Martin Marietta MGM-134A Midgetman Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SICBM)

Mace's was pretty cool too and I know there was at least one of those done.

Revell, IIRC, certainly i had the 'History Makers' version. Used the launcher for a sci-fi scratchbuild, cause it had those big balloon wheels, and kept the actual missile unbuilt. I may still have it, somewhere.

cheers,
Robin.
 
Thorvic said:
Actually thats might be one to consider Scott, doing the the Mobile Cruise missiles and Pershing launchers to go with the Midgetman ?

I had not given any thought to doing any other land-mobile missile launchers, but if the interest is there... why not. Of course, there's the little problem that I don't have drawings (*any* drawings, never mind decent ones) of other road mobile missile launchers.
 
I'll email you the Field Manual and Technical Manual for the Pershing II missile system if you want?
 
Sending them now. There are lots of graphics including the sort you are looking for.
 

Attachments

  • pershingII.gif
    pershingII.gif
    35.4 KB · Views: 437
Abraham Gubler said:
Sending them now. There are lots of graphics including the sort you are looking for.

Ah, groovy. Looks like just the thing. Got similar works for other road-mobile missile-launchers?

The SICBM HML will be the first model. if it sells well enough... series of 1/72 road-mobile missile launchers should follow. I would imagine, though I don't know for sure, that such models probably already exist for Soviet/Russian ICBM trucks, yes?
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Sending them now. There are lots of graphics including the sort you are looking for.
Hi, have you the same for the Hard Mobile Launcher ? :p
 
Orionblamblam said:
Abraham Gubler said:
Sending them now. There are lots of graphics including the sort you are looking for.

Ah, groovy. Looks like just the thing. Got similar works for other road-mobile missile-launchers?

The SICBM HML will be the first model. if it sells well enough... series of 1/72 road-mobile missile launchers should follow. I would imagine, though I don't know for sure, that such models probably already exist for Soviet/Russian ICBM trucks, yes?

Hi Scott

You might be able to use the Revell Elephant Tank Tranporter as a basis for the Pershing, as it uses a Faun Tractor unit which only has some minor changes from the standard MAN version (think thay are part od the same group these days)

Soviet launchers, the only ones i'm aware of are the ARMO SCUD B in resin and the PST kit of the SA-300 Grumble and it Radar vehicle. I dont know of any of the IRBM launchers ever being done save in 1/700 scale by Pitroad. The PST Grumble chasis might be usefull for doing the Soviet version of the cruise missile launcher which was undergoing trials when the program was killed off by the arms treaties.

Cheers

G
 
ripping old ICA issues
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-21.jpg
    Untitled-21.jpg
    102 KB · Views: 298
  • Untitled-15sm.jpg
    Untitled-15sm.jpg
    173.6 KB · Views: 235
  • Untitled-1----sm.jpg
    Untitled-1----sm.jpg
    148.1 KB · Views: 188
  • Untitled-1---sm.jpg
    Untitled-1---sm.jpg
    111.9 KB · Views: 375
  • Untitled-1--sm.jpg
    Untitled-1--sm.jpg
    104.6 KB · Views: 438
  • Untitled-1-sm.jpg
    Untitled-1-sm.jpg
    579.4 KB · Views: 435
  • Untitled-1sm.jpg
    Untitled-1sm.jpg
    109.2 KB · Views: 378
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNomNauC78E&feature=related
 
Small ICBM basing reports from the Defense Technology Information Center (DTIC):

Small ICBM Area Narrowing Report. Volume 1. Hard Mobile Launcher in Random Movement Basing Mode; Department of the Air Force; January 1986
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA268472


Small ICBM Area Narrowing Report. Volume 2. Hard Mobile Launcher at Minuteman Facilities Basing Mode; Department of the Air Force; January 1986
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA268473


Small ICBM Area Narrowing Report. Volume 3: Hard Silo in Patterned Array Basing Mode; Department of the Air Force; January 1986
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA268534


Small ICBM Area Narrowing Report. Executive Summary;Department of the Air Force; January 1986
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA268474
 
Boeing/Goodyear/Paccar Hard Mobile Launcher (HML) Protoype

The 100-foot-long, 200,000 lb. vehicle runs on a pair of 750-hp Cummins Diesel engines with all-wheel drive on 14 Goodyear military all-terrain steel radial tires. It will serve as a launcher for America's 30,000-pound single-warhead ICBM. The small ICBM will have a range of 6,000 miles. The vehicle is being built by a consortium including Boeing Aerospace, Goodyear, and Paccar Defense Systems. It must be hard enough to withstand gamma-ray attack and fast enough to move out at 60 mph over rough terrain(?) In a crisis, the mobile launchers are supposed to disperse and await commands from a control center.

Source: "Hard Wheels, Hard Warfare" Popular Mechanics May 1987
http://books.google.com/books?id=y-MDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA67&dq=Hard+Mobile+Launcher&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Hard%20Mobile%20Launcher&f=true
 

Attachments

  • BoeingGoodyearPaccarHML.JPG
    BoeingGoodyearPaccarHML.JPG
    46.8 KB · Views: 188

Attachments

  • hml_03.jpg
    hml_03.jpg
    82.4 KB · Views: 193
Four companies competed for the hard mobile launcher contract: Martin Marietta, Boeing Aerospace, Bell-Aerospace/Textron, and General Dynamics. In January 1985, Boeing and Martin Marietta were awarded parallel 21-month contracts to design, build, and test competing prototypes of the vehicle. Martin Marietta teamed with Caterpillar Tractor Company to design a launcher vehicle, using a single diesel engine and a rubber-belted, tread drive system. Boeing teamed with Goodyear Aerospace and PACCAR Defense Systems to build a similar vehicle, equipped with two diesel engines and an all-wheel drive system, using 14 giant all-terrain tires.

The vehicles, having undergone field tests, are designed to travel at 50 to 60 miles per hour ("dash speed") on good road bed, about half that speed off-road. Resembling high-tech travel-trailers, they are one-third the length of a football field, sit 12 feet high, and weigh 200,000 pounds. Under nuclear attack, the missile-launch sections in the rear are designed to dig themselves slightly into the ground (they have been nicknamed armadillos), deflect nuclear blast, and withstand up to 30 pounds per square inch of overpressure, and then launch their cargo--the Midgetman--in nuclear retaliation.

Source:

"Midgetman: Missile in Search of a Mission" by Paul F Walker and John A Wentworth, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, November 1986:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xwYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&dq=Midgetman&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Midgetman&f=false


Map of Midgetman bases and contractors from article.

Photograph of Midgetman prototype.
 

Attachments

  • sicbm_03.jpg
    sicbm_03.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 214
  • MidgetmanBasesContractors.JPG
    MidgetmanBasesContractors.JPG
    61.7 KB · Views: 232
Boeing/Loral Hard Mobile Launcher (HML) Engineering Test Unit (ETU)

This vehicle was the last engineering model, or Engineering Test Unit, of a mobile, radiation-hardened, truck launcher designed to carry and launch the MGM-134A Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (unofficially known as the "Midgetman"). It can travel up to 55 mph on the highway, and it can also travel off the road. The vehicle is capable of using the trailer-mounted plow to dig the launcher into the earth for additional protection from a nuclear blast.

The ETU tractor-launcher combination weighs 239,000 pounds and has a draw bar pull capability of more than 80,000 pounds. It is powered by a 1,200-hp Rolls-Royce Perkins diesel engine that drives all eight tractor wheels through an electro-hydraulic transmission.

The ETU was designed and built by Boeing Aerospace and Electronics and by Loral Defense Systems Division (formerly Goodyear Aerospace). It was delivered to the USAF in December 1988 and tested until 1991 at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.

The National Museum of the Air Force acquired it in 1992 after development of the MGM-134A SICBM was canceled.

Text source: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=541
Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Small_ICBM_Hard_Mobile_Launcher_USAF.jpg

Additional images of the HML ETU can be found at:

"MGM-134 Midgetman Hardened Mobile Launcher Walk Around" at Prime Portal: The Military Enthusiast and Modeler's Reference Site :
http://www.primeportal.net/artillery/david_lueck/mgm-134_midgetman/

"Midgetman ICBM Family" at the Silicon Valley Scale Modelers web site:
http://svsm.org/gallery/midgetman_family
 

Attachments

  • us_hml_05.jpg
    us_hml_05.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 183

Attachments

  • SICBMHML.JPG
    SICBMHML.JPG
    27.7 KB · Views: 175
ICBM Modernization: Small ICBM Weapon System Status and Current Issues General Account Office, National Security and International Affairs Division, September 1991

Abstract:
U.S. strategic nuclear forces, consisting of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, manned bombers, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), provide nuclear deterrence. To counter Soviet nuclear advances, a long-standing national defense goal has been ICBM modernization. One such modernization initiative is the Small ICBM program. At the request of the Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, GAO reviewed the status of the Small ICBM program. GAO's effort included a review of the Department of Defense's (DOD) reasons for continuing development without a present commitment of procurement and construction funds needed to deploy the system. GAO also reviewed the adequacy of the acquisition cost estimate, the outlook for meeting future schedule milestones, the ability of the missile to meet operational needs, and the progress of missile development.
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA245542
 

Attachments

  • LineDrawingSICBN.JPG
    LineDrawingSICBN.JPG
    43.4 KB · Views: 236
  • HMLFunctionalModes.JPG
    HMLFunctionalModes.JPG
    78.3 KB · Views: 292
  • Mark21ReentryVehicle.JPG
    Mark21ReentryVehicle.JPG
    42.5 KB · Views: 282
Painting showing the interior of the MGM-134A Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile circa 1984.

Image source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/sicbm.htm

Photograph of a simulated Small ICBM being ejected from its launch canister in the Canister Assembly Launch Test Program (CALTP). Like the Peacekeeper, the Small ICBM was to be "cold launched." The missile was to be ejected from a canister, and its stage 1 motor was to be ignited after the missile was in mid-air. The CALTP program tested the launch eject system and the effects of a cold launch on stage 1 of the missile.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061210080115/http://www.losangeles.af.mil/SMC/HO/5+chapter+iii+ballistic+missiles.pdf
 

Attachments

  • sicbm_01.jpg
    sicbm_01.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 201
  • SICBMCALTP.JPG
    SICBMCALTP.JPG
    28.3 KB · Views: 203
Artist's concept of joint Boeing/Goodyear HML proposal now in color circa 1985

Source: "Missile Shuffle" Popular Mechanics September 1985
 

Attachments

  • BoeingGoodyearHML.jpg
    BoeingGoodyearHML.jpg
    140 KB · Views: 192
Yes a great video Triton!
Do you know of any which demo the launch sequence?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Triton said:
flateric said:
Great Boeing HML video http://www.archive.org/details/BoeingAirForceHardMobileLauncher
Video of the Boeing/Loral formerly Goodyear/Paccar Hard Mobile Launcher (HML) found on Youtube.

what the difference between two, except we have link to this vid in better quality for three years in the same topic?
 
flateric said:
Triton said:
flateric said:
Great Boeing HML video http://www.archive.org/details/BoeingAirForceHardMobileLauncher
Video of the Boeing/Loral formerly Goodyear/Paccar Hard Mobile Launcher (HML) found on Youtube.

what the difference between two, except we have link to this vid in better quality for three years in the same topic?

I thought that it would be helpful to embed a version of the video from YouTube in this topic since you cannot embed this video from the Internet Archive and it's easy to overlook your original post. If you believe that this is entirely unhelpful and redundant, feel free to delete these posts.
 
I apologize for asking but I could not find information on this but what was the thrust of the Midgetman Stage I motor? Thanks.
 
Last summer I was at the Air Force museum and some guys in blue t-shirts (USAF I assume) were messing around with the thing (opening compartments and messing around with the inside). The said they were trying to get it running, but when I asked what they wanted with such a single-purpose vehicle, they suddenly became a lot less talkative. My thesis project is on ICBM development, so maybe my questions were too detailed for them. In any case, does anyone know if it's still there?
 
1st503rdSGT said:
but when I asked what they wanted with such a single-purpose vehicle,
they suddenly became a lot less talkative.

any familiar faces?
 
flateric said:
1st503rdSGT said:
but when I asked what they wanted with such a single-purpose vehicle,
they suddenly became a lot less talkative.

any familiar faces?

