User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:25:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Disagree. I think that the threat analysis piece works reasonably well. While we consistently overestimated the Soviets and later the Iraqis, we've been consistently underestimating the PRC's ability to develop and field improved systems. What's broken is the political level of strategic guidance. Where will we plan on military intervention and what circumstances will trigger that action. Since the fall of the USSR, that strategic guidance and prioritization hasn't happened. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is supposed to all be about honest threat analysis and then if needed, building the solution to counter the threat.I am not in that business, personally. But the US has forgotten how to do HONEST threat analysis and our acquisition system is very broken. I can say that because I work in military acquisition. It is all about politics and rice bowls now. Bad ju ju... Disagree. I think that the threat analysis piece works reasonably well. While we consistently overestimated the Soviets and later the Iraqis, we've been consistently underestimating the PRC's ability to develop and field improved systems. What's broken is the political level of strategic guidance. Where will we plan on military intervention and what circumstances will trigger that action. Since the fall of the USSR, that strategic guidance and prioritization hasn't happened. Is that really the case??? I mean the DOD of all people KNOW that Clinton and his cronies improved their "Satellite Launch"  Capability from around 25% success to high 90%, and we know they've been pirating technology for ages..... I mean yeah a lot of people Pooh pooh them HERE, but in the real world outside of the basement (and of course the Beltway), arent they considered a legitimate threat???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:33:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, the Russians or Chinese detect the airplane orbiting over the Pacific. Let's assume that they can CID the aircraft (I wouldn't want to bet on their ability to do so, but let's assume). How do they use that info to complete a kill chain against that aircraft before it lainches? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Uh huh. So, the Russians or Chinese detect the airplane orbiting over the Pacific. Let's assume that they can CID the aircraft (I wouldn't want to bet on their ability to do so, but let's assume). How do they use that info to complete a kill chain against that aircraft before it lainches? Now or hypothetical based on an enemy having the next 8-20 years to develop specific countermeasures as we develop HMs aircraft? Right now - they couldn't do anything - but right now we don't have such a launcher and I have no data on the missiles it would launch. In the future? I have a few ideas, lets try one: We've assumed the OTH ques space assets to confirm location. The enemy could watch the orbits of the aircraft over time, see the areas they patrol in, then take them out via pre-positioned subs with SAMs, or vector in their own stealth drone - as a an opening gambit in a war to decapitate such nuclear forces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:33:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Speed, as in hypersonic delivery systems, probably has far greater long term value than stealth. I'm inclined to agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:40:26 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That isn't just OTH, that is way fucking OTH! Quote HistoryQuoted:
That isn't just OTH, that is way fucking OTH! Welcome to modern RADAR. You realize if such a thing existed, the emissions could be easily detected and the world would know about it? You can't keep something like that a secret. Absolutely. During the building of the antenna arrays we'd know about it before it was online. Once it's online what are you going to do about it? But the point is the area can be monitored, flying in the open is dumb you can't hide anymore. At least with ground mobile systems you can play ball-n-cup games or hide in the trees. Subs have many options for making it difficult to find them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:51:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck with real-time aerial traffic surveillance and identification over the Pacific. Maybe in 50 years. There is just too much there there. Maybe with a huge, super-powerful orbital radarsat network but that would cost serious coinage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh huh. So tell us where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went...... once you put a policy in place: i.e. aircraft in flight. The other guys then develop a strategy to counter it. This is the way it works. This is the way it always works. If they perceive the threat to be viable, then they will spend money to deal with it. since there was no strategy in place, there was no surveillance in place. had it been, we would know exactly where the flight went. Good luck with real-time aerial traffic surveillance and identification over the Pacific. Maybe in 50 years. There is just too much there there. Maybe with a huge, super-powerful orbital radarsat network but that would cost serious coinage. you orbit bombers, we orbit bombers and awacs and put satellites with active and passive detectors. A combination of sensors is an interesting thing. None on their own is capable - together they are. A few high altitude blimps in a picket line could work, or in a matrix, combined with OTH and orbital assets. The cost of the orbital assets would probably be cheaper in the long run than keeping a fleet of planes in the air. And the really interesting thing is it probably wouldn't require super powerful radars in the birds, just a suite of sensors used in conjunction with OTH and other technologies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:00:36 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that really the case??? I mean the DOD of all people KNOW that Clinton and his cronies improved their "Satellite Launch" Capability from around 25% success to high 90%, and we know they've been pirating technology for ages..... I mean yeah a lot of people Pooh pooh them HERE, but in the real world outside of the basement (and of course the Beltway), arent they considered a legitimate threat???Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is supposed to all be about honest threat analysis and then if needed, building the solution to counter the threat.I am not in that business, personally. But the US has forgotten how to do HONEST threat analysis and our acquisition system is very broken. I can say that because I work in military acquisition. It is all about politics and rice bowls now. Bad ju ju... Disagree. I think that the threat analysis piece works reasonably well. While we consistently overestimated the Soviets and later the Iraqis, we've been consistently underestimating the PRC's ability to develop and field improved systems. What's broken is the political level of strategic guidance. Where will we plan on military intervention and what circumstances will trigger that action. Since the fall of the USSR, that strategic guidance and prioritization hasn't happened. Is that really the case??? I mean the DOD of all people KNOW that Clinton and his cronies improved their "Satellite Launch" Capability from around 25% success to high 90%, and we know they've been pirating technology for ages..... I mean yeah a lot of people Pooh pooh them HERE, but in the real world outside of the basement (and of course the Beltway), arent they considered a legitimate threat???Yes. As a hypothetical example of what I mean, in 2000 the intel estimate says China will field XXX in 2024. In 2003, the estimate says that the PRC ill field XXX in 2020. By 2006, we think maybe 2018. In 2009, we realize that the PRC will debut XXX in 2015 and then they end up operating XXX in 2014. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:06:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now or hypothetical based on an enemy having the next 8-20 years to develop specific countermeasures as we develop HMs aircraft? Right now - they couldn't do anything - but right now we don't have such a launcher and I have no data on the missiles it would launch. In the future? I have a few ideas, lets try one: We've assumed the OTH ques space assets to confirm location. The enemy could watch the orbits of the aircraft over time, see the areas they patrol in, then take them out via pre-positioned subs with SAMs, or vector in their own stealth drone - as a an opening gambit in a war to decapitate such nuclear forces. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh huh. So, the Russians or Chinese detect the airplane orbiting over the Pacific. Let's assume that they can CID the aircraft (I wouldn't want to bet on their ability to do so, but let's assume). How do they use that info to complete a kill chain against that aircraft before it lainches? Now or hypothetical based on an enemy having the next 8-20 years to develop specific countermeasures as we develop HMs aircraft? Right now - they couldn't do anything - but right now we don't have such a launcher and I have no data on the missiles it would launch. In the future? I have a few ideas, lets try one: We've assumed the OTH ques space assets to confirm location. The enemy could watch the orbits of the aircraft over time, see the areas they patrol in, then take them out via pre-positioned subs with SAMs, or vector in their own stealth drone - as a an opening gambit in a war to decapitate such nuclear forces. That's easy to solve with war reserve orbits. Cueing.a long range SUBSAM is a really complex problem. Are you just going to launch it active out of the water? That's a lot of search volume for something with a limited battery life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:18:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we still have a bunch of TLAMs around, and I know where there's a stash of W80s.... Well, I for one am aroused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:14:28 PM EDT
[#9]
Why not nuclear armed satellites instead of road mobile?
Russians are MIRVing like crazy anyway right? (I believe in violation of Treaty) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:44:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not nuclear armed satellites instead of road mobile? Russians are MIRVing like crazy anyway right? (I believe in violation of Treaty) Outer Space Treaty prohibits Nukes in Orbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:55:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Outer Space Treaty prohibits Nukes in Orbit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why not nuclear armed satellites instead of road mobile? Russians are MIRVing like crazy anyway right? (I believe in violation of Treaty) Outer Space Treaty prohibits Nukes in Orbit. It prohibits weapons of mass destruction in space. It is somewhat fuzzier on the subject of Orion Drives, fuel storage, or Lunar mining equipment physics packages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:59:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Road and rail mobile has some nightmarish security, safety and survivability issues, plus the whole NIMBY/environmental issues. You think the Sierra Club is difficult to deal with now.... My bet: new missile designed from the ground up. Gut and feather job on the MM LFs and LCCs to support it. Potentially new comms system between the LCCs and LFs, though the old early-60s 12-baud cable system is pretty reliable. New software in the capsules. This way, the HUGE cost of real property infrastructure is avoided. Road-mobile requires new buildings, roads, vehicles, etc.; you can ignore all that by having as one of your design parameters "it has to fit in a Minuteman LF." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Exactly. It's moved way past that since then--the upgrade to the Minuteman III in the mid-70s gave it a lot of flexibility, increasing the number of stored target sets from two to four per missile, improving retargeting times, and giving a much easier selective launch (i.e., only send two of the 50 missiles in the squadron), as well as improved the safety and security of the system. The upgrade in the mid-late 90s from the legacy consoles to the REACT system was all internal to the capsule--it improved communications and streamlined status monitoring and fire-control operations, but did nothing for the missile itself. The "upgrades" to the missile itself in the last 10 years have, as I said, been more of a refresh than true upgrades. As I said, the fact is it's still a capable system, but it's hindered by the legacy mission/design parameters. (like the fact that it HAS to take a northerly route to any target it flies to.) A 70-year old woman can hit the tanning bed, stay fit, and get botox and new boobs...but she's still a 70-year old woman. And I agree, even through Russia is still a threat, and we still have to have a system with the accuracy/reliability/survivability to go "toe to toe with the Rooskies", the probability is greater for a limited exchange. Minuteman has been stretched to fit those requirements, but a new system could address those needs directly. Maybe a couple dozen road mobiles in Nevada? Road and rail mobile has some nightmarish security, safety and survivability issues, plus the whole NIMBY/environmental issues. You think the Sierra Club is difficult to deal with now.... My bet: new missile designed from the ground up. Gut and feather job on the MM LFs and LCCs to support it. Potentially new comms system between the LCCs and LFs, though the old early-60s 12-baud cable system is pretty reliable. New software in the capsules. This way, the HUGE cost of real property infrastructure is avoided. Road-mobile requires new buildings, roads, vehicles, etc.; you can ignore all that by having as one of your design parameters "it has to fit in a Minuteman LF." If you could design the perfect ICBM, what would it be? Is there any room for revolution in ICBM technology or just evolution/minor upgrades here and there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:24:15 AM EDT
[#13]
Someone ask LX a really good question so he'll post that cheesecake recipe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:33:12 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you could design the perfect ICBM, what would it be? Is there any room for revolution in ICBM technology or just evolution/minor upgrades here and there? I don't think I want to get into the specifics here, really. My wish list would quickly require an orange cover sheet.
Revolution? Not sure. Hypersonic cruise missile capabilities provide some...intriguing possibilities that might meet that definition. (Launch from the US. Drop the HCM somewhere close by the target, but without worrying about overflight. Let is ingress at Mach XX, terrain-following and avoiding air defenses. Profit.) Manueverable RVs could make things sporty. But neither of those are the equivalent of inventing the machine gun. But I do see giant leaps in improvement in throw-weight, accuracy, safety and security. Just picking the right material for the downstages could increase throw-weight by a significant % by reducing overall weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:42:25 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone ask LX a really good question so he'll post that cheesecake recipe. I have to balance the need to protect Mrs Limaxray's prize cheesecake recipe with the need to protect nuclear weapons information. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:46:31 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to balance the need to protect Mrs Limaxray's prize cheesecake recipe with the need to protect nuclear weapons information. http://www.balettie.com/texas/ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Someone ask LX a really good question so he'll post that cheesecake recipe. I have to balance the need to protect Mrs Limaxray's prize cheesecake recipe with the need to protect nuclear weapons information. http://www.balettie.com/texas/ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl.jpg 
I believe you've painted yourself into a corner here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:48:34 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you could design the perfect ICBM, what would it be? Is there any room for revolution in ICBM technology or just evolution/minor upgrades here and there? The perfect ICBM? 24 MIRVs and launches from the back of an F350.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:54:08 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think I want to get into the specifics here, really. My wish list would quickly require an orange cover sheet. Revolution? Not sure. Hypersonic cruise missile capabilities provide some...intriguing possibilities that might meet that definition. (Launch from the US. Drop the HCM somewhere close by the target, but without worrying about overflight. Let is ingress at Mach XX, terrain-following and avoiding air defenses. Profit.) Manueverable RVs could make things sporty. But neither of those are the equivalent of inventing the machine gun. But I do see giant leaps in improvement in throw-weight, accuracy, safety and security. Just picking the right material for the downstages could increase throw-weight by a significant % by reducing overall weight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you could design the perfect ICBM, what would it be? Is there any room for revolution in ICBM technology or just evolution/minor upgrades here and there? I don't think I want to get into the specifics here, really. My wish list would quickly require an orange cover sheet. Revolution? Not sure. Hypersonic cruise missile capabilities provide some...intriguing possibilities that might meet that definition. (Launch from the US. Drop the HCM somewhere close by the target, but without worrying about overflight. Let is ingress at Mach XX, terrain-following and avoiding air defenses. Profit.) Manueverable RVs could make things sporty. But neither of those are the equivalent of inventing the machine gun. But I do see giant leaps in improvement in throw-weight, accuracy, safety and security. Just picking the right material for the downstages could increase throw-weight by a significant % by reducing overall weight. Interesting, thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 1:40:20 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have to balance the need to protect Mrs Limaxray's prize cheesecake recipe with the need to protect nuclear weapons information. http://www.balettie.com/texas/ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Someone ask LX a really good question so he'll post that cheesecake recipe. I have to balance the need to protect Mrs Limaxray's prize cheesecake recipe with the need to protect nuclear weapons information. http://www.balettie.com/texas/ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl.jpg Didn't you have a recipe for some sort of drink involving rum and ice cream?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 1:53:43 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One reason for not using the MX booster, is the the Peacekeeper missile is 10 ft longer and 2 feet wider than the MMIII, meaning presumably, that the existing silos would have to be re-done or replaced and that's different in my view than being "rejuventated" as the article states. It was also somewhat limited in range. The trident 2 is what keeps the world safe. For those truly into the nerdy side of icbms, the book Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Inside Technology) is awe inspiring as it details how these ballistic weapons can be launched from 6000 miles away and land within 100 yards of their target. It's truly an unbelievable feat of engineering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 4:27:08 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One reason for not using the MX booster, is the the Peacekeeper missile is 10 ft longer and 2 feet wider than the MMIII, meaning presumably, that the existing silos would have to be re-done or replaced and that's different in my view than being "rejuventated" as the article states. It'd be a lot easier if we could just use MX silos to launch MX boosters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 4:35:51 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're from the early 60s, so yeah. But that's one of the problems. I did the math around 2000, the cost of building a new launch facility adjusted for inflation was..... $1.6 billion. Each. We have 450 on alert now. The sites are actually doing pretty well for being over 50. The concrete is holding up okay, but it's the supporting and connecting infrastructure (12 baud comm system, for example) that needs a serious refresh. And nuclear-certified anything costs money. Lots of it. Then add the idiocy of (some)Congresscritters saying things like "If we buy you a better missile, you'll just want to use it, and that's destabilizing," and that's why we are in the corner we're in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the ground facilities are overdue for an upgrade. They're from the early 60s, so yeah. But that's one of the problems. I did the math around 2000, the cost of building a new launch facility adjusted for inflation was..... $1.6 billion. Each. We have 450 on alert now. The sites are actually doing pretty well for being over 50. The concrete is holding up okay, but it's the supporting and connecting infrastructure (12 baud comm system, for example) that needs a serious refresh. And nuclear-certified anything costs money. Lots of it. Then add the idiocy of (some)Congresscritters saying things like "If we buy you a better missile, you'll just want to use it, and that's destabilizing," and that's why we are in the corner we're in. They still use 8" floppies down there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 5:03:50 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to balance the need to protect Mrs Limaxray's prize cheesecake recipe with the need to protect nuclear weapons information. http://www.balettie.com/texas/ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Someone ask LX a really good question so he'll post that cheesecake recipe. I have to balance the need to protect Mrs Limaxray's prize cheesecake recipe with the need to protect nuclear weapons information. http://www.balettie.com/texas/ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl.jpg Well, at least a good dutch oven potato recipe, otherwise; 
for lack of recipes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 9:00:56 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They still use 8" floppies down there? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the ground facilities are overdue for an upgrade. They're from the early 60s, so yeah. But that's one of the problems. I did the math around 2000, the cost of building a new launch facility adjusted for inflation was..... $1.6 billion. Each. We have 450 on alert now. The sites are actually doing pretty well for being over 50. The concrete is holding up okay, but it's the supporting and connecting infrastructure (12 baud comm system, for example) that needs a serious refresh. And nuclear-certified anything costs money. Lots of it. Then add the idiocy of (some)Congresscritters saying things like "If we buy you a better missile, you'll just want to use it, and that's destabilizing," and that's why we are in the corner we're in. They still use 8" floppies down there? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 9:02:59 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was also somewhat limited in range. The trident 2 is what keeps the world safe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One reason for not using the MX booster, is the the Peacekeeper missile is 10 ft longer and 2 feet wider than the MMIII, meaning presumably, that the existing silos would have to be re-done or replaced and that's different in my view than being "rejuventated" as the article states. It was also somewhat limited in range. The trident 2 is what keeps the world safe. No. For those truly into the nerdy side of icbms, the book Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Inside Technology) is awe inspiring as it details how these ballistic weapons can be launched from 6000 miles away and land within 100 yards of their target. It's truly an unbelievable feat of engineering. Thanks for the reference, this is a nuke book I hadn't heard of. Off to Amazon! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 9:10:22 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't you have a recipe for some sort of drink involving rum and ice cream? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone ask LX a really good question so he'll post that cheesecake recipe. I have to balance the need to protect Mrs Limaxray's prize cheesecake recipe with the need to protect nuclear weapons information. http://www.balettie.com/texas/ThisBusinessWillGetOutOfControl.jpg Didn't you have a recipe for some sort of drink involving rum and ice cream? Moose Milk 4 qt Milk 2 qt Half & half 6 qt Egg nog 2 ga Vanilla ice cream 120 oz Amber rum 4 (26 oz.) bottles Godiva chocolate liqueur Makes 6 gallons. (Got the recipe from a Canadian Army officer. He had no idea how to make smaller quantities.) Definitely sit down while drinking, because it'll hit you RIGHT between the eyes when you stand up. Substitute rum extract and chocolate syrup for a non-alcoholic version. You can also add flavored liqueurs (I recommend the brandies, like blackberry, plum, etc.) to further appeal to the fairer sex.
Make sure you hang a "no smoking within 50 feet" sign. Oh, and TOTALLY fat-free.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:01:07 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except those that LX has repeatedly explained in threads on this topic. One may disagree with what he says, but "no purpose" isn't accurate. Things like prompt response, unambiguous evidence of attack, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why have any ICBMs? They serve no real purpose that air delivered cruise missiles or SLBMs couldn't fulfill. Except those that LX has repeatedly explained in threads on this topic. One may disagree with what he says, but "no purpose" isn't accurate. Things like prompt response, unambiguous evidence of attack, etc. Prompt response to what? A 30 minute or 10 minute wait for an attack on a city or base? The submarines we have could handle that and as far as being evidence of our biggest middle finger, I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:03:53 AM EDT
[#28]
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. Those old engineers apparently never documented anything of value. Job security. Kept the real process in their heads. Same thing occurred with how to make the titanium alloy used for the SR-71, Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al. When some beach of the government wanted another big order in the late 1980s, the manufacturers had to relearn how to make it. And it had only been about 15-17 years since thy had last made any. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:04:14 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
\ I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. Actually we are. And for good reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:09:37 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually we are. And for good reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
\ I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. Actually we are. And for good reason. A covert nuclear strike on our part, in response to what exactly? I mean... I could think of scenarios. ETA: stupid distraction at "work". ...think of scenarios. But our stated national policy doesn't include the use of micronukes... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:15:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A covert nuclear strike on our part, in response to what exactly? I mean... I could think of scenarios. ETA: stupid distraction at "work". ...think of scenarios. But our stated national policy doesn't include the use of micronukes... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
\ I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. Actually we are. And for good reason. A covert nuclear strike on our part, in response to what exactly? I mean... I could think of scenarios. ETA: stupid distraction at "work". ...think of scenarios. But our stated national policy doesn't include the use of micronukes... the fact that we can carries great leverage. WW2 is the last war we fought without this capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:18:19 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
