Register here

Author Topic: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.  (Read 74029 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
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.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
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: 804
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: 4109
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

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
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: 7163
    • 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: 11254
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.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
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: 11254
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.