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

Pershing Missiles

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
13
Not sure we had a dedicated Pershing thread, so I'll kick it off by posting a link to the Pershing II Tech Manual.

http://pershingmissile.org/PershingDocuments/manuals/TM%209-1425-386-10-1.pdf
 

Attachments

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
13
Also, I'm posting a link to a 25 APR '63 Flight Global article about a proposed SLV variant of Pershing called Pegasus.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%200641.html?tracked=1
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,166
Reaction score
238
Great paper on the Pershing. I read in "Nuclear Weapons Databook" a "big" Pershing as an SICBM alternative any information on that program?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,166
Reaction score
238
XP67_Moonbat said:
That's a new one to me. I'll have to kepp looking.
Look on pages 132 and 133 of Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I US Nuclear Forces and Capabilities several mentions of an SICBM alternative called the Pershing III.

Boy back in the day when you used to get Time and Newsweek cover stories with pictures of MX's and SICBM and Trident missile launches. Oh the "good ole days" ;)
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
850
Reaction score
32
As per the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", July 1983 (page 13):

"Another Pershing missile variant, a four-stage, 25,000-pound strategic missile designated Pershing III is being proposed by Martin Marietta as a contender for the small ICBM which is proposed as an eventual replacement for the MX missile."

http://books.google.com/books?id=lwYAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA12&ots=rQsks2qPO_&dq=%22Pershing%20III%22%20missile&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q=%22Pershing%20III%22%20missile&f=true

I also found a 1981 reference to the Pershing III designation in the Flight online archive, but that was a hypothetical three-stage sub-strategic version with no indication that it actually existed as a real project.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,034
Reaction score
205
Another member of the Pershing family that it would be nice to know more about is the Conventional Airfield Attack Missile / Counter Air Missile / CAM-40

c. Conventional Airfield Attack Missile (CAAM)

The combination of the Warsaw Pact Air Force numerical
superiority, coupled with their opportunity to initiate an attack
against NATO airbases and other high-value targets continues to be a
difficult problem. Our efforts to counter the Pact advantage have
included aircraft sheltering, ground and air defenses, and a conventional
second-strike capability utilizing attack aircraft. The
interdiction of Pact main operating air bases (MOBs) to reduce their
aircraft sortie rate potential is difficult because of the combination
of airbase hardening, air defenses and weather. Technology now will
permit effective, immediate and virtually unstoppable counter attacks
with conventionally armed surface-to-surface missiles, regardless of
weather or defenses in the target area. Cost and operational
effectiveness analyses conducted during the past year have verified
that such a system would have a relatively high payoff for an initial
attack supported by follow-up aircraft attacks. A conceptual design
and feasibility demonstration activity for a PERSHING II version of a
Conventional Airfield Attack Missile (CAAM) was initiated last year.
We are requesting $5.0 million in FY 1979 to continue this feasibility
demonstration activity.


THE FY 1979 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION
(Images via link in first post of the Assault Breaker thread [h/t sferrin])

Original Caption: Counter Air Missile. Terminal phase of a CAM strike, the delivery vehicle spins up and dispenses its payload of penetrators, each of which will find its way through a runway or taxiway surface. CAM uses a Pershing airframe, including the radar area correlator for terminal guidance. CAM is not yet funded and one major drawback to the system is that a wave of CAM configured Pershings approaching Warpac air bases could well be mistaken for nuclear armed Pershings with resulting horrendous consequences.
 

Attachments

XP67_Moonbat

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
13
A picture of the Pershing-derived Pegasus SLV posted by Ronnie Serrano on the FB page "Project Terminated"

And I quote:

"Found this the other day, when I was looking up for Pershing I MRBM and I ran across this proposal which was proposed by Martin Marietta. Martin Marietta proposed a satellite launch variant of the Pershing MRBM called the Pegasus which would deliver satellites into circular and elliptical orbit. Along with that, it would used the same TEL or another system to launched the rocket. The Pegasus was aimed at both U.S military, NASA, and the European space agencies, but sadly there was no buyers for the rocket"
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,166
Reaction score
238
John Hopkins Tech Digest (1998) 421 TEST AND EVALUATION OF LAND-MOBILE MISSILE SYSTEMS

Interesting article on Pershing II look on page 9 for a picture of the MaRV landing within feet of its' intended target. Given the W85's yield could be as high at 80Kt I think you'd have killed what you aimed at.

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1904/mentzer.pdf
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
40
Pershing missile system life cycle 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
436
bobbymike said:
John Hopkins Tech Digest (1998) 421 TEST AND EVALUATION OF LAND-MOBILE MISSILE SYSTEMS

Interesting article on Pershing II look on page 9 for a picture of the MaRV landing within feet of its' intended target. Given the W85's yield could be as high at 80Kt I think you'd have killed what you aimed at.

http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td1904/mentzer.pdf
This weapon was responsible for the INF Treaty. The USSR gave up a LOT to get this thing off their doorstep.
 
Top