearly. But silo survivability is not. Nor is whether the triad should be retained. We are not a military site. Please keep that in mind, thanks.

[Star One]

Lockheed Martin decides not to protest the ICBM down-select.  The company built and supports Trident 2 D5, which is hands-down the world's most advanced long-range missile (my opinion).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-not-protest-u-decision-icbm-replacement-contract-155848363--sector.html

 - Ed Kyle

They've obviously learnt their lesson after the B-21 award.

[Sam Ho]

Which major subcontractors will support Boeing and Northrop  ?
For propulsion, with whom Orbital ATK and Aerojet-Rocketdyne will partner respectively?

The Air Force doesn't want the primes pairing up with the propulsion vendors yet.

According to SpaceNews, Northrop and LM were working with both OA and AR.  Boeing hasn't said yet.

Boeing, the current Minuteman 3 missile supplier, has declined to disclose any partners or suppliers for the new contract, saying it will likely do so during company briefings on the program at the Air Force Association’s annual national convention Sept. 16-17 at National Harbor, Maryland.

Northrop’s team includes Aerojet Rocketdyne and Orbital ATK. These two builders of solid rocket motors were on Lockheed Martin’s GBSD team as well.

http://spacenews.com/lockheed-wont-protest-boeing-and-northrops-two-way-race-to-replace-us-nuclear-arsenal/

[kevin-rf]

Lockheed Martin decides not to protest the ICBM down-select.  The company built and supports Trident 2 D5, which is hands-down the world's most advanced long-range missile (my opinion).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-not-protest-u-decision-icbm-replacement-contract-155848363--sector.html

 - Ed Kyle

Since I haven't been following this well, does a Trident-II follow on program exist? I have only seen a program to replace the launchers (The Ohio Class with some sort of souped up Virginia class).

That said, it beyond me why the same guidance system and reentry vehicles can not be used on a minuteman replacement. Basically a Trident II with solids optimized for the existing minuteman silos.

[Star One]

New ICBM gets boost after Mattis’ endorsement

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — The unexpected escalation of North Korea’s atomic weapons program and Russia’s nuclear posturing are providing fresh momentum to U.S. efforts to develop a new intercontinental ballistic missile.

Early doubts about the future of the next-generation ICBM, known as the ground-based strategic deterrent (GBSD), are giving way to a growing confidence that the Pentagon is fully behind the program, military officials said Sept. 18 at the Air Force Association’s Air Space Cyber conference.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in the past had raised questions about the need to develop a new ICBM to replace the 50-year-old Minuteman, but now firmly supports it. “Secretary Mattis said he did not see a future triad without the ICBM,” asserted Maj. Gen. Anthony Cotton, commander of the 20th Air Force at Global Strike Command. Mattis gave the GBSD a ringing endorsement last week during a visit to Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, the only U.S. base to host two legs of the nuclear triad — strategic bombers and ICBMs.

http://spacenews.com/new-icbm-gets-boost-after-mattis-endorsement/

[russianhalo117]

Lockheed Martin decides not to protest the ICBM down-select.  The company built and supports Trident 2 D5, which is hands-down the world's most advanced long-range missile (my opinion).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-not-protest-u-decision-icbm-replacement-contract-155848363--sector.html

 - Ed Kyle

Since I haven't been following this well, does a Trident-II follow on program exist? I have only seen a program to replace the launchers (The Ohio Class with some sort of souped up Virginia class).

That said, it beyond me why the same guidance system and reentry vehicles can not be used on a minuteman replacement. Basically a Trident II with solids optimized for the existing minuteman silos.

The Navy formally started the formulation process of replacing the Trident II D5LE SLBM at the end of 2015 with a new SLBM (likely to be called Trident III (D6?)). The Next Generation SLBM is targeted to enter service with the upcoming and massive Columbia Class SSBN and again the NG SLBM and SSBN(X) programmes are a joint programme Between the US and the UK with Canada acting as a designated observer. The plan to make it a NATO wide programme like F-35A/B/C was cancelled in 2016, leaving only the 2 original nations to develop it.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-successfully-loads-two-trident-ii-d5le-missiles
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-new-plan-build-more-lethal-ballistic-missile-18258

[Star One]

Lockheed Martin decides not to protest the ICBM down-select.  The company built and supports Trident 2 D5, which is hands-down the world's most advanced long-range missile (my opinion).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-not-protest-u-decision-icbm-replacement-contract-155848363--sector.html

 - Ed Kyle

Since I haven't been following this well, does a Trident-II follow on program exist? I have only seen a program to replace the launchers (The Ohio Class with some sort of souped up Virginia class).

That said, it beyond me why the same guidance system and reentry vehicles can not be used on a minuteman replacement. Basically a Trident II with solids optimized for the existing minuteman silos.

The Navy just now formally started the formulation process of replacing the Trident II D5LE SLBM this year with a new SLBM (likely to be called Trident III (D6?)). The Next Generation SLBM is targeted to enter service around the quarter-life/mid-life point of the upcoming and massive Columbia Class SSBN.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-successfully-loads-two-trident-ii-d5le-missiles

Wouldn’t our Trident replacement subs over here in the UK which are currently in development also have to be compatible with this.

[russianhalo117]

Lockheed Martin decides not to protest the ICBM down-select.  The company built and supports Trident 2 D5, which is hands-down the world's most advanced long-range missile (my opinion).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-not-protest-u-decision-icbm-replacement-contract-155848363--sector.html

 - Ed Kyle

Since I haven't been following this well, does a Trident-II follow on program exist? I have only seen a program to replace the launchers (The Ohio Class with some sort of souped up Virginia class).

That said, it beyond me why the same guidance system and reentry vehicles can not be used on a minuteman replacement. Basically a Trident II with solids optimized for the existing minuteman silos.

The Navy just now formally started the formulation process of replacing the Trident II D5LE SLBM this year with a new SLBM (likely to be called Trident III (D6?)). The Next Generation SLBM is targeted to enter service around the quarter-life/mid-life point of the upcoming and massive Columbia Class SSBN.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-successfully-loads-two-trident-ii-d5le-missiles

Wouldn’t our Trident replacement subs over here in the UK which are currently in development also have to be compatible with this.

I added to my post. The US and the UK would use a common universal launch system even though the rest of the submarines would be different.

[Star One]

Lockheed Martin decides not to protest the ICBM down-select.  The company built and supports Trident 2 D5, which is hands-down the world's most advanced long-range missile (my opinion).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-not-protest-u-decision-icbm-replacement-contract-155848363--sector.html

 - Ed Kyle

Since I haven't been following this well, does a Trident-II follow on program exist? I have only seen a program to replace the launchers (The Ohio Class with some sort of souped up Virginia class).

That said, it beyond me why the same guidance system and reentry vehicles can not be used on a minuteman replacement. Basically a Trident II with solids optimized for the existing minuteman silos.

The Navy just now formally started the formulation process of replacing the Trident II D5LE SLBM this year with a new SLBM (likely to be called Trident III (D6?)). The Next Generation SLBM is targeted to enter service around the quarter-life/mid-life point of the upcoming and massive Columbia Class SSBN.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-successfully-loads-two-trident-ii-d5le-missiles

Wouldn’t our Trident replacement subs over here in the UK which are currently in development also have to be compatible with this.

I added to my post. The US and the UK would use a common universal launch system even though the rest of the submarines would be different.

Can I ask what does Canada do in general terms as the designated observer?

[russianhalo117]

Lockheed Martin decides not to protest the ICBM down-select.  The company built and supports Trident 2 D5, which is hands-down the world's most advanced long-range missile (my opinion).
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-not-protest-u-decision-icbm-replacement-contract-155848363--sector.html

 - Ed Kyle

Since I haven't been following this well, does a Trident-II follow on program exist? I have only seen a program to replace the launchers (The Ohio Class with some sort of souped up Virginia class).

That said, it beyond me why the same guidance system and reentry vehicles can not be used on a minuteman replacement. Basically a Trident II with solids optimized for the existing minuteman silos.

The Navy just now formally started the formulation process of replacing the Trident II D5LE SLBM this year with a new SLBM (likely to be called Trident III (D6?)). The Next Generation SLBM is targeted to enter service around the quarter-life/mid-life point of the upcoming and massive Columbia Class SSBN.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-successfully-loads-two-trident-ii-d5le-missiles

Wouldn’t our Trident replacement subs over here in the UK which are currently in development also have to be compatible with this.

I added to my post. The US and the UK would use a common universal launch system even though the rest of the submarines would be different.

Can I ask what does Canada do in general terms as the designated observer?

I do not know, but they have participated in select meetings in both the UK and the US. Canada could be providing a system or something.

[Star One]

And here we have a news article related to the above.

US Navy, General Dynamics Electric Boat ink USD5.1 billion SSBN deal

It added that the deal accounts for foreign military sales to the UK, and that USD175.1 million in UK funding was obligated.

GDEB said the contract would fund “component and technology development as well as continued development of the Common Missile Compartment, which will be integrated into both the [US] Navy’s new SSBN and the Royal Navy’s Dreadnought-class strategic missile submarine”.

The is expected to be completed by December 2031, with GDEB stating that construction of the lead Columbia-class boat is scheduled to begin in late 2020.

http://www.janes.com/article/74311/us-navy-general-dynamics-electric-boat-ink-usd5-1-billion-ssbn-deal

[deruch]

What was the decision on whether discussion of the SRMs was inbounds or not for this thread?  If so, the following SN article on Northrop Grumman's proposed acquisition of Orbital ATK discusses some concerns (re: GBSD update) that might apply.

http://spacenews.com/analysts-see-red-flags-in-northrops-acquisition-of-orbital/

[russianhalo117]

What was the decision on whether discussion of the SRMs was inbounds or not for this thread?  If so, the following SN article on Northrop Grumman's proposed acquisition of Orbital ATK discusses some concerns (re: GBSD update) that might apply.

http://spacenews.com/analysts-see-red-flags-in-northrops-acquisition-of-orbital/

Ask a mod, but the main NG acquisition thread is here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43764.0

[russianhalo117]

Boeing has officially ceded to NGIS. GBSD will now be Peacekeeper derived via the LCS family of motors: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/Boeing-Pulls-Out-of-Ground-Based-Strategic-Deterrent-Program.aspx

[edkyle99]

Boeing has officially ceded to NGIS. GBSD will now be Peacekeeper derived via the LCS family of motors: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/Boeing-Pulls-Out-of-Ground-Based-Strategic-Deterrent-Program.aspx

Northrop Grumman bought Orbital/ATK to win this contract.  Now, with B-21, it will control two legs of the triad.  Unless, of course, this Boeing hissy-fit - walking away from $25 billion - causes the GBSD to lose political support to be replaced by extending Minuteman 3, which of course will benefit Boeing. 

 - Ed Kyle

[russianhalo117]

Boeing has officially ceded to NGIS. GBSD will now be Peacekeeper derived via the LCS family of motors: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/Boeing-Pulls-Out-of-Ground-Based-Strategic-Deterrent-Program.aspx

Northrop Grumman bought Orbital/ATK to win this contract.  Now, with B-21, it will control two legs of the triad.  Unless, of course, this Boeing hissy-fit - walking away from $25 billion - causes the GBSD to lose political support to be replaced by extending Minuteman 3, which of course will benefit Boeing. 

 - Ed Kyle

They are also sitting favourably on the Next Generation SLBM project despite they latest D5LE round.

[russianhalo117]

Boeing has officially ceded to NGIS. GBSD will now be Peacekeeper derived via the LCS family of motors: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/Boeing-Pulls-Out-of-Ground-Based-Strategic-Deterrent-Program.aspx

Northrop Grumman bought Orbital/ATK to win this contract.  Now, with B-21, it will control two legs of the triad.  Unless, of course, this Boeing hissy-fit - walking away from $25 billion - causes the GBSD to lose political support to be replaced by extending Minuteman 3, which of course will benefit Boeing. 

 - Ed Kyle

Their is their shelved MMIV programme, which got pushed out of the way by GBSD and USAF.

[Semmel]

Boeing has officially ceded to NGIS. GBSD will now be Peacekeeper derived via the LCS family of motors: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/Boeing-Pulls-Out-of-Ground-Based-Strategic-Deterrent-Program.aspx

What stops Boeing to develop their own solid rockets? With partly owning ULA, they would have a customer for side boosters of Vulcan (ULA picked Orbital ATK for solid manufacturing if I remember correctly) and with this contract in the loop, there should be more than enough money on the table to justify their own development program. Is it too late to start this? Is the development of solid motors so expensive that this cant fit inside a $25B contract?

[TrevorMonty]

Boeing has officially ceded to NGIS. GBSD will now be Peacekeeper derived via the LCS family of motors: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/Boeing-Pulls-Out-of-Ground-Based-Strategic-Deterrent-Program.aspx

What stops Boeing to develop their own solid rockets? With partly owning ULA, they would have a customer for side boosters of Vulcan (ULA picked Orbital ATK for solid manufacturing if I remember correctly) and with this contract in the loop, there should be more than enough money on the table to justify their own development program. Is it too late to start this? Is the development of solid motors so expensive that this cant fit inside a $25B contract?

Boeing or ULA don't have expertise to build SRBs, Boeing's only alternative is to buy AJR.

[Arch Admiral]

I said it before and I say it again:  There is no chance that the Congress will fund the production of 600 Peacekeeper-sized ICBMs and ~6000 nuclear warheads. There are only 450 Minuteman silos left to deploy them in. Rail-mobility was tried with Minuteman I and Peacekeeper, and failed because most US railroad tracks are so poorly maintained that the missile electronics are shaken constantly during travel. There are now far fewer miles of track for missile dispersal than in 1964 or even 1984.

