Close coordination between the programs is necessary to keep costs down, said Col. Rick Patenaude, chief of the deterrence and strike division at Air Force Space Command. It is possible due to the fact that intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and so-called quick-reaction satellite launchers employ similar technology.

“We can’t afford to build new platforms with blinders on,” Patenaude said in a telephone interview. “We have to think of multiple uses for new platforms.”

The money that can be saved by coordinating the ICBM and launcher efforts will be determined in studies that will take place over the next few years, said Brig. Gen. Simon “Pete” Worden, who is shepherding the satellite launcher work as the service’s director of transformation.

“Clearly, if you do your technology and basic development to meet two different goals, it saves a lot of money,” Worden said in a brief interview Sept. 23 at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Space 2003 conference in Long Beach, Calif.

The new ICBM likely will build on technology developed under the launch vehicle effort, which has more of a near-term focus with demonstrations planned for later this decade, Patenaude said. Just as the early space launch vehicles evolved from ICBM technology, the next ICBM may evolve from a new satellite launcher, he said.

RFPs Go Out

Air Force Space Command on Sept. 8 issued requests for information from industry on concepts for the new Land Based Strategic Deterrent. The solicitations broke the project into three areas: the delivery vehicle; security systems; and command, control, communications and computers.

The Air Force will begin evaluating industry concepts in late November, and has budgeted about $5 million in both 2004 and 2005 for early development work, Patenaude said. The service anticipates starting a competition to build the new system around 2006, with deployment targeted for 2018, he said.

Patenaude said the new missile system should be cheaper to build and easier to maintain and control than the current U.S. fleet of ICBMs, the majority of which are based on 1960s-era designs.

The ICBM industrial base has consolidated in recent years, but Patenaude said the Air Force remains confident that the few remaining prime contractors can provide a system that meets its needs.

While Patenaude declined to speculate on possible concepts, he said the Air Force is not wedded to a new system based in silos, as is the case with today’s ICBM fleet. Alternatives could include mobile bases, according to the Air Force solicitation notices.

The Air Force could choose to field a family of systems with different ranges, accuracies and other capabilities, Patenaude said.

Although coordinating the new ICBM and quick-reaction launcher efforts makes sense for economic and technical reasons, some defense experts believe the Air Force needs to proceed carefully.

Having a high degree of commonality between two systems with different missions could mean sacrificing capability in both areas, said Baker Spring, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a think tank in Washington.

The Air Force needs to ensure that it does not compromise the capabilities of the new ICBM, which is needed to destroy post-Cold War targets, including deeply buried bunkers and facilities housing weapons of mass destruction, Spring said.

“You don’t want to have a common vehicle that has a whole lot of flexibility, but doesn’t do anything particularly well,” Spring said.

The Air Force also needs to be careful about blurring the line between satellite launchers and nuclear-tipped missiles, said Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the Center for Defense Information, another Washington think tank.

If the new ICBM is nearly identical to a small satellite launcher, other nations could interpret a satellite launch as the beginning of a nuclear strike, causing chaos, Hitchens said.

Worden said he sees little problem with using a common rocket for satellites and nuclear warheads.

“We’ve done that for 40 years,” Worden said. “Essentially, every U.S. launch vehicle other than the shuttle is a direct derivative of the ICBM.”

Patenaude said the Air Force could help distinguish small launchers from ICBMs by giving each a unique signature that can be tracked by other nations.