• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,772
Reaction score
191
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
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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:
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
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
18
You will surely appreciate the name of the proposing company...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,811
Reaction score
216
Skybolt said:
You will surely appreciate the name of the proposing company...
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1089.0/highlight,project%20hydra.html
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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
 

Attachments

Retrofit

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
537
Reaction score
4
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
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,654
Reaction score
105
Don't think I have seen this MX Missile video here at SP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPhjMHBBdbM

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."
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,811
Reaction score
216
bobbymike said:
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.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,196
Reaction score
68
Michel Van said:
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 ?
 
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,980
Reaction score
178
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
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.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
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:
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
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,054
Reaction score
11
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
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,772
Reaction score
191
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zytG8O40w&feature=related
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
13
Triton said:
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.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,196
Reaction score
68
Thx for Youtube, Flateric




on Abraham Gubler remark
let see Wat i post in beginn of this discussion
Re: MX (Peacekeeper) deployment concepts.
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...
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,772
Reaction score
191
jaglavaksoldier rulezzz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx10nxAGpLQ&feature=related
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,654
Reaction score
105
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.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Abraham Gubler said:
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.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
13
Michel Van said:
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

Michel Van said:
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.

Michel Van said:
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.

Triton said:
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.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,178
Reaction score
102
Abraham Gubler said:
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.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
13
TomS said:
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.
 

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,244
Reaction score
55
Triton said:
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:
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.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,321
Reaction score
184
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Graham1973 said:
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.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,196
Reaction score
68
Graham1973 said:
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...
 

Brickmuppet

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
1
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.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,123
Reaction score
97
MX INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE - 1980 AFSC STAFF FILM REPORT
"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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VACjHMrvJXM
 

Byeman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
749
Reaction score
2
bobbymike said:
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.
 

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,244
Reaction score
55
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).

...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
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
169
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
MX missile trench deployment concept photograph found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/10-6-77-WASHINGTON-MX-TRENCH-CONCEPT-Photo-Rocket-14A-/250669845881?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a5d164d79
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,654
Reaction score
105
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/
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,811
Reaction score
216

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,654
Reaction score
105
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
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.
 
Top