Polaris SSBM as land based SRBM

Michel Van

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
13 August 2007
Messages
6,766
Reaction score
5,465
i remember vague a Proposal transform the Polaris in a landbased SRBM
and install over 4000 missile in Europe
so in end of 1950's beginn 1960's
 
Hi,

Early sixties there was a proposal put forward by Kennedy for a NATO seaborne force with surface ships. Very vague recollection of a suggestion for land based as well. Good illustrations in the London Illustrated News at the time.

The UK investigated silo land based Polaris missiles but I am guessing at a later date.

Alternative UK Westcott solid multi motor two stage missiles to replace either Blue Streak Mk1 or Blue Streak Mk2 in the original “silos” hard emplacements.are mentioned in documents at Kew Public Records.

Polaris was looked at as a follow-on from the same emplacements, the UK launch site positioning was never a problem.

One small point from a different thread that I can not find now the HOTOL engine was never a LACE cycle motor, it had a pre-cooled hybrid cycle engine. A LACE cycle engine is not practical in the real World.
 
Michel, two different things: Polaris "as was" was the weapon of the MultiLateral Force (you'll find everything you want to know here http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA375751 based on surface ship and intended as a second strike deterrent. Lockheed ran a series of projects using Polaris as a basis in 1959-1964 timeframe, including one of the studies on SICBM (the original, 1959), the one done by Calac, another was run by LMC (a vestigial of this is probably the mobile space launcher published times ago by Scott as an APR Extra on his site), and a proposal for MMRBM. Both SICBM and MMRBM were intended as first strike weapons with relatively high accuacy (for the time).
 
The US also had a version of the Minuteman available for use
as an MRBM (similar to the Soviet Scamp/Scapegoat and later
SS20).
Technically there were many US options for deploying MRBMs
to replace the Jupiters and Thors, but politically they were
much less attractive than US and submarine based missiles.
Ironically the only people who wanted MRBMs deployed in Europe
by NATO, and finally got them in the 1980s, were German politicians
who feared that the US would not trade Boston or Chicago for
Hamburg or Munich. Thus NATO had to deploy missiles into
Germany and elsewhere which then irked the hell out of many of the
locals. The Russians of course found Pershing IIs in their backyard
just as annoying as the US had found SS4 MRBMs in Cuba, because
it increased the risk of a "first strike" against their command centres.

As Sir Humphrey would have said, much better to buy Polaris and have
the missiles out at sea. The Brits, French and Americans were content
with this solution between 1964 and 1984, but of course those Germans...

UK 75
 
The MRBM Minuteman was actually the "original" Minuteman. The intended names back in 1958 were Midgetman for the SRBM (only third stage); Minuteman, (first and second stage) MRBM; Sentinel , the ICBM.
 
The only programme that was closed to such proposal was the Italian Navy intention to modify the WWII era cruiser "Giuseppe Garibaldi" (to not mistake with the current aircraft carrier) to carry 4 Polaris in vertical tubes placed in the rear part of the ship.

In effect the ship was refurbished in early '60s with a new rear, including the 4 vertical launch tubes, and a Terrier missile launcher. During sea trials the Garibaldi fired, at least once, a Polaris M1 (without warhead).

Shortly after US Goverment deny the usage of Polaris missiles to Italy.
This event forced Italian Navy to start an its own missile programme, leading to something closer to Polaris. The missile was named Alfa, and we are discussed about in the following thread:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2808.0/highlight,alfa+missile.html
 
Uh, forgot, in the last throngs of the program, in 1964, the MMRBM was proposed to be a Minuteman w/o the first stage. It was rejected on order that the weight would have been much higher than the MMRBM and that an entirely new guidance system would have been to be developed on any case.
 
In about 1960 Lockheed produced the CL-530 design for a land-based ICBM. The minimal description I have says it was to use a "Polaris-type" missile... which might be a modified Polaris, or it might be somethign entirely different that just looks like Polaris.
 

Attachments

  • cl-530.gif
    cl-530.gif
    88.6 KB · Views: 661
Orionblamblam said:
In about 1960 Lockheed produced the CL-530 design for a land-based ICBM. The minimal description I have says it was to use a "Polaris-type" missile... which might be a modified Polaris, or it might be somethign entirely different that just looks like Polaris.
Click to expand...

Scott, the drawing enclosed represent really somthing similiar to a Polaris M.
With a touch of "soviet style" due to the truck-launched system similiar of what Russians used in the last 40 years.
 
The artwork suggests that the CL-530 would be launched from a modified commercial tractor and trailer. After reading about the Polaris-armed surface ships disguised as commercial ships, "dummy merchantmen", as part of the MLF, was there an intention to similarly disguise the land-based Polaris launch vehicles as dummy eighteen wheelers?
 
