Register here

Author Topic: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.  (Read 74500 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
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: 11333
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: 11333
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: 11333
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: 1245
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.

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
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: 11333
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: 11333
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...

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3338
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: 11333
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.

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
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

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2008, 10:37:32 am »
That's the one.  :D  Somewhere out there is a really cool video.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2008, 04:26:15 pm »
one more
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2008, 04:40:54 pm »
One other concept was proposed by some planners in the Naval Reserve (which guaranteed it would be rejected, "Not Invented Here"):

They calculated that if you removed some armor, certain other unnecessary for this mission gear and some fuel, an LCAC could be loaded with an MX missile and its erector/launcher.  You could park the things out in plain site, for SALT verification purposes.  If the balloon should go up, the LCAC fires up and heads out somewhere at 50+ mph, not worrying about roads, lakes, etc.  Since they didn't have GPS in those days it would either use a very precise INS or just head to anyone of dozens of replotted locations (road intersections, etc.), tell the missile where it was, and then erect and fire.   This would complicate the targeting of incoming ICBMs so much that a first strike would not be feasible against them.  

There was quite a detailed discussion about the concept in the US Naval Institute Proceedings.  
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 02:30:10 pm by F-14D »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2008, 09:00:29 pm »
That's the best idea for a mobile system I've seen to date. Takes care of a range of issues with ICBM TELs like bridge crossing, controlling a truck with so many wheels and also blast resistance. A hovercraft platform would be easily shaped for low profile to blast thanks to the high surface area inherent in the GEV platform. Do you have any further details?
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 805
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2008, 05:27:07 am »
Yes, a hovercraft-borne Peacekeeper is certainly an intriguing idea!

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2008, 10:54:05 am »
That's the best idea for a mobile system I've seen to date. Takes care of a range of issues with ICBM TELs like bridge crossing, controlling a truck with so many wheels and also blast resistance. A hovercraft platform would be easily shaped for low profile to blast thanks to the high surface area inherent in the GEV platform. Do you have any further details?


Sorry, no.  All I remember was that it was kicked around for a while and the only detailed discussion I saw was in the Naval Institute Proceedings.    

The hovercraft in question would not be reshaped or extensively modified beyond what I described, that was part of the beauty, it would be very inexpensive relative to other concepts.  The LCAC already existed (still in use today), already had the lift capcity, had a payload area whose dimensions could accommodate the MX, its container and launcher and could be produced rapidly.  

The concept also enjoyed the same circumstance which protected aircraft carriers from attacks by ICBMs.  During the flight time of the incoming missile, the launcher could travel so far in any direction that to insure knocking out our asset the enemy would have to use an enormous of ICBMs just to insure getting one of ours.    Assume 30 minutes warning, five minutes to "scramble" the LCACs who could then move out over a 360 degree possible heading and travel for say, 20 minutes, at 50 miles an hour.  If I did the math right that means the MX could be anywhere within an 1404 kilometer area.   You'd need a lot of warheads to insure getting it, and then you've knocked out a total of one (providing it isn't already flying by the time the warhead arrived).  

AS I said, though, it ran into "Not Invented Here", and never went beyond the concept stage.  
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 02:31:17 pm by F-14D »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2008, 06:36:52 pm »
There is some mention of it here in this AIAA paper:

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=60277

LCAC - A R-evolution at sea

ROWLEY, U. H., U.S. Navy, New Orleans, LA; HALE, LYNN W., U.S. Navy,Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC
AIAA-1989-1480
IN: Intersociety Advanced Marine Vehicles Conference and Exhibit, Arlington, VA, June 5-7, 1989, Technical Papers (A89-41551 17-31). Washington, DC, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1989,p. 232-241.

But not much more than F-14D has provided. But certainly it is a great idea for TEL application.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2008, 12:40:58 pm »
more insane concept found here

" The Future of Land-Based Missile Forces" by Colin S. Gray
Adelphi papers  no 140. year 1977
ISBN 0-86079-014-2
ISSN 0567-933X

MX tunnel basing concept - is called
Buried-Trench Mobility
were the MX move random on Rails and brake true tunnel roof in case of War
the BTM needed 3000-6000 miles of Tunnels !

Continuous Mobility : Dispersed Shelter
a Network of 20 Silos and 6 roads
were a lot of Transporters trucks moving real MX and Dummies from Silo to Silo
the trucks moving with 60 mph or more, so Spy don't know in which Silo is a MX 
with 300 MX ICBM Plus Dummies in 400 CM complexes,
the USSR need 16000 Nuke to hit this Continuous Mobility system,
to expensive for enemies so the SAC theorize
the cost around $20-25 billion in 1977

Garage Dash Mobility
a central Garage for MX and Transporters trucks
moves MX so fast as possible random to 10-13 harden silos or shelter.
in ring around the Garage
a system of 300 MX deployed in GDM cost $15 Billion in 1977

Off-Road Random Crawling
a MX on truck or "air-coushion Vehicle"
this was consider to problematic
one: logistic, comand communication 
tow: Soviet spysat can find the Off-Road easy

Road and Rail Mobility
or simply put the MX Plus Dummies in Transporters/launcher trucks
on US Highways or US Railwaysystem  :o
last survived as Minuteman III system until 1991

Deep-Pond Mobility
a complex of deep pond are dig connects with roads
and slow moving trucks transport MX to pond to pond
the Deep pond are cheap functional equivalents of semi hard Shelters resistance of 600 psi

Lake-Bottom Mobility
MX in canister are move on back of a "lake bottom crawling vehicles" or "submerging missile barges"

Deploy Air Mobile ICBM
MX or Minuteman III drop from carrier aircraft
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1958.0/highlight,icbm+carrier+aircraft.html

after the book "Raumfahrt Lexikon" by Bruno Stanek
there were also those option:
horizontal ICBM Silos in mountans or cliffs
silos on oceanfloor


after other source, they had also idea to put MX on Moon !
I love Strange Technology

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2008, 01:52:48 pm »
There is some mention of it here in this AIAA paper:

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=60277

LCAC - A Revolution at sea

ROWLEY, U. H., U.S. Navy, New Orleans, LA; HALE, LYNN W., U.S. Navy,Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC
AIAA-1989-1480


"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7178
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2008, 05:09:58 pm »
It's not actually a bad fit. Only plan drawing for the LCAC I could find was for the JEFF-B test vehicle, might've been some changes. But it appears that a single SICBM trailer/launcher conveniently fits... could probably get two with some minimal mods (just narrow the trailer skirts).

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2008, 07:19:17 pm »
Using the <25m long LCAC vehicle system a customised TEL could have the erector, launcher built into the vehicle and the engines moved inboard to enable angled sides, bow and stern for blast deflection. With the cushion deflated the TELAC [transporter, Erector, Launcher, Air Cushion] would be a low profile target for counter strike nuclear blasts. If you needed to ship the larger MX missile then the >35m long HLCAC vehicle system could oblige. I wonder how well these TELACs would work in relatively flat land like the US Great Plains or deserts of the South West?
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2008, 08:13:33 pm »
If you were going to be out west you'd just use wheels as Midgetman was going to.  It's TEL was designed specifically for that environment.  A hovercraft wouldn't get you anything other than a lot of unnecessary problems.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2009, 04:42:35 pm »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2009, 02:38:51 pm »
If you were going to be out west you'd just use wheels as Midgetman was going to.  It's TEL was designed specifically for that environment.  A hovercraft wouldn't get you anything other than a lot of unnecessary problems.

The advantage the air cushion vehicle was you could go in any direction and, unlike wheels, were fairly independent of the bearing strength of the surface underneath you as well as any obstacles, irregularities in the ground.  You could also not have to go around any bodies of water in your dash (they do have lakes, rivers, etc. out in the West).  Also, since most of the time the LCACs would be doing nothing but sitting, wear and tear would be at a minimum, insuring availability.  Remember, like the missile it would launch, operationally it only has to work once. 

I'm attaching a schematic of the LCAC.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2009, 03:09:48 pm »
True, but Midgetman's launcher was built to ride out a near miss.  Throw that kind of weight on an LCAC and will it even be able to get off the ground?  Not only that, look at it from a maintenance / toughness perspective.  One is an offroad truck, the other is effectively an aircraft.  And the Midgetman's launcher wouldn't be limited to dirt roads either as there is a lot of terrain out West that is flat enough for it to drive on.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2009, 04:25:07 pm »
True, but Midgetman's launcher was built to ride out a near miss.  Throw that kind of weight on an LCAC and will it even be able to get off the ground?

Mostly through shaping not mass. The hovercraft platform with its large plenum is inherently well suited to being shaped for a low upper profile to resit being flipped by the blast effects of a nuclear bomb.

Not only that, look at it from a maintenance / toughness perspective.  One is an offroad truck, the other is effectively an aircraft. 

Hovercraft are actually built to marine standards. The LCAC serve daily in one of the toughest environments in the world; littoral amphibious operations. Dry desert outbacks should be easy compared to this...

The best arguments for a truck based mobile launcher system are low cost and ease of camouflage. For a country like the USA with a massive omni directional rail system the train based mobile system was one of the most attractive land, mobile basing options.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2009, 05:29:56 pm »
True, but Midgetman's launcher was built to ride out a near miss.  Throw that kind of weight on an LCAC and will it even be able to get off the ground?

Mostly through shaping not mass. The hovercraft platform with its large plenum is inherently well suited to being shaped for a low upper profile to resit being flipped by the blast effects of a nuclear bomb.

Right, the trailer could dig into the terrain taking advantage of the venturi effect.  Not sure how an ACV could be designed to do the same.  The Midgetman trailer actually had a plow on the front of it so they could lower it down and dig into the terrain, making a better seal around the bottom.


Hovercraft are actually built to marine standards. The LCAC serve daily in one of the toughest environments in the world; littoral amphibious operations. Dry desert outbacks should be easy compared to this...

I'm not talking about corrosion issues so much as durability and toughness.  Also what are the fuel requirements for an LCAC-type vehicle compared to a diesel-powered wheeled vehicle?


The best arguments for a truck based mobile launcher system are low cost and ease of camouflage. For a country like the USA with a massive omni directional rail system the train based mobile system was one of the most attractive land, mobile basing options.


I don't know why they didn't do that.  The rail system has been kicked around since the Minuteman days.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2009, 10:41:30 pm »
True, but Midgetman's launcher was built to ride out a near miss.  Throw that kind of weight on an LCAC and will it even be able to get off the ground?  Not only that, look at it from a maintenance / toughness perspective.  One is an offroad truck, the other is effectively an aircraft.  And the Midgetman's launcher wouldn't be limited to dirt roads either as there is a lot of terrain out West that is flat enough for it to drive on.

Depends on your definition of a "near miss".  There were any number of questions regarding the ability to climb out through the shock waves and debris clouds following detonations of enemy missiles.   Although much of the West is flat, there's still the problem of the range of the missile and you still have the fact that there are areas that restrict your mobility.  Plus, what if you wanted to base your missiles other than in the Western desert?  The LCAC idea could be put anywhere, including snow.  Another factor is that the LCAC ride is m,uch "gentler" than bouncing the missile over uneven terrain in a wheeled vehicle, with the consequent results to the missile's electronics. 

I note that Michale Van listed in his excellent summary the arguments raised against an air cushion vehicle (although those objections at the time also costed in the development of a vehicle, ignoring the fact that LCAC R&D was already paid for).  Those were actually straw men.    Logistics were not a problem since the LCACS would be at a fully equipped base, and would only "take off" when ICBMs were believed inbound.  Communication problems were a not particularly troublesome.  .  Radios worked at least as well as they would with bombers, and a similar check procedure would be in place.  On receipt of a coded alert mesage all the LCAC crew had to do was open their orders which would basically say "Go to one of the preplotted locations within travel range, tell the MXwhere it is, and prepare to receive the launch command".   Soviet spysats were a non-issue.  You actually wanted then to see the LCACs, in order to comply with SALT requirements.  The thing is, once the Soviets launched their ICBMs, the spysats were useless.  After launch, where the missile was going to go is fixed.  Even if there was a way to update where the LCACs had moved to during the flight of the launched Soviet ICBMs (there wasn't), once the missile was on its way its impact point was fixed and the LCAC is no longer there. 

The LCAC option would have been much cheaper than any other concept except the one that was actually chosen: stick them in silos just like all previous missiles and give up on the survivability issues. 

As far as the weight issues go, an unmodified LCAC can carry 75 tons in an overload operation.   Remove the maritime features and a lot of the fuel, as well as the armor, and with upgraded engines you could reach the payload needed to transport Peacekeeper for a limited distance, which is all you need.  Midgetman was a different missile, never developed.  Had it been, unmodified LCACs had sufficient payload (though not room) to carry five of them.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2009, 12:48:20 am »
Right, the trailer could dig into the terrain taking advantage of the venturi effect.  Not sure how an ACV could be designed to do the same.  The Midgetman trailer actually had a plow on the front of it so they could lower it down and dig into the terrain, making a better seal around the bottom.

The big issue for a Midgetman trailer is height to surface area in touch with the ground. It has to dig itself in because otherwise it has very little stability. A big wide and long hovercraft would still have about the same height as a trailer as it is determined by the missile. So for the hovercraft the side slopes are much more acute and it is a lot more stable on the ground. If it needs to dig itself in it can do something similar to the Midgetman with a plough. It would have the advantage of a lot more mass (a Peackepper carrier not a little Midgetman carrier) and a lot more speed to provide it the momentum to dig.

I'm not talking about corrosion issues so much as durability and toughness. 

I wasn't talking about corrosion either. The LCAC is a very strong beast and absorbs a lot of bumps when it goes over waves.

I don't know why they didn't do that.  The rail system has been kicked around since the Minuteman days.

I would imagine a strong argument against the rail system is it would encourage the Soviets to target the US rail system in particular junctions in an attempt to defeat it. Since most of these are co-located with regional towns it would significantly force up the megadeath count for the US in a nuclear war. Better to isolate the nuclear weapons from the population in hope that a Soviet strike wouldn't kill everyone.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2009, 01:42:16 pm »


I would imagine a strong argument against the rail system is it would encourage the Soviets to target the US rail system in particular junctions in an attempt to defeat it. Since most of these are co-located with regional towns it would significantly force up the megadeath count for the US in a nuclear war. Better to isolate the nuclear weapons from the population in hope that a Soviet strike wouldn't kill everyone.

It was said at the time that we could put missiles on Amtrak trains, but that was   a double edged sword.  On the one hand, the Soviets would never know where the missiles were.   On the other hand, though, neither would we!  :D

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2009, 12:47:11 am »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2009, 01:52:40 am »
on the video

those ood jets of liquit is this a hydraulic malfuntion ?

or this are Waterjets to keep the ICBM clean as is push true soil ?

I love Strange Technology

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2009, 03:27:59 am »


That's the short version of the one I posted a few pages ago.  ;)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2009, 03:32:02 am »
aha!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #39 on: August 27, 2009, 09:37:31 pm »
After the short Youtube video of the "MX breakout" there is another selection that pops up. A video called MX and Midgetman with their numerical missile designations. It sure sounds like a short part of a longer documentary - anyone know what it might be?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2009, 10:58:07 pm »
it's from Modern Missiles & Rockets aka Modern Missiles - old documentary, contionously re-issued, that can be found on eBay
BTW, text was written by Bill Gunston
to my sorrow that's the only ICBM piece in this docu
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #41 on: November 24, 2009, 10:08:24 pm »
Since the previous links appear to be dead:

MX Missile Basing, Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, September 1981
Link:http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/8116.pdf


Artist's impression of locomotive and rail cars that constitute the missile train of the Peacekeeper Rail Garrison.
Source:http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/smc_hist/SMCHOV8.HTM

Artist's impression of Peacekeeper Rail Garrison rail yard.
Source:http://www.talkingproud.us/Military100705A.html
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 08:40:42 pm by Triton »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2009, 12:12:08 am »
THX for Info Triton

here short Video  of Minuteman I  Air Launch after drop from a C-5 Galaxy !
on October 24. 1974 as part for MX ICBM study



http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/mm2-3.jpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30a.jpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/minuteman1_airlaunch_1.jpg
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 12:48:33 pm by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2009, 10:54:05 am »
Found another upload of the video referenced by sferrin in a previous post.

The episode "Missile Experimental" part of The Nuclear Age television series produced by Central Independent Television and WGBH Boston from 1989.

Links reported dead on July 07, 2011

« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 09:01:53 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2009, 08:57:41 pm »
Sea-Based Deployment of Floating-Launch Missiles (Near-Term and Far-Term Design Concepts for Sea-Based Surface Mobile MX Missile Deployment) by John E Draim, Hydra Corporation, December 15, 1980

Abstract:
Quote
This report presents systems concept descriptions for sea-based MX missiles, using surface ships as transporters. Near-term (1985-1990) and far-term (1990-2000) systems are described. Floating-launch methods are proposed, using either encapsulated missiles or the simpler (bare) HYDRA-type vertical floating launch. Parameters described include: force composition, missile jettison techniques, port facilities, deployment areas, personnel requirements, system costs, vulnerability, countermeasures, and C3 considerations.
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA101587


 


Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2009, 06:12:47 am »
You will surely appreciate the name of the proposing company...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 07:47:37 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2009, 11:13:22 am »
From DefenseImagery.mil, an artist's concept (top) of the superhardened capsule for the MX missile in the Closely Spaced Basing mode, showing the missile and launch canister inside the capsule. Date Shot: 5/1/1983.

Source:http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=artist%27s%20concept&p=11&guid=7ebc3d6e14ade0a0165d7c4f82c3af9a3c5afe17

Artist's concept (middle) of the MX Closely-Spaced Basing (CSB) mode, which shows 100 MX missiles inside superhardened capsules, which are spaced about 1500 to 2000 feet apart to provide MX survivability from enemy attack. Date Shot: 10/22/1982

Source:http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=artist%27s%20concept&p=12&guid=57db2f4f96f44b33bdcc05ba0902da3d5928dd50

Artist's concept (bottom) of an MX missile in an underground shelter. Date Shot: 11/23/1981

Source: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=artist%27s%20concept&p=16&guid=e881a7f4b7ea04b10488cdf79af83f6fb2411a94
« Last Edit: December 04, 2009, 11:45:18 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2009, 11:41:15 am »
From DefenseImagery.mil, artist's concept (top) of an MX horizontal shelter as the missile is in a ready position to launch. Date shot: 11/23/1981

Source: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=artist%27s%20concept&p=15&guid=12f2c99f46fc58e00acf1e77d1a91f407d6ecb1f

Artist's concept (middle of an MX missile during launch from a horizontal shelter. Date shot: 11/23/1981

Source: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=artist%27s%20concept&guid=bbda8009c4a3fdf05852306f3d5a3864788635c1

An artist's concept (bottom) of an MX missile on its way to the target. The missile weighs approximately 192,000 pounds and will carry 10 warheads. Date Shot: 1/1/1980

Source: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html#a=search&s=artist%27s%20concept&p=20&guid=2afd1fc821d9d878379f6a9388b36a0ad52e7eba
« Last Edit: December 04, 2009, 12:01:48 pm by Triton »

Offline Retrofit

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 536
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #49 on: August 05, 2010, 09:54:56 am »
Delivery from Boeing Model 559-213M spanloader project:

Source: "Technical and economical assessment of swept-wing span-distributed load concept for civil and military air cargo transport" NASA CR-145229, Oct. 1977
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770026203_1977026203.pdf

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #50 on: August 05, 2010, 10:30:50 am »
Great find Retrofit:)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2010, 12:03:08 am »
Don't think I have seen this MX Missile video here at SP.



Interesting and quite amazing to see all the complexities of just getting the MX's into the MMIII silos at Vandenberg. It makes me wonder what it will take to preserve for the long term the ICBM industrial base if we ever needed to replace the MMIII in the future.

I truly believe that a vast majority of the population does not understand the long term commitment required to keep the necessary skill levels in place able to research, develop, test and deploy such a complex weapon system. On many other blogs I have had people basically say "hey if the world becomes a more dangerous place and if we ever have to produce a missile or a nuclear weapon again it will be easy to just pick the "blueprints" off the shelf and start building again."
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 12:14:33 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #52 on: September 24, 2010, 06:05:05 pm »
On many other blogs I have had people basically say "hey if the world becomes a more dangerous place and if we ever have to produce a missile or a nuclear weapon again it will be easy to just pick the "blueprints" off the shelf and start building again."

The frightening / depressing thing is politicians think the same way.  When's the last time we had an engineer, general, or someone familiar with the complexities of aerospace manufacture anywhere near the White House?  Dark days ahead indeed.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2011, 05:53:18 am »
on the video

those ood jets of liquit is this a hydraulic malfuntion ?

or this are Waterjets to keep the ICBM clean as is push true soil ?


this Youtube Video answers those questions about "Buried-Trench Mobility"


After Google Earth info this tests were made in east part of Area 25 of Nevada National Security Site
Is this information correct ?
I love Strange Technology

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8168
  • The path not taken.
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2011, 06:47:16 am »
On many other blogs I have had people basically say "hey if the world becomes a more dangerous place and if we ever have to produce a missile or a nuclear weapon again it will be easy to just pick the "blueprints" off the shelf and start building again."

The frightening / depressing thing is politicians think the same way.  When's the last time we had an engineer, general, or someone familiar with the complexities of aerospace manufacture anywhere near the White House?  Dark days ahead indeed.

And getting darker.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #55 on: June 17, 2011, 06:30:11 pm »
According to First Strike!: the Pentagon's Strategy for Nuclear War by Robert C. Aldridge (South End Press 1983), there was also the Shallow Underwater Missile (SUM). An MX missile would be strapped to both sides of small diesel-powered submarines. These subs would move about in the shallow waters of coastal waters of the United States where they could be protected from enemy anti-submarine forces. The submarines would be forced to surface to fire their missiles. Other sources call the scheme Shallow Underwater Missile System (SUMS) or Submersible Underwater Missile.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 06:42:32 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #56 on: June 17, 2011, 06:58:32 pm »
ICBM Basing Options: A Summary of Major Studies to Define a Survivable Basing Concept for ICBMs Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (Strategic and Space Systems) December 1980

Introduction:
Quote
The purpose of this report is to make available to the general public an unclassified summary of the rationale and system evaluation considerations that led the U.S. to decide to deploy the M-X intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in a multiple protective structure (MPS) basing mode.

The search for survivable ICBM basing concepts' beyond our Minuteman basing,started in the mid-1960's when technology pointed to the eventual vulnerability of fixed targets. It received initial emphasis when the Soviets deployed the SS-9 missile aimed at destroying our ICBM launch control centers -- an act clearly indicating their intent to be capable of attacking ard destroying our military forces. Further threats developed, centered around Soviet deployment of a new generation of  a ccurate, multiple warhead missiles. In response, we pursued technology advances and system design studies which led to various proposals to start full scale development on a survivable M-X system -- the step involving final design and setting the basis for production and deployment. T1 is step was finally taken in September, 1979.

Much discussion with the Congress and the public has taken place in recent years, both in terms of environmental and public interface matters and in terms of the military adequacy of the M-X/MPS system. After extensive evaluations and presentations to Congress to fully examine optional courses of action, as called for in the Fiscal Year 1980 Defense Authorization Act (the Stevens Amendment), the Fiscal Year 1981 Defense Authorization Act specifically approved our final system recommendation of a 4600 shelter M-X/MPS system (the Cannon Amendment).

A major environmental impact analysis has been conducted. In public review and process at present is a draft of the third environmental impact statement (EIS) which focuses on basing area selection, public land withdrawal, and/or ptivate land acquisition. Full system basing in Nevada/Utah or Texas/New Mexico and split basing in both areas are addressed. Two previous EISs were issued. For 1976 we issued one concerned with a test site effort in Arizona. In 1978 we issued an EIS which analyzed, in depth, the alternate, reasonable basing modes. By reasonable, it is meant that the concept has to satisfy national policy and military performance objectives.

This report summarizes all the concepts that received serious attention in past studies, but not all of them are reasonable by the above definition. None of the alternatives are without problems of one sort or another, but alternatives that are not reasonable and do not provide adequate capability pose the most serious problem of all -- an increased risk of nuclear war with the Soviets.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 07:53:37 pm by Triton »

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2046
  • I am not actually here.
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #57 on: June 17, 2011, 07:25:57 pm »
Yengst's book actually talks about the MX basing concepts a bit:
http://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-61566-547-1

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2011, 07:30:36 pm »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2011, 09:58:06 pm »
According to First Strike!: the Pentagon's Strategy for Nuclear War by Robert C. Aldridge (South End Press 1983), there was also the Shallow Underwater Missile (SUM). An MX missile would be strapped to both sides of small diesel-powered submarines. These subs would move about in the shallow waters of coastal waters of the United States where they could be protected from enemy anti-submarine forces. The submarines would be forced to surface to fire their missiles. Other sources call the scheme Shallow Underwater Missile System (SUMS) or Submersible Underwater Missile.

I'm surprised they never considered this option based in the Great Lakes. Would solve the ASW question. Also the complete lack of an ASW threat would mean the missile submarines could be of very low performance in terms of stealth, speed, diving, etc.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2011, 02:02:32 am »
Thx for Youtube, Flateric




on Abraham Gubler remark
let see Wat i post in beginn of this discussion
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
Quote
Deep-Pond Mobilitya complex of deep pond are dig connects with roads
and slow moving trucks transport MX to pond to pond
the Deep pond are cheap functional equivalents of semi hard Shelters resistance of 600 psi

Lake-Bottom Mobility
MX in canister are move on back of a "lake bottom crawling vehicles" or "submerging missile barges"


so why dig big deep pod or even a arfifical lake for a MX sub ?
even it look so good to use the Great Lakes for that. It has two major disadvantage:
heavy shipping traffic between US <-> Canada Wat for a risk to MX sub or "lake bottom crawling vehicles" who move between the wrecks
next to that Diplomatic problems with Canada because only Lake Michigan is complet in US controll
while rest Lake Superior, Huron, Erie, Ontario are to half part of Canada...
I love Strange Technology

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2011, 02:46:28 am »
jaglavaksoldier rulezzz

"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2011, 06:44:10 am »
jaglavaksoldier rulezzz



Yesssss
i expected that MX pop out with loud FLONG  ::)
I love Strange Technology

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #63 on: July 08, 2011, 07:50:57 am »
Don't mean to pound the drum again but when I watch the "pop up" video and other like it I see all the infrastructure - besides the actual missile - needed to test a new ICBM and wonder do we even have these capabilities today or if not how long and how expensive would it take to build this infrastructure.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2011, 01:59:52 pm »
I'm surprised they never considered this option based in the Great Lakes. Would solve the ASW question. Also the complete lack of an ASW threat would mean the missile submarines could be of very low performance in terms of stealth, speed, diving, etc.

Interesting idea. Would such a deployment scheme have required the agreement of the government of Canada to be feasible? I presume that the boomers would go through the Saint Lawrence Seaway to enter the Great Lakes.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 02:07:05 pm by Triton »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #65 on: July 08, 2011, 05:12:37 pm »
so why dig big deep pod or even a arfifical lake for a MX sub ?
These are proposals very different to Great Lakes submarine basing. The pond system is uses water as a substitute to horizontal silos to provide camouflage and protection from blast. The lake bottom crawlers are for shallow, still water lakes which are much smaller than the inland seas known as the Great Lakes

so even it look so good to use the Great Lakes for that. It has two major disadvantage:
heavy shipping traffic between US <-> Canada Wat for a risk to MX sub or "lake bottom crawling vehicles" who move between the wrecks

As I pointed out these crawlers are intended for shallow, still water lakes not the Great Lakes which have an average depth of about 100m (328’) which would generate enough pressure to immensely complicate the design of a manned crawler. As to the threat of surface traffic and seabed wrecks this is no more a problem than the actual oceans.

next to that Diplomatic problems with Canada because only Lake Michigan is complet in US controll
while rest Lake Superior, Huron, Erie, Ontario are to half part of Canada...

There is no diplomatic problem with Canada because they own their half of the lakes and the USA owns their half. France doesn’t get to tell the UK that they can’t base military units in the UK’s territorial waters in the English Channel. Besides Lake Michigan is more than big enough to base hundreds of missile carrying submarines in impunity from any possible threat. Plus of course Canada and the USA have cooperated on nuclear defence for decades.
 
Interesting idea. Would such a deployment scheme have required the agreement of the government of Canada to be feasible? I presume that the boomers would go through the Saint Lawrence Seaway to enter the Great Lakes.
Any dedicated missile carrying submarine for the Great Lakes could be built there by their extensive shipbuilding industry. Especially as this submarine would not need to be much of a submarine in terms of deep diving, acoustic silencing, high speed, long endurance, etc. Even if they were built by EB and others the US and Canada both regularly transfer naval vessels through the Saint Lawrence. If Canada has issues with nuclear bombs then they can be loaded in US Great Lakes ports once the boat has arrived.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2962
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2011, 02:23:15 pm »

There is no diplomatic problem with Canada because they own their half of the lakes and the USA owns their half. France doesn’t get to tell the UK that they can’t base military units in the UK’s territorial waters in the English Channel. Besides Lake Michigan is more than big enough to base hundreds of missile carrying submarines in impunity from any possible threat. Plus of course Canada and the USA have cooperated on nuclear defence for decades.


The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1818 places strict limits on naval armament allowed on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain (a total of four vessels of 100 tons and one 18-lb cannon for each side).  There have been specific waivers for vessels visiting the Great Lakes for training, and there was even a minor diplomatic flap when the US Coast Guard decided to arm its patrol boats on the Great Lakes with 7.62mm machineguns after 9/11. (They eventually decided it was OK because they were to be used for law enforcement rather than military purposes.)  Placing nuclear weapons there would certainly have required a renegotiation of the treaty terms.  At the time, I doubt Canada would have been terribly open to the idea.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7178
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2011, 02:40:14 pm »
  At the time, I doubt Canada would have been terribly open to the idea.

And if so, the question suddenly becomes: "Yeah? And what're you gonna do about it?"
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2011, 05:05:04 pm »
The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1818 places strict limits on naval armament allowed on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain (a total of four vessels of 100 tons and one 18-lb cannon for each side).  There have been specific waivers for vessels visiting the Great Lakes for training, and there was even a minor diplomatic flap when the US Coast Guard decided to arm its patrol boats on the Great Lakes with 7.62mm machineguns after 9/11. (They eventually decided it was OK because they were to be used for law enforcement rather than military purposes.)  Placing nuclear weapons there would certainly have required a renegotiation of the treaty terms.  At the time, I doubt Canada would have been terribly open to the idea.

Thanks for mentioning this because I was unaware. Why you always need someone with local knowledge to test any idea imposed from afar.
But while there is no doubt there are many within Canada who would elevate the Rush-Bagot Treaty to the highest of importance to deny the US missile basing in the Great Lakes it is far from a deal breaker. The same idiots who claim those MGs on Coast Guard vessels since 9-11 are a massive threat to Canadian peace and security…

The treaty’s intent is to demilitarise the border between Canada and the USA so neither country feels threatened from the other. The basing of weapons on this border that due to their ballistic nature couldn’t even hit targets in sub-artic circle Canada is hardly a threat to Canada. This is a similar argument to that used by the US that their MDA does not come under the BMD treaty because it is designed to defend against smalls scale ballistic missile attacks not the large scale potential of Russia.

Then of course there is the precedent of the training ships. A similar arrangement could be entered into where ships for external defence of North America, with weapons only able to meet this role like BMD or ICBMs, can be based in the lakes if similar information to the training ships is provided to each side. Considering the close integration of US and Canadian forces in NORAD this is not such an impossibility.

Finally the treaty has a six mouth exit clause. If Great Lakes basing, or in particular Lake Michigan, basing was seen as a necessary for US security – perhaps due to a significant advance in Russian ASW capability – then the US can just leave the treaty. It’s unlikely to result in a naval blockade on US Lakes traffic by Canada or an arms race in the area.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #69 on: July 10, 2011, 04:29:55 am »
Sea-Based Deployment of Floating-Launch Missiles (Near-Term and Far-Term Design Concepts for Sea-Based Surface Mobile MX Missile Deployment) by John E Draim, Hydra Corporation, December 15, 1980

Abstract:
Quote
This report presents systems concept descriptions for sea-based MX missiles, using surface ships as transporters. Near-term (1985-1990) and far-term (1990-2000) systems are described. Floating-launch methods are proposed, using either encapsulated missiles or the simpler (bare) HYDRA-type vertical floating launch. Parameters described include: force composition, missile jettison techniques, port facilities, deployment areas, personnel requirements, system costs, vulnerability, countermeasures, and C3 considerations.
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA101587

On a slightly off topic note, I've seen a vaguely similar concept in fiction from the 1960s. Usually it involves an underwater launch silo (One episode of the 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' TV series, more recently in the film 'Deepstar Six', but the 1966 novel 'Hunter-Killer' by Geoffrey Jenkins has to take the cake, it features a modified  Polaris missile capable of putting a man (the V-POTUS) into orbit, launched from a semi-submerged capsule.

Are there any examples of the concept being studied in real life that far back.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7178
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #70 on: July 10, 2011, 08:41:47 am »
Are there any examples of the concept being studied in real life that far back.

Yes. The Germans had the V-2-in-a-can; the same German designers later pitched an updated version of the idea to the US Navy using a Jupiter missile, but didn't get far.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #71 on: July 10, 2011, 10:55:07 am »

On a slightly off topic note, I've seen a vaguely similar concept in fiction from the 1960s. Usually it involves an underwater launch silo (One episode of the 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' TV series, more recently in the film 'Deepstar Six', but the 1966 novel 'Hunter-Killer' by Geoffrey Jenkins has to take the cake, it features a modified  Polaris missile capable of putting a man (the V-POTUS) into orbit, launched from a semi-submerged capsule.

Are there any examples of the concept being studied in real life that far back.

yes it's very popular in Movie, Anime and Comic
like Irwin Allen City Beneath the Sea (TV pilot 1971), ICBM attack on Asteroid
and Roger Leloup Comicstrip Yoko Tsuno, ninth book "La Fille du vent" were the Yamato wreck severe as undersea launch platform for missiles
also "The new Avengers" second seasion episode "Forward Base" were in Lake Ontario is something soviet...
I love Strange Technology

Offline Brickmuppet

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #72 on: August 01, 2011, 11:04:18 am »
Regards the Rush Bagot Treaty one might negotiate an amendment exempting lake Michigan which is the only one of the lakes that is completely within US Territory. ( no one is gonna put anything on Lake Champlain )An SSB or SSBN wouldn't be able to travel submerged between lakes anyway except between Huron and Michigan so confining the launcher to one lake is not a large sacrifice. A boomer or submersible barge would not have to worry too much about enemy ASW and Michigan is still pretty big ( and Deep) making a counter-force strike really difficult. Surround the lake with Safeguard ABM sites and you have a very robust and secure deterrent.

Alternately:

Lake Tahoe is over a thousand feet deep and with surface dimensions of 22 x 12 Miles might be big enough to make a sub surviving a first strike likely.

Illiamna Lake is nearly a thousand feet deep and has a surface area over a thousand square miles.

Lake Meade is nearly 500 feet deep though it has a single point failure potential at the dam. OTOH if someone is nuking your dam its probably time to launch your missiles.

Of course if this were practical one would expect to see boomers in the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2089
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #73 on: October 04, 2011, 03:30:14 am »
MX INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE - 1980 AFSC STAFF FILM REPORT
Quote
"THE MX - A LAND MOBILE ICBM" DESCRIBES THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE TRIAD AND THE ROLE MX PLAYS IN THIS DETERRENT FORCE STRUCTURE. THE MISSILE AND ITS BASING MODE ARE DESCRIBED INCLUDING ITS EXPANSION FEATURE.

Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 739
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #74 on: October 04, 2011, 06:48:21 am »
Don't mean to pound the drum again but when I watch the "pop up" video and other like it I see all the infrastructure - besides the actual missile - needed to test a new ICBM and wonder do we even have these capabilities today or if not how long and how expensive would it take to build this infrastructure.

We still have it at VAFB, it just depends on where you want to do the testing. 

Also, that infrastructure didn't exist before MX and so, just like for MX, it can be built.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 06:51:49 am by Byeman »

Offline Graham1973

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1148
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #75 on: February 17, 2012, 02:11:09 pm »
Back again with another fictional (sadly) MX basing concept. It appears in the 1989 technothriller 'The Day Before Midnight' by Stephen Hunter.

The plot revolves around the seizure of an experimental(?) MX silo dug into South Mountain in the vicinity of Burkittsville, Maryland (In the introduction the author apologises for messing about with geogaphy to make a better story).

Quote
...He and his friend and superior officer occupied the only strategic missile silo east of the Mississippi. Originally a Titan prototype silo, from the late fifties when the liquid-fuel Titan seemed to be The Answer, it had never been completely developed and was left fallow after Air Force enhusiasm had shifted...

Stephen Hunter. The Day Before Midnight. 1989. P 16-17

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #76 on: March 25, 2012, 12:52:45 pm »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #77 on: July 04, 2012, 10:48:23 pm »
I admit not reading through all the posts to see if this was already here, but nonetheless it has all the MX basing modes seriously contemplated in great detail. The PDF's are individual chapters but downloadable. 

http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8116/
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #78 on: July 05, 2012, 06:15:40 am »
I admit not reading through all the posts to see if this was already here, but nonetheless it has all the MX basing modes seriously contemplated in great detail. The PDF's are individual chapters but downloadable. 

http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8116/

*cough*  Post #3   ;)   ( Post #13 has the full PDF.)
 
Here's another (though not MX specific)
 
http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/ICBM_BASING_OPTIONS.pdf
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 06:18:53 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #79 on: July 13, 2012, 06:08:25 pm »
I admit not reading through all the posts to see if this was already here, but nonetheless it has all the MX basing modes seriously contemplated in great detail. The PDF's are individual chapters but downloadable. 

http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8116/

*cough*  Post #3   ;)   ( Post #13 has the full PDF.)
 
Here's another (though not MX specific)
 
http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/ICBM_BASING_OPTIONS.pdf

Great document sferrin. It contains the first description of the WS-120A I have seen 70 feet tall 120" diameter and also mentions a new type/size missile a 80,000 lbs five warhead design. Interesting that's the size I would have to replace MMIII. Sure deployed with one MaRV but uploadable in a crisis.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 07:33:03 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2012, 12:33:06 pm »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #81 on: March 06, 2013, 08:53:32 am »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8168
  • The path not taken.
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #82 on: March 29, 2013, 05:02:14 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8168
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Online flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8679
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #84 on: May 07, 2013, 05:56:47 am »
some seine-fishing at ePay
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #85 on: June 13, 2013, 10:00:41 am »
i found another deployment concept on MX

Quote
According to the (very limited) documentation I've found, ORCA was going to be canisterized MX missiles tethered to the ocean floor on the continental shelf. No manpower on site, just a canister and a tether. Never implemented because it violated the Seabed Treaty and was vulnerable to attack without corresponding advantages. I've never found anything about deep sea basing, but it wouldn't surprise me - they considered everything else, after all.
Thanks to Asnys from Alternate History forum for the info.
I love Strange Technology

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #86 on: June 13, 2013, 10:22:34 am »
Comparisons of 30 Department of Defense ICBM basing modes from a Center for Defense Information publication circa 1981.

Source:
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/5397/icbm-basing-modes

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #87 on: June 13, 2013, 11:10:33 am »
here the PDF were the Picture came from that Triton posted

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a956443.pdf

Thanks to Asnys from Alternate History forum for the info.
I love Strange Technology

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8168
  • The path not taken.
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #88 on: June 22, 2013, 02:47:46 am »
Via a patent for a "Nuclear blast hardened mobile vehicle" that moin1900 posted over in the 'Midgetman (SICBM) mobile launchers' thread, a Rockwell International patent for an "improved railroad missile garrison system".
« Last Edit: June 22, 2013, 02:52:53 am by Grey Havoc »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline moin1900

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 458
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #89 on: June 23, 2013, 07:59:57 am »
« Last Edit: June 23, 2013, 08:01:53 am by moin1900 »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8168
  • The path not taken.
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #90 on: June 27, 2013, 09:51:18 am »
An old CRS report from 1981, titled 'Assessing the Options for Preserving ICBM Survivability'.
Includes an overview on AMMX (C-5 and Big Bird). Also mentions some ABM concepts such as LoAD and Porcupine.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8168
  • The path not taken.
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #91 on: July 08, 2013, 03:42:25 am »
In regards to earlier discussions of hovercraft mounted or carried MX missiles on this thread, Orion came across this sometime ago:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=9544
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7178
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #92 on: July 17, 2013, 12:13:10 am »
In regards to earlier discussions of hovercraft mounted or carried MX missiles on this thread, Orion came across this sometime ago:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=9544

I'm *finally* getting around to doing something about that.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #93 on: August 04, 2013, 12:11:07 am »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7178
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #94 on: October 08, 2013, 11:13:15 pm »
Tom Clancy's notion for an MX-launching hovercraft:

The Floating Shell Game: Tom Clancy’s 1982 Plan to Fire Nuclear Weapons from a Hovercraft - See more at: http://news.usni.org/2013/10/02/floating-shell-game-tom-clancys-1982-plan-fire-nuclear-weapons-hovercraft#sthash.Jv6gQF9t.dpuf
The Floating Shell Game: Tom Clancy’s 1982 Plan to Fire Nuclear Weapons from a Hovercraft - See more at: http://news.usni.org/2013/10/02/floating-shell-game-tom-clancys-1982-plan-fire-nuclear-weapons-hovercraft#sthash.Jv6gQF9t.dpufThe Floating Shell Game: Tom Clancy’s 1982 Plan to Fire Nuclear Weapons from a Hovercraft



The Floating Shell Game: Tom Clancy’s 1982 Plan to Fire Nuclear Weapons from a Hovercraft - See more at: http://news.usni.org/2013/10/02/floating-shell-game-tom-clancys-1982-plan-fire-nuclear-weapons-hovercraft#sthash.Jv6gQF9t.dpuf
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2962
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #95 on: October 09, 2013, 08:15:41 am »
Well, that's a delightfully wacky concept.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2046
  • I am not actually here.
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #96 on: October 31, 2013, 03:10:16 pm »
Well, that's a delightfully wacky concept.

Wasn't the only time that hovercraft were considered for this mission, and not the wackiest ICBM deployment or survivability concept by a long shot.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2962
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #97 on: November 01, 2013, 10:52:55 am »
True.  But I think the drawing is pretty bizarre -- it looks to be a baseline LCAC, which couldn't even carry a bare MX, much less one with realistic environmental protection, erection gear, and launch support hardware.  Even the stretched LCAC discussed would be very ahrd when you think about the mass of the supportin equipment needed.
 
That, and the idea that air cushion cheicles can traverse land obstacles as easily as they can cross waves.

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1169
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #98 on: November 02, 2013, 04:20:05 pm »
Am I the only one that thinks the LCAC transforms into a submarine when the MX is fired?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #99 on: November 02, 2013, 05:30:48 pm »
Am I the only one that thinks the LCAC transforms into a submarine when the MX is fired?

I was thinking more along the lines of one of those cars in the new Superman movie. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #100 on: December 27, 2013, 07:46:18 am »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2046
  • I am not actually here.
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #101 on: February 15, 2014, 07:29:35 pm »
Am I the only one that thinks the LCAC transforms into a submarine when the MX is fired?

Actually, I think it transforms into a very easy to find target.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #102 on: February 15, 2014, 07:43:45 pm »
Am I the only one that thinks the LCAC transforms into a submarine when the MX is fired?

Actually, I think it transforms into a very easy to find target.

Given that it would be somewhere in the Southwest desert I'm not sure it would matter.  It would be long gone by the time any weapon cued from observing the launch would be overhead.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #103 on: February 09, 2015, 10:53:13 am »
Martin Marietta Peacekeeper model with bronze coin found on eBay. Legitimate for collectors?


Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Martin-Marietta-1-50-Scale-Peacekeeper-Desk-Rocket-Model-w-Bronze-Coin-/281588851651?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item419000e3c3

Seller's description:

Quote
RARE Martin Marietta Rocket Desk Model, 1/50th Scale
Peacekeeper with Bronze Coin
Condition: No damage aside from normal wear. 

We sell many used items that have typical day to day wear. We make mention of any significant damage, cracks, break, repairs, chipping, fading, or flaws. If you have any questions regarding the specifics, please, contact us anytime. We are more then happy to assure you of the quality of the product.

* If you would like additional photos, please let us know 24 hours before auction close
* Payment is required within 10 days of auction close
* If the is any problem with any item we sell please let us know immediately! We will respond within 24 hours and will do everything we can to resolve the issue.

Piece is 18 Inches x 8 Inches x 8 Inches.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 12:21:30 pm by Jemiba »

Offline moin1900

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 458
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #104 on: April 26, 2015, 08:21:01 am »
Silo defense
Gau-8 CIWS and SWARMjet rockets against soviet warheads


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #105 on: April 26, 2015, 09:18:30 am »
I knew I'd read somewhere back in the day about using a GAU-8 to protect silos.  Was starting to wonder if I'd imagined it.  ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #108 on: May 10, 2015, 02:55:01 pm »
Hopefully it's more than just a printing of "Echos That Never Were - American Mobile ICBMs 1956 - 1983"
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7178
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #109 on: May 10, 2015, 05:17:55 pm »
Hopefully it's more than just a printing of "Echos That Never Were - American Mobile ICBMs 1956 - 1983"

Same author, so it's not unlikely. However, I'd bet on improved image quality at the very least
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #110 on: May 10, 2015, 05:52:15 pm »
Hopefully it's more than just a printing of "Echos That Never Were - American Mobile ICBMs 1956 - 1983"

Same author, so it's not unlikely. However, I'd bet on improved image quality at the very least

Thought I recognized the name. Yes maybe if it's fully updated with some great drawings and pictures would be nice addition to my 'nuclear' library.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #111 on: June 12, 2015, 06:42:03 am »
sferrin and other SPF members.

Has anyone come across studies (or study) of super hard silo concepts? I thought I had something that talked about 50k psi possible? I've seen snippets but wondering about full studies.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #112 on: June 12, 2015, 07:04:08 am »
sferrin and other SPF members.

Has anyone come across studies (or study) of super hard silo concepts? I thought I had something that talked about 50k psi possible? I've seen snippets but wondering about full studies.

There was an article in Air Force magazine back in the 80s about them.  50ksi is right.  They even had a picture where they'd done a simulation with high explosives.  Showed the concrete tube sticking out of the bottom of a crater.

http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs02michener.pdf

From the footnotes in this article it looks like the Air Force Magazine article was January of '84
« Last Edit: June 12, 2015, 07:06:27 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #113 on: June 12, 2015, 10:27:57 am »
They conducted a sub-scale (intended to simulate a 55,000 psi overpressure i.e. a direct hit from a ~ 1 Mt warhead) test on a superhardened silo constructed with Slurry Infiltrated Fiber Concrete (SIFCON). Not the best photo reproduction in the report but plenty of details. 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a195351.pdf
 
* One of the amusing remarks in the referring documents was that fiscal and political pressure were much harder to counter than overpressure.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #114 on: June 12, 2015, 11:42:45 am »
sferrin & marauder2048 THANKS much for the links. Why this is my favorite all time site amazing members.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2089
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #116 on: August 16, 2016, 01:43:51 pm »
Quote
Alternate MX Basing Concepts Weighed
Washington—Alternate basing concepts are being considered for the USAF/Martin Marietta MX advanced intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by high-level Pentagon officials as possible hedges to the linear grid system in the southwestern U. S. now favored by the Carter Administration.
By CLARENCE A. ROBINSON
Source: Aviation Week, October 27th, 1980, pages 19-21
Link (Login!): http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19801027/#!&pid=18
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2089
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #117 on: August 17, 2016, 04:54:04 am »
Quote
ICBM Survivability Aid Studied
Two concepts that would allow orbital, aerodynamic cruise loiter of Minuteman weighed to counter preemptive strike
By CLARENCE A. ROBINSON
Source: Aviation Week, February 25th, 1980, pages 16-18
Link: http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19800225#!&pid=16
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Kat Tsun

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 80
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #118 on: January 11, 2017, 11:59:03 pm »
The hardest basing options I've seen for the MX were the various super hard silos, I believe 3,500 atm hard silos were actually built, or otherwise considered "certainly achievable", and 7,000 atm were considered "possible"; the Deep Base, where MX missiles would be stationed about half a mile and change underground along with Air Force crewmen, base personnel, and a team of tunnel bore crews, after the bombs fell the crews would dig themselves out egress tubes over several months, eventually break the surface, and fire their missiles; and the Deep Silo/Hard Rock basing, of which LANL's "Pencil Pusher" could resist surface bursts up to 100 megatons, while Boeing's "Sand Silo" could resist 25 megatons, both presumably direct impacts.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Zz8rAAAAYAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=VD8rAAAAYAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=PJf2jZbIPjcC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=super+hard+silo+50,000+psi&source=bl&ots=N2DI3yPUb3&sig=zQ5N2zx2C6zgCxWfWUT1XOE9XNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXtdOdjbzRAhXJ7YMKHRpKDDwQ6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=super%20hard%20silo%2050%2C000%20psi&f=false

I'm not sure how good these Google book scans are, what's omitted I mean, but they contain enough info for what I talked about.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9714
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #119 on: July 27, 2017, 08:44:05 pm »
MX Missile 1977 US Air Force; LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM Overview from "Aerospace Power"


Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • From the Great White North!
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #120 on: September 15, 2017, 12:24:03 pm »
I've done a lot of reading on these topics over the years, my personal interest being ABMs but that often pushes over to counterforce issues. Some of the studies I've seen are truly hair-raising.

One of the earliest is the PSAC report on Nike Zeus. They note that even if the system worked perfectly, the Soviets could simply drop their warheads upwind of the cities, just out of range of the missiles. These would cause so much fallout that it would kill almost as many people as a direct attack. With a few thousand warheads, 90% of the US population would die. Now later descriptions of such wars never seem to mention this, and I'm curious why. Does anyone know of changes to the understanding of fallout that might explain this?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #121 on: September 15, 2017, 01:20:41 pm »
I've done a lot of reading on these topics over the years, my personal interest being ABMs but that often pushes over to counterforce issues. Some of the studies I've seen are truly hair-raising.

One of the earliest is the PSAC report on Nike Zeus. They note that even if the system worked perfectly, the Soviets could simply drop their warheads upwind of the cities, just out of range of the missiles. These would cause so much fallout that it would kill almost as many people as a direct attack. With a few thousand warheads, 90% of the US population would die. Now later descriptions of such wars never seem to mention this, and I'm curious why. Does anyone know of changes to the understanding of fallout that might explain this?
This comment relates to Peacekeeper deployment concepts how?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 833
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #122 on: September 16, 2017, 10:18:04 am »
One of the earliest is the PSAC report on Nike Zeus. They note that even if the system worked perfectly, the Soviets could simply drop their warheads upwind of the cities, just out of range of the missiles. These would cause so much fallout that it would kill almost as many people as a direct attack. With a few thousand warheads, 90% of the US population would die. Now later descriptions of such wars never seem to mention this, and I'm curious why. Does anyone know of changes to the understanding of fallout that might explain this?

So, NIKE ZEUS forces the soviets to move from direct casualties (Blast/Thermal Pulse) which are somewhat hard to defend against, to indirect attacks such as down wind radio logical dirty bursts; which can be defeated with relatively cheap fallout shelters, and this is a failure, how?

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #123 on: September 17, 2017, 04:04:22 pm »
Now later descriptions of such wars never seem to mention this, and I'm curious why. Does anyone know of changes to the understanding of fallout that might explain this?

If we are talking about the same PSAC report: it used the earlier Everett and Pugh (WSEG-5) fallout model which
did not have the benefit of US and Soviet atmospheric testing which resumed in the early 60's.

IIRC, that model could overpredict fallout by a factor a five.

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 833
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #124 on: September 18, 2017, 05:38:50 pm »
Also, NIKE ZEUS is pretty much equivalent to SM-3 today in vBO. (Burnout Velocity). That is the major determinant of defended footprint radius (next to how far in front of you your tracking radar is)

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • From the Great White North!
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #125 on: October 04, 2017, 08:50:43 am »
If we are talking about the same PSAC report: it used the earlier Everett and Pugh (WSEG-5) fallout model which
did not have the benefit of US and Soviet atmospheric testing which resumed in the early 60's.

IIRC, that model could overpredict fallout by a factor a five.
Ahh, this sounds like the likely culprit.

Do you have any pointers to material that compare these models?

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • From the Great White North!
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #126 on: October 04, 2017, 08:58:21 am »
So, NIKE ZEUS forces the soviets to move from direct casualties (Blast/Thermal Pulse) which are somewhat hard to defend against, to indirect attacks such as down wind radio logical dirty bursts; which can be defeated with relatively cheap fallout shelters, and this is a failure, how?
I don't recall saying anything about "failure"? I do recall that this was the primary reason that McNamara stated he would not fund any deployment of an ABM that didn't also include funding for fallout shelters, and further, that they should go ahead with fallout shelters in any event.

This attack mode was only one of many the PSAC considered. They also noted that due to the limited traffic handling capabilities of Zeus, there was a 90% chance that a direct attack by 4 warheads within one minute would allow one to hit the Zeus, thereby destroying 100 missiles. They also noted that a single warhead with a small number of credible decoys would do the same. Thus an initial attack on the Zeus sites would basically render them useless, and they could see no way around that.

Thus Nike-X.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • From the Great White North!
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #127 on: October 04, 2017, 09:02:51 am »
This comment relates to Peacekeeper deployment concepts how?
Apparently the third para of my post never made it.

I wanted to go on to say that these early reports were similar to the ones prepared during the MX debates. Specifically, there are calculations that show rail-basing could be countered by attacking the entire US rail network, while air-basing suffered from a similar problem due to the relative softness of aircraft. Long and short, by the 1970s there were so many warheads available that massive checkerboard attacks like those considered in the original PSAC report were now relatively straightforward.

That's why I thought Sentinel was so clever. The presence of a single short-range missile means the Soviets have to use 13 more of their own (or 26 depending on their profile).

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #128 on: October 04, 2017, 09:17:56 am »
That's why I thought Sentinel was so clever. The presence of a single short-range missile means the Soviets have to use 13 more of their own (or 26 depending on their profile).

Could you elaborate?   ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • From the Great White North!
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #129 on: October 12, 2017, 12:40:34 pm »
Could you elaborate?   ???

Sure!

Consider a deployment of 10 MX missiles in silos situated in a set of 100 silos. The silos are spread out so you have to use a separate warhead against each one, no "two-fers". Let's further assume the Soviet warheads are good enough to hit these silos without needing a backup RV just in case.

So in this case you need 100 warheads in order to attack the field. But that's totally worth it, because you likely have 10 warheads on each of your missiles, so it's a straight up exchange of 10 of your missiles for 10 of theirs.

But now let's add a single ABM for each MX. Here's the trick - I know where my MX is and the Soviets don't. That means I can watch the attack as it unfolds, and find the one that's going to hit the silo where the MX is that I'm assigned to protect. And then I shoot down that one RV. The other nine fall on empty silos.

In order to counter this, the Soviets have to add a second RV to every silo. And if I add another ABM, a third. This is a huge force multiplier. Sure, SALT limits the US to only 100 interceptors, but if each one of them is protecting a field of 10 silos, or 23 I think was the real number, you end up being able to soak up about half of the entire Soviet fleet before you lose even one MX.

It's not that such a system eliminates the possibility of your MX fleet being destroyed, but it makes it SO expensive that the very idea of counterforce becomes meaningless.

The same basic idea applied to Sprint II and Hardsite, but in that case it was the inaccuracy of the Soviet RVs that worked in their favour. With a CEP around 2 miles, they needed to shoot about three RVs at every silo, so the Sprint would pick off the one that was going to land close enough and let the other two hit the empty ground. That, however, was rendered moot by improved INS.

« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 12:42:10 pm by Maury Markowitz »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #130 on: October 12, 2017, 12:59:21 pm »
Could you elaborate?   ???

Sure!

Consider a deployment of 10 MX missiles in silos situated in a set of 100 silos. The silos are spread out so you have to use a separate warhead against each one, no "two-fers". Let's further assume the Soviet warheads are good enough to hit these silos without needing a backup RV just in case.

So in this case you need 100 warheads in order to attack the field. But that's totally worth it, because you likely have 10 warheads on each of your missiles, so it's a straight up exchange of 10 of your missiles for 10 of theirs.

But now let's add a single ABM for each MX. Here's the trick - I know where my MX is and the Soviets don't. That means I can watch the attack as it unfolds, and find the one that's going to hit the silo where the MX is that I'm assigned to protect. And then I shoot down that one RV. The other nine fall on empty silos.

In order to counter this, the Soviets have to add a second RV to every silo. And if I add another ABM, a third. This is a huge force multiplier. Sure, SALT limits the US to only 100 interceptors, but if each one of them is protecting a field of 10 silos, or 23 I think was the real number, you end up being able to soak up about half of the entire Soviet fleet before you lose even one MX.

It's not that such a system eliminates the possibility of your MX fleet being destroyed, but it makes it SO expensive that the very idea of counterforce becomes meaningless.

The same basic idea applied to Sprint II and Hardsite, but in that case it was the inaccuracy of the Soviet RVs that worked in their favour. With a CEP around 2 miles, they needed to shoot about three RVs at every silo, so the Sprint would pick off the one that was going to land close enough and let the other two hit the empty ground. That, however, was rendered moot by improved INS.

I was talking about elaborate on Sentinal.  (It sounded like you meant a different "Sentinal" than the Safeguard precursor.  What you're describing sounds like LoADS (for protecting MX / Peacekeeper)):



And I agree, it's an awesome way to make the other guy have to spend through the nose to ensure the target is killed.  Thought I saw somewhere where Russian ICBM silos are protected by something like Trophy on a larger scale.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Maury Markowitz

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
  • From the Great White North!
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #131 on: October 12, 2017, 01:08:34 pm »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #132 on: October 12, 2017, 04:27:52 pm »
Sorry, I meant Sentry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_program

Yeah, that was a pretty sweet concept.  Much cheaper to add a few more ABMs, and force the other guy to up his ICBM force, than to keep expanding one's own ICBM force.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #133 on: April 26, 2018, 05:59:18 am »
1998 MX report from Forecast International

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1089

Includes very brief description of the Munster and Calmendro alternate WHs
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #134 on: May 23, 2018, 01:30:32 am »
We had some scenes of that Movie here
but not the entire Film by US Air Force Systems Command

"The MX: A Land Mobile ICBM" from 1980
I love Strange Technology

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4120
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #135 on: May 23, 2018, 02:44:40 am »
Found two picture of TEREX MX-Carrier prototype
Seems that vehicle is based on two modified big Haul trucks
I love Strange Technology

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #136 on: May 25, 2018, 01:21:33 pm »
Only one I could find that hadn't been posted already. . .as far as I can tell.  I can't help but wonder why this needed to be so damn big when the TEL that was looked at to carry the Soviet equivalent (basically), the SS-24 Scalpel, was so much smaller.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/maz-7907-the-24-wheeled-russian-truck-designed-to-carry-100-ton-nuclear-rockets-93665.html

« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 01:25:28 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #137 on: May 25, 2018, 03:28:09 pm »
Were these TELs or just transporter erectors for the MX/MPS scheme?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2962
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #138 on: May 26, 2018, 07:16:09 pm »
Looking through the earlier parts of the thread, I think this is the TEL for the trench scheme.  If so, it's designed to erect a hardened launch tube through several feet of soil.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 621
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #139 on: May 27, 2018, 01:21:27 am »
Only one I could find that hadn't been posted already. . .as far as I can tell.  I can't help but wonder why this needed to be so damn big when the TEL that was looked at to carry the Soviet equivalent (basically), the SS-24 Scalpel, was so much smaller.


I dunno, the Soviet transporter is bigger than it looks. It's 4.1 meters wide, the Terex is based on the Terex 33-11 offroad dumper, which is 4.7 m wide. http://www.ritchiespecs.com/specification?type=Con&category=Rock+Truck&make=Terex&model=33-11C&modelid=104237

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8526
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #140 on: June 13, 2018, 06:35:02 am »
MX wind tunnel test.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2089
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11333
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
« Reply #142 on: March 10, 2019, 05:51:25 am »
Some pictures I stumbled across supposedly related to MX superhard silos / Dense Pack.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2019, 05:53:21 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.