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

[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