Nope... LOL. Seriously though, why would the USAF be messing around with it now? When I was there, the thing was way out there by itself, not far from the MX rail-garrison test-bed. It's not like it was in the way of anything, so I doubt they were simply trying to move it. They probably would have told me as much if that were the case; as it was, they buttoned up when I asked what they planned to do with it or where they wanted to take it.
 
I suppose they just have tried to put on graveness...
have you checked Google Maps recently?
 
1st503rdSGT said:
Nope... LOL. Seriously though, why would the USAF be messing around with it now? When I was there, the thing was way out there by itself, not far from the MX rail-garrison test-bed. It's not like it was in the way of anything, so I doubt they were simply trying to move it. They probably would have told me as much if that were the case; as it was, they buttoned up when I asked what they planned to do with it or where they wanted to take it.

Sadly it's most likely a case of them thinking it better to say nothing at all than to take the chance at something coming back to bite them.
 
1st503rdSGT said:
Last summer I was at the Air Force museum and some guys in blue t-shirts (USAF I assume) were messing around with the thing (opening compartments and messing around with the inside). The said they were trying to get it running, but when I asked what they wanted with such a single-purpose vehicle, they suddenly became a lot less talkative. My thesis project is on ICBM development, so maybe my questions were too detailed for them. In any case, does anyone know if it's still there?

Yes, I was there April 21 this year, and it was still standing there, aparently un-messed with.
 
Was "Midgetman" the official name of the Martin Marietta MGM-134 Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SICBM)? Does anyone know the names that were considered for the MGM-134 SICBM? "Peacemaker"?
 
Although referred to in the press as the Midgetman, I believe it was officially just the Small ICBM.
 
Triton said:
Was "Midgetman" the official name of the Martin Marietta MGM-134 Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SICBM)? Does anyone know the names that were considered for the MGM-134 SICBM? "Peacemaker"?

I read somewhere that Peacemaker was one choice for MX but Reagan choose Peacekeeper which is more appropriate for a nuclear deterrent weapon IMHO.
 
Peacekeeper (MX) is gone; Orbital Sciences uses it as satellite booster now. The SICBM (aka the dove's missile) was a recommendation by the Scowcroft Commission in the mid-1980s to develop a light, mobile complement to the MX. It was actually a good idea, but no one wanted to spend another dime on nukes after the Soviet Union fell apart.
 
1st503rdSGT said:
It was actually a good idea, but no one wanted to spend another dime on nukes after the Soviet Union fell apart.

Yes, the so-called, "Peace Dividend". AKA "Now we can gut the military and not feel guilty abourt it." Funny thing is Russia and China just keep on building.
 
sferrin said:
1st503rdSGT said:
It was actually a good idea, but no one wanted to spend another dime on nukes after the Soviet Union fell apart.

Yes, the so-called, "Peace Dividend". AKA "Now we can gut the military and not feel guilty abourt it." Funny thing is Russia and China just keep on building.

Well, not quite. Russia and China have both taken strategic nukes more seriously than the US since the early 1990s, as they have continued to develop new delivery systems and possibly new weapons as well, putting more effort into land-mobile systems not unlike Midgetman. However that does not mean that they have engaged in any nuclear buildups though. It's hard to be sure, but rumor has it that Russia doesn't really have much in the way of working missiles (which my explain why missile defense pi$$es them off so much), and China apparently has yet to master a usable submarine deterrent (which may explain all those tunnels and land-mobile launchers).

That said, the US has come to rely too much on an aging (if well maintained) strategic force. We don't even have the capacity to manufacture new weapons anymore as almost all the engineers/physicists who built/designed even our newest systems have long-since retired or died.

Dubya tried to initiate development of a new, low-maintenance physics-package to be used on all delivery systems. It would have been relatively low in yield, but it would have standardized our arsenal and renewed the long-neglected manufacturing base for such things, besides being lighter and safer than the old warheads. Of course, the democrats managed to shoot it down just because they could.
 
1st503rdSGT said:
We don't even have the capacity to manufacture new weapons anymore as almost all the engineers/physicists who built/designed even our newest systems have long-since retired or died.

Hell, half of them work were I do (and we don't do missiles).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom