User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:13:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV. Duh!  Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. A related funny (  , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages.
One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:19:21 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
D5 is only around 25 and suppose to serve in to the 2040s Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. D5 is only around 25 and suppose to serve in to the 2040s True, but that's fielded. Designed, tested and built long before that (design phase started in 1972). Still doesn't solve the other (really expensive, and potentially insurmountable) retrofit issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:33:04 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://images.gizmag.com/inline/stratolaunch-0.jpg Replace that space launcher on the center pylon with a rotary single warhead ICBM launcher. You have a half-million pounds to play with, how many midget man type missiles could you load? Understand, being air-launched, you could likely drop about 5%-10% from each missiles mass and still have the same performance as a ground launch missile. That thing combines a Bomber, a Sub and an ICBM all in one. You can keep several airborne over the Pacific and they would be untouchable. BTW, that 6 engine plane is not just a concept, metal is being bent as of now. It's called Stratolaunch. That is retarded and expensive. It makes sense to cut the costs of repeated single use boosters or extend their payload by having a reusable first stage, the ONE (or two) aircraft you have to support the launch of dozens or hundreds of boosters. If you need 500 aircraft, and you have to pay for fuel and maintenance, and a flight crew for EACH ballistic missile? That would be more expensive than Chrome Dome, which we stopped doing because it cost too much. Which means your aircraft end up sitting alert at vulnerable air bases, and wait we are going back back BACK in time! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:42:59 PM EDT
[#4]
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with.
How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:53:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with. How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. No. Knock down one bird, have one lightning strike, for that matter one oil leak, and a significant portion of your deterrent force is grounded. And that could be the hard way, if it happens in flight. Easy experiment to prove that Newton is a harsh and angry god and expects to be obeyed. That never ends well for the nuclear weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:03:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Relevant : http://secure.afa.org/CorpMembers/Breakfast-1-20-15-Harencak.asp
Major General Garrett Harencak Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration Jan 20th 2015 Edited to add: I lost my shit when I read "cisgendering rape missiles".  good one LX |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:09:06 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Paging Lima-Xray...Mr. Xray, please pick up the red curiosity phone... I know we negotiated away the MX ("peacekeeper") during the last treaty with the Russians, but why design yet another new missile when that one seems to be a great system? And of course spend tons of money doing it. I'm, all for updating our nukes & delivery systems, but wasn't the MX the greatest delivery system ever created? Why reinvent the wheel? War is Boring article Miniaturization is the ticket! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:10:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with. How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. Let's assume we build a midgetman So you put 15 Midgetmen on one of those. You need 20 of those aircraft, 300 missiles, to equal the 1 SSBN's payload. Or 40 planes and 700 missiles to reasonably replace the ICBMs, but you don't get the quick launch because you have to scramble your alert force to get any of the missiles off... and you aren't going to sit all 30 planes on alert. Where are you going to place them? We have 450 aimpoints with the ICBMs. Put 3 squadrons at 3 specialized bases and you have a TINY number of aimpoints. It needs 12,000ft of runway to takeoff and is designed to land WITHOUT its 500,000# payload. That requires a lot of improvements to the few bases that it would be at (again vulnerable) and limits using civilian abort runways... and lets talk about adverse weather operations.... and a crash? Keeping a nuclear weapon protected in a crash is different when you have 200 tons of rocket fuel thrown on the crash. BTW a Stratolaunch for nuclear deterrrence is going to cost 1 billion per aircraft easy (2-3x the civilian spacelaunch version). So $20 billion of aircraft to match 1 SSBN. The replacement SSBN is estimated to cost ~$4 billion. You have found something that is actually more expensive than a SSBN and doesn't have the advantages of survivability, dispersion, and quick reaction that the ICBMs have unless you perform high risk high cost orbiting patrols that we abandoned in 1968. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:10:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. It's the more accurate missile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:12:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A related funny ( , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages.
One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/gwlek.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV. Duh! Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. A related funny ( , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages.