Triton said:
The artwork suggests that the CL-530 would be launched from a modified commercial tractor and trailer. After reading about the Polaris-armed surface ships disguised as commercial ships, "dummy merchantmen", as part of the MLF, was there an intention to similarly disguise the land-based Polaris launch vehicles as dummy eighteen wheelers?
Click to expand...

"Budweiser beer" or "Tomato Ace" disguised nuclear launcher truck???? ;D
 
archipeppe said:
Triton said:
The artwork suggests that the CL-530 would be launched from a modified commercial tractor and trailer. After reading about the Polaris-armed surface ships disguised as commercial ships, "dummy merchantmen", as part of the MLF, was there an intention to similarly disguise the land-based Polaris launch vehicles as dummy eighteen wheelers?
Click to expand...

"Budweiser beer" or "Tomato Ace" disguised nuclear launcher truck???? ;D
Click to expand...

camo+coca-cola+truck.jpg
 
Michel Van said:
to similarly disguise the land-based Polaris launch vehicles as dummy eighteen wheelers?
Click to expand...
wat a disturbing thought...
Click to expand...

Its how the Iraqis, North Koreans, Iranians, etc do it... School bus Scud carriers and so on. Ruse de Guerre.
 
Its how the Iraqis, North Koreans, Iranians, etc do it... School bus Scud carriers and so on. Ruse de Guerre.
Click to expand...

see this link :-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nd-b.htm


cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

  • nkir27.jpg
    nkir27.jpg
    161.9 KB · Views: 572
  • nkir28.jpg
    nkir28.jpg
    189.6 KB · Views: 581
Would the missile have been exactly the same as and therefore interchangable for cold launch from a land based TEL (or silo), or surface ship or submarine or would there have been changes that would make each missile only launchable from one system?
 
Which is cheaper,

64 land based Polaris missiles in TEL disguised as commercial articulated trucks with 16 dispersed around the country at any one time.

vs

64 Polaris missiles in 4 SSBN with 1 SSBN at sea at any one time with all 16 missiles.
 
Land based Polaris would have had to have been based in Europe, Turkey or Japan to hit anything of importance.
 
Pretty sure it'd be easier to carjack a truck than a sub.

Doesn't seem to have bothered TPTB much when Cruise was deployed.

Land based Polaris would have had to have been based in Europe, Turkey or Japan to hit anything of importance.

From what i've read, Polaris A3 which is what the RN got has a slightly better range than that proposed for Blue Streak.
 
CNH said:
Polaris A3 which is what the RN got has a slightly better range than that proposed for Blue Streak
Click to expand...

Polaris A3 1500 NM; Blue Streak 2000 NM.
Click to expand...

FAS, Designation Systems, Global Security, Wikipedia (shudder) all give the A3 version a 2,500nm range.
 
<stands in corner wearing dunce's cap>

To be fair, a land based UK missile in the Cold War context didn't need a range of much more than 2000 miles. Blue Streak was bigger than it need have been since we didn't know how to build light weight warheads in 1955. It was designed around Orange Herald which had a physics package weight of around 2200lb.

With Polaris sized warheads its range would have been much greater.
 
PMN1 said:
Pretty sure it'd be easier to carjack a truck than a sub.

Doesn't seem to have bothered TPTB much when Cruise was deployed.
Click to expand...

How hard was anybody trying? These days it'd be 144 virgins for anybody who succeeded in pulling it off.
 
sferrin said:
PMN1 said:
Pretty sure it'd be easier to carjack a truck than a sub.

Doesn't seem to have bothered TPTB much when Cruise was deployed.
Click to expand...

How hard was anybody trying? These days it'd be 144 virgins for anybody who succeeded in pulling it off.
Click to expand...

So in theory, not much different to the situation of Polaris had been in a land based TEL.

Cruise was around 20ft long in a trailer 56ft long while Polaris A3 was 31ft long so in theory the trailer is not going to be much longer.

I'm not saying a land based mobile TEL would be better than a SSBN, just wondering if any costings had been done.
 
According to Designation Systems, the greater width of Poseidon was made possible by 'a redesign of the shock attenuation systems'.

What were those changes?

Could they have been done earlier in the Polaris programme to allow for longer ranged Polaris missiles or a smaller SSBN?
 
PMN1 said:
I'm not saying a land based mobile TEL would be better than a SSBN, just wondering if any costings had been done.
Click to expand...

Command and control's a pain. So is targeting. You have to update the targeting computer for your launch location. There was a recent long article in Air Power History on mobile Minuteman, which was extensively studied in the 1960s. It was tough to do. Silos worked out cheaper. I suspect the same would have been true for a road mobile Polaris. With a sub you're still moving, but you're not moving as much, and you can update all the missiles with a single position fix. And command and control is much easier.
 
Actually the danger of fifth column attack on mobile missile launchers in Europe wasn't considered negligible in the early '60s. The clandestine organizations parallel to some Communist parties (in Italy and France) or controlled by Stasi (in FRG) were still in full force and dangerous in the event of a prolonged war (implicit in the flexible response doctrine). US Army Europe even started a clandestine operation (Operation Chaos) to create mayhem to the left of the Communists, trying to disrupt the central control on armed and ready-to-be-armed groups. Details are heavily classified. Even in the US the possiblity of spetsnaz-type operation against mobile ICBM launchers were thought worth of consideration enough to be included in one of the (still) classified studies part of Strat-X.
And the intended operation mode of the land-based Polaris (and before it, the MMRBM, that was cancelled due to the difficulty and cost to build a very accurate guidance systems based on an inertial-stellar model) was different form the Pershing II and GLCM one: the former were to be dispersed in small peripheral bases all the time; the Euromissiles were kept concentrated in large well defended bases and dispersed on warning for the time strictly necessary to fulfill their mission. In mid-80s NATO had far better early-warning systems than in early '60s, BTW.
 
PMN1 said:
According to Designation Systems, the greater width of Poseidon was made possible by 'a redesign of the shock attenuation systems'.

What were those changes?

Could they have been done earlier in the Polaris programme to allow for longer ranged Polaris missiles or a smaller SSBN?
Click to expand...

Back in the day (the 70s/80s) there use to be a cross sectional graphic of the differences between the two that showed up in several books. Haven't been able to find it yet though.
 
Orionblamblam said:
camo+coca-cola+truck.jpg
Click to expand...

Some Islamofascist somewhere was once quoted as saying "You only want Coca-Cola - we want death." This is... rather an interesting reply to that, at least in the context of this thread!
 
If there had been the ability to reliably make solid rocket motors of the size Polaris ended up using a few years earlier would the OTL Polaris/Jupiter/Thor missile programmes have been consolidated into one common design for SLBM and MRBM?
 
I suggest, not. Insurance duplication was not powerplant-driven. Jupiter began as Army+Ordnance, Thor as Air Force+Industry, with the SecDef of the day not thinking Joint. ex-Ford McNamara's notions of commonality, cost-effectiveness, and the alignment of kit with Task, all lay in the 1961 timeframe. If solid fuel had been available in 1954, USAF would still have done ATLAS + Titan, SecDef would still have allowed Jupiter + Thor + Polaris, just as B-29 flew off against B-32, and B-52 shared early R&D funds with enhanced B-36s. Insurance against techno-industrial failure.
 
Insurance against techno-industrial failure.

Especially important when the technology is brand new/cutting-edge and the stakes are high. Which was most of the late forties and the fifties, basically. By 1960 the basics - how to build an intercontinental bomber, a Mach 2 military airplane, how to build a nuclear weapon, a guided missile, etc. - had all been covered, and it became a matter of improvement rather than cutting from whole cloth.
 
archipeppe said:
The only programme that was closed to such proposal was the Italian Navy intention to modify the WWII era cruiser "Giuseppe Garibaldi" (to not mistake with the current aircraft carrier) to carry 4 Polaris in vertical tubes placed in the rear part of the ship.

In effect the ship was refurbished in early '60s with a new rear, including the 4 vertical launch tubes, and a Terrier missile launcher. During sea trials the Garibaldi fired, at least once, a Polaris M1 (without warhead).
Click to expand...

I was intrigued by this idea, but couldn't find much. While searching for detail shots of the AB.204 helo though, I stumbled upon an Italian forum with great shots of the Polaris installation on the Garibaldi.
 

Attachments

  • 244cjsx.jpg
    244cjsx.jpg
    247.8 KB · Views: 509
  • 2ppanpl.jpg
    2ppanpl.jpg
    159.5 KB · Views: 494
Great find and contribution Batigol
These picture give a true perspective of the likes of the 'Polaris' being mounted on a surface ship!
As well as emphasizing the seriousness, which Italy took such a weapon delivery system.

Thanks again

Regards
Pioneer
 
Orionblamblam said:
In about 1960 Lockheed produced the CL-530 design for a land-based ICBM. The minimal description I have says it was to use a "Polaris-type" missile... which might be a modified Polaris, or it might be somethign entirely different that just looks like Polaris.
Click to expand...

This was probably related: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8990.0.html
 
pathology_doc said:
So this is the world's first surface-ship VLS, then?
Click to expand...


First operational surface warship VLS yes. The first VLS period ought to have been the Polaris tubes on the USN auxiliary Observation Island which were used for the development of the missile. She was later rebuilt as a missile tracking ship with a huge radar aft.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom