The US Air Force has awarded Boeing to work on the preliminary design for replacing the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This is a 3-year contract worth $349MM. http://alph.st/bff334fd

Work on the land-based ICBM fleet will come under the heading as a necessity as it begins to be one of safety. Systems, even ones that sit unused, can degrade. Replacing the delivery system covers this safety work as the actual fissile materials and other components at the sharp end can also be re-used.

Sigh....
Can we please move on to the important things? Like how the Northrup missile and program will obviously be better because... well Northrup! (And I hear side stick instead antiquated yoke control for the missile like Boeing has!)

But I must admit I do like the nose cone and over all shape of the Boeing missile, it is more pleasing to the eye... but then again I hear Northrop's missile is wider so it is easier for the warheads to fit in, more comfortable for the workers and technicians.

Tugg

Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.

Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0

And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?

I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.

Dutchy wrote:

Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.

Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0

And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?

I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.

The politics of it aside North Korea has signed and violated several agreements to not produce such weapons.

That said more power to them. Do whatever you want. I don't really care.

As for what the US should spend money on...well I guess we could let Europe build a large surviveable deterrent this time around and spend our money at home. Sound like a deal?

The fact is the west needs a deterrent and the French and British systems aren't really large enough to provide one in all circumstances. Hell the British one is even sustainable outside of US support really. Ask Ukraine how their decision to not have a nuclear deterrent went for them if you think it isn't important.

Please keep this thread on topic without getting political. If you'd like to have a fundamental debate regarding the political implications or the current political climate, please continue that discussion in the Non Aviation Forum where it belongs.

✈️ atcsundevil

In France we used to have land based missiles in silos but it didn't make much sense in the end, it just becomes a target. In the US you have many sites so many targets, I'm not sure it's better.

I guess it's the idea that you have all those "visible" missiles pointed at the "enemy" instead of just stealth submarines and bombers that justify it, rather than a strategic role.

Aesma wrote:

In France we used to have land based missiles in silos but it didn't make much sense in the end, it just becomes a target. In the US you have many sites so many targets, I'm not sure it's better.

I guess it's the idea that you have all those "visible" missiles pointed at the "enemy" instead of just stealth submarines and bombers that justify it, rather than a strategic role.

The US situation is rather different than the French or British. The French and British arsenals are basically deterrence weapons that having minimal numbers are for countervalue type strikes against population centers. These aresenals are also limited enough that absent the US arsenal a larger opponent (Russia) could hope to ride out what little might remain of these arsenals after a counterforce strike. Particularly given that Russia has some level of ABM capacity.

The US aresenal is large enough to undertake countervalue and counterforce type attacks. The land based component plays a different role than it could for the French. The US could in a time of crisis adopt a launch on warning stance which would given the distances involved allow it to get of its ground based weapons in good time before an inbound strike could arrive. This is harder in Europe due to shorter flight times. Additionally the land based weapons currently and most certainly a new missile would be primarily tasked as counterforce weapons. Trident can do this as well but subs are somewhat reliant on external navigational cues to optimize accuracy. Land based weapons are in a known position and can be highly accurate even if GPS is degraded. Finally you are right in that they serve as targets which is a not unimportant role for them when it comes to overall nuclear strategy.

In all honesty I think the biggest part of this project is really updating the command and control aspects of things. Yes there will be new missiles but there isn't a ton of need for innovation so much as thru life cost management of the weapons. The most important thing will be getting components up to date. To me the real interesting part will be if they decide to make new silos, go for mobile launchers or just redo the existing silos They probably should do something new but you are going to get basing complaints whatever you do. Me personally I would go for dense packs protected by a shooter range ABM system.

bigjku wrote:

Trident can do this as well but subs are somewhat reliant on external navigational cues to optimize accuracy. Land based weapons are in a known position and can be highly accurate even if GPS is degraded.

Hate to break it to you but Trident, although desirable, doesn't really need to know where it was launched from when all is said and done, just as long as it's pointed in roughly the right direction it'll pick up it's own non GPS derived position in flight.
The last firing I was involved with, arrived at target with rather 'unnecessary' accuracy.

ChrisKen wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Trident can do this as well but subs are somewhat reliant on external navigational cues to optimize accuracy. Land based weapons are in a known position and can be highly accurate even if GPS is degraded.

Hate to break it to you but Trident, although desirable, doesn't really need to know where it was launched from when all is said and done, just as long as it's pointed in roughly the right direction it'll pick up it's own non GPS derived position in flight.
The last firing I was involved with, arrived at target with rather 'unnecessary' accuracy.

I agree it can mostly do just fine on the vast majority of missions even if degraded. I like the phrase unnecessary accuracy. I am somewhat surprised that D5 isn't the basis of a new land based missile. It still may be or at least many parts of it. It's probably much more accurate than I give it credit for. I did say somewhat reliant...I believe D5 is the best such system ever conceived which is why the USSR kind of freaked out about it.

That said there are some applications for which I would prefer a land based weapon if you want a very specific lay down and detonation pattern for certain targets since you know the exact launch points well in advance and can work it all out.

It will be interesting to see just what the missile portion of this ends up looking like. It could be anywhere from a D5 with a bit more oomph to give it the range it needs from the central US to something very different. I don't think it's even the most important part of what they are upgrading honestly. I wouldn't be totally floored if you got a purpose designed very high accuracy single warhead missile provided we are still abding by treaty limits and want the majority of our weapons on subs. Maybe something with enhanced terminal speeds to get through defensive systems better. Will be interesting. The contractors picked suggest at least to me we see something from the MX family rather than Trident like. Both NG and Boeing worked on that program.

Dutchy wrote:

Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.

Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0

And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?

I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.

you didn't make a joke. You are just acting like you made a joke. Anyone who has kept up with your general posting re America and nukes knows that you feel the US shouldn't have them.

If you really think America (or Russia/China etc) are 1/16th as dangerous as a nuclear North Korea you need to stop posting here and do a lot more world research. We aren't "entitled" we are simply keeping the rest of the world in check. It is also a huge protection for people like you over in Europe, even if you can't figure that out. (remember, most of you would be speaking German if it wasn't for those dirty, evil, war starting, baby killing, entitled Americans. )





Anyways, Glad to see some money finally being put toward a minuteman replacement (even though we had them already, hello peacekeeper). Hopefully a Trident and actual warhead replacement is next. Also hopefully Trump is serious about dumping new START.....

Dutchy did make an amusing and very pertinent observation in this thread previously.

All be speaking German? He's Dutch, he probably already speaks it, as well as at least two other languages. Grow up 'dude'.

deltal1011man wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.

Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0

And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?

I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.

you didn't make a joke. You are just acting like you made a joke. Anyone who has kept up with your general posting re America and nukes knows that you feel the US shouldn't have them.

If you really think America (or Russia/China etc) are 1/16th as dangerous as a nuclear North Korea you need to stop posting here and do a lot more world research. We aren't "entitled" we are simply keeping the rest of the world in check. It is also a huge protection for people like you over in Europe, even if you can't figure that out. (remember, most of you would be speaking German if it wasn't for those dirty, evil, war starting, baby killing, entitled Americans. )





Anyways, Glad to see some money finally being put toward a minuteman replacement (even though we had them already, hello peacekeeper). Hopefully a Trident and actual warhead replacement is next. Also hopefully Trump is serious about dumping new START.....

The moderators would like to keep this tread on track, so that prevents me to respond to your very amusing post with a lot of half truth and framing. Althoug I will give you one thing, I don't think there should be any nukes around, useless weapons and anything above 300 is plain ridiculous and a waste of money.

Dutchy wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.

Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0

And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?

I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.

you didn't make a joke. You are just acting like you made a joke. Anyone who has kept up with your general posting re America and nukes knows that you feel the US shouldn't have them.

If you really think America (or Russia/China etc) are 1/16th as dangerous as a nuclear North Korea you need to stop posting here and do a lot more world research. We aren't "entitled" we are simply keeping the rest of the world in check. It is also a huge protection for people like you over in Europe, even if you can't figure that out. (remember, most of you would be speaking German if it wasn't for those dirty, evil, war starting, baby killing, entitled Americans. )





Anyways, Glad to see some money finally being put toward a minuteman replacement (even though we had them already, hello peacekeeper). Hopefully a Trident and actual warhead replacement is next. Also hopefully Trump is serious about dumping new START.....

The moderators would like to keep this tread on track, so that prevents me to respond to your very amusing post with a lot of half truth and framing. Althoug I will give you one thing, I don't think there should be any nukes around, useless weapons and anything above 300 is plain ridiculous and a waste of money.[/quote]

The attack on you was silly by the other poster...

That being said you can't simply waive your hand and say 300 warheads is enough. What is this based on? Is it based on a target set? If so where? What type of force is it and how is it targeted? What type of force does the opposition have? How are you deploying your force?

Some answers would facilitate an actual discussion of the matter beyond effectively calling those calling the shots on this incompetent...

bigjku wrote:

The attack on you was silly by the other poster...

That being said you can't simply waive your hand and say 300 warheads is enough. What is this based on? Is it based on a target set? If so where? What type of force is it and how is it targeted? What type of force does the opposition have? How are you deploying your force?

Some answers would facilitate an actual discussion of the matter beyond effectively calling those calling the shots on this incompetent...

If I am not mistaking, that target is set by China, so a world leader and some say the world leader. I think the reasoning behind it is quite simple, If you make the price high enough, nobody will attack you, and that is the only real reason to have nukes, deter, not to use them in actual combat. So how many times do you need to be able to destroy another country major population areas? Even though some will fail, some might be intercepted, if only ten will reach the target, out of 300, you have destroyed ten major cities with potentially millions of casualties. Is that not enough of a deterrent? Do you need to have a few thousand of them? With all the cost associated? If I were in charge of the defence of the US, I would say, give the nuclear deterrent to the submarine fleet. They are best equipped to deliver the faithfull mission. If you are set to keep the same spending level in the military, the funds could be used elsewhere, although for the US I would say, spend it on infrastructure, much more useful for them.

That is my take on things, and I am no strategist, so an arm chair general with no military experience, so you shouldn't take it too seriously, although I am interested to know why this reasoning fails

Dutchy wrote:

bigjku wrote:

The attack on you was silly by the other poster...

That being said you can't simply waive your hand and say 300 warheads is enough. What is this based on? Is it based on a target set? If so where? What type of force is it and how is it targeted? What type of force does the opposition have? How are you deploying your force?

Some answers would facilitate an actual discussion of the matter beyond effectively calling those calling the shots on this incompetent...

If I am not mistaking, that target is set by China, so a world leader and some say the world leader. I think the reasoning behind it is quite simple, If you make the price high enough, nobody will attack you, and that is the only real reason to have nukes, deter, not to use them in actual combat. So how many times do you need to be able to destroy another country major population areas? Even though some will fail, some might be intercepted, if only ten will reach the target, out of 300, you have destroyed ten major cities with potentially millions of casualties. Is that not enough of a deterrent? Do you need to have a few thousand of them? With all the cost associated? If I were in charge of the defence of the US, I would say, give the nuclear deterrent to the submarine fleet. They are best equipped to deliver the faithfull mission. If you are set to keep the same spending level in the military, the funds could be used elsewhere, although for the US I would say, spend it on infrastructure, much more useful for them.

That is my take on things, and I am no strategist, so an arm chair general with no military experience, so you shouldn't take it too seriously, although I am interested to know why this reasoning fails

China's arsenal occupies a fairly unique niche at this point and it of undetermined total size. It is unique strategically in that it is designed to deter both the US and Russia. The 300 weapons was good for that as it was enough to hold either of those nations at limited risk and a disarming strike by either was unlikely given the number of weapons it would require by either player and the resultant impact that would have on the balance of forces between the two. However I believe India is disrupting this and you will see their nuclear force grow. China will look to ensure that it could launch a disarming strike against India while still retaining its ability to deter the US and Russia. Indeed many of the shorter ranged weapons seem to be focused on just such an attack if necessary.

Also keep in mind their expansion program for the SSBN force would take their arsenal just on those boats to 288-384 or so just for that force. Their ICBM force would support between 200-250 warheads depending on how they are deployed on the estimated launchers. If they maintain the ICBM force and build out the SSBN force they will in my view roughly double their arsenal. If there is a corresponding expansion of shorter ranged weapons it wouldn't shock me to see China push towards 1,000 deployed weapons in the next decade.

As for the US and Russian arsenals you would be surprised I think by the number of weapons it takes when you actually sit down and do the planning. Both need arsenals sufficient to survive any first strike and still retaliate. That takes far more than 300 warheads and the game theory with it all is complex once you start looking at most scenarios. Personally I think the numbers are fine where they are. Reducing them has the potential to unbalance things.

As you said, China is defending with 300 nukes both from America and Russia and they are doing fine. I too can see, if they develop more blue water capability, they might need a few hundred more. But even then, 500 might be enough.

As for game-theory, what truly changes if you are going to flatten the top ten cities or send over 500 nukes? Personally, I think it is more whom got the biggest than anything else.

China is able to occupy that position and not be subject to a disarming first strike mostly because such a strike would use up enough of either the US or Russian arsenal that they would feel vulnerable to their opposite number. Take either the US or Russia off the table and place China in singular opposition and their arsenal would need to expand.

500 warheads, depending on the delivery system, is very vulnerable to a combination of ABM and an accurate first strike. It just doesn't have much depth.

So you are saying that if 490 out of 500 (98%(!)) are taking out - which I find highly unlikely - 10 aren't enough for a deterrent?

I don't understand your reasoning. You are saying if Russia would have zero nuclear bombs, China would need ten times as much as they do have now? I call bullocks. With that reasoning, who cares that North Korea might have 14 bombs, which they might have the capability to deliver to the US, only 14 bombs max.