One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/gwlek.jpg The next missile upgrades will require zero radioactive waste after detonation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:22:33 PM EDT
[#11]
LX didn't Northrop Grumman do a guidance upgrade in 2008? http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=138025
Or is that what you meant by just refreshing the old tech rather than entirely new guidance like GPS or GPS III or something else entirely?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:39:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A related funny ( , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages.
One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/gwlek.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV. Duh! Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. A related funny ( , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages.
One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/gwlek.jpg I was laughing so hard at that picture my wife had to come see what the deal was, absolutely fantastic! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:50:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LX didn't Northrop Grumman do a guidance upgrade in 2008? http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=138025 Or is that what you meant by just refreshing the old tech rather than entirely new guidance like GPS or GPS III or something else entirely? Software update. Parts of the guidance computer upgraded. New wiring harness. Didn't touch the accelerometers made when Ford was President.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:56:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought this one would certainly get a response by now. Do you even ICBM, bro? We also negotiated away MIRVs, not much new to add. Not for the SLBMs, but IIRC we can put decoys on the MMs. I believe the MMIII can carry up to three warheads. MMIII MIRV not under current treaty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:57:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. D5s are getting replacements as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:08:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
D5 is only around 25 and suppose to serve in to the 2040s Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. D5 is only around 25 and suppose to serve in to the 2040s Based on the life extension program, which may or may not work out as planned. In any event plans for a replacement have begun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:31:36 PM EDT
[#17]
LX I miss your old avatar of the MIRV's. just sayin........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:34:10 PM EDT
[#18]
I was fortunate enough to have an opportuniy to tour a launch facility a couple of months ago.....Very cool
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:35:19 PM EDT
[#19]
It would have been a whole lot cheaper to just make a single warhead system for the Peacekeeper.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:55:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would have been a whole lot cheaper to just make a single warhead system for the Peacekeeper. I don't think we even completed an MX "Dense Pack" installation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:57:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LX I miss your old avatar of the MIRV's. just sayin........ I kinda do too.  . But it doesn't fit the landscape format avatars very well at all. Thanks, Goatboy. 
For the record, that was a many moons ago. Tells me we've both been here too long.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:58:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think we even completed an MX "Dense Pack" installation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It would have been a whole lot cheaper to just make a single warhead system for the Peacekeeper. I don't think we even completed an MX "Dense Pack" installation. Never started. One of many basing concepts canxed as too expensive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:59:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A related funny ( , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages.
One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/gwlek.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV. Duh! Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. A related funny ( , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages.
One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/gwlek.jpg I lol at that Walking Dead funny. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:02:11 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your topic got me looking at missiles and shit. Came across this photo of something I have never seen or heard of. http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj220/fshoutowtr/MMIII_C5_airdropOct_1974.jpg Yes, let's put not only a nuclear warhead on a plane, but a giant missile, too. What could possibly wrong?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:03:58 AM EDT
[#25]
Sixty thousand pounds of self-oxidizing fuel and a nuke on an airplane, ready to light five seconds after it clears the ramp.
[Venkman] I love this plan, and I'm excited to be a part of it! [/Venkman]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:27:58 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm more surprised from reading the article that the AF has a plan to replace its old UH-1s with used UH-60s for security work in the ICBM fields. I was sitting at the truck stop outside Cheyenne one day, and spent a while watching a Huey with a FLIR camera circle around, got a few pictures. At the last second, I look over in another direction, and saw the missile transporter convoy go past on the freeway. Almost missed it because I was watching the helo Almost as much fun as realizing that all those funny trucks with .gov plates passing you are an NNSA convoy... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:21:03 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I kinda do too. . But it doesn't fit the landscape format avatars very well at all. Thanks, Goatboy.
For the record, that was a many moons ago. Tells me we've both been here too long. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
LX I miss your old avatar of the MIRV's. just sayin........ I kinda do too. . But it doesn't fit the landscape format avatars very well at all. Thanks, Goatboy.
For the record, that was a many moons ago. Tells me we've both been here too long. Let me inquire at least.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:22:23 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sixty thousand pounds of self-oxidizing fuel and a nuke on an airplane, ready to light five seconds after it clears the ramp. [Venkman] I love this plan, and I'm excited to be a part of it! [/Venkman]
Have to say this is quote worthy.
For quotes my first one is from Tom Clancy in one of his books. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 7:20:29 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Based on the life extension program, which may or may not work out as planned. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. D5 is only around 25 and suppose to serve in to the 2040s Based on the life extension program, which may or may not work out as planned. The guys at SSP who run the program don't really agree since they bought 100 plus new boosters and the RVs are already being modernized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 7:39:21 AM EDT
[#30]
The concerning part to me is the need for a new warhead design.
How can you absolutely trust a piece of equipment that complicated and technical when you will never, ever get to actually test it? Modeling, mock ups and inert core testing are great... But I seem to recall reading about numerous "WTF?" moments in the history of warhead design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:03:33 AM EDT
[#31]
I seem to recall reading a story where the stabilizing/shock isolation foam in some of our nuclear warheads was beginning to deteriorate and we no longer know how to make it as everyone involved in the development had retired and accurate record weren't kept for security reasons. Off to Google.
ETA: Here's the story, it's the W76 warhead. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/09/nuclear-warhead-upgrade-delayed-government-labs-forgot-how-to-make-parts/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:08:16 AM EDT
[#32]
I don't know how dropping the 3 warhead MM for the single warhead has adjusted the throw weight, but the specificity of the mission for which we developed MM no longer applies. Whether MMIII has the flexibility a multi-polar nuclear environment requires is a key question to which I don't have the answer. And I know LX would be throwing out some gumbo if i asked, so I ll leave that as a thought problem for the student.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:08:19 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I seem to recall reading a story where the stabilizing/shock isolation foam in some of our nuclear warheads was beginning to deteriorate and we no longer know how to make it as everyone involved in the development had retired and accurate record weren't kept for security reasons. Off to Google. ETA: Here's the story, it's the W76 warhead. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/09/nuclear-warhead-upgrade-delayed-government-labs-forgot-how-to-make-parts/ Highlights the OTHER problem between waiting too long between refreshes. The 80lb heads who solved all the engineering problems the last time are all deep in the grip of Alzheimer's, or dead. During the pours for the downstages, they had a problem getting the fuel right. Kept getting inconsistent burn rates, etc. Same thing with the aerogel, they scoured the engineering notes and spent a lot of money on troubleshooting. They finally found the ONE GUY from Thiokol who was A) still alive and B) still knew who his wife was, and asked him what they did to solve the problem the last time. Turns out it was something simple like "mix it at 10° higher temp" or "add a cup of baking soda to the mix". The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:18:50 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Highlights the OTHER problem between waiting too long between refreshes. The 80lb heads who solved all the engineering problems the last time are all deep in the grip of Alzheimer's, or dead. During the pours for the downstages, they had a problem getting the fuel right. Kept getting inconsistent burn rates, etc. Same thing with the aerogel, they scoured the engineering notes and spent a lot of money on troubleshooting. They finally found the ONE GUY from Thiokol who was A) still alive and B) still knew who his wife was, and asked him what they did to solve the problem the last time. Turns out it was something simple like "mix it at 10° higher temp" or "add a cup of baking soda to the mix". The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I seem to recall reading a story where the stabilizing/shock isolation foam in some of our nuclear warheads was beginning to deteriorate and we no longer know how to make it as everyone involved in the development had retired and accurate record weren't kept for security reasons. Off to Google. ETA: Here's the story, it's the W76 warhead. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/09/nuclear-warhead-upgrade-delayed-government-labs-forgot-how-to-make-parts/ Highlights the OTHER problem between waiting too long between refreshes. The 80lb heads who solved all the engineering problems the last time are all deep in the grip of Alzheimer's, or dead. During the pours for the downstages, they had a problem getting the fuel right. Kept getting inconsistent burn rates, etc. Same thing with the aerogel, they scoured the engineering notes and spent a lot of money on troubleshooting. They finally found the ONE GUY from Thiokol who was A) still alive and B) still knew who his wife was, and asked him what they did to solve the problem the last time. Turns out it was something simple like "mix it at 10° higher temp" or "add a cup of baking soda to the mix". The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. Also applies to nuclear submarines, aircraft, tanks, etc. Never mind the theoretical warhead work that we can't even train anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:21:04 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know how dropping the 3 warhead MM for the single warhead has adjusted the throw weight, but the specificity of the mission for which we developed MM no longer applies. Whether MMIII has the flexibility a multi-polar nuclear environment requires is a key question to which I don't have the answer. And I know LX would be throwing out some gumbo if i asked, so I ll leave that as a thought problem for the student. Well, it still does apply, because the target sets from back then are still around (Russia). The numbers may be smaller all around, but the fact is that we still have a peer competitor in the nuclear world, and that's not going to change soon, as long as Russia keeps producing Topols. What has changed is the wide variety of new target sets that have emerged over the last, say, 30 years (Topol-M would be just one example). So in order to remain a credible deterrent, the new ground-based strategic deterrent needs to be able to hold them at risk, too, as much as possible and within the capabilities of that platform (i.e., some targets are just better serviced by an air-breather than an IC). The MMIII has the flexibility today, but it's like the 78 year old guy still going to the yoga class. He can do it, but the younger folk can do it better. Even if it was something as simple as modifying the software to pick a flight path NOT over the Arctic Circle, suddenly you have a much more credible threat to some of the newer and emerging targets. And while I'm not into gumbo, I do have the credible threat of a chocolate-raspberry cheesecake ready in the launch tube. Don't make me turn that key.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:24:28 AM EDT
[#36]
So why was the MX taken offline and removed from service? Growing up I thought that was the uber missile, super accurate, etc?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:25:45 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So why was the MX taken offline and removed from service? Growing up I thought that was the uber missile, super accurate, etc? cause commies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 9:36:00 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Highlights the OTHER problem between waiting too long between refreshes. The 80lb heads who solved all the engineering problems the last time are all deep in the grip of Alzheimer's, or dead. During the pours for the downstages, they had a problem getting the fuel right. Kept getting inconsistent burn rates, etc. Same thing with the aerogel, they scoured the engineering notes and spent a lot of money on troubleshooting. They finally found the ONE GUY from Thiokol who was A) still alive and B) still knew who his wife was, and asked him what they did to solve the problem the last time. Turns out it was something simple like "mix it at 10° higher temp" or "add a cup of baking soda to the mix". The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I seem to recall reading a story where the stabilizing/shock isolation foam in some of our nuclear warheads was beginning to deteriorate and we no longer know how to make it as everyone involved in the development had retired and accurate record weren't kept for security reasons. Off to Google. ETA: Here's the story, it's the W76 warhead. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/09/nuclear-warhead-upgrade-delayed-government-labs-forgot-how-to-make-parts/ Highlights the OTHER problem between waiting too long between refreshes. The 80lb heads who solved all the engineering problems the last time are all deep in the grip of Alzheimer's, or dead. During the pours for the downstages, they had a problem getting the fuel right. Kept getting inconsistent burn rates, etc. Same thing with the aerogel, they scoured the engineering notes and spent a lot of money on troubleshooting. They finally found the ONE GUY from Thiokol who was A) still alive and B) still knew who his wife was, and asked him what they did to solve the problem the last time. Turns out it was something simple like "mix it at 10° higher temp" or "add a cup of baking soda to the mix". The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. This is a common problem. A LOT of institutional memory and transfer of expertise is lost when engineering is done as a one-off piece of work. We're suffering from the same problems related to some manufacturing sectors that have recently moved back to the US after being overseas for some time. It's VERY expensive to redesign the wheel from the ground up. Interestingly, while we were on vacation, I picked up a $3 mechanics of materials book published in 1885. It has 4 chapters on stresses in gun barrels, as that industry was the one driving most of the materials development at the time
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:01:53 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Highlights the OTHER problem between waiting too long between refreshes. The 80lb heads who solved all the engineering problems the last time are all deep in the grip of Alzheimer's, or dead. During the pours for the downstages, they had a problem getting the fuel right. Kept getting inconsistent burn rates, etc. Same thing with the aerogel, they scoured the engineering notes and spent a lot of money on troubleshooting. They finally found the ONE GUY from Thiokol who was A) still alive and B) still knew who his wife was, and asked him what they did to solve the problem the last time. Turns out it was something simple like "mix it at 10° higher temp" or "add a cup of baking soda to the mix". The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I seem to recall reading a story where the stabilizing/shock isolation foam in some of our nuclear warheads was beginning to deteriorate and we no longer know how to make it as everyone involved in the development had retired and accurate record weren't kept for security reasons. Off to Google. ETA: Here's the story, it's the W76 warhead. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/09/nuclear-warhead-upgrade-delayed-government-labs-forgot-how-to-make-parts/ Highlights the OTHER problem between waiting too long between refreshes. The 80lb heads who solved all the engineering problems the last time are all deep in the grip of Alzheimer's, or dead. During the pours for the downstages, they had a problem getting the fuel right. Kept getting inconsistent burn rates, etc. Same thing with the aerogel, they scoured the engineering notes and spent a lot of money on troubleshooting. They finally found the ONE GUY from Thiokol who was A) still alive and B) still knew who his wife was, and asked him what they did to solve the problem the last time. Turns out it was something simple like "mix it at 10° higher temp" or "add a cup of baking soda to the mix". The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. They're a dying breed. I'm friends with an old timer who graduated from GA Tech and went to work for GM developing their first robotic arms. He then went onto Lockheed and worked on the lifting system for the Polaris missile system to load them into subs. Smartest person I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:08:23 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
cause commies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So why was the MX taken offline and removed from service? Growing up I thought that was the uber missile, super accurate, etc? cause commies. Yep. Got ALL KINDS of concessions in other areas by putting PK on the table. Then the USSR went away, we never ratified the treaty, but followed it anyway and deactivated them.
They are destabilizing. If I as Russia can hit 50 launch facilities before they're empty, I can save 500 targets from destruction. It encourages an adversary to think about preemptive strikes as being more rewarding than "launch on warning". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:19:41 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The guys at SSP who run the program don't really agree since they bought 100 plus new boosters and the RVs are already being modernized. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. D5 is only around 25 and suppose to serve in to the 2040s Based on the life extension program, which may or may not work out as planned. The guys at SSP who run the program don't really agree since they bought 100 plus new boosters and the RVs are already being modernized. Since it's the guys at SSP are the ones directing our activities I'll disagree with you. Yeah we're "modernizing" (i.e. life extension program), but we're already working on a replacement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:20:25 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. Got ALL KINDS of concessions in other areas by putting PK on the table. Then the USSR went away, we never ratified the treaty, but followed it anyway and deactivated them.
They are destabilizing. If I as Russia can hit 50 launch facilities before they're empty, I can save 500 targets from destruction. It encourages an adversary to think about preemptive strikes as being more rewarding than "launch on warning". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So why was the MX taken offline and removed from service? Growing up I thought that was the uber missile, super accurate, etc? cause commies. Yep. Got ALL KINDS of concessions in other areas by putting PK on the table. Then the USSR went away, we never ratified the treaty, but followed it anyway and deactivated them.
They are destabilizing. If I as Russia can hit 50 launch facilities before they're empty, I can save 500 targets from destruction. It encourages an adversary to think about preemptive strikes as being more rewarding than "launch on warning". Still aren't going to get the Ohios, so irrelevent. More important than inventory is testing and investment. A nuclear deterrence is an expensive waste if you can't demontrate a political will to use them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:23:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And while I'm not into gumbo, I do have the credible threat of a chocolate-raspberry cheesecake ready in the launch tube. Don't make me turn that key....
Please, please turn that key. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:29:28 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, it still does apply, because the target sets from back then are still around (Russia). The numbers may be smaller all around, but the fact is that we still have a peer competitor in the nuclear world, and that's not going to change soon, as long as Russia keeps producing Topols. What has changed is the wide variety of new target sets that have emerged over the last, say, 30 years (Topol-M would be just one example). So in order to remain a credible deterrent, the new ground-based strategic deterrent needs to be able to hold them at risk, too, as much as possible and within the capabilities of that platform (i.e., some targets are just better serviced by an air-breather than an IC). The MMIII has the flexibility today, but it's like the 78 year old guy still going to the yoga class. He can do it, but the younger folk can do it better. Even if it was something as simple as modifying the software to pick a flight path NOT over the Arctic Circle, suddenly you have a much more credible threat to some of the newer and emerging targets. And while I'm not into gumbo, I do have the credible threat of a chocolate-raspberry cheesecake ready in the launch tube. Don't make me turn that key....
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't know how dropping the 3 warhead MM for the single warhead has adjusted the throw weight, but the specificity of the mission for which we developed MM no longer applies. Whether MMIII has the flexibility a multi-polar nuclear environment requires is a key question to which I don't have the answer. And I know LX would be throwing out some gumbo if i asked, so I ll leave that as a thought problem for the student. Well, it still does apply, because the target sets from back then are still around (Russia). The numbers may be smaller all around, but the fact is that we still have a peer competitor in the nuclear world, and that's not going to change soon, as long as Russia keeps producing Topols. What has changed is the wide variety of new target sets that have emerged over the last, say, 30 years (Topol-M would be just one example). So in order to remain a credible deterrent, the new ground-based strategic deterrent needs to be able to hold them at risk, too, as much as possible and within the capabilities of that platform (i.e., some targets are just better serviced by an air-breather than an IC). The MMIII has the flexibility today, but it's like the 78 year old guy still going to the yoga class. He can do it, but the younger folk can do it better. Even if it was something as simple as modifying the software to pick a flight path NOT over the Arctic Circle, suddenly you have a much more credible threat to some of the newer and emerging targets. And while I'm not into gumbo, I do have the credible threat of a chocolate-raspberry cheesecake ready in the launch tube. Don't make me turn that key....
I guess the point being our ICBM deterrent was designed for one mission. Its a much more complex environment now, obviously. Look at your avatar. You want A or B? Cause thats all you get (well, you get the point). I am not saying Russia has gone away, but it is arguably not even the primary threat in a limited exchange. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:36:16 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More important than inventory is testing and investment. A nuclear deterrence is an expensive waste if you can't demontrate a political will to use them. On the former we test launch vehicles all the time, I wish that were true of the warheads. As for the latter, I don't know how you'd do that especially as it varies from administration to administration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:40:37 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since it's the guys at SSP are the ones directing our activities I'll disagree with you. Yeah we're "modernizing" (i.e. life extension program), but we're already working on a replacement. That kind of like saying we are working on a replacement for the M16; sure it is always happening but it like the D5 are stilling going to be here for a while |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:41:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On the former we test launch vehicles all the time, I wish that were true of the warheads. As for the latter, I don't know how you'd do that especially as it varies from administration to administration. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
More important than inventory is testing and investment. A nuclear deterrence is an expensive waste if you can't demontrate a political will to use them. On the former we test launch vehicles all the time, I wish that were true of the warheads. As for the latter, I don't know how you'd do that especially as it varies from administration to administration. The FCET for the Tridents have gone extremely well |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:42:00 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time [url]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif Yet. precisely why I plan to build my secret base there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:43:53 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with. How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. but unlike a sub, everybody who cared, would know where the plane was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:45:39 AM EDT
[#50]
we need to fund the RRW as well.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
