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

...
 

Attachments

  • f1e6db4ba8c478405a4e8f972b56a73c993d7a34.jpeg
    f1e6db4ba8c478405a4e8f972b56a73c993d7a34.jpeg
    30.6 KB · Views: 203
  • gte355a (1).jpg
    gte355a (1).jpg
    131.3 KB · Views: 116
  • gte355 (1).jpg
    gte355 (1).jpg
    52.8 KB · Views: 120
  • Hard Mobile Launcher Test Vehicle Caterpillar drive System by Martin Marietta 1987 USA (1).jpg
    Hard Mobile Launcher Test Vehicle Caterpillar drive System by Martin Marietta 1987 USA (1).jpg
    100.6 KB · Views: 207
Aviation Week, March 5, 1984
"Parallel Programs Advance Small Icbm"
Page: 14
Concept Art:
-Boeing Goodyear
"wheeled truck - trailer HML concept design"
-Martin Marietta
"tracked prime mover - trailer HML concept design"
-Bell Textron
"wheeled/air cushion HML CACX concept design"
-General Dynamics
"10? wheeled truck HML concept design"


Aviation Week, January 23, 1984
"USAF Awards Initial Contracts For Small ICBM Missile Project"
Page: 23
Concept Art:
-prelimilary USAF HML drawing


Small Single-Warhead Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles
Jonathan Medalia
1983
Page: 38
https://books.google.com
-artist's conception of hardened transport erector launcher
 
AvWeek 25 Mar 1985 ( colour ad )

AvWeek 05 Mar 1984 ( gallery of contenders ). Clockwise:
  • Boeing / Goodyear
  • Martin-Marietta
  • Bell CACX
  • GD
 

Attachments

  • AvWeek_19850325_034.JPEG
    AvWeek_19850325_034.JPEG
    442.5 KB · Views: 212
  • AvWeek_19840305_Midgetman_TELS.png
    AvWeek_19840305_Midgetman_TELS.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 214
Last edited:
Has anyone ever heard the why behind the decision to scrap the Midgetman HML at Wright-Patterson? I recall seeing the RFP for that and they required that it be chopped into wee small pieces by the bidder. It would have been nice to be able to get out there and document more of it, for example what the crew firing ports looked like from the inside.

Was it an attempt to keep foreign parties from seeing how to build a survivable TEL for their own programs? If so, why is the other test article still around?
 
Did the United States ever planned to build a HEMTT-based or similar Transporter-Erector-Launcher for the Midgetman? Were there ever any plans to copy the Soviet Union's MAZ TELs?
 
From a TOP SECRET soviet article in a soviet military journal:

STRATEGIC MISSILE BULLETIN: "Strategic Means of Attack of the USA and Great Britain, Their Employment in Combat, and Some Prospects for Their Development"

DATE OF INFO: July 1961

The American command is developing plans for building ICBM's of small dimensions by 1965-67.

For this purpose, the USAF Research and Development Command has begun preliminary talks with commercial firms.

These missiles, according to the preliminary plans, should weigh about 9 tons, have a range of 4,000 to 13,000 kilometers, with an average radius of deviation from the target of 400 meters and a warhead weighing 90 to 270 kilograms.

It is planned that this missile will be launched from the platform of the auto trailer, on which the missile is transported. The weight of the auto trailer with the missile should not exceed 18-20 tons.

At the beginning of September 1960, 18 American firms presented preliminary projects for a small-dimension ICBM to the Missile Command of the USAF; this missile received the designation "Midgetman". After examination of the projects, six of them are supposed to have been selected for further development.
Click to expand...
 
Christopher Wang said:
Did the United States ever planned to build a HEMTT-based or similar Transporter-Erector-Launcher for the Midgetman? Were there ever any plans to copy the Soviet Union's MAZ TELs?
Click to expand...
Not HEMTT-based, but there was an interesting tractor-trailer setup.

Image from wiki
1280px-Small_ICBM_Hard_Mobile_Launcher_USAF.jpg

The idea was for the trailer to bottom out and dig the edges down into the dirt.
 
RyanC said:
From a TOP SECRET soviet article in a soviet military journal:

STRATEGIC MISSILE BULLETIN: "Strategic Means of Attack of the USA and Great Britain, Their Employment in Combat, and Some Prospects for Their Development"

DATE OF INFO: July 1961
Click to expand...
How would it be to have 18 companies capable of responding to such a request with 6 being good enough to warrant continued development. We'd be lucky to get two or three today.
 
Sferrin said:
How would it be to have 18 companies capable of responding to such a request with 6 being good enough to warrant continued development. We'd be lucky to get two or three today.
Click to expand...
Oh, we still have the remains of those 18 companies all bidding.

They just all merged into about 3 larger companies.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom