Military Review

In the United States decided on the price and terms of development of a new generation of ICBMs

31

In the United States, they are about to start developing a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles as part of a strategic containment program. Northrop Grumman will design and build the rocket.


Back in 2017, two giants of the American military industry - Northrop Grumman and Boeing - applied for participation in the competition for the development of a new intercontinental ballistic missile. However, then Boeing decided to refuse to participate in the competition. As a result, Northrop Grumman was the only contender for the development of a new ICBM.

The new missile, according to the plans of the US military, by the end of the 2020s should replace the Minuteman III ICBM, developed in the second half of the 1960s. Since over half a century of operation, Minuteman III has undergone only minimal modernization, the need for its replacement over the next decade is not called into question.

Now one of the main problems is financing the development and construction of a new ICBM. According to preliminary calculations, the entire process will cost the US treasury approximately $ 85 billion. Including, until 2025, Northrop Grumman Corp should receive up to $ 13 billion for research work.

This amount will be allocated in parts, in stages. Then, another 7,3 billion dollars will have to be allocated to complete the research cycle. Since 2026, more than $ 61 billion will have to be spent by the US military on the purchase of new intercontinental ballistic missiles.

As you know, the modernization of the US nuclear triad is currently considered by the White House as a priority in the military direction. Donald Trump announced his desire to invest more than $ 2 trillion in strengthening the defense capability of the American state and developing new weapons. It is planned to improve intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers weapons and ballistic missile submarines.

However, now experts say that funding for projects of the US military can be left at the same level or even reduced. The reason for this is the huge costs and losses that the American state incurs in connection with the coronavirus pandemic. But it is possible that Washington will not refuse the program of modernization of the nuclear triad in any case, since the defense capability of the American state depends on its successful implementation.

Moreover, toughening competition with China and Russia may force the US state to rush to finance research work and, thus, the time to create a new ICBM will be even shorter. Thus, the financial request for 2021 provides for the allocation of $ 17,7 billion for the modernization of the entire nuclear deterrence system, and this is the amount for only one year.

The Pentagon requested another $ 500 million for a long-range cruise missile, $ 2,8 billion for the B-21 bomber, $ 4,2 billion for the improvement of the national nuclear weapons control system.
Author:
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill April 17 2020 12: 27 New
    +4
    As I see something about Northrop Grumman, so immediately associations with the "Cat".
    1. novel66
      novel66 April 17 2020 12: 31 New
      +4
      yeah, smart car, and how not to remember
      1. Jack O'Neill
        Jack O'Neill April 17 2020 12: 32 New
        +2
        Yes Yes!
        Soon, by the way, there will be a sequel.
        1. novel66
          novel66 April 17 2020 12: 34 New
          +2
          Yes, he is old already ... where is he
          1. Force
            Force April 17 2020 13: 21 New
            0
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va9KwXdVHX8
  2. Sky strike fighter
    Sky strike fighter April 17 2020 12: 38 New
    +2
    The new missile, according to the plans of the US military, by the end of the 2020s should replace the Minuteman III ICBM, developed in the second half of the 1960s. Since over half a century of operation, Minuteman III has undergone only minimal modernization, the need for its replacement over the next decade is not called into question.

    They will design a light ground-based ICBM — the basis of nuclear deterrence forces. An analog of our Yars. 400 pieces of Minuten 3 is obtained over the next decades should be written off.
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD April 17 2020 12: 52 New
      +1
      Let them do it first, in the last thirty years they have had many projects that ended with a cut and absenteeism in a large series. Our minagers are small children compared to theirs ...
      1. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter April 17 2020 13: 07 New
        +5
        It is planned to improve intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers and ballistic missile submarines.

        Not everyone wants to rearm immediately. All of the 20s will go to development and testing, and from the 30s rearmament starts. There’s nowhere to go. All 400 Minutes should be written off. 11 V-1V Lancer, 36 B-52H and about 6 B-2 Spirit workers are rumored to be strategists today. All of them should be replaced by a B-21 Raider with the LRSO missile defense system. All Ohio will serve their own in 10 years. Columbia nuclear submarines with 16 SLBMs on each should replace them. It is interesting what will happen instead of SLBMs Tridents? Of course it will be long and tedious, but they have no other choice. We are easier. Yars and Bulava are mass-produced. The production of Borey-A is mastered. There are X-102. Difficulties with the PAK DA, but the airborne part of the containment forces in all countries possessing these forces is auxiliary. The base is light ground-based ICBMs, followed by the importance of the sea component of the containment forces and DA is auxiliary. You may have to suffer from Sarmatian ICBMs. The main difficulty for us, Sarmat’s ICBMs and PAK DA. The current strategists are modernizing to extend their service life to the 2040s (Tu-22M3M, Tu-160M, Tu-95MSM).
        1. Military77
          Military77 April 17 2020 13: 20 New
          +1
          And what do they plan to put on them? What are BG? They do not have high-purity plutonium "pellets" for thermonuclear warheads and are not yet foreseen, so they are burned out, making the nuclear warheads simply nuclear, of low power.
          1. Sky strike fighter
            Sky strike fighter April 17 2020 13: 25 New
            +3
            This is a problem for them. It’s good that you recalled. It seems like they want to restore production. Somewhere I read that they have to write off almost 100 charges each year.
  3. sanik2020
    sanik2020 April 17 2020 12: 46 New
    0
    Soviet and American ballistic missiles met in space, drank, talked for life. Soviet asks: -How do you feel?
    American: I feel bad about it.
    The Soviet picks up the American and says:
    -Come on my friend. I will take you home.
    1. Avior
      Avior April 17 2020 17: 55 New
      +1
      A rare case when the author of the joke is known
  4. orionvitt
    orionvitt April 17 2020 12: 53 New
    +2
    By 2025, Northrop Grumman Corp should receive up to $ 13 billion for research work.
    Modestly like that, mere trifles, compared with the cost of the F-35 program. laughing
  5. Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 17 2020 12: 57 New
    -3
    2 trillion for armaments is a colossal amount. But at B21, 2,8 billion a year is modest. So the Americans do not force the development of a strategist. And the Minuteman had long been time to change. Russian ICBMs have gone far ahead in terms of performance characteristics, not to catch up ...
    1. Strategist
      Strategist April 17 2020 13: 01 New
      0
      With such means they’ll catch up ...
      1. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter April 17 2020 13: 17 New
        +5
        Money is an opportunity that you still need to be able to take advantage of. Catching up on opportunities thanks to engineers, not money.
        1. Strategist
          Strategist April 20 2020 13: 36 New
          0
          For some reason, in Soviet times, with the level of engineering training much higher than today, we hunted for Western technologies to a greater extent than our opponents
    2. Peter is not the first
      Peter is not the first April 17 2020 21: 36 New
      +1
      And what exactly have we significantly advanced in terms of performance characteristics? According to overall dimensions? By hit accuracy? By the date of being ready for launch?
      Yes, there is something better in our missiles, but in the compartment of characteristics there is no lag or lead. The missile, taking into account its upgrades, is adequate to the requirements of the time.
  6. knn54
    knn54 April 17 2020 13: 02 New
    0
    The missile has reached the limit of modernization, and in 2036 the warranty period ends.
  7. Vasily Ponomarev
    Vasily Ponomarev April 17 2020 13: 23 New
    0
    Quote: sanik2020
    Soviet and American ballistic missiles met in space, drank, talked for life. Soviet asks: -How do you feel?
    American: I feel bad about it.
    The Soviet picks up the American and says:
    -Come on my friend. I will take you home.

    Well, how do you feel about the Soviet MBR?
  8. Force
    Force April 17 2020 13: 33 New
    0
    Quote: novel xnumx
    Yes, he is old already ... where is he

    I won’t be surprised if he himself controlled a fighter ...
  9. Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. April 17 2020 13: 47 New
    +4
    for half a century of operation, Minuteman III has undergone only minimal modernization,

    Nothing that the MX inertial navigation system was installed (like AIRS), respectively, the accuracy was significantly improved?

    The development of inertial guidance systems also made it possible to give the Minitman missiles the necessary accuracy of 200 meters of airborne forces sufficient to destroy protected targets.

    Wow minimal upgrade - inertial guidance system at the price of half the carrier :))
  10. Old26
    Old26 April 17 2020 13: 53 New
    15
    Since over half a century of operation, Minuteman III has undergone only minimal modernization, the need for its replacement over the next decade is not called into question.

    I beg your pardon, Ilya, but you are writing nonsense. Since the late 90s, a complex of modernization measures has been carried out in the United States, known as LEP, which means "life extension". The complex of modernizations for this program includes the following subprograms
    1. Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) - A program for the replacement of guidance systems.
    Started in 1996 and ongoing. On-board computers, amplifiers, guidance systems and platform electronics are being replaced.

    2. Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP) - The program for the replacement of power plants.
    It was carried out from 1998 to 2009. Was held complete replacement of solid fuel in all stages of missiles

    3. ICBM Security Modernization Program - Security upgrade program.
    It has been held since 2004. Strengthening the security of launchers and missiles by updating technical security equipment.

    4. Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting (REACT) - Program for the modernization of targeting systems.
    It was carried out from 1997 to 2006. Missile guidance systems update. Significantly reduced the time to transfer missiles to new targets.

    5. Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) - Warhead replacement program.
    Conducted from 2002 to 2009. Replacement of missile warheads with more advanced ones Mk21 / w87, with a capacity of 300 kT remaining after the decommissioning of the LGM-118 Peacekeeper missile.
    6. Propulsion System Rocket Engine (PSRE) - Program to upgrade the rocket propulsion system.
    It has been held since 2004. Replacing the components of the sustainer engine.

    In fact, only the name remained of the old Minuteman-3 missiles, and the main components were replaced. And this is according to you
    has undergone only minimal modernization

    What then do you think is a major upgrade ???

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    They will design a light ground-based ICBM — the basis of nuclear deterrence forces. An analog of our Yars. 400 pieces of Minuten 3 is obtained over the next decades should be written off.

    And they, Maxim, have not had heavy missiles for a very long time. The last heavy ICBM was the Titan II ICBM. All other ICBMs are light. And the heaviest of them, "Minuteman-3" - 35,5 tons. We have the lightest of the lungs - "Poplar" - 45 tons. And as a result of the LEP program, the service life has been extended until 2030.

    Quote: KVU-NSVD
    Let them do it first, in the last thirty years they have had many projects that ended with a cut and absenteeism in a large series. Our minagers are small children compared to theirs ...

    They haven't had ANY ICBM PROJECT in the last 30 years, so don't be fancy. Their last project "Midgetman" was closed in 1990-1991 by mutual agreement with us. MX, aka Piskiper, was dismantled by the United States unilaterally under the START II Treaty. So they didn't have any many projects

    Quote: orionvitt
    By 2025, Northrop Grumman Corp should receive up to $ 13 billion for research work.
    Modestly like that, mere trifles, compared with the cost of the F-35 program. laughing

    Well, there will be nothing supernatural in it. Normal solid propellant ballistic missile. And they have been able to do them for over 60 years. This is not a new generation aircraft ...

    Quote: Doccor18
    2 trillion for armaments is a colossal amount. But at B21, 2,8 billion a year is modest. So the Americans do not force the development of a strategist. And the Minuteman had long been time to change. Russian ICBMs have gone far ahead in terms of performance characteristics, not to catch up ...

    Are Russian ICBMs far gone? And how far that they can’t catch up? Or are you comparing two types of incomparable ICBMs - liquid and solid fuel ??
    We began to closely develop and mass-produce solid-propellant ICBMs (in large series) since the late 70s - early 80s. They are from the 60s. We caught up with solid fuel only in the late 80s, creating "Molodets".
    Our light solid propellant launchers are 10 tons more than theirs, the range - it all depends on a lot of factors. But both of them have a range sufficient to "cover" the territory of another country. The only thing we are ahead of is the cast weight and unit power of the BG. So where are we far ahead of them in solid-propellant ICBMs?

    Quote: knn54
    The missile has reached the limit of modernization, and in 2036 the warranty period ends.

    Actually, 2036 is the maximum. The service life was extended initially to 2030. Tridents have until 2042
  11. codetalker
    codetalker April 17 2020 14: 24 New
    -1
    The stated project deadlines raise some doubts. Since 2026, they have already gathered to buy something. For 6 years to develop and test a new ICBM ... Does Northrop Grumman have any experience in carrying out such work?
  12. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 17 2020 15: 42 New
    +3
    Whatever weapons agreements rivals / partners accept, and the development of new weapons never stops ...
  13. Old26
    Old26 April 17 2020 16: 13 New
    +5
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    It’s necessary to write off all 400 Minutes. 11 V-1V Lancer, 36 B-52H and about 6 V-2 Spirit are rumored to be strategists today. All of them should be replaced by a V-21 Raider with KR LRSO.

    Write-off of "Minutemans" will begin no earlier than 30-36 years. You will have to write off 17 B-1B. the remaining 44 will be upgraded to carriers of hypersonic weapons and new cruise missiles. Nobody is going to write off the B-52N yet. The Americans now have 46 deployed and not deployed. Plus 41 "non-nuclear" bombers. That is, the Americans are planning at least 85 "non-nuclear" carriers (41 B-52H and 44 B-1B). Perhaps the number of B-52s will be less, while silence about this. In combat formation (deployed) now (last year) 12 V-2A. Another 8 are listed as not deployed ...

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    All of them should be replaced by a B-21 Raider with a CR LRSO.

    No. According to the plans, the aviation component of the US strategic nuclear forces will consist of two types of bombers - V-21 and V-52N

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    All Ohio in 10 years will serve their own. The Columbia nuclear submarine with 16 SLBMs on each should replace them. It is interesting what will happen instead of SLBM Tridents?

    Now the life of Ohio has been extended to 44 years. Based on the date the boats entered service, the following will be written off accordingly:
    • one in 2025
    • one in 2026
    • one in 2027
    • two in 2028
    • one in 2029
    • two in 2030
    • one in 2032
    • one in 2033
    • one in 2034
    • one in 2035
    • one in 2036
    • one in 2037
    • one in 2038
    • one in 2039
    • one in 2040
    • one in 2041

    So in the next 10 years, if they are decommissioned, then only 6 boats. Although not a fact that will be deduced by
    this graph. The service life of the Trident D5LE missiles has been extended until 2042. Therefore, it is not yet known how the boats will be written off. There will be new missiles instead of the Trident D5LE. Now they are conventionally called "Trident" E6. What will be called in real life is still unknown. But "there were persistent rumors spread by the enemies" that if the E6 missiles were not ready by the time Columbia entered service, then it is possible that D5LE missiles could be used on the first hulls

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    It’s easier for us. Yars and Bulava are mass-produced. The production of Borey-A is mastered. There is X-102

    It's easier and more difficult for us. Of course it's easier since there is already a series. The more difficult thing is that all our strategic nuclear forces are produced at one plant. And "Yars" with modifications, and "Bulava". Their ICBMs will be produced at the Grumman factories, and the SLBMs will most likely be manufactured by Lockheed. They will be able to produce more of them in a year than we do. "Borey-A", although it is undergoing CI, has not yet been commissioned. As for the range of the X-102, there is nothing supernatural about it. After all, the flight range in a straight line for the same "Tomahawk" is also by no means 2500 km ...

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Difficulties with PAK YES, but the airborne part of the containment forces in all countries possessing auxiliary forces.

    Yes, auxiliary, but for some reason speaking about our PAK YES we are talking about "difficulties", when we are talking about the B-21 - we are talking about "problems"

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    You may have to suffer with Sarmat’s ICBMs. The main difficulty for us is the Sarmatian ICBMs and PAK YES.

    Most likely yes. Difficulties with "Sarmat" are already visible to the naked eye. It was planned to start LI in 2018, now 1/3 of 2020 has already passed. And not a single LI has ever existed. As for the PAK DA, we have no experience with the creation of heavy aircraft according to this scheme. We'll have to "fill the cones" ...

    Quote: Military77
    And what do they plan to put on them? What are BG? They do not have high-purity plutonium "pellets" for thermonuclear warheads and are not yet foreseen, so they are burned out, making the nuclear warheads simply nuclear, of low power.

    It is possible that the first serial ICBMs will be equipped with the Mk-21 / W-87. At later ones, IW warheads are planned for mass production starting in 2030 (the experimental ones at the Livermore Laboratory have already been created)
    As for low-power BG, it's not about whether they are burned out or not. The boat is planned to have 1, maximum 2 missiles with such warheads for "surgical strikes". All other 18-19 missiles - with standard BG of normal power

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    This is a problem for them. It’s good that you recalled. It seems like they want to restore production. Somewhere I read that they have to write off almost 100 charges each year.

    Charged a different number of BG. From an average of 100 to 300, depending on the year
  14. Old26
    Old26 April 17 2020 16: 52 New
    +6
    Quote: codetalker
    The stated project deadlines raise some doubts. Since 2026, they have already gathered to buy something. For 6 years to develop and test a new ICBM ... Does Northrop Grumman have any experience in carrying out such work?

    There is. They have a line of space launch vehicles. The last thing that was tested was a new launch vehicle "Omega"
  15. Hourly
    Hourly April 18 2020 08: 12 New
    -8
    The United States lagged behind Russia in this matter, and much ... They hoped that the USSR had collapsed and now they were nothing and no one could threaten .. But figs to you!
  16. Old26
    Old26 April 18 2020 11: 30 New
    +5
    Quote: Sentinel
    The United States lagged behind Russia in this matter, and much ... They hoped that the USSR had collapsed and now they were nothing and no one could threaten .. But figs to you!

    Knowledge - zero, but cheers-patriotism - rolls over. Less to you from me. And forward - to learn materiel
  17. lvov_aleksey
    lvov_aleksey April 18 2020 22: 31 New
    +1
    how to minus the author of the article ?!
  18. Old26
    Old26 April 19 2020 14: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: lvov_aleksey
    how to minus the author of the article ?!

    No way, Alexey! You can only voice a minus in your comment, but the author is not hot or cold because of this. before it was possible to put a minus on the article itself, now there is no such option. At the same time, it is desirable that the "minus" be reasoned, and not from a series of blah-blah or urya-patriotic, which are often quite large in the comments