This program is obviously a stalking horse for Minuteman IV. It is so grandiose that it makes LGM-30H seem reasonable by comparison. Politicians can have a fake battle between these programs while avoiding the real debate: are land-based ICBMs obsolete and useless?

The best you can say for GBSD is that it makes more sense than the Russian "Sarmat" program - a 2025 copy of the Ukrainian R-36 which is a copy of Titan II from 1964!!

[russianhalo117]

I said it before and I say it again:  There is no chance that the Congress will fund the production of 600 Peacekeeper-sized ICBMs and ~6000 nuclear warheads. There are only 450 Minuteman silos left to deploy them in. Rail-mobility was tried with Minuteman I and Peacekeeper, and failed because most US railroad tracks are so poorly maintained that the missile electronics are shaken constantly during travel. There are now far fewer miles of track for missile dispersal than in 1964 or even 1984.

This program is obviously a stalking horse for Minuteman IV. It is so grandiose that it makes LGM-30H seem reasonable by comparison. Politicians can have a fake battle between these programs while avoiding the real debate: are land-based ICBMs obsolete and useless?

The best you can say for GBSD is that it makes more sense than the Russian "Sarmat" program - a 2025 copy of the Ukrainian R-36 which is a copy of Titan II from 1964!!

Air, road, silo, and proposed sea based option from carrier decks.

[edkyle99]

Rail-mobility was tried with Minuteman I and Peacekeeper, and failed because most US railroad tracks are so poorly maintained that the missile electronics are shaken constantly during travel. There are now far fewer miles of track for missile dispersal than in 1964 or even 1984.

Far fewer miles of track today, yes, but the tracks that remain are generally in much better condition than the rails of the 1960s-80s.  They are busier, too, which means that the railroad companies would be less likely to be receptive to the imposition.  There are far fewer "boxcar" type trains than there used to be, replaced in large part by double-stack container trains, so it would be much more difficult to hide a missile car on the rails.  Finally, of course, there would be the much more organized internet-era public opposition to having a missile role through your town.

I've never understood why the U.S. didn't do a road-mobile "Midgetman", or Topol equivalent.  The U.S. has spent billions upon billions trying to figure a way to counter Topol.

 - Ed Kyle

[ZachF]

$86 billion / 450 missiles = ~$190 million per missile. 

These MIC megaconglomerates need to be broken up.

[edkyle99]

$86 billion / 450 missiles = ~$190 million per missile. 

These MIC megaconglomerates need to be broken up.

My guess is that the cost covers more than just the missiles.  There is the system development cost up front, including testing, then the launch sites have to be built or rebuilt or refurbished, including all of the launch support equipment.  There will be ground support equipment, for transport and for maintenance in wing hangars.  There will be the cost of training, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

[russianhalo117]

$86 billion / 450 missiles = ~$190 million per missile. 

These MIC megaconglomerates need to be broken up.

My guess is that the cost covers more than just the missiles.  There is the system development cost up front, including testing, then the launch sites have to be built or rebuilt or refurbished, including all of the launch support equipment.  There will be ground support equipment, for transport and for maintenance in wing hangars.  There will be the cost of training, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

They are planning to strip the silos and there control bunkers et al of all legacy MM hardware and software and install new generation systems.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Sounds like Boeing is teeing up a legal challenge:

Caret says the Air Force inadvertently disclosed Boeing proprietary information to Northrop Grumman employees on April 3, including Boeing's concerns about the terms of the procurement. This was serious enough to compromise the integrity of the competition, in Boeing’s opinion.

https://mailchi.mp/spacenews/sn-military-space-boeings-long-list-of-complaints-about-the-gbsd-competition-deadline-for-air-force-launch-rfp-extended

[gongora]

Reminder that this thread should not stray too much into political opinions and military strategies.

[edkyle99]

I'm interested in how this might lend itself to orbital launch.  It depends, I suppose, on Northrop's plans for the ICBM itself.  If they really do propose a Castor 120-type (ish) first stage, then a decent capability launcher family could appear as an adjunct.  Meanwhile, if it is OBV-ish, a lower-cost smallsat launcher could appear.  Of course Minotaur 4/5 etc. and Pegasus/Minotaur-C already exist, but they or whatever replaces them might cost less and fly more often as a result.

 - Ed Kyle

[russianhalo117]

Not sure which GBSD stage but AFRL LCS-2 award was conceded to AR by OATK to develop. With NG in charge of pathfinding GBSD AR relocated its Sacramento facility to Huntsville for motor Casings (AMF) and Camden for motor finishing, prop loading, testing, and storage. There is a nit in the story in that AMF can build 72 inch motors at present but can support 92 inch motors in the future:

https://www.waaytv.com/content/news/Skilled-to-work-Aerojet-Rocketdyne-moves-production-of-large-solid-rocket-motor-casings-to-Huntsville-566505311.html

[russianhalo117]

GSBD Design and Build award: https://spacenews.com/northrop-grumman-wins-competition-to-build-future-icbm-by-default/

[russianhalo117]

GBSD related: MM3 to drop below critical 400 missile minimum for total coverage by 2026 before GBSD comes online. Also other more severe silo issues are playing a factor on readiness:
https://www.airforcemag.com/report-icbms-to-fall-short-of-mission-needs-in-2026/

[russianhalo117]

GBSD Design shown in this video:

[Steven Pietrobon]

Here's the missile.

[russianhalo117]

Here's the missile.

The new design is a concession change to allow AR to participate. The previous design was built solely in house using the 92 inch LCS Family of Motors derived from Peacekeeper, CASTOR-120XL, CASTOR 30XL, and STAR-92 (orbital variant) development.

[russianhalo117]

To be periodically updated:

GBSD Stage Processing Facility (VAFB) Contacting process documents:
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/aa71aba7c7f44a6398c0a18ad6136eaf/view?index=opp&notice_type=r

GBSD EIS documents and related information:
GBSD NEPA: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2509117/air-force-releases-environmental-study-on-ground-based-strategic-deterrent-icbm/
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2020/11/environmental-assessment-reveals-new-details-about-the-air-forces-icbm-replacement-plan/
http://www.gbsdeis.com/

[russianhalo117]

Proposed 1 decade delay:
https://www.airforcemag.com/garamendi-pause-gbsd-as-other-nuclear-modernization-efforts-proceed/

[edkyle99]

Proposed 1 decade delay:
https://www.airforcemag.com/garamendi-pause-gbsd-as-other-nuclear-modernization-efforts-proceed/

More than that.  Garamendi also "said there are ongoing discussions on if the silo-based ICBM leg of the nuclear triad is even necessary." 

Elections have consequences?

 - Ed Kyle

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Elections have consequences?

 - Ed Kyle

Maybe.


Or it could the cash crunch the next few years from the aftermath of COVID-19. Foresee a lot more people that will have persistent and serious health issues. Restarting and reformatting the post pandemic economy. Add in the likely possibility of more than a few more major weather events. Postponing the decision on big ticket items like the new ICBM is not that surprising.


Also Boeing might get it's act together to be able to submit a somewhat competitive bid later on. Just saying

[russianhalo117]

<snip>
Elections have consequences?

 - Ed Kyle

Maybe.


Or it could the cash crunch the next few years from the aftermath of COVID-19. Foresee a lot more people that will have persistent and serious health issues. Restarting and reformatting the post pandemic economy. Add in the likely possibility of more than a few more major weather events. Postponing the decision on big ticket items like the new ICBM is not that surprising.


Also Boeing might get it's act together to be able to submit a somewhat competitive bid later on. Just saying

We are beyond bids now. Only subcontracting and procurement for non NG manufactured components remain AR (future LM) has already been selected to build some alternative
concession stages to agreed joint design as manufacturing and refurbishment can be split between NG and AR (future LM).

Boeing is fighting through lobbying for another MMIII extension/refurbishment cycle dubbed and pushing for reconsideration of the MMIV (LGM-30H) project proposal which was first rejected and then proposed/withdrawn from the GBSD competition after NG bought, merged, and dissolved OATK (OA) fully into the existing company in order to have a fully in house, cost leveraging and prioritised bid which was selected and then modified to add in the AR (future LM) motor concessions) resulting in the official award through the testing and evaluation process before final approvalto proceed with the build.

[russianhalo117]

Potentially for GBSD or MMIII Biden Administration proposed extension. ESR-73 development motor test.(inaugural test for the newest stand at Camden):

[spacenut]

Why build permanent fixed missiles?  Why not just build more stealth bombers with hypersonic missiles and nuclear submarines?  Being constantly mobile would make the missiles and bombs less vulnerable. 

[Coastal Ron]

Why build permanent fixed missiles?  Why not just build more stealth bombers with hypersonic missiles and nuclear submarines?  Being constantly mobile would make the missiles and bombs less vulnerable.

Land-based missiles are part of the nuclear triad, and because they are located so far inland, they provide a LOT of warning about an attack. You can't sink a land-based missile or shoot down their launch platform, and land-based missiles require high-precision hits in order to disable them. Probably the least expensive of the three to deploy and maintain too.

