Polaris SSBM as land based SRBM

[Grey Havoc]

NATO Multilateral Force (MLF) thread.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Not quite the same tubes. For the initial Polaris Submarines (which I believe never received Trident C4), to meet stringent requirements to protect the missiles from shock in the original Mk 17 Polaris Launch System, the Polaris missile was held by three pads or "stowage launch adaptors" inside the heavy machined steel launch tube, and the launch tube was in turn held in the submarine mount tube by oil-filled double-acting shock absorbers. The oil-filled shock absorbers were fitted as they retained a "null" which required significant force for them to deviate from, this enabling the precise positioning for the optical alignment required to ready the guidance system.

The opportunity to take advantage of a greater proportion of the volume of the submarine mount tube only came as a result of investigating the use of truck-launched Polaris for the MLF. As the original stowage tube was too heavy, and the the stowage launch adaptors were incapable of supporting the missile when stored horizontally on a truck, Westinghouse came up with a design where the missile would be supported by foam-padded resin-reinforced fibreglass panels with heavy duty zippers up the sides which would be undone after the missile was loaded into the launch tube. This would support the missile regardless of orientation and would simultaneously remove the need for the heavy machined launch tube, the launch tube itself now being cushioned by foam springs. A pair of demonstration trucks were built, but when the MLF died, Westinghouse marketed this to the Navy as a means of increasing the number of missiles per submarine (as it would require smaller submarine mount tubes hence more could be installed within a given length). The Special Projects Office realised it would also ensure that larger missiles could be launched from existing tubes.

This later Mk 21 Polaris Launch System would be introduced from James Madison onwards, but would only have the potential for back fitting larger missiles, primarily replacing the liquid springs suspending the launch tube within the mount tube with polyurethane foam, but retaining the liquid springs on which it rested, as were the existing stowage launch adaptors.

The Mk 21 would modified into the Mk 24 for launching Poseidon via a modular replacement with the thin launch tube and padding replacing the earlier machined launch tube and stowage launch adaptors taking full advantage of Westinghouse's innovations for the truck-based MLF system.

Source: From Polaris to Trident, Graham Spinardi

 

[Grey Havoc]

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?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-smith-miller-hybrid-missile-launch-truck.8990/
EDIT: Woops, forgot I posted that link here ages ago!

 

[Yellow Palace]

Posting in this thread as we don't appear to have an MMRBM thread, but the discussion here is as much about that program as around land-based Polaris.

McNamara's speech to the NATO Ministerial Meeting in Athens on 5 May 1962 gives some information on the MRBM then under development:

Range: 2,000 nautical miles
CEP: About 1,000 feet at 1,000 nautical miles (land based), or about 1,700 nautical miles at 1,000 nautical miles (sea based)
Missile gross weight: 12,000 lbs
Basing: surface ship or road mobile
Cost: About $2 billion for 250 missiles, $80 million allocated by the US for R&D in 1963
Availability: Operational deployment in 1965 from a production decision by 1 July 1963.

https://ia800403.us.archive.org/5/items/McNamaraAthensSpeechToNATO/ELS012-056_text.pdf
Note that the gross weight cited is approximately correct for the upper two stages of Minuteman I.

 

[Yellow Palace]

In terms of force size, the requirement in February 1961 to be achieved by the end of 1966 - to replace both strike aircraft and Matador cruise missiles - was seen as (but not yet approved):

• 45 existing Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey
• 450 new missiles, allocation to countries and basing modes still not determined
• 160 Polaris missiles on 10 submarines under SACEUR control
• 432 Polaris missiles on 27 submarines under SACLANT control.

An April 1962 report states that the initial target in 1959 had been for 300 missiles by the end of 1965, replacing aircraft, with an ultimate requirement for a 'much larger number'. By December 1960, the expectation was that the SACEUR requirement for seaborne missiles would be met by Polaris, but that it would need to be suplemented by additional land-based missiles.

The final requirement seems to have been laid down in MC 26/4, but I can't find a copy online.

Rather more details of bothe the MRBM and of the surface ship version of Polaris presented in this NATO memorandum from 22 May 1962. Dimensions seem to still be consistent with a two-stage Minuteman, but there's also discussion of the proposed operating concept - including a miniaturised version of ERCS to transmit launch orders.

 

[TsrJoe]

PRO./TNA. AIR 77/653, Minuteman ICBM. for UK. ?, 1963 … https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11502099

 

[Yellow Palace]

I did wonder if that had been studied! Of course, the document opens with

From: Assistant Scientific Adviser (Operations), Air Ministry [...]

and close with

Minuteman is superior to Polaris

It would be odd if the Air Ministry concluded otherwise.

 

[NMaude]

PRO./TNA. AIR 77/653, Minuteman ICBM. for UK. ?, 1963 … https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11502099

Makes me wonder the what-if scenario if the UK had got strategic nuclear triad instead of a diad by getting Minuteman I or II ICBMs in the 1960s.

 

[Hood]

Interesting that it mentions a 15 large city minimum deterrent - a rather large step down from the 40 city limit usually mentioned in these kinds of documents.

 

[CaseyKnight]

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.

You know, I'd almost swear there were ideas for a medium-ranged Minuteman but with just two stages but I was uncertain about the chronology on that.

Would have been interesting if Long Beach had recieved the 8 Polaris tubes once planned for it.

Apparently, they'd looked into fitting provisions for the Regulus initially, followed by the Polaris

 

[whatismoo]

You know, I'd almost swear there were ideas for a medium-ranged Minuteman but with just two stages but I was uncertain about the chronology on that.

I'm always baffled that nobody in the USAF noticed Trident C4 fits neatly in a 40' ISO container

 

[Atomic Coyote]

I would assume somebody did, but (assuming you're talking about making it road or rail mobile), it opens up a couple issues;
1. New security, infrastructure, etc. issues with having a new basing mode for USAF weapons.
2. More importantly for the USAF, it opens up the natural question of why they shouldn't be assigned to the Army, since they're already operating Pershing IIs.

 

[NMaude]

2. More importantly for the USAF, it opens up the natural question of why they shouldn't be assigned to the Army, since they're already operating Pershing IIs.

There would've possibly been a repeat of the mid-1950s USAF/US Army catfight over who gets to control what SSMs.

 

[Archibald]

There would've possibly been a repeat of the mid-1950s USAF/US Army catfight over who gets to control what SSMs.

In the 1950's (and early 1960's) a bellicose US Air Force picked fights with a whole lot of organizations - Army, Navy, ARPA, CIA, NASA...

Everybody remember the B-36 vs USS United States very ugly fight. But there were many more of them.

For example a few years appart they fought the Army thrice, over IRBMs, ABMs and SAMs too (Hawk vs BOMARC).

They fought ARPA in 1959 over control of the military space program (they won by K.O), then circa 1960-62 they fought with NASA over manned spaceflight (they lost: Apollo politically triumphed of LUNEX and Orion, next, Gemini prevailed against DynaSoar).

They picked a fight with the CIA over spy satellites, a fight that went so badly the NRO had to be created - with Program A for USAF spysats and Program B for CIA spysats inside it.

1950's USAF really behaved like an obnoxious drunkard at a bar, picking many fights LMAO.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm always baffled that nobody in the USAF noticed Trident C4 fits neatly in a 40' ISO container

I'm sure they saw it.

But it's designed for the Navy, and the Navy is the enemy.

 

[whatismoo]

I'm sure they saw it.

But it's designed for the Navy, and the Navy is the enemy.

True true

 

[xena]

I'm always baffled that nobody in the USAF noticed Trident C4 fits neatly in a 40' ISO container

Is this true for a complete mount with launch gear? Does it still fit in a 40' container?

 

[whatismoo]

Is this true for a complete mount with launch gear? Does it still fit in a 40' container?

UGM-96 is (AFAIK) 34.1' (10.39m) long and 6'2" / 74" (1.88m) in diameter. 40' ISO internal dimensions are 39' 4.375" (11.988m) long and 7' 7.73" (2.330m) wide, with heights between 7'2.5" (2.197m) and 8'8.5" (2.665m).

This means there's ~450mm (~17.7") clearance in width and ~1.6m (~5'2") in length from the interior dimensions of a standard ISO container. The external dimensions are 12.192m x 2.438m, which gives a clearance of ~1.8m and 558mm, respectively. I haven't done any detailed engineering analysis, but to my eye it seems at least plausible to fit the launch equipment in that space.

Illustrative photo to show how surprisingly small C4 is.

 

[Byeman]

UGM-96 is (AFAIK) 34.1' (10.39m) long and 6'2" / 74" (1.88m) in diameter. 40' ISO internal dimensions are 39' 4.375" (11.988m) long and 7' 7.73" (2.330m) wide, with heights between 7'2.5" (2.197m) and 8'8.5" (2.665m).

This means there's ~450mm (~17.7") clearance in width and ~1.6m (~5'2") in length from the interior dimensions of a standard ISO container. The external dimensions are 12.192m x 2.438m, which gives a clearance of ~1.8m and 558mm, respectively. I haven't done any detailed engineering analysis, but to my eye it seems at least plausible to fit the launch equipment in that space.

I lean the other way. This was used for the Pershing II. UGM-96 is the same length, almost twice as wide and 4.5 times heavier. The erector would have to be much beefier. Also, either use a launch tube to eject the missile or the container needs to have holes for exhaust. This and missile mass would make it hard to fit in in the container.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I lean the other way. This was used for the Pershing II. UGM-96 is the same length, almost twice as wide and 4.5 times heavier. The erector would have to be much beefier. Also, either use a launch tube to eject the missile or the container needs to have holes for exhaust. This and missile mass would make it hard to fit in in the container.

Polaris is cold-launched, so it doesn't need a particularly thick tube for pressure resistance. ~50psi.

 

[xena]

It is cold launched from a thick tube. Outside this it should be launched hot like Pershing.

 

[zen]

Isn't there a photo of an Italian ship cold launching Polaris?

Thick tube was for a submarine launch.

 

[xena]

OK thick tube is exaggerated, but it is a tube of some thickness.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It is cold launched from a thick tube. Outside this it should be launched hot like Pershing.

Only reason it's a thick tube is to resist sea pressure.

No sea pressure, no need for thick tube. Just one thick enough to survive the cold launch, which works out to maybe 20psi.

You would need to do a little redesign to the cold-launch manifold, though. The usual setup is a roughly water heater sized gas generator next to the tube. You'd need to move the gas generator to below the tube.

But again, the problem is that Polaris is a Navy program, and at least the USAF would not touch a Navy program without an order from God. Or at least the SecDef.

 

[Byeman]

Polaris is cold-launched, so it doesn't need a particularly thick tube for pressure resistance. ~50psi.

MX and SICBM were cold launched.

 

[whatismoo]

I lean the other way. This was used for the Pershing II. UGM-96 is the same length, almost twice as wide and 4.5 times heavier. The erector would have to be much beefier. Also, either use a launch tube to eject the missile or the container needs to have holes for exhaust. This and missile mass would make it hard to fit in in the container.

I mean, it's a shitload more capability than P2! 8RVs to ±7400km! It just about fits dimensionally in a way that is useful for helping people conceptualize how big it is. If you want a TEL I think you're looking at something maybe in the 45' or 53' high cube size.

 

[whatismoo]

Only reason it's a thick tube is to resist sea pressure.

No sea pressure, no need for thick tube. Just one thick enough to survive the cold launch, which works out to maybe 20psi.

You would need to do a little redesign to the cold-launch manifold, though. The usual setup is a roughly water heater sized gas generator next to the tube. You'd need to move the gas generator to below the tube.

But again, the problem is that Polaris is a Navy program, and at least the USAF would not touch a Navy program without an order from God. Or at least the SecDef.

