Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ECFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:55 pm

Nuclear Modernization

Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:53 am

With the election results, what are thoughts on nuclear modernization? Particularly a new U.S. land-based ICBM?

I had expected such a program to face steep hurdles had HRC prevailed. Given Republican's lining of the executive and legislative branches, I expect a modern ICBM to have materially better odds of being built (or at least planned/designed). Clearly, any program could be cancelled four years from January if things flip again.

Given that SpaceX and other have developed their launch platforms relatively easily, how difficult would it be to field a modern missile quickly/on a budget? Something that is simply new, reliable, and has a good throw-weight should not be super-hard to field in a relatively short period of time (technically, that is--procurement politics a separate story). Related to this, why not just dust off the Peacekeeper plans? Were there any issues with that design? Would it be the wrong size for our remaining silos? (cannot recall if the Peacekeeper was deployed in Titan II or Minuteman III silos...). I have seen both the Peacekeeper and Minuteman III at Wright-Patterson, and the Peacekeeper is a much wider bird.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:25 am

"Given that SpaceX and other have developed their launch platforms relatively easily, .."

Standing on the shoulders of giants.

Anyway I doubt you'll ever see liquid fueled engines on military rockets ( ICBM or anything else ) again.
Murphy is an optimist
 
mmo
Posts: 2059
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:23 am

WIederling wrote:
"

Anyway I doubt you'll ever see liquid fueled engines on military rockets ( ICBM or anything else ) again.



The Titan II were liquid fueled.......
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:11 pm

mmo wrote:
WIederling wrote:
"

Anyway I doubt you'll ever see liquid fueled engines on military rockets ( ICBM or anything else ) again.

The Titan II were liquid fueled.......

_were_ !!

same as V2/A4, R-7,Restone, Jupiter, ...
but in the ballistic missile context they have been phased out.
( though Russians seem to still see use cases for liquid propellants )
Murphy is an optimist
 
ECFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:56 pm

Sorry, the point of some of my original post wasn't that clear. The comments about SpaceX were just to ask whether there were any terribly difficult technical hurdles to fielding a new ICBM for the U.S. I used SpaceX exactly because they were able to stand on the shoulders of massive earlier work, grossly simplifying the task of fielding a new airframe.

I suspect--technically at least--that there is little new ground to break in the fundamental engineering for a replacement missile. Now if there is a need/desire to reformulate solid fuel, and/or field the world's most accurate re-entry vehicle, I could see considerable new engineering. And if it must become a task to spread the procurement to the maximum number of ZIP codes, I can see other headaches.

My sense though--if the U.S. replaces the Minuteman III with a land based missile--is mostly the desire for something that can sit in the holes for another ~50 years at minimum cost. One thing I had forgotten, in the fading of my Cold War memories, was the old USAF tension between 'live airplane' procurement and the ICBM folks. This should all be interesting to watch.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27643
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:00 pm

ECFlyer wrote:
With the election results, what are thoughts on nuclear modernization? Particularly a new U.S. land-based ICBM?


The Ground Based Strategic Deterrent RFP was released this July to Boeing IDS, Lockheed-Martin and Northrop Grumman by the USAF. Proposals were due last month.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /87751050/
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:55 pm

ECFlyer wrote:
With the election results, what are thoughts on nuclear modernization? Particularly a new U.S. land-based ICBM?

I had expected such a program to face steep hurdles had HRC prevailed. Given Republican's lining of the executive and legislative branches, I expect a modern ICBM to have materially better odds of being built (or at least planned/designed). Clearly, any program could be cancelled four years from January if things flip again.

Given that SpaceX and other have developed their launch platforms relatively easily, how difficult would it be to field a modern missile quickly/on a budget? Something that is simply new, reliable, and has a good throw-weight should not be super-hard to field in a relatively short period of time (technically, that is--procurement politics a separate story). Related to this, why not just dust off the Peacekeeper plans? Were there any issues with that design? Would it be the wrong size for our remaining silos? (cannot recall if the Peacekeeper was deployed in Titan II or Minuteman III silos...). I have seen both the Peacekeeper and Minuteman III at Wright-Patterson, and the Peacekeeper is a much wider bird.


SpaceX doesn't plan on building rockets that can be stored for decades and launched with just a few minutes warning.

The problem with the MX (Peacekeeper) missile is that with 10 warheads, it could be perceived as a first strike weapon that could be destabilizing. A smaller missile with fewer warheads would probably be preferred.
 
ECFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:55 pm

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:18 pm

I had read about the RFP for the new missile, hence my interest. As a former congressional intern (a long time ago), I suspected that the program would be delayed indefinitely, or cancelled outright, had the election gone as predicted. There have been several well-placed editorials disclaiming the need for anything going forward save the SLBM force. I suspect that the ICBM stands a better chance now, but who knows.

Re: the Peacekeeper being a first-strike weapon, it certainly was with its accuracy and 10-warhead bus. But I would guess that a new-build ICBM with 1-3 warheads could have a very small CEP if desired. With restrictions on the number of fielded warheads, I can see the merit in having those spread across many more missiles (vs. the limited LGM-118 fleet), but having the new 1-3 warhead missiles be very, very accurate. Land-basing a brand-new design should allow it to hit something the size of a house accurately.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27643
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:01 am

START II would have limited the number of warheads per delivery vehicle on the land-based ICBM force to one, which was one reason the Peacekeeper was phased out (since it was far cheaper to keep Minuteman in such a configuration). START II was never ratified and New START (which was) does not have such a limitation (both the Soviet SS-18 and it's Russian successor are 10 warhead designs).

So the US could field a new high-warhead design, but I expect we won't. I think we might be looking at something like the cancelled MGM-134 Midgetman design, perhaps without being road-mobile.
 
mpgunner
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:08 pm

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:13 pm

A fascinating article on the challenge to maintain and build a new bomb. "Will it work?"

http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publicatio ... ckpile.pdf
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14631
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:49 am

If Trump wants to spend scarce money on military stuff, I'm not sure ICBMs would be a priority, there are probably other things to buy that provide more jobs to unskilled workers.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:15 am

Aesma wrote:
If Trump wants to spend scarce money on military stuff, I'm not sure ICBMs would be a priority, there are probably other things to buy that provide more jobs to unskilled workers.

Trump doesn't get to decide how much is spent on much of anything. Federal spending is determined by the US Congress. If they want to buy ICBMs, they can. Whether that's a good use of the money is another subject.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
zanl188
Posts: 3855
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Nuclear Modernization

Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:25 pm

On the air breathing side of things...

I understand the F107 engine on the ALCM has reliability & maintainability problems. This is setting the ALCM up for phase out in 2030, leaving the B-52 without a nuclear mission.

Has the replacement LRSO gone forward?
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Nean1, Sooner787 and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos