User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 5:16:27 PM EDT
[#1]
I thought this one would certainly get a response by now.
Do you even ICBM, bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 6:00:30 PM EDT
[#2]
Seems like the ground facilities are overdue for an upgrade.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:16:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV.
Duh! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:44:42 PM EDT
[#4]
One reason for not using the MX booster, is the the Peacekeeper missile is 10 ft longer and 2 feet wider than the MMIII, meaning presumably, that the existing silos would have to be re-done or replaced and that's different in my view than being "rejuventated" as the article states.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:48:44 PM EDT
[#5]
I suspect Osama, crap, I mean oBAMA, may just give away our nuclear strike force to the mid-east countries as a form of redistribution of wealth... He just needs to finish replacing enough senior military leadership with his own folk so there won't be any..... unpleasantness...
So, now tell me, who amongst you in 2015 thinks that scenario is totally off the table? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:55:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect Osama, crap, I mean oBAMA, may just give away our nuclear strike force to the mid-east countries as a form of redistribution of wealth... He just needs to finish replacing enough senior military leadership with his own folk so there won't be any..... unpleasantness... So, now tell me, who amongst you in 2015 thinks that scenario is totally off the table? Those among us who aren't idiots... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:59:43 PM EDT
[#7]
There has been much talk about this at the office, along with the possibility of combining some aspects of the new MM with a D5 replacement to help lower costs.
From what I've heard nothing is set in stone and it's all just talk and proposals at the moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:04:54 PM EDT
[#8]
With the accuracy and throw weight of our D5 SLBMs, is there a reason for a continued ground based deterrent other than to stave off the instability that would occur if somehow our sea based deterrent were to become vulnerable overnight?
After all, our target is as likely to be Iran or China in the future as opposed to Russia. I understand that the ground based option is cheaper to maintain, but if facing a completely new booster, silo, and C3 system, is it still cheaper amortized across the lifespan, or should we be instead investing that into new submarines and new warheads while scrapping the ground based option? Pointedly, the British and the French rely almost entirely on their sea based deterrent force. The only other country with global reaching triad is Russia. Do we need a triad for more reason than "we've always done it that way" or "keeping both the Navy and USAF happy?" What leg(s) do we cut if we cut any? How do new hypersonic technologies play into this decision? Everyone is hellbent on that right now... These are honest questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:07:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Your topic got me looking at missiles and shit.
Came across this photo of something I have never seen or heard of. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:09:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought this one would certainly get a response by now. Do you even ICBM, bro? We also negotiated away MIRVs, not much new to add. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:10:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Your topic got me looking at missiles and shit. Came across this photo of something I have never seen or heard of. http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj220/fshoutowtr/MMIII_C5_airdropOct_1974.jpg ^that was filed in the round bin marked "proved we can because AMERICA but boy is this a stupid and expensive idea in practice" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:10:45 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We also negotiated away MIRVs, not much new to add. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought this one would certainly get a response by now. Do you even ICBM, bro? We also negotiated away MIRVs, not much new to add. Not for the SLBMs, but IIRC we can put decoys on the MMs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:13:00 PM EDT
[#13]
In before lima.
My guess is that it's going to take a president very unlike our current one or the likely next one to so much as talk about updating our nuclear arsenal to improve its capabilities. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:17:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With the accuracy and throw weight of our D5 SLBMs, is there a reason for a continued ground based deterrent other than to stave off the instability that would occur if somehow our sea based deterrent were to become vulnerable overnight? After all, our target is as likely to be Iran or China in the future as opposed to Russia. I understand that the ground based option is cheaper to maintain, but if facing a completely new booster, silo, and C3 system, is it still cheaper amortized across the lifespan, or should we be instead investing that into new submarines and new warheads while scrapping the ground based option? Pointedly, the British and the French rely almost entirely on their sea based deterrent force. The only other country with global reaching triad is Russia. Do we need a triad for more reason than "we've always done it that way" or "keeping both the Navy and USAF happy?" What leg(s) do we cut if we cut any? How do new hypersonic technologies play into this decision? Everyone is hellbent on that right now... These are honest questions. My guess is that ground-based missiles don't have the size constraints of an SLBM, but I'm more or less totally uneducated on the subject. Land-based missiles are probably easier to make sure you always have hit-a-target-anywhere-anytime capability, whereas sub-based missiles likely have shorter range capabilities, and would thus require that our sub fleet be distributed around the globe to maintain a full nuclear deterrent. I suppose that would be based on the assumption, however, that we would ahve to be able to nuke anything at a moment's notice, when the actual target list is likely more constrained. I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:20:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Paging Lima-Xray...Mr. Xray, please pick up the red curiosity phone... I know we negotiated away the MX ("peacekeeper") during the last treaty with the Russians, but why design yet another new missile when that one seems to be a great system? And of course spend tons of money doing it. I'm, all for updating our nukes & delivery systems, but wasn't the MX the greatest delivery system ever created? Why reinvent the wheel? War is Boring article |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:22:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not for the SLBMs, but IIRC we can put decoys on the MMs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought this one would certainly get a response by now. Do you even ICBM, bro? We also negotiated away MIRVs, not much new to add. Not for the SLBMs, but IIRC we can put decoys on the MMs. I believe the MMIII can carry up to three warheads. MMIII MIRV |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:25:28 PM EDT
[#17]
America’s nuclear weapons stockpile in 2014, accounting for deployed and non-deployed assets, included 698 Minuteman missiles, 56 Peacekeeper missiles, and 411 Trident II missiles That is a shit ton of satellite launchers! Why aren't we converting and using those? Each Titan II can put 4 tons into LEO. 1600 tons to LEO would require a lot of orbital assembly but that's enough booster to get a few Mars missions into LEO (equivalent to what 12 Saturn Vs could do, the MX boosters make it 13 or 14). The Minutemen boosters wouldn't do much... unless you threw a booster on top and bam you have 698 resupply rockets for multiyear Mars colonies, cheap, with backups if it goes boom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:27:23 PM EDT
[#18]
scrap 'em all for more D5s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:28:16 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV. Duh! Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:31:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Titan II boosters were used for a few satellite launches--I believe with a perfect record. Peacekeeper (MX) boosters are used by Orbital Science Corp. for satellite launches currently.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:31:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My guess is that ground-based missiles don't have the size constraints of an SLBM, but I'm more or less totally uneducated on the subject. Land-based missiles are probably easier to make sure you always have hit-a-target-anywhere-anytime capability, whereas sub-based missiles likely have shorter range capabilities, and would thus require that our sub fleet be distributed around the globe to maintain a full nuclear deterrent. I suppose that would be based on the assumption, however, that we would ahve to be able to nuke anything at a moment's notice, when the actual target list is likely more constrained. I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With the accuracy and throw weight of our D5 SLBMs, is there a reason for a continued ground based deterrent other than to stave off the instability that would occur if somehow our sea based deterrent were to become vulnerable overnight? After all, our target is as likely to be Iran or China in the future as opposed to Russia. I understand that the ground based option is cheaper to maintain, but if facing a completely new booster, silo, and C3 system, is it still cheaper amortized across the lifespan, or should we be instead investing that into new submarines and new warheads while scrapping the ground based option? Pointedly, the British and the French rely almost entirely on their sea based deterrent force. The only other country with global reaching triad is Russia. Do we need a triad for more reason than "we've always done it that way" or "keeping both the Navy and USAF happy?" What leg(s) do we cut if we cut any? How do new hypersonic technologies play into this decision? Everyone is hellbent on that right now... These are honest questions. My guess is that ground-based missiles don't have the size constraints of an SLBM, but I'm more or less totally uneducated on the subject. Land-based missiles are probably easier to make sure you always have hit-a-target-anywhere-anytime capability, whereas sub-based missiles likely have shorter range capabilities, and would thus require that our sub fleet be distributed around the globe to maintain a full nuclear deterrent. I suppose that would be based on the assumption, however, that we would ahve to be able to nuke anything at a moment's notice, when the actual target list is likely more constrained. I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time
The D5 allows us the capability to have a credible survivable and highly accurate second strike capability with up to 14 RVs per D5. It is accurate enough for counter-force or decapitating first strikes... But if loaded with the same load as a Minutemand III they are capable of striking even farther intercontinental targets while sitting in port between deterrence cruises! Less survivable than a submerged sub in the open ocean, but they have the range. Size isn't the argument. The D5 is twice the mass of a Minuteman III. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:32:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Paging Lima-Xray...Mr. Xray, please pick up the red curiosity phone... I know we negotiated away the MX ("peacekeeper") during the last treaty with the Russians, but why design yet another new missile when that one seems to be a great system? And of course spend tons of money doing it. I'm, all for updating our nukes & delivery systems, but wasn't the MX the greatest delivery system ever created? Why reinvent the wheel? War is Boring article Because the stuff we have is the equivalent of expecting a 66 Mustang to do well in the 2030 Daytona 500. Nice, does what it does VERY well, but it's not up to 2030 standards, parts are now VERY hard to come by...and there's just SO MUCH BETTER technology available, that why would you expect to win with a 60-year old vehicle? Long pole in the tent is guidance systems. Over the last 15 years, we've been slowly upgrading ('refreshing' is probably a better word) the MMIII...except for the guidance system. As a cost-cutting measure, we're still using the Pendulous Integrated Gyroscopic Accelerometers (PIGAs) from the 1970's upgrade to the can.
And we only have spare cans (guidance system, its dimensions give it the appearance of a tuna can) to test-launch through 2030. Which means that for every test launch (used to determine and verify the reliability of a nuclear weapon, kinda important) after that, we now have to take a sortie off alert...for good. The MMIII is a Cold War weapon. It was designed for a very specific adversary and mission. (There's a reason all of them are aligned to the north.) While that mission is kinda still there (jokes about "easy buttons" and 'resets' not withstanding), there are other missions that the ICBM force just isn't as capable of doing, if we had a newer, more flexible missile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:33:56 PM EDT
[#23]
The next land based ICBM needs to be mobile. Train, truck, whatever. With Pk of modern adversary (I.e. Russian) ICBMs being essentially 1.0, the next system must be survivable.
Having said that, the capability of upgraded Minuteman IIIs is good, their survivability is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:34:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The D5 allows us the capability to have a credible survivable and highly accurate second strike capability with up to 14 RVs per D5. It is accurate enough for counter-force or decapitating first strikes... But if loaded with the same load as a Minutemand III they are capable of striking even farther intercontinental targets while sitting in port between deterrence cruises! Less survivable than a submerged sub in the open ocean, but they have the range. Size isn't the argument. The D5 is twice the mass of a Minuteman III. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With the accuracy and throw weight of our D5 SLBMs, is there a reason for a continued ground based deterrent other than to stave off the instability that would occur if somehow our sea based deterrent were to become vulnerable overnight? After all, our target is as likely to be Iran or China in the future as opposed to Russia. I understand that the ground based option is cheaper to maintain, but if facing a completely new booster, silo, and C3 system, is it still cheaper amortized across the lifespan, or should we be instead investing that into new submarines and new warheads while scrapping the ground based option? Pointedly, the British and the French rely almost entirely on their sea based deterrent force. The only other country with global reaching triad is Russia. Do we need a triad for more reason than "we've always done it that way" or "keeping both the Navy and USAF happy?" What leg(s) do we cut if we cut any? How do new hypersonic technologies play into this decision? Everyone is hellbent on that right now... These are honest questions. My guess is that ground-based missiles don't have the size constraints of an SLBM, but I'm more or less totally uneducated on the subject. Land-based missiles are probably easier to make sure you always have hit-a-target-anywhere-anytime capability, whereas sub-based missiles likely have shorter range capabilities, and would thus require that our sub fleet be distributed around the globe to maintain a full nuclear deterrent. I suppose that would be based on the assumption, however, that we would ahve to be able to nuke anything at a moment's notice, when the actual target list is likely more constrained. I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time
The D5 allows us the capability to have a credible survivable and highly accurate second strike capability with up to 14 RVs per D5. It is accurate enough for counter-force or decapitating first strikes... But if loaded with the same load as a Minutemand III they are capable of striking even farther intercontinental targets while sitting in port between deterrence cruises! Less survivable than a submerged sub in the open ocean, but they have the range. Size isn't the argument. The D5 is twice the mass of a Minuteman III. Interesting! The more you know 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:36:05 PM EDT
[#25]
What I don't understand is why our military planners always know what the enemy will do and that there will be no surprises or unexpected weapons on their part.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:36:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like the ground facilities are overdue for an upgrade. They're from the early 60s, so yeah. But that's one of the problems. I did the math around 2000, the cost of building a new launch facility adjusted for inflation was..... $1.6 billion. Each. We have 450 on alert now. The sites are actually doing pretty well for being over 50. The concrete is holding up okay, but it's the supporting and connecting infrastructure (12 baud comm system, for example) that needs a serious refresh. And nuclear-certified anything costs money. Lots of it. Then add the idiocy of (some)Congresscritters saying things like "If we buy you a better missile, you'll just want to use it, and that's destabilizing," and that's why we are in the corner we're in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:36:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect Osama, crap, I mean oBAMA, may just give away our nuclear strike force to the mid-east countries as a form of redistribution of wealth... He just needs to finish replacing enough senior military leadership with his own folk so there won't be any..... unpleasantness... So, now tell me, who amongst you in 2015 thinks that scenario is totally off the table? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:37:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those among us who aren't idiots... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I suspect Osama, crap, I mean oBAMA, may just give away our nuclear strike force to the mid-east countries as a form of redistribution of wealth... He just needs to finish replacing enough senior military leadership with his own folk so there won't be any..... unpleasantness... So, now tell me, who amongst you in 2015 thinks that scenario is totally off the table? Those among us who aren't idiots... 03'r > 14'r |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:38:02 PM EDT