You can use a piston plate and black powder!

 

[Scott Kenny]

You can use a piston plate and black powder!

I was going for minimal changes from the USN design.

 

[RyanC]

STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT S. McNAMARA BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1964-68 DEFENSE PROGRAM AND 1964 DEFENSE BUDGET (APR 24 1963) (Classified Version)

I have also discussed the next item, the MMRBM, in connection with the General Purpose Forces program. Late in fiscal year 1962, $4 million was reprogrammed and applied to this project to commence Phase I—program definition. The Congress provided $80 million for fiscal year 1963, of which $12 million has been applied to complete the program definition phase and $30 million will be available for Phase II. Practically all of the balance of the $80 million has been applied to the "Stellar Inertial Guidance" project which I discussed earlier, of which $36 million is directly applicable to the MMRBM.

The $150 million requested for fiscal year 1964 would continue full-scale development of this missile. Present planning parameters for this weapon system shape up as follows: a two-stage, solid propellant missile weighing approximately 12,500 pounds with a maximum range of about 2,000 nautical miles. A stellar inertial guidance system should give it a CEP of [REDACTED]. A simplified, all-inertial system is also possible depending on how the operational requirements and technical developments trade off. The missile and necessary support equipment are to be suitable for deployment in a single vehicle capable of operating over all primary and most secondary roads in Europe, as well as from surface ships.

One word of caution: no decision has yet been made to produce and deploy this weapon. Nevertheless, I believe it would be a good investment to proceed with the development at this time since we may need a weapon of this sort to fill the range gap between the PERSHING and the ICBM's.

 

[RyanC]

http://www.astronautix.com/m/mmrbm.html

American surface-to-surface ballistic missile, development started in 1961. Program cancelled in 1965.

AKA: Mobile Mid-Range Ballistic Missile;TMRBM;Transportable Mid-Range Ballistic Missile. Status: Cancelled 1964. Gross mass: 5,440 kg (11,990 lb). Height: 7.01 m (22.99 ft). Diameter: 1.37 m (4.49 ft).

The Mobile Mid-Range Ballistic Missile (MMRBM) would have the range to reach targets in the Soviet Union or China from land and surface ship deployment in Western Europe or Far East. Evidently it was to be a replacement for the fixed Thor and Jupiter missiles. But while development was underway, this class of missiles were being removed under a secret agreement with the Russians that resolved the Cuban missile crisis. Secretary of Defense McNamara used the existence of MMRBM as grounds for cancelling the Mobile Minuteman project. However MMRBM in turn never received substantial Congressional or Presidential support. One final look at the project in 1964 to save costs was dubbed the Transportable Mid-Range Ballistic Missile. This used the second and third stages of the Minuteman instead of a new development. Out of money and out of support, the project was cancelled in 1965.

 

[RyanC]

I found it

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/dod/readingroom/17/45.pdf
This was a briefing to European leaders:

An MRBM Force.

We are prepared to enter into a detailed discussion of the need for an MRBM force in the Permanent Council as soon as possible after this meeting. We will then be ready to discuss the full range of technical, military and political problems that would be associated with such a force. We expect our allies will wish to consider very carefully the full implications of undertaking this venture. There are many complicated questions to be dealt with. In the meantime the U.S. although it is not committed to the procurement or deployment of an MRBM weapon system, is proceeding with the design of such a weapon. Certain of the technical specifications of the weapon we have under development are listed in the attached Appendix.

Summary Data on Missile "X"

Range: 2000 n.mi
CEP: about 1000 feet (land based) at 1000 n. mi.
CEP: about 1700 feet (sea based) at 1000 n. mi.
Warhead yield: DELETED
Missile gross weight 12,000 lbs

Method of operation: surface ship mobile or road mobile to be determined in the light of numerous factors

Cost for 250 missiles about $2 billion

FY 1963 amount programmed by the U.S. for research and development $80 million

Availability: Assuming a production decision by 1 July 1963 operational deployment would begin in 1966.