[sghill]

Why build permanent fixed missiles?  Why not just build more stealth bombers with hypersonic missiles and nuclear submarines?  Being constantly mobile would make the missiles and bombs less vulnerable.

Land-based missiles are part of the nuclear triad, and because they are located so far inland, they provide a LOT of warning about an attack. You can't sink a land-based missile or shoot down their launch platform, and land-based missiles require high-precision hits in order to disable them. Probably the least expensive of the three to deploy and maintain too.

Mobile land-based missiles must by default share publicly accessible roads or railways, causing safety and security risks, triggering protests as they move through populated areas, and-most importantly, continually revealing their location- thus negating the value of making them mobile in the first place without increasing the likelihood they can be used.

Fixed launchers can be placed in quiet places, well guarded, and launched almost instantly, even after a first strike.  Subs and aircraft take time to position and launch, and are easily tracked from above.

[Coastal Ron]

Why build permanent fixed missiles?  Why not just build more stealth bombers with hypersonic missiles and nuclear submarines?  Being constantly mobile would make the missiles and bombs less vulnerable.

Land-based missiles are part of the nuclear triad, and because they are located so far inland, they provide a LOT of warning about an attack. You can't sink a land-based missile or shoot down their launch platform, and land-based missiles require high-precision hits in order to disable them. Probably the least expensive of the three to deploy and maintain too.

Mobile land-based missiles must by default share publicly accessible roads or railways, causing safety and security risks, triggering protests as they move through populated areas, and-most importantly, continually revealing their location- thus negating the value of making them mobile in the first place without increasing the likelihood they can be used.

The U.S. considered mobile land-based missiles, but decided fixed position missiles, as part of the triad, provided enough deterrance.

Fixed launchers can be placed in quiet places, well guarded, and launched almost instantly, even after a first strike.  Subs and aircraft take time to position and launch, and are easily tracked from above.

Right. The U.S. has three bases for fixed position missiles, with 150 missiles at each location. Meaning an opponent would have to launch their own missiles against those 450 missile sites, and would have to assume their missiles would be accurate enough to take out all 450 sites in order to prevent a response from the U.S. Quite a tall order, and such a strike attempt would obviously signal the rest of the triad that full-scale war was breaking out.

So land-based missiles are a trigger of sort, but tough to take out even though their location is known.

[russianhalo117]

Northrop Grumman job offers of GBSD programme:

https://ngc.wd1.myworkdayjobs.com/Northrop_Grumman_External_Site/4/refreshFacet/318c8bb6f553100021d223d9780d30be

[russianhalo117]

GBSD Programmes first ICBM named to LGM-35A (Sentinel).

https://www.airforcemag.com/gbsd-finally-gets-a-name-sentinel/

[libra]

Hopefully with a longer and more productive life than the previous Sentinel missile, which didn't lasted very long...

[Skyrocket]

GBSD Programmes first ICBM named to LGM-35A (Sentinel).

https://www.airforcemag.com/gbsd-finally-gets-a-name-sentinel/

But why on earth LGM-35A?

The number 35 is completely out of sequence and was already used in late 50ies by a supersonic target drone.

[russianhalo117]

GBSD Programmes first ICBM named to LGM-35A (Sentinel).

https://www.airforcemag.com/gbsd-finally-gets-a-name-sentinel/

But why on earth LGM-35A?

The number 35 is completely out of sequence and was already used in late 50ies by a supersonic target drone.

It is an unused operational number in the LGM series. This is because Sentinel is the Minuteman family's replacement. The GBSD follow on programme option to replace the decommissioned LGM-118 Peacekeeper would have a 3 digit LGM number greater than 118. This is the numbering trend of a DoD wide projects for a while now.

[Skyrocket]

GBSD Programmes first ICBM named to LGM-35A (Sentinel).

https://www.airforcemag.com/gbsd-finally-gets-a-name-sentinel/

But why on earth LGM-35A?

The number 35 is completely out of sequence and was already used in late 50ies by a supersonic target drone.

It is an unused operational number in the LGM series. This is because Sentinel is the Minuteman family's replacement. The GBSD follow on programme option to replace the decommissioned LGM-118 Peacekeeper would have a 3 digit LGM number greater than 118. This is the numbering trend of a DoD wide projects for a while now.

There is no special LGM series. The numbers are (or should be) consecutive for the missile series (the M in LGM).

Here is a good summary on the designation system used for missiles

https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missiles.html

[Star One]

The Pentagon’s newly installed acquisition czar is planning “deep dives” into efforts to modernize each leg of the nuclear triad, starting with the program he views as having the most significant risk—the LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, known until recently as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.

Noting that it has been several years since he conducted a “deep dive into the program,” LaPlante went on to say that of the nuclear modernization efforts ongoing—including the B-21 bomber and the Columbia-class submarine—Sentinel, or GBSD, still has the furthest to go.

“They’re somewhat early—one or two years into the engineering, manufacturing, and development—trying to get to a first flight,” LaPlante noted. “I would say, of the three legs and where they are in their EMD, they’re the earliest along, so that means there’s still a significant risk.

“What are the risk areas? The risk areas are [radiation-hardened] electronics. The risk areas are the infrastructure, and all the rest of it. And I intend to look into it. And I will give you that assessment of where that is. I’m going to do a deep dive on all three of the legs, but I’m starting with GBSD.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/new-pentagon-acquisition-boss-deep-dive-sentinel-icbm-significant-risk/

[russianhalo117]

Note of designation addendum to LGM-182 series for the Sentinel family due to a procedural error: https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missiles.html

[Star One]

Sentinel agreement signed in historic ceremony

Published Dec. 21, 2022
Air Force Global Strike Command
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- 
More than 150 personnel who took part in drafting the LGM-35 Sentinel Programmatic Agreement participated in a historic signing event Dec 16, 2022, which simultaneously took place in 11 different locations.

The Air Force’s project to replace the aging LGM-30G Minuteman III with the LGM-35 Sentinel encompasses more than 34,000 acres of land, some of which is on property with both cultural and historical significance. The programmatic agreement, which has been in development for more than two years, will not only ensure the Air Force is in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, but has grown relationships with those who place great value on this land.

“The Air Force worked with all parties to develop an agreement that balanced the project’s national security priorities with the protection of the cultural resources within the project area. This approach recognized that the lands impacted by the project are the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples represented by over 63 tribal governments,” said Maj. Gen. Michael Lutton, Twentieth Air Force commander. “The agreement is designed to seek tribal input on the identification, documentation, evaluation and protection of sites and objects of tribal significance through all phases and areas of this project. Through a spirit of respect and cooperation, all parties worked to develop the strongest, most effective agreement possible.”

This agreement, which provides process and mitigation measures the Air Force will follow with regards to cultural resources, was signed by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation in North Dakota; seven State Historic Preservation Officers; the Wyoming Attorney General’s office; the National Park Service Interior Region 6, 7 and 8; and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Little Shell Tribe of Montana and the Ward County Commissioners also signed the Agreement as concurring parties. The Air Force is continuing to work with the remaining 55 tribes, 10 Federal Agency regional offices, 11 state and local governments and agencies, and five non-governmental organizations that are consulting parties and have assisted in developing the document.

“I just want to acknowledge that we are tremendously pleased with the effort that the Air Force put into developing the consultation plan and carrying it out to engage in such an important number and array of stakeholders in that consultation, and to developing an agreement that very successfully incorporated historic preservation goals at every stage of the process and of the program,” said Reid Nelson, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation acting executive director. “We appreciate your commitment. This stands as a model for us of how an agency can carry out such a comprehensive and effective consultation on such an important program.”

This historic signing event would not have been possible without significant support from community partners and regional stakeholders.

“I wanted to thank the United States Air Force, all the other state federal and travel agencies and governments for their participation  and our invitation to be part of this very prestigious event,” said Three Affiliated Tribes Chairman Mark Fox. “Nowhere in the world do they honor, revere or respect our servicemen, and those who have served, more so than we do. It’s a very important part of our culture. It goes back to our warrior’s societies, in a protection of our own people, but now as part of the United States military as well. We are very proud of that.”

Normally, programmatic agreements are simply staffed through each signatory and invited signatory and then forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for signature. However, due to the historical level of cooperation, all signatories met virtually to sign the document and further attest to their strong relationship and the importance of the agreement to national security.

“This is a historic agreement both in the scope of the project and the number of concerned parties,” said Maj. Gen. John P. Newberry, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center Commander and Air Force Program Executive Officer for Strategic Systems. “The hard work and spirit of cooperativeness that allowed representatives from multiple tribes, state, federal and Air Force agencies to gather together on one day to fully execute this agreement is unprecedented and a true way forward to continue building on these relationships.”

The ability to build such a document is largely credited to the mindset of all involved.

“Through this process, we acknowledged the lands impacted by this project are the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples,” said Russell Bartholomew, AFNWC Sentinel Acquisition Program Manager. “It is important for all parties and individuals involved in this project to understand the long-standing history that has brought us to reside on the land and our place within that history. Tribal governments and Native American communities have a strong and overlapping interest in lands far removed from their reservations and current localities. In recognition of this reality, this agreement will facilitate all Tribal governments being able to provide input on the identification, documentation, evaluation, and protection of sites of Tribal significance throughout all phases and areas of the undertaking.”

The Sentinel system will replace the 400 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, which have been in service for more than 50 years in Air Force missile fields near F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming; Malmstrom AFB, Montana; and Minot AFB, North Dakota. Some Sentinel maintenance, training, storage, testing and support actions will occur also at Hill AFB, Utah; Utah Test and Training Range, Utah; Camp Guernsey, Wyoming; and Camp Navajo, Arizona.

“A well-designed PA is meant to find the balance between the Air Force construction project and the protection of the cultural resources within the project area,” said Stephanie Newcomer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center Environmental Impact Statement project manager. “This Sentinel PA does that and has mitigated measures identified … to uphold that balance over the next 20-plus years.”

https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3252360/sentinel-agreement-signed-in-historic-ceremony/

[Vahe231991]

Note of designation addendum to LGM-182 series for the Sentinel family due to a procedural error: https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missiles.html

Andreas Parsch learned that YLGM-182 was allocated to the ICBM program now known as the Sentinel in August 2017 based on FOIA requests to the Defense Department for info on new military aircraft, UAV, missile, spacecraft, and unguided rocket designations allocated since the new 2004 edition of DOD 4120.15-L: https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/412015-L(addendum).html

[russianhalo117]

Note of designation addendum to LGM-182 series for the Sentinel family due to a procedural error: https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/missiles.html

Andreas Parsch learned that YLGM-182 was allocated to the ICBM program now known as the Sentinel in August 2017 based on FOIA requests to the Defense Department for info on new military aircraft, UAV, missile, spacecraft, and unguided rocket designations allocated since the new 2004 edition of DOD 4120.15-L: https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/412015-L(addendum).html

The YLGM is the for the prototype flight testing program and LGM is the operational designation. The link is listed a few posts up

[russianhalo117]

Missed news update:

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-meets-rocket-motor-casting-milestone-on-road-to-sentinels-first-flight

[Vahe231991]

Missed news update:

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-meets-rocket-motor-casting-milestone-on-road-to-sentinels-first-flight

That news item is from September 2022.

[russianhalo117]

Missed news update:

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-meets-rocket-motor-casting-milestone-on-road-to-sentinels-first-flight

That news item is from September 2022.

Yes. It was missed by everyone if you look upthread so it was added when noticed.

[Vahe231991]

(Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon faces a delay of at least a year in its timetable to deploy the new $96 billion intercontinental ballistic missile that’s central to modernizing the US nuclear arsenal, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The Air Force’s Sentinel ICBM, built by Northrop Grumman Corp., may miss its goal for initial deployment in May 2029, reaching that milestone in April to June of 2030, according to Pentagon data cited by the congressional audit agency. Defense Department efforts to head off such a delay were reported in April by Bloomberg News.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-08/us-air-force-s-96-billion-northrop-icbm-faces-1-year-delay-noc?srnd=politics-vp

[russianhalo117]

Air Force conducts Sentinel static fire test
https://www.afnwc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3319317/air-force-conducts-sentinel-static-fire-test/

New Schedule for Sentinel Coming Soon, Says ICBM Modernization Boss
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-icbm-modernization-czar-schedule-sentinel/

Northrop Grumman Reports Successful Test of LGM-35A Sentinel Second Stage Rocket
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/northrop-grumman-successful-test-sentinel-second-stage-rocket/

[catdlr]

Mar 20, 2024  #ICBM #WSJ #Military
About 450 Cold War-era Minuteman nuclear missiles were only supposed to last 10 years. But now, these ICBMs have defended the U.S. for more than 50. The Air Force is planning to spend $130 billion on replacing them to boost the U.S. nuclear defense strategy with a new modern iteration—the Sentinel missile.

WSJ explains the science and strategy behind nuclear missiles and the logistical challenges of the Sentinel project.

Chapters:
0:00 Expired ICBMs
0:42 The U.S.’s nuclear triad
3:12 Weaknesses
5:00 What’s next for the Sentinel project?

Equipped
Equipped examines military innovation and tactics emerging around the world, breaking down the tech behind the weaponry and its potential impact.

[edkyle99]

Third stage motor test at Arnold on March 20, 2024.
The article also has a photo of a Sentinel nose cone separation test.
https://www.afnwc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3319317/air-force-conducts-sentinel-static-fire-test/

 - Ed Kyle

[sdsds]

https://media.defense.gov/2023/Mar/06/2003172650/-1/-1/0/230302-F-OD616-1003.JPG