Register here

Author Topic: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.  (Read 72959 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« on: November 20, 2006, 12:54:34 pm »
Numerous methods of deploying the Peacekeeper were investigated and I wish somebody had all the details. Here's a few things I turned up:

"One of the first MX projects was the Vertical Shelter Ground System Definition Program which required
construction of an 18-foot diameter, 130-foot deep vertical silo for missile loading and egress (exit)
tests.
The egress mechanism was built to thrust a 348,000-pound simulated missile and canister out of the
silo to a height of 40 feet above ground after it burst through a 50,000-pound layer of soil."


"Extensive prototype tests were conducted at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station to adapt Corps of Engineers (CE) flexible pavement design criteria to pavements to be used in the MX missile program. The initial shell game concept for dispersing the MX missiles required construction of approximately 8,000 miles of roads capable of sustaining numerous passes of a missile transporter weighing about 1,500,000 lb. This research resulted in increased knowledge of the performance of pavements subjected to heavy loads. Prototype test sections of bituminous surface-treated roads and gravel-surfaced roads were designed and constructed using current CE criteria. The test sections were trafficked to the design number of operations using a trafficking rig simulating the MX missile transporter. The trafficking rig was equipped with two load tires in line, each approximately 8 ft tall by 3 ft wide, inflated to 65 psi, and having a loaded weight of 62,500 lb. Test traffic was placed on the pavement and conditions were monitored for pavement distress. Analysis of the resulting test data led to the connclusion that existing CE criteria can be modified to provide a more economical pavement than was previously expected for very heavy loads. Most distress appeared in the form of deeper consolidation caused by the very heavy loads on the unusually large tires. Other load parameters such as contact area and contact pressure were in more typical ranges and, therefore, gave more typical results. (Author)"



There were a LOT of different methods investigated. One would have them in a long concrete tunnel maybe ten feet under the ground and if the alarm came hydraulic rams would raise the canister into position shoving aside the concrete roof and overlying dirt in the process. I remember seeing footage of this test on the news back in the day and it was pretty impressive.

Another was the shell game. Imagine each missile deployed on a "racetrack" with 23 hardened shelters dispersed around it and a giant transporter shuffling a missile between them randomly. If it got caught in the open it would simply raise the missile and fire it. If not, it would back up to the front of the shelter like a semi backing up to a loading dock and the canister would be "fed" into the shelter. Each shelter could also raise the canister into position and fire the missile.

"Case Against the MX, a Shell Game That Could Misfire; MX: Prescription for Disaster, by Dr. Herbert Scoville Jr. Cambridge: The MIT Press. $6.95 (paperback)

By Burke Wilkinson

In the jaunty jargon of Armageddon, the delivery vehicle for the hotly debated MX missile is called "the bus," and the independently targetable missiles themselves are the "passengers." In the same ghoulish lexicon, the cluster of 23 shelters that would conceal one live and mobile missile is the "race course."

On the drawing board, the race course is being supplanted by a series of clusters (hardened silos) in line ahead, connected by straight roads. But the nightmarish shell game remains the same. The Soviets must guess which silo contains the live missile. In order to be absolutely sure that they knock it out, they would have to saturate all 23 clusters in the area.

The size and cost of the project -- approved in principle during the Carter administration -- are staggering. The number of proposed cluster areas is 200. They would require 50,000 square miles in Utah and Nevada, a slice of America the size of Alabama. Cost as of today's fast escalating estimate: $120 billion. "



Another was the "super hard silo". From what I recall they tested silos that could withstand up to 50,000 psi (today's are about 2,000 psi). There was a photo in Airforce Magazine back in the day of one of the tests. There was a huge crater in the ground and there sticking up in the middle of it was the concrete silo unscratched.


Don't remember exactly what they were using the tunnel machine for but it was in the mix somewhere too.

There was also the rail garrison (which had previously been kicked around for the Minuteman)

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2006, 12:55:55 pm »
More pics
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2006, 12:57:19 pm »
And a couple more.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2007, 07:25:54 pm »
I found this very interesting and extensive report here:

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/disk3/1981/8116.html


Talks about the various methods they investigated and has some pretty interesting drawings.  I didn't know that with the racetrack method they'd considered having LoADS missiles and phased array radars mixed in with the dummies. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Meteorit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 427
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2007, 10:03:53 am »
Good find, sferrin. Just some weeks ago I searched for information about the LoADS system on the net, but didn't find anything useful.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1231
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2007, 04:09:38 pm »
*Chuckle* Some of us semi-jokingly put forward a way of hiding the rail-mobile version in plain sight; put 'em on the end of Amtrak passenger trains and give the USSR a timetable.  As "accurate" as those timetables appeared to be, they'd never find them.

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 576
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2007, 06:09:53 pm »
I remember when the "Dense Pack" idea was put forth for MX deployment. I was in school at the time and some of us christened the cheerleading team the "Dense Pack" and it stuck. Unfortunately the humor of it got lost on those who weren't major aviation geeks like myself and those who started calling them the "Dense Pack".

Offline Rosdivan

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2008, 01:46:47 am »
Quote
If the missiles carried one warhead, a force of 100 missiles was not powerful enough to justify the cost of turning a mountain into a doomsday missile base. To bring military capability into line with cost, Aerospace proposed a huge new missile known as ICBM-X, a weapon with destructive potential that matched well with the cost of superhard basing. Developed under a separate Golden Arrow investigation for a new hardened and dispersed missile, ICBM-X had a massive 156-inch diameter (Minuteman I was sixty-six inches at its widest), an unspecified number of stages, a CEP of .16 to .20 nautical miles, thixotropic propellants, a gross weight of 1,100,000 pounds, and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). Given a payload capacity of 24,000 pounds, this meant that it could have carried twenty or more MIRVs, a staggering number. Aerospace believed that it could not provide accurate cost figures for the superhardened ICBM-X weapon system, but construction efforts alone qualified the proposal as monumental architecture and made other options look relatively cheap.

ECHOES THAT NEVER WERE: AMERICAN MOBILE INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES, 1956-1983, pages 136-137. I think someone was a touch envious of R-36.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8612
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2008, 04:40:23 am »
Thanks a lot for the link. I still can't stop wonderinng of various crazy basing concepts born at both sides of the Iron Curtain.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2008, 06:24:16 am »
Quote
I think someone was a touch envious of R-36.

Doubtful, they had Peacekeeper.  :P
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2008, 06:29:39 am »
Thanks a lot for the link. I still can't stop wonderinng of various crazy basing concepts born at both sides of the Iron Curtain.

There's a video clip out there of the buried trench method shown on page 302 being tested.  Looks like they missed a few concepts too.  Still, nice find.  :)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2008, 07:17:16 am »
ah, ah, so someone else FOUND it...  :D
So you'll enjoy the great ICBM launcher aircrafts...

Online Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3324
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2008, 07:30:16 am »
Quote
So you'll enjoy the great ICBM launcher aircrafts...
Sure :)

Great document!
Many thanks for sharing it Rosdivan

Cheers,
Antonio

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2008, 09:27:23 am »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1063.0/highlight,peacekeeper.html


And here's another PDF one might be interested in:

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/MX_Missile_Basing.pdf

(Includes info on the co-located LoADS ABM.)
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 06:12:59 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8612
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2008, 09:55:48 am »
MX tunnel basing concept - tests of tunnel transporter/launcher breaking concrete
Source: D. Hobbes "An Illustrated Guide to Space Warfare" Salamander Books Ltd. ISBN 0-86101-204-6
« Last Edit: December 22, 2008, 09:58:54 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works