New details have emerged about the creation in the United States of a critically important type of weapon – a strategic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. One could even say that the future of the entire US nuclear arsenal is to some extent in question. Why did this happen and what problems will the Pentagon have to solve now?
The strategic nuclear weapons upgrade program previously promised by the American authorities is beginning to take shape. The US Air Force has released data on a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which will be named LGM-35A Sentinel (read as "Sentinel") – "Guardian". This is a critically important program for the United States.
The state of American strategic nuclear weapons, to put it mildly, is not ideal. In short, the outdated Minuteman missiles currently in service, the impossibility of producing new nuclear charges differently than from components and materials from the old ones. In addition, there is a loss of some of the technologies necessary for the production of nuclear weapons, without understanding how to restore them, worn-out, "tired" strategic submarines and the same B-52 strategic bombers.
All this, of course, does not mean that you can just hit America. Even with a hypothetically low level of reliability of their strategic nuclear forces, its retaliatory strike will be terrible and devastating.
But Americans still have something to be afraid of. In May of this year, it will be exactly one year since the failure of the tests of their intercontinental ballistic missile "Minuteman", which was unable to leave the mine launcher. The Americans announced the launch at the beginning of March 2022, but then said that the launch was canceled in order not to create tension in relations with Russia during the ongoing Ukrainian crisis. It sounds strange. During such crises, power is usually demonstrated, not hidden. As a result, no one knows for sure whether the American ICBMs will fly on command or not. For sure, most of them will successfully start and reach the goal, but it is not known exactly how many.
In fact, with nuclear forces, the Americans are doing more or less well with ballistic missiles of submarines (Trident-II SLBMs), and in a reasonable time, the creation of the B-21 Raider bomber is underway, replacing the existing ones. There are questions about the other components of the nuclear triad.
Such a situation is unacceptable for the world hegemon. Therefore, huge, multibillion-dollar expenses for its correction were announced quite a long time ago. The new ICBM is one of the most important projects in the renewal of the American strategic nuclear arsenal.
A new rocket and the chances of success
The project, which was originally called Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (Strategic "deterrent" of land–based) - GBSD. The project started in 2016, when the US Air Force (it is the Air Force that operates ICBMs, there are no separate missile forces in the US) issued a "Request for Proposal". Based on this document, potential developers of the future missile system had to submit their proposals to the Air Force.
A year later, two companies, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, received contracts to develop a new rocket. The first "cost" 349 million dollars, the second – 329. Of course, this was supposed to be just the beginning. The usual American practice, which allows them to maintain competition among manufacturers and not have different systems in service for the same purpose, is as follows: competitors receive money to develop a promising unit of military equipment at the same time, creating competing projects with each other.
According to the results of the tests, someone is eliminated, having "earned" engineering experience during the program. The winner receives a supply contract, and often the losing companies are involved as subcontractors. This is how the Americans manage to have both perfect equipment, and competition in the military-industrial complex, and standardization in the troops to support. This is something that is definitely worth learning from them.
With the new ICBM, however, something went wrong. Northrop made an "unsportsmanlike" move.
In 2019, the company bought Orbital ATK and incorporated it into its holding company as Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems. In a funny way, this company was the only supplier of solid-fuel jet engines for... Boeing at that time! Participation in the tender for Boeing under such circumstances became meaningless, and Northrop Grumman de facto won the contract even before the creation of the rocket.
In 2020, after reviewing the developments on the project, the US Air Force signed a contract with Northrop to create a new missile. Two years later, its index and name became known. It is already known that the first combat units on the "Guardians" will be W87-0 with a TNT equivalent of 300 kilotons each, and from 2030 – W87-1 with the equivalent of 475 kilotons.
What do we know for sure about the new rocket? So far, only that it will be solid-fuel and will carry a separable head with individual guidance units. Apparently, the missile will carry a wide list of false targets and other means of breaking through missile defense. The rest can only be speculated about.
Will the Americans get a new product? Rather yes than no. The USA is one of the world leaders in rocket technology, the development of their new medium–range ballistic missile Dark Eagle took less than ten years. Something similar is waiting for the "Guardian".
But project delays are also possible. Last year's report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the nuclear triad contained statements that a number of technologies critical for the creation of a new missile do not exist. But it would be foolish to believe that the Americans will fail this task.
A key stage in the development of the new rocket will be the tests scheduled for 2023. If they really take place in 2023 and prove successful, then we will have to state that everything is going according to plan for the Americans, and from 2029 the Sentinel will begin to enter service, where it will stay in various modifications until 2075, according to plans, at least. If there is a failure, then questions to the American industry about the ability to maintain nuclear deterrence will only intensify.
The weak link
But the main problem of Americans is not a rocket. Their main problem is warheads. This is where their Achilles' heel lies. Even for the newest missile, old combat units developed back in the 1980s are indicated. Of course, they won't just be taken from warehouses. These will be newly assembled products with updated components and purified fissile materials. But these materials will be taken from old disassembled warheads. And not all the components of the combat unit will be made "from scratch".
A lot of money has also been allocated to recreate the possibility of producing new nuclear charges in the United States. But so far nothing is known about the results. It is also unknown how combat-ready the existing "Minutemen" will be by the time production of the new missile begins.
So far, the Americans still have a lot of questions about the future of their nuclear arsenal, to which they cannot give answers. Will they restore their competence in the production of new warheads developed from scratch? Will they master the new strategic submarine? Will a new ICBM be created in time? Will the old ICBMs survive to be replaced in a combat-ready form? The next few years will decide everything for Americans.
And here we need to ask ourselves the question: shouldn't we interfere with them a little? Russia has almost never in history conducted real, purposeful and deliberate subversive activities against the West. The exception was the activity of the Comintern in the 1930s of the last century, which can only be called "Russian" with a great stretch. Everything else was at best minor dirty tricks. We have always assumed that sooner or later we will have to negotiate with the West.
But now it suddenly turned out that it was impossible to negotiate with the West. Wouldn't our positions be better if the Americans are still unable to solve their nuclear problems? Our special services may need to think about this.
Alexander Timokhin