[#29]
An ICBM replacement will, along with a SSBN replacement, take a big chunk out of our military budgets for a decade or so, starting soon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:38:39 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not for the SLBMs, but IIRC we can put decoys on the MMs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought this one would certainly get a response by now. Do you even ICBM, bro? We also negotiated away MIRVs, not much new to add. Not for the SLBMs, but IIRC we can put decoys on the MMs. You're just asking for a recipe, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:39:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're from the early 60s, so yeah. But that's one of the problems. I did the math around 2000, the cost of building a new launch facility adjusted for inflation was..... $1.6 billion. Each. We have 450 on alert now. The sites are actually doing pretty well for being over 50. The concrete is holding up okay, but it's the supporting and connecting infrastructure (12 baud comm system, for example) that needs a serious refresh. And nuclear-certified anything costs money. Lots of it. Then add the idiocy of (some)Congresscritters saying things like "If we buy you a better missile, you'll just want to use it, and that's destabilizing," and that's why we are in the corner we're in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the ground facilities are overdue for an upgrade. They're from the early 60s, so yeah. But that's one of the problems. I did the math around 2000, the cost of building a new launch facility adjusted for inflation was..... $1.6 billion. Each. We have 450 on alert now. The sites are actually doing pretty well for being over 50. The concrete is holding up okay, but it's the supporting and connecting infrastructure (12 baud comm system, for example) that needs a serious refresh. And nuclear-certified anything costs money. Lots of it. Then add the idiocy of (some)Congresscritters saying things like "If we buy you a better missile, you'll just want to use it, and that's destabilizing," and that's why we are in the corner we're in. Yeah, think of what it would take to get congress to simplify the tax code or balance a budget, then picture a serious discussion about improving our nuclear weapons. Things would have to look a LOT different. My guess is they'd give it serious consideration right after a monumental cock-up or a devastating first strike, but not before then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:42:56 PM EDT
[#32]
LX about how often have we been launching test MM3?
(I'm not asking him for recipes since the US is treaty bound to announce all launches ahead of time to keep the other countries from confusing planned tests with hostile launches) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:52:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My guess is that ground-based missiles don't have the size constraints of an SLBM, but I'm more or less totally uneducated on the subject. Land-based missiles are probably easier to make sure you always have hit-a-target-anywhere-anytime capability, whereas sub-based missiles likely have shorter range capabilities, and would thus require that our sub fleet be distributed around the globe to maintain a full nuclear deterrent. I suppose that would be based on the assumption, however, that we would ahve to be able to nuke anything at a moment's notice, when the actual target list is likely more constrained.[/img] Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With the accuracy and throw weight of our D5 SLBMs, is there a reason for a continued ground based deterrent other than to stave off the instability that would occur if somehow our sea based deterrent were to become vulnerable overnight? After all, our target is as likely to be Iran or China in the future as opposed to Russia. I understand that the ground based option is cheaper to maintain, but if facing a completely new booster, silo, and C3 system, is it still cheaper amortized across the lifespan, or should we be instead investing that into new submarines and new warheads while scrapping the ground based option? Pointedly, the British and the French rely almost entirely on their sea based deterrent force. The only other country with global reaching triad is Russia. Do we need a triad for more reason than "we've always done it that way" or "keeping both the Navy and USAF happy?" What leg(s) do we cut if we cut any? How do new hypersonic technologies play into this decision? Everyone is hellbent on that right now... These are honest questions. My guess is that ground-based missiles don't have the size constraints of an SLBM, but I'm more or less totally uneducated on the subject. Land-based missiles are probably easier to make sure you always have hit-a-target-anywhere-anytime capability, whereas sub-based missiles likely have shorter range capabilities, and would thus require that our sub fleet be distributed around the globe to maintain a full nuclear deterrent. I suppose that would be based on the assumption, however, that we would ahve to be able to nuke anything at a moment's notice, when the actual target list is likely more constrained.[/img] The current gen of SLBMs are actually on par with the ICs in terms of throw-weight and accuracy. Remember, the D5 came around about the same time as PK, so they use similar technology. Short primer on the Triad: - Bombers--visibly stageable (for deterrent/saber-rattling effects); recallable AND retargetable in flight right up to release; slow to generate, slow Time on Target, fairly fragile and can be shot down easily; overflight's a problem, not a lot of them or their support bases and EADs are a bitch. - Subs: "Hide with pride" (VERY hard to find, therefore survivable); accurate, can get in close to someone's coast (which means warning and assessment has to happen in seconds, not minutes), carry enough cans of sunshine that they're a credible second-strike deterrent threat, but....not recallable, not retargetable after launch, they take a long time to get to launch position, there are only two support bases (easily targetable), they're REALLY expensive, sink one (hell, have one T-bone a sperm whale and sink with all hands) and not only have you just lost a large chunk of your RV count, but you may not even (or ever) know it happened. - ICs: Quickest response force (minutes instead of hours); quickly retargetable before launch; flexible, accurate (because of fixed launch facilities); dispersed nature complicates adversary targeting because of the number of aimpoints; heartland/homeland location makes issues of attacks on national sovereignty CRYSTAL clear; cheaper than either of the other two legs, but...not recallable/retargetable after launch, fixed locations are a mixed blessing, and the dispersed nature of the weapons are a security nightmare. I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time [img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif Yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:53:57 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is a shit ton of satellite launchers! Why aren't we converting and using those? Each Titan II can put 4 tons into LEO. 1600 tons to LEO would require a lot of orbital assembly but that's enough booster to get a few Mars missions into LEO (equivalent to what 12 Saturn Vs could do, the MX boosters make it 13 or 14). The Minutemen boosters wouldn't do much... unless you threw a booster on top and bam you have 698 resupply rockets for multiyear Mars colonies, cheap, with backups if it goes boom. Quote HistoryQuoted:
America’s nuclear weapons stockpile in 2014, accounting for deployed and non-deployed assets, included 698 Minuteman missiles, 56 Peacekeeper missiles, and 411 Trident II missiles That is a shit ton of satellite launchers! Why aren't we converting and using those? Each Titan II can put 4 tons into LEO. 1600 tons to LEO would require a lot of orbital assembly but that's enough booster to get a few Mars missions into LEO (equivalent to what 12 Saturn Vs could do, the MX boosters make it 13 or 14). The Minutemen boosters wouldn't do much... unless you threw a booster on top and bam you have 698 resupply rockets for multiyear Mars colonies, cheap, with backups if it goes boom. That's total # of boosters. 450 of those Minuteman are on alert. Some of those are MMII, not III downstages. And we test launch three a year (ish). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:54:57 PM EDT
[#35]
I'm more surprised from reading the article that the AF has a plan to replace its old UH-1s with used UH-60s for security work in the ICBM fields.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:55:59 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:57:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV. Duh! Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. And since they're all shaped like giant phalluses (phallii?) that they want to put into deep, dark holes, it's just another example of the patriarchy raping the world with their cisgendering rape missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:58:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[snip] Yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
[snip] I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time [url]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif Yet. From what I learned over there, you could bribe your way straight to the top levels of their government, and they wouldn't even bat an eye. Save the nukes. Bribe foreign politicians
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:58:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And since they're all shaped like giant phalluses (phallii?) that they want to put into deep, dark holes, it's just another example of the patriarchy raping the world with their cisgendering rape missiles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV. Duh! Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. And since they're all shaped like giant phalluses (phallii?) that they want to put into deep, dark holes, it's just another example of the patriarchy raping the world with their cisgendering rape missiles. Coexist I carrying Mk. IV Heterocage warheads? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 8:58:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those among us who aren't idiots... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I suspect Osama, crap, I mean oBAMA, may just give away our nuclear strike force to the mid-east countries as a form of redistribution of wealth... He just needs to finish replacing enough senior military leadership with his own folk so there won't be any..... unpleasantness... So, now tell me, who amongst you in 2015 thinks that scenario is totally off the table? Those among us who aren't idiots... 3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:00:11 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The next land based ICBM needs to be mobile. Train, truck, whatever. With Pk of modern adversary (I.e. Russian) ICBMs being essentially 1.0, the next system must be survivable. Having said that, the capability of upgraded Minuteman IIIs is good, their survivability is not. Looked into that. Mobile is a security nightmare, and they have to be based out of somewhere. Now you're no better off than having the three bomber or two sub bases. Nuke, slime or bug a single base--heck, blow up the road/rail leading OUT of the base, and you've just made a significant chunk of our deterrent forces a sitting duck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:00:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An ICBM replacement will, along with a SSBN replacement, take a big chunk out of our military budgets for a decade or so, starting soon. Eh, who needs military superiority, anyways? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:01:34 PM EDT
[#43]
Replace that space launcher on the center pylon with a rotary single warhead ICBM launcher. You have a half-million pounds to play with, how many midget man type missiles could you load? Understand, being air-launched, you could likely drop about 5%-10% from each missiles mass and still have the same performance as a ground launch missile. That thing combines a Bomber, a Sub and an ICBM all in one. You can keep several airborne over the Pacific and they would be untouchable. BTW, that 6 engine plane is not just a concept, metal is being bent as of now. It's called Stratolaunch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:02:34 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LX about how often have we been launching test MM3? (I'm not asking him for recipes since the US is treaty bound to announce all launches ahead of time to keep the other countries from confusing planned tests with hostile launches) Like I said, about three-ish a year now. Used to be closer to 5 or six back when we had 1K on alert. Glory Trips. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:03:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm more surprised from reading the article that the AF has a plan to replace its old UH-1s with used UH-60s for security work in the ICBM fields. They (security forces and the helo squadrons) have been asking for UH1 replacements for twenty years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:03:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I learned over there, you could bribe your way straight to the top levels of their government, and they wouldn't even bat an eye. Save the nukes. Bribe foreign politicians
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[snip] I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time [url]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif Yet. From what I learned over there, you could bribe your way straight to the top levels of their government, and they wouldn't even bat an eye. Save the nukes. Bribe foreign politicians
Definitely cheaper. And you get to save the plutonium for our more...valued customers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:05:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Definitely cheaper. And you get to save the plutonium for our more...valued customers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[snip] I don't see Cameroon as an important nuclear target that we have to keep under pressure all the time [url]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif Yet. From what I learned over there, you could bribe your way straight to the top levels of their government, and they wouldn't even bat an eye. Save the nukes. Bribe foreign politicians
Definitely cheaper. And you get to save the plutonium for our more...valued customers. Gives a whole new meaning to rolling out the red carpet... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:07:48 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Paging Lima-Xray...Mr. Xray, please pick up the red curiosity phone... I know we negotiated away the MX ("peacekeeper") during the last treaty with the Russians, but why design yet another new missile when that one seems to be a great system? And of course spend tons of money doing it. I'm, all for updating our nukes & delivery systems, but wasn't the MX the greatest delivery system ever created? Why reinvent the wheel? War is Boring article Great System, but there have been quantum leaps in processors and guidance technology since then. These newer systems would result in a smaller CEP (Circular Error Probability) which would increase the probability of taking out a hardened silo or bunker. BUILD new missiles and warheads, put them on armored trains, and trucks instead of in stationary silos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:12:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. D5 is only around 25 and suppose to serve in to the 2040s |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:13:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great System, but there have been quantum leaps in processors and guidance technology since then. These newer systems would result in a smaller CEP (Circular Error Probability) which would increase the probability of taking out a hardened silo or bunker. BUILD new missiles and warheads, put them on armored trains, and trucks instead of in stationary silos. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Paging Lima-Xray...Mr. Xray, please pick up the red curiosity phone... I know we negotiated away the MX ("peacekeeper") during the last treaty with the Russians, but why design yet another new missile when that one seems to be a great system? And of course spend tons of money doing it. I'm, all for updating our nukes & delivery systems, but wasn't the MX the greatest delivery system ever created? Why reinvent the wheel? War is Boring article Great System, but there have been quantum leaps in processors and guidance technology since then. These newer systems would result in a smaller CEP (Circular Error Probability) which would increase the probability of taking out a hardened silo or bunker. BUILD new missiles and warheads, put them on armored trains, and trucks instead of in stationary silos. AF and NNSA have enough problems with security of fixed sites. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
