Ground Based Strategic Deterrent

Anyone interested in doing a thread about our new ICBM that's in development to replace our aging Minuteman III?

I am assuming since it is being designed to fit into existing Minuteman silos that is will be very similar in size to the Minuteman. But what improvements might we see from this new ICBM? The two that seem obvious to me are the massive leap in hardware/software over the ancient Minuteman system that makes a 1980's era Tandy seem high tech! The other would be accuracy. With modern guidance systems, I would imagine the new ICBM will become the most accurate such weapon in existence with the smallest CEP in the world.

Also, any rumors about what the new ICBM might end up being named? I have seen the designation of LGM-182A being tossed around lately. But I'm curious if it will get tagged with a more traditional missile name (such as figures from Greek or Roman mythology) or whether we'll see a unique nickname selected, as with the Minuteman and the Peacekeeper? Given the current political climate and the present occupant of the Oval Office, I cringe to consider what sort of PC name might get pushed, but I'll try to leave politics out of it for the sake of discussion.

Surely it will have composite case. GEM 63XL is very impressive.

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/f ... e-heritage

Accuracy and survivability enhancements, would be the biggies, along with reliability/maintainability.

Anyone interested in doing a thread about our new ICBM that's in development to replace our aging Minuteman III?

I am assuming since it is being designed to fit into existing Minuteman silos that is will be very similar in size to the Minuteman.

Peacekeeper fit in existing MMIII silos (albeit modified for cold-launch).

I know I am going to get a lot of hate for this but....

We should not be doing bespoke ICBMs for both the USN and USAF. The Trident D5 could reach anywhere in the world from USAF silos. We should use a common system for both replacements. Some of the USAF requirements are actually easier then the USN, its silos don't move. Unless something changes the USAF missiles are going to be single load verse MIRVs for the USN. Sferrin noted, the Peasekeepers is cold launch, so is the Trident.

I know I am going to get a lot of hate for this but....

We should not be doing bespoke ICBMs for both the USN and USAF. The Trident D5 could reach anywhere in the world from USAF silos. We should use a common system for both replacements. Some of the USAF requirements are actually easier then the USN, its silos don't move. Unless something changes the USAF missiles are going to be single load verse MIRVs for the USN. Sferrin noted, the Peasekeepers is cold launch, so is the Trident.

D5 is compromised to fit on an SSBN. Better bang for the buck with a dedicated ICBM. That's why everybody else does it that way.

I know I am going to get a lot of hate for this but....

We should not be doing bespoke ICBMs for both the USN and USAF. The Trident D5 could reach anywhere in the world from USAF silos. We should use a common system for both replacements. Some of the USAF requirements are actually easier then the USN, its silos don't move. Unless something changes the USAF missiles are going to be single load verse MIRVs for the USN. Sferrin noted, the Peasekeepers is cold launch, so is the Trident.

A dedicated land based version offers greater range, and a wider variety of approaches, which enhance survivability.

D5 is compromised to fit on an SSBN. Better bang for the buck with a dedicated ICBM. That's why everybody else does it that way.

Russians don't.

If we talk about medium icbms/slbms. Thier latest 40tons icbm and 40tons slbm are similar missiles, which is reason why Bulava was so problematic to develop.

If you go from slbm to icbm it is lot easier to be done.

I know I am going to get a lot of hate for this but....

We should not be doing bespoke ICBMs for both the USN and USAF. The Trident D5 could reach anywhere in the world from USAF silos. We should use a common system for both replacements. Some of the USAF requirements are actually easier then the USN, its silos don't move. Unless something changes the USAF missiles are going to be single load verse MIRVs for the USN. Sferrin noted, the Peasekeepers is cold launch, so is the Trident.

D5 is compromised to fit on an SSBN. Better bang for the buck with a dedicated ICBM. That's why everybody else does it that way.

You do realize the "Compromised" Trident D5 had roughly the same performance as the Peacekeeper? This is the mentality that needs to be drummed out of the services.

You do realize the "Compromised" Trident D5 had roughly the same performance as the Peacekeeper? This is the mentality that needs to be drummed out of the services.

Well aside from being about 65,000lbs lighter, having a range ~2000km shorter, and a CEP of 90m vs 40m, they're roughly the same performance.

D5 is compromised to fit on an SSBN. Better bang for the buck with a dedicated ICBM. That's why everybody else does it that way.

Russians don't.

You might want to rethink that. No SS-25/27, SS-19, or SS-18 is deployed on an SSBN.

This is nukes, not horseshoes. In a shooting war every meter of accuracy is critical. 90 meters may be under ideal situations, but could be far less in practice. When you're aiming for reinforced concrete bunkers under soft ground, you need extreme precision to even have any hope of taking it out of action for any length of time. Leaving it barely wounded means it may come back to bite you.

I know I am going to get a lot of hate for this but....

We should not be doing bespoke ICBMs for both the USN and USAF. The Trident D5 could reach anywhere in the world from USAF silos. We should use a common system for both replacements. Some of the USAF requirements are actually easier then the USN, its silos don't move. Unless something changes the USAF missiles are going to be single load verse MIRVs for the USN. Sferrin noted, the Peasekeepers is cold launch, so is the Trident.

D5 is compromised to fit on an SSBN. Better bang for the buck with a dedicated ICBM. That's why everybody else does it that way.

You do realize the "Compromised" Trident D5 had roughly the same performance as the Peacekeeper? This is the mentality that needs to be drummed out of the services.

What "mentality" is that? If you actually believe a D-5 is a suitable silo-based missile as-is I have a bridge for sale. Also the D5 has far less range and payload capability. (Don't bother claiming the D5 could carry 14 W88s and fly as far as a Peacekeeper while doing so. It couldn't.)

D5 is compromised to fit on an SSBN. Better bang for the buck with a dedicated ICBM. That's why everybody else does it that way.

Russians don't.

You might want to rethink that. No SS-25/27, SS-19, or SS-18 is deployed on an SSBN.

Missiles you mentioned are all cold war projects

Newest icbm (Yars) and slbm (Bulava) share lot of tech, which is reason why Bulava was such PITA.

For example never deployed Rubezh (light Yars) design to be hypersonic warhead platform has very similar numbers as Bulava, same diameter and same mass, and it is design by same bureau so you can connect dots. But because Russia got lot of non used UR-100 from Ukraine Rubezh is put on ice.

Newest icbm (Yars) and slbm (Bulava) share lot of tech, which is reason why Bulava was such PITA.

For example never deployed Rubezh (light Yars) design to be hypersonic warhead platform has very similar numbers as Bulava, same diameter and same mass, and it is design by same bureau so you can connect dots. But because Russia got lot of non used UR-100 from Ukraine Rubezh is put on ice.

Yeah, but no. "Sharing tech" is not at all the same as Yars being deployed on an SSBN (which it's not, nor ever will be). GBSD and D5 will likely "share tech" where it makes sense.