Quote from: Star One on 08/28/2017 01:59 pmQuote from: Arch Admiral on 08/27/2017 09:52 pmIf 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.htmlThere 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
Quote from: Arch Admiral on 08/27/2017 09:52 pmIf 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.
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.
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
Quote from: Mike Jones on 08/23/2017 09:26 pmWhich 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.
Which major subcontractors will support Boeing and Northrop ? For propulsion, with whom Orbital ATK and Aerojet-Rocketdyne will partner respectively?
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.
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.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2017 04:44 pmLockheed 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 KyleSince 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.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 09/01/2017 01:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2017 04:44 pmLockheed 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 KyleSince 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
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 09/19/2017 07:41 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 09/01/2017 01:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2017 04:44 pmLockheed 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 KyleSince 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-missilesWouldn’t our Trident replacement subs over here in the UK which are currently in development also have to be compatible with this.
Quote from: Star One on 09/19/2017 07:45 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 09/19/2017 07:41 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 09/01/2017 01:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2017 04:44 pmLockheed 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 KyleSince 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-missilesWouldn’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.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 09/19/2017 07:55 pmQuote from: Star One on 09/19/2017 07:45 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 09/19/2017 07:41 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 09/01/2017 01:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2017 04:44 pmLockheed 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 KyleSince 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-missilesWouldn’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?
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.
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/
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
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 07/25/2019 11:40 pmBoeing 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.aspxNorthrop 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
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 07/25/2019 11:40 pmBoeing 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.aspxWhat 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?