as far as being evidence of our biggest middle finger, I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. WTF are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:38:00 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:43:40 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryRead that today. Really hope they go for a conventional ground launched capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:58:33 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those old engineers apparently never documented anything of value. Job security. Kept the real process in their heads. Same thing occurred with how to make the titanium alloy used for the SR-71, Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al. When some beach of the government wanted another big order in the late 1980s, the manufacturers had to relearn how to make it. And it had only been about 15-17 years since thy had last made any. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Those old engineers apparently never documented anything of value. Job security. Kept the real process in their heads. Same thing occurred with how to make the titanium alloy used for the SR-71, Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al. When some beach of the government wanted another big order in the late 1980s, the manufacturers had to relearn how to make it. And it had only been about 15-17 years since thy had last made any. Aerospace thrives on tribal knowledge. Managers from the "any manager can manage any person" school hate and don't understand tribal knowledge and believe everything can be cook booked so that all that is needed is the ability to fill out a form and push a button. Most of them have no clue that much of the content of text books is idealized theory with little to no confirmation testing, or the number holes and uncertainty in the test information we do have. Now we're seeing a generation that believes that anything that can be drawn as a 3D solid ought to be manufactured with its crappy load paths or bad details for fatigue life, and the need for design loads is an unnecessary complication. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:01:37 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prompt response to what? A 30 minute or 10 minute wait for an attack on a city or base? The submarines we have could handle that and as far as being evidence of our biggest middle finger, I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. Prompt response means the ability to quickly launch. Subs don't have that ability. They take a couple of hours to get ot launch position and configuration. Bombers take many, many more hours than that to be generated to alert status, then many, many more hours to get to the target. ICs are the only prompt response tool in the President's tool kit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:43:21 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's easy to solve with war reserve orbits. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's easy to solve with war reserve orbits. Agreed. But I'm operating under the assumption the enemy wants a surprise attack and will hit before things have gotten so bad that we've changed patrol areas. Cueing.a long range SUBSAM is a really complex problem. Are you just going to launch it active out of the water? That's a lot of search volume for something with a limited battery life. It is a complex problem but not an insurmountable one. Frankly I'd find it an easier problem then launching, flying and landing a huge aircraft loaded with some D5esque missiles every day. But if you want to make life simpler perhaps a "fishing boat" with a disguised air search radar along with satellite up links and a launcher. Similar in how the Russian trawlers used to spy on US forces, only in this case the trawler isn't there to spy on naval forces, but to react to a signal to down a US Nuclear asset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:45:04 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It prohibits weapons of mass destruction in space. It is somewhat fuzzier on the subject of Orion Drives, fuel storage, or Lunar mining equipment physics packages. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not nuclear armed satellites instead of road mobile? Russians are MIRVing like crazy anyway right? (I believe in violation of Treaty) Outer Space Treaty prohibits Nukes in Orbit. It prohibits weapons of mass destruction in space. It is somewhat fuzzier on the subject of Orion Drives, fuel storage, or Lunar mining equipment physics packages. I like the way you think! Unfortunately the Pols don't. 
Wasn't the Atmospheric Test Ban treaty the thing that finally killed the Orion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:48:39 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But I do see giant leaps in improvement in throw-weight, accuracy, safety and security. Honestly I don't see a need for an improvement in throw-weight (please correct me if it doesn't require a recipe) as treaties seem to limiting the # of warheads anyway and I don't see the US going back to the megaton+ class of nukes. I see the big improvement in cost (both build and in the test programs) as well as your points of safety and security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 11:55:46 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly I don't see a need for an improvement in throw-weight (please correct me if it doesn't require a recipe) as treaties seem to limiting the # of warheads anyway and I don't see the US going back to the megaton+ class of nukes. I see the big improvement in cost (both build and in the test programs) as well as your points of safety and security. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But I do see giant leaps in improvement in throw-weight, accuracy, safety and security. Honestly I don't see a need for an improvement in throw-weight (please correct me if it doesn't require a recipe) as treaties seem to limiting the # of warheads anyway and I don't see the US going back to the megaton+ class of nukes. I see the big improvement in cost (both build and in the test programs) as well as your points of safety and security. Increase in throw-weight means I can build a smaller/lighter booster for the RVs I have. Or I can keep the missile the same size and get extended range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:01:40 PM EDT
[#41]
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 That is BAD. ASS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:32:33 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Increase in throw-weight means I can build a smaller/lighter booster for the RVs I have. Or I can keep the missile the same size and get extended range. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But I do see giant leaps in improvement in throw-weight, accuracy, safety and security. Honestly I don't see a need for an improvement in throw-weight (please correct me if it doesn't require a recipe) as treaties seem to limiting the # of warheads anyway and I don't see the US going back to the megaton+ class of nukes. I see the big improvement in cost (both build and in the test programs) as well as your points of safety and security. Increase in throw-weight means I can build a smaller/lighter booster for the RVs I have. Or I can keep the missile the same size and get extended range. Ok I was already seeing the range improvement with the reduction of RBs, I really hadn't considered the need for substantially more range on the land based side. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:33:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF are you talking about? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
as far as being evidence of our biggest middle finger, I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. WTF are you talking about? I misunderstood your earlier phrase, so NM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:34:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok I was already seeing the range improvement with the reduction of RBs, I really hadn't considered the need for substantially more range on the land based side. Thanks. There's been some talk of using conventionally armed ballistic missiles to strike global targets. Prompt Global Strike is the name I've seen. I can't see it working well, since the Russians damn near nuked the whole world over a research missile that they "thought" was headed their way on a ballistic corridor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:34:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prompt response means the ability to quickly launch. Subs don't have that ability. They take a couple of hours to get ot launch position and configuration. Bombers take many, many more hours than that to be generated to alert status, then many, many more hours to get to the target. ICs are the only prompt response tool in the President's tool kit. http://designobserver.com/Images/Vanderbilt.Delta2.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Prompt response to what? A 30 minute or 10 minute wait for an attack on a city or base? The submarines we have could handle that and as far as being evidence of our biggest middle finger, I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. Prompt response means the ability to quickly launch. Subs don't have that ability. They take a couple of hours to get ot launch position and configuration. Bombers take many, many more hours than that to be generated to alert status, then many, many more hours to get to the target. ICs are the only prompt response tool in the President's tool kit. http://designobserver.com/Images/Vanderbilt.Delta2.jpg Now that's funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:35:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now that's funny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Prompt response to what? A 30 minute or 10 minute wait for an attack on a city or base? The submarines we have could handle that and as far as being evidence of our biggest middle finger, I don't think we're in the business of conducting nuclear attacks on the down low. Prompt response means the ability to quickly launch. Subs don't have that ability. They take a couple of hours to get ot launch position and configuration. Bombers take many, many more hours than that to be generated to alert status, then many, many more hours to get to the target. ICs are the only prompt response tool in the President's tool kit. http://designobserver.com/Images/Vanderbilt.Delta2.jpg Now that's funny. Death wears bunny slippers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:41:00 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's been some talk of using conventionally armed ballistic missiles to strike global targets. Prompt Global Strike is the name I've seen. . That is the name, but that is a different program from the ICBM upgrades. When it first came up years ago we looked at a conventional Trident, but that had too many political issues. Most of PGS has been looking at missile options other than a typical ICBM, some very cool stuff going on with with those programs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:41:36 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is the name, but that is a different program from the ICMB upgrades. Very cool stuff going on with PGS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There's been some talk of using conventionally armed ballistic missiles to strike global targets. Prompt Global Strike is the name I've seen. . That is the name, but that is a different program from the ICMB upgrades. Very cool stuff going on with PGS. It's a good way to get us nuked by paranoid Cossacks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 12:44:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a good way to get us nuked by paranoid Cossacks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's been some talk of using conventionally armed ballistic missiles to strike global targets. Prompt Global Strike is the name I've seen. . That is the name, but that is a different program from the ICMB upgrades. Very cool stuff going on with PGS. It's a good way to get us nuked by paranoid Cossacks. Which is why there are other options being explored other than using repurposed ICBMs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 2:11:54 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is why there are other options being explored other than using repurposed ICBMs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's been some talk of using conventionally armed ballistic missiles to strike global targets. Prompt Global Strike is the name I've seen. . That is the name, but that is a different program from the ICMB upgrades. Very cool stuff going on with PGS. It's a good way to get us nuked by paranoid Cossacks. Which is why there are other options being explored other than using repurposed ICBMs. One of the easiest ways to make it work is to NOT have them launch from a traditionally nuclear-armed facility (i.e., out at the wings). You wouldn't need that many of them on alert at a given time (maaaaaaybe 5-10). Put them in the already-built holes at Vandenberg or Patrick, now you've got coverage to most of the world. Let the Russians know anything launched out of there is conventional only, unless previously declared a test. Verify with constant on-site inspection by the Russians. We also had one CINCSTRAT suggest placing CICBMs in Hawaii. 360° launch azimuths and no worries about booster drop-off. All the missileers present were in ecstatic agreement.
|
|
|
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.
