Thanks LX - that was some great info.

I was in the AFSF when Security Forces Law enforcement and security branches were merged.  Not to be an ass to them, but from what I saw, they made some of the worst cops I'd seen.  (Most with any rank were sent to work confinement, or office jobs).  In their defense, they were given zero training - just thrown in a cop car and told to patrol.  Most hadn't carried an M9 as primary weapon since tech school.

I'll say three things for them though.  1.  They were some hardcore motherfuckers.  2.  They knew their shit when it came to nuke security - just listening to the detail on their stories was amazing.  3.  They all tended to be practical jokers....

Quoted: Quoted: I remember reading about a Russian satellite during the cold war days that held and could fire nukes that were kept onboard. Do we have stuff like that orbiting Russia too? What's the point? The average satellite takes about 90 minutes to orbit the earth, so there could be a substantial wait until the satellite is over the target. Then there is the problem of actually getting the things up into orbit. Nukes are heavy. If you tried to solve the first problem by putting the satellites into geosynchronous orbit, you run into problem two since putting a load into geosyc orbit requires a lot more power than getting the same load into a standard orbit.

But if you add life support and a living quarters you have an instant secret lair for supervillians.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I remember reading about a Russian satellite during the cold war days that held and could fire nukes that were kept onboard. Do we have stuff like that orbiting Russia too? What's the point? The average satellite takes about 90 minutes to orbit the earth, so there could be a substantial wait until the satellite is over the target. Then there is the problem of actually getting the things up into orbit. Nukes are heavy. If you tried to solve the first problem by putting the satellites into geosynchronous orbit, you run into problem two since putting a load into geosyc orbit requires a lot more power than getting the same load into a standard orbit. But if you add life support and a living quarters you have an instant secret lair for supervillians.

Quoted: Thanks for the sarcasm rather than actual intelligent conversation.

That wasn't sarcasm, I really want a secret lair...

Quoted: I respectfully submit that VERY FEW people know our true nuclear capability.....

+1

My dad was an AF ICBM maintainance tech in the 1960's, including during the Cuban Missle Crisis.  He told me that if we had launched back then, half our shit wouldn't have gotten off the ground.  Comforting, isn't it?!

Very interesting info provided. I'm glad I started this thread!

BTW, for those who haven't seen it, here's a very cool documentary made in 1979 that highlighted our perceived weaknesses and the suggestions from experts to remedy those. It's worth watching just to see Tab soda cans, B-B2D models which have been retired since 1983, etc.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlPEBROvR9w

This is actually a 4 part series. You can access the others there on the side.

Another interesting tibit was the discussion about our air defenses for Soviet bombers. In 1979, they were saying that 6 squadrons of 1950's era F-106 Delta Darts in ANG hands stood between us and the Soviet bomber fleet. They were arguing we desperately needed to put F-15's or F-14's in the air defense role.

Interestingly, many of the recommendations made in this documentary went into action when Carter went out and Reagan went in.

Quoted: limaxray, What is the physical size of one of those warheads?

Most of your questions will be answered here.

nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html

For size of the nuke:
All US nukes

MK-12A details

Minuteman III ICBM

Amazing what is in the public domain.

ever since the success of the "star wars" satellite defense system it really doesn't matter how many icbm's anyone has ... god bless Ronald Reagan

Quoted: ever since the success of the "star wars" satellite defense system it really doesn't matter how many icbm's anyone has ... god bless Ronald Reagan

SDI was never fielded or developed out of the conceptual stages.  

Bravo. This is one of the most informative threads I've read on Arfcom in a while.

Very interesting.

Quoted: Quoted: I respectfully submit that VERY FEW people know our true nuclear capability..... +1 My dad was an AF ICBM maintainance tech in the 1960's, including during the Cuban Missle Crisis.  He told me that if we had launched back then, half our shit wouldn't have gotten off the ground.  Comforting, isn't it?!

That all changed when we brought Minuteman on line.  Titan and Atlas were very, very maintenance intensive, lots of moving parts, highly corrosive fuels that they couldn't load until launch, took a crew of six to launch one to three missiles.

Minuteman & PK were a totally different breed of cat.  Solid fuel, solid-state vs. vacuum-tube technology, very reliable, now it takes as little as four people to launch up to 50 missiles.  Some of our sites go unvisited for maintenance purposes for months on end now.

We have and always will have the edge in missile tech.  If you ask me, it is our SSBN fleet you have to really think about, not our land-based assets.  

How many SSBN's do you suppose the Russians currently have in service that are loaded up with working SLBMs ?  

The fact that we can park a couple Ohio-class SSBN's off the Russian coast means that we can put more nukes on target in a shorter amount of time than they can.  

For Russian boats to be able to get that close to the US coast without being detected and intercepted, a bunch of folks would have to be asleep at the wheel.  

Quoted: Quoted: thank you for your informative responses LX You're welcome.  I'm kind of an idiot savant--no social skills, but I know nukes.

Actually, considering her political philosophies, I kind of think she's their WMD being used against us.


I recall reading here a few years back that we were changing the rocket motors on the MM's.  The reason - the exhaust gasses on the old ones weren't environmentally friendly, and the new rocket motors, even though they had less payload and range, were less toxic and more green friendly than the old motors.  

Anyone remember this?  I read it here, so it must be true.




-K

I have a lot of faith that our stuff (Ohio class SSBNs, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, ALCMs, Minuteman, etc) work at least 90% or more of what they are supposed to.

Russian stuff...I'm not too sure of.  I've handled, touched  or played with their AKs, RPGs, ZSUs, BMPs, BTRs, T-72s, and even a MiG-25; I'm just not impressed by their stuff so I'm not sure if that translates to their strategic hardware as well.

Quoted: Thanks LX - that was some great info. I was in the AFSF when Security Forces Law enforcement and security branches were merged.  Not to be an ass to them, but from what I saw, they made some of the worst cops I'd seen.  (Most with any rank were sent to work confinement, or office jobs).  In their defense, they were given zero training - just thrown in a cop car and told to patrol.  Most hadn't carried an M9 as primary weapon since tech school. I'll say three things for them though.  1.  They were some hardcore motherfuckers.  2.  They knew their shit when it came to nuke security - just listening to the detail on their stories was amazing.  3.  They all tended to be practical jokers....

Sorry as this is unrelated to the original post but whoever decided to re-integrate SS and LE was a dumbass.  Entirely different carreer fields.   When seperated the first time they should have changed badges and everything similar to avoid them going back together.  It's a case where specializatioin gave way to generalization by somebody who didnt know what either carreer field meant.


Former 81152

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I respectfully submit that VERY FEW people know our true nuclear capability..... +1 My dad was an AF ICBM maintainance tech in the 1960's, including during the Cuban Missle Crisis.  He told me that if we had launched back then, half our shit wouldn't have gotten off the ground.  Comforting, isn't it?! That all changed when we brought Minuteman on line.  Titan and Atlas were very, very maintenance intensive, lots of moving parts, highly corrosive fuels that they couldn't load until launch, took a crew of six to launch one to three missiles. Minuteman & PK were a totally different breed of cat.  Solid fuel, solid-state vs. vacuum-tube technology, very reliable, now it takes as little as four people to launch up to 50 missiles.  Some of our sites go unvisited for maintenance purposes for months on end now.

Glad to hear it...my dad worked on the Atlas missiles.

I wouldn't worry about it.  No one wins a nuclear war.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: thank you for your informative responses LX You're welcome.  I'm kind of an idiot savant--no social skills, but I know nukes.   Actually, considering her political philosophies, I kind of think she's their WMD being used against us. I recall reading here a few years back that we were changing the rocket motors on the MM's.  The reason - the exhaust gasses on the old ones weren't environmentally friendly, and the new rocket motors, even though they had less payload and range, were less toxic and more green friendly than the old motors.   Anyone remember this?  I read it here, so it must be true. -K

'Tis, in fact, true...one of the factors that went into choosing the new fuel--necessary because the old stuff was starting to crack from age--was to produce an environmentally friendly fuel.  On a nuclear capable ICBM.  

Quoted: Glad to hear it...my dad worked on the Atlas missiles.

Oh, yeah.  Atlas was the first generation ICBM.  There were two different types, one launched from an above-ground coffin launcher (it rested horizontally until time to launch, then it was raised vertically and fueled).  The second version was stored in a vertical below-ground launcher, then raised above ground, fueled and launched.  Even when they were working on the Atlas II, we were still figuring out how to do this whole missile thing, and we weren't doing it well--okay, better than the Soviets, but we were stil learning

Incidentally, my father in law was a surveyor in the AF in 59-60, he surveyed all the Atlas II sites in the New York area.  

Quoted: Quoted: ever since the success of the "star wars" satellite defense system it really doesn't matter how many icbm's anyone has ... god bless Ronald Reagan SDI was never fielded or developed out of the conceptual stages.

We need to cut you a set of orders to MDA!  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ever since the success of the "star wars" satellite defense system it really doesn't matter how many icbm's anyone has ... god bless Ronald Reagan SDI was never fielded or developed out of the conceptual stages.   We need to cut you a set of orders to MDA!

With places like Alaska, Hawaii and Vandenberg, I'd sell my children and parts of my anatomy to go!  

Thanks for the info LX...

Now, I'll proclaim heresy by saying that I like the SPINGS...

Another thing...why the flight suits on Missileers?  They're not riding the things, obviously.

Quoted: Thanks for the info LX... Now, I'll proclaim heresy by saying that I like the SPINGS...

BURN HIM!!!!!!!

Actually, I don't mind the Buzz Lightyear wings so much--what really bothered me personally was how they came about.  They weren't designed with any sense of history or tradition at all--they were designed by a TSgt in Public Affairs who liked Harleys and thought it would look cool.

Another thing...why the flight suits on Missileers?  They're not riding the things, obviously.

We've got a Dr Strangelove complex going on--our greatest joy would be to ride the warhead in, you need a flight suit to do that.  It's Nomex and will protect us from the heat of reentry.  

They weren't designed with any sense of history or tradition at all--they were designed by a TSgt in Public Affairs who liked Harleys and thought it would look cool.

Well, I work in a joint environment, and I see that all the time.  I really feel for the USAF, as they seem to drift from one fad to another...

The USAF really needs to find its own way, and I'd suggest going back to WWII uniforms, and going with the blue jacket/khaki pants as a starting point.

Instead, everyone cruises around in BDU/zoom bags, and the Dress uniforms just look somewhat dated.

We've got a Dr Strangelove complex going on--our greatest joy would be to ride the warhead in, you need a flight suit to do that. It's Nomex and will protect us from the heat of reentry.

Then you guys need like a Buzz Lightyear helmet with a battlepack and ray guy.  That would be awesome!

Quoted: Quoted: I respectfully submit that VERY FEW people know our true nuclear capability..... +1 My dad was an AF ICBM maintainance tech in the 1960's, including during the Cuban Missle Crisis.  He told me that if we had launched back then, half our shit wouldn't have gotten off the ground.  Comforting, isn't it?!

Still better than what the Russkies had.  Anyone else recall the story of the Americans inspecting a Soviet missile silo with a missile inside it?  They opened it up and there was water to almost the top of the missile.  Yea, that would've worked.  

I feel it is very likely that there are Russian large yeild warheads right here in the is country. You should have seen all the drugs that made it in here in the 80's with extreme ease. It would seem it would have been no problem to bring a few up from Cuba.

Are the Russian ICBMs road/rail mobile?  I remember that the mobility of the Soviet ICBM force was the rationale behind the B-2

Quoted: Are the Russian ICBMs road/rail mobile?  I remember that the mobility of the Soviet ICBM force was the rationale behind the B-2

Yes to both, but the rail-mobile version of the SS24 is supposed to go away under START.  

We tried a rail-mobile system of Peacekeeper, never got off the ground--too expensive and the prospect COMPLETELY freaked the Russians out.

Quoted: I feel it is very likely that there are Russian large yeild warheads right here in the is country. You should have seen all the drugs that made it in here in the 80's with extreme ease. It would seem it would have been no problem to bring a few up from Cuba.

Possible, but unlikely.  One of the biggest reasons is an ICBM warhead is useless for any other military application.  The engineering that goes into making sure the warhead works when it supposed to--and not before--means there are all kinds of safeguards, both hardware and software, that will ensure it ONLY goes off after accomplishing it's flight profile.  It would have to be completely disassembled and reassembled in a difference configuration in order to work like a land mine.  Sort of like taking apart a Ferrarri to make it into a milk truck.

Quoted: Quoted: Are the Russian ICBMs road/rail mobile?  I remember that the mobility of the Soviet ICBM force was the rationale behind the B-2 Yes to both, but the rail-mobile version of the SS24 is supposed to go away under START.   We tried a rail-mobile system of Peacekeeper, never got off the ground--too expensive and the prospect COMPLETELY freaked the Russians out.

That and the fact that our society is too open to make keeping rail launchers secrete a challenging prospect.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are the Russian ICBMs road/rail mobile?  I remember that the mobility of the Soviet ICBM force was the rationale behind the B-2 Yes to both, but the rail-mobile version of the SS24 is supposed to go away under START.   We tried a rail-mobile system of Peacekeeper, never got off the ground--too expensive and the prospect COMPLETELY freaked the Russians out. That and the fact that our society is too open to make keeping rail launchers secrete a challenging prospect.

That's an excellent point.

One of the former commanders of 20th Air Force (the numbered air force that the ICBM force falls under) used to tell a story from when he was on the START inspection teams.

They were in the Ukraine, and he was speaking to the city council as a visiting foreign dignitary (very early 1990s, right after the USSR collapsed).  When asked what he was doing there, he said, "We're here to inspect the ICBM systems in your country."

Blank looks from all the locals.

"You know, the long-range missiles, that have been located here for the last 25 years?"

Cricket, cricket, followed by an explosion of Russian and Ukrainian.

Finally, the Russian colonel escorting them says basically, "Sorry about that, up until now the location of ICBM units have been a state secret."

The Ukrainians didn't even know they had ICBMs in their own back yard.  

It's been a couple months since I've last counted, but I think the US is up by a few dozen.

Good info on this thread, limaxray, thanks for the insight on our ICBM Forces. I will sleep better at night knowing that you people are still on line, and ready to go. I truly believe that some day, we are going to take a hit from a suitcase or dirty bomb, and we will have to deal with that. But as long as you guys are on line, I don't believe any country would ever launch a full scale attack on us. It would be suicide.

Thanks again.

Finally, the Russian colonel escorting them says basically, "Sorry about that, up until now the location of ICBM units have been a state secret." The Ukrainians didn't even know they had ICBMs in their own back yard.

Not too surprising when their maps were classified material and only the officers gas masks had voicemitters.

Knowledge was a dangerous thing in the USSR.  For example, if you worked in certain industries, not only was it impossible to travel to the West, you were essentially forced to live in the closed cities to prevent the possibility of your defection.

I remember a video on SRF awhile back that showed their ICBM TELs moving out, and it didn't seem that they had much of a security element.

The TEL itself was pretty impressive.  Good road speed, very survivalible.

So, LX...what is life like in the Launch Centers?  Is there downtime?  Can you watch TV?  Is there a place to sleep?  Is it loud?  Moldy? Damp?  What's the food like?

Quoted: Quoted: I feel it is very likely that there are Russian large yeild warheads right here in the is country. You should have seen all the drugs that made it in here in the 80's with extreme ease. It would seem it would have been no problem to bring a few up from Cuba. Possible, but unlikely.  One of the biggest reasons is an ICBM warhead is useless for any other military application.  The engineering that goes into making sure the warhead works when it supposed to--and not before--means there are all kinds of safeguards, both hardware and software, that will ensure it ONLY goes off after accomplishing it's flight profile.  It would have to be completely disassembled and reassembled in a difference configuration in order to work like a land mine.  Sort of like taking apart a Ferrarri to make it into a milk truck.

Well they have free fall bombs and built atomic demolition munitions just like we did... I'm sure they'd sneak those in

Quoted: So, LX...what is life like in the Launch Centers?  Is there downtime?  Can you watch TV?  Is there a place to sleep?  Is it loud?  Moldy? Damp?  What's the food like?

I would love to hear this info too.

Also... I always wondered... what are you guys supposed to do after you've launched all your missiles? Do you just stay down there to ride out the fallout assuming you don't get hit?

Quoted: Good info on this thread, limaxray, thanks for the insight on our ICBM Forces. I will sleep better at night knowing that you people are still on line, and ready to go. I truly believe that some day, we are going to take a hit from a suitcase or dirty bomb, and we will have to deal with that. But as long as you guys are on line, I don't believe any country would ever launch a full scale attack on us. It would be suicide. Thanks again.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: I remember reading about a Russian satellite during the cold war days that held and could fire nukes that were kept onboard. Do we have stuff like that orbiting Russia too? What's the point? The average satellite takes about 90 minutes to orbit the earth, so there could be a substantial wait until the satellite is over the target. Then there is the problem of actually getting the things up into orbit. Nukes are heavy. If you tried to solve the first problem by putting the satellites into geosynchronous orbit, you run into problem two since putting a load into geosyc orbit requires a lot more power than getting the same load into a standard orbit.

A sattelite based nuclear weapons system would be a fear-of-god inspiring first strike.

Let's say you build and launch a few nuke satellites during peacetime...Let's theorize that you launch ten of them, and each one has ten warheads. You put them in an absolute minimum orbit... Say 70-100 miles above the earth.

You would synch them, so they all pass over your opponents nation at the same time, in a sort of battle-line across the sky.

Now, let's say you decide to go insane and launch of first strike...


The sattelites can drop their warheads as they pass over the target country, with no formal warning... No movement to see... No launch fireball and rocket trail... No launch time... no cruise time... Just dropping the RV right on the target... All you have to do is broadcast one coded radio signal from the Kremlin to make it all happen.

Reentry takes what? Five minutes? Less?

Now you can hit every major ICBM base, the SAC bases, all important command and control sites, the sub pens and most communication nexus... Not to mention Washington... 100 warheads is enough to bring two parts of the US nuclear triad to its knees and out of action.

That leaves you with the subs... And if you effectively knock the US command and control offline while you're at it, those are useless too.


It is one of the few first strike options I can actually see working.

And it is also one of the easiest, budget and tech wise... All you need are some warheads, RVs and a sattelite that would be simpler than those used by direct TV.


Lucky for us, as far as we know, the Russian's never dared.


Mostly because, if they had, the evil stuff we would have come up with in response would have scared them shitless.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I remember reading about a Russian satellite during the cold war days that held and could fire nukes that were kept onboard. Do we have stuff like that orbiting Russia too? What's the point? The average satellite takes about 90 minutes to orbit the earth, so there could be a substantial wait until the satellite is over the target. Then there is the problem of actually getting the things up into orbit. Nukes are heavy. If you tried to solve the first problem by putting the satellites into geosynchronous orbit, you run into problem two since putting a load into geosyc orbit requires a lot more power than getting the same load into a standard orbit. A sattelite based nuclear weapons system would be a fear-of-god inspiring first strike. Let's say you build and launch a few nuke satellites during peacetime...Let's theorize that you launch ten of them, and each one has ten warheads. You put them in an absolute minimum orbit... Say 70-100 miles above the earth. You would synch them, so they all pass over your opponents nation at the same time, in a sort of battle-line across the sky. Now, let's say you decide to go insane and launch of first strike... The sattelites can drop their warheads as they pass over the target country, with no formal warning... No movement to see... No launch fireball and rocket trail... No launch time... no cruise time... Just dropping the RV right on the target... All you have to do is broadcast one coded radio signal from the Kremlin to make it all happen. Reentry takes what? Five minutes? Less? Now you can hit every major ICBM base, the SAC bases, all important command and control sites, the sub pens and most communication nexus... Not to mention Washington... 100 warheads is enough to bring two parts of the US nuclear triad to its knees and out of action. That leaves you with the subs... And if you effectively knock the US command and control offline while you're at it, those are useless too. It is one of the few first strike options I can actually see working. And it is also one of the easiest, budget and tech wise... All you need are some warheads, RVs and a sattelite that would be simpler than those used by direct TV. Lucky for us, as far as we know, the Russian's never dared. Mostly because, if they had, the evil stuff we would have come up with in response would have scared them shitless.

I'll bet a pile of $$$ that our subs have contingency orders that if they have no radio contact with US command and find fallout in the air someone gets hit. Besides I doubt all US based C&C would be disabled and we have bases all over the world. Even listening in on commercial broadcasting would tell you what happened. The subs would know what happened and have orders that cover that scenario.

Quoted: Quoted: That leaves you with the subs... And if you effectively knock the US command and control offline while you're at it, those are useless too. I'll bet a pile of $$$ that our subs have contingency orders that if they have no radio contact with US command and find fallout in the air someone gets hit. Besides I doubt all US based C&C would be disabled and we have bases all over the world. Even listening in on commercial broadcasting would tell you what happened. The subs would know what happened and have orders that cover that scenario.

Out the wazoo.

There is a super low frequency radio broadcast system that can signal subs even when they are submerged. It can only send low bandwidth (like maybe tens of characters a second), but the signal goes out worldwide.

Quoted: Now you can hit every major ICBM base, the SAC bases, all important command and control sites, the sub pens and most communication nexus... Not to mention Washington... 100 warheads is enough to bring two parts of the US nuclear triad to its knees and out of action.

Here's where your math is incorrect.   We will have 450 missile launch facilities, 45  launch control centers, three missile bases. plus a variety of airborne launch control centers that would have to be knocked out to take out the ICBM fleet.  You'd waste half of your hundred just on the LCCs alone, and you wouldn't be able to remove the airborne versions.  That's an intentional design feature, by the way.

Quoted: So, LX...what is life like in the Launch Centers?  Is there downtime?  Can you watch TV?  Is there a place to sleep?  Is it loud?  Moldy? Damp?  What's the food like?

Got to run for now, but I'll answer this as soon as I get back.

ETA:  First off, go to this website. This author/photographer managed to get some great pictures of a capsule and the crew, and put it together with some other information that's really useful.

So, you leave base and drive across the Montana (or Wyoming, or North Dakota) countryside.  In our squadron, the closest site is 1.5 hours away, and our farthest is almost three hours from base.  Our squadron is 5,000 square miles in area, and the wing is the size of the state of West Virginia (23K square miles).  Between ops, cops and maintenance, we put over 2.8 million miles on our wing's vehicles every year.  Time, and distance are significant considerations in EVERYTHING we do, and weather is equally important.  The sites in our squadron are all in the 4000-4500 ft above sea level range, nestled near a bunch of mountains--weather, especially winter weather, is a constant issue for us.

After arriving on site and getting through security, you walk into the Missile Alert Facility (MAF, that's the entire site, but we generally use it to refer to the topside building).  There, you'll see the other site personnel--the site Facility Manager (responsible for the building itself and the senior NCO on the site), the chef (usually a junior airman), and the security forces personnel in your flight area (should be somewhere between six and twelve cops).  They all stay in rooms topside.

You go through even more security, and get cleared to go downstairs.  You get in an elevator that will BARELY hold three people and their gear, close the door, and spend the next minute travelling about 60-80 feet below ground.  During that ride, you'll notice an...interesting...smell, as sometimes the sewage lift station at the bottom of the elevator shaft will back up just a little bit.  

Once downstairs, the elevator door opens, and you're faced with the blast door.  It's usually somewhat humid, but not moldy, at the bottom of the elevator shaftway, and besides the occasional smell it's not unpleasant, especially on a hot summer day.

You walk into the capsule (being careful to duck--the entry way is only 5' tall, and it's got a steel lip all the way around it--guess who will win in a contest of skull vs doorframe) and when you come out of the 6' long entryway, you're standing on a very small platform of steel with a gap around it.

The interior of the capsule is like no other structure I've seen.  All of the equipment is attached to a floor that's suspended from the ceiling by four huge bolts.  The mounting points for the floor are actually four gigantic shock absorbers, and the floor has some clearance around the edges (rattle space).  All the electrical, water, air etc. links for the equipment to the outside world are in cables that have lots of slack, so in the event of a near miss the entire floor can shake, rattle and roll, without damaging the equipment or ripping things out of the wall.

Built on the floor is a shelter (we call it the acoustical enclosure).  All of the important stuff (the TV, the DVD, the bathroom, the bed, and, oh, yea, all the other missile equipment ) is located inside that enclosure.  It smells funny, mainly because of 45 years of people (mainly men) living in an area equivalent to a medium-sized living room (which deserves another ).  Usually it's not bad (unless the crew had the Mexican plate for dinner); it's a dry, musty smell of electronics and conditioned air, with just a hint of hobo feet.  You get used to it pretty quickly.

Life in the capsule can be very, very good, or very very bad, depending on the day.  If it's a slow day, then it fast approaches boring.  There are daily tasks (inspections, communications checks, daily maintenance checks, etc.) that occupy some time, but the rest of the day is spent sort of like a police dispatcher; ready to respond to whatever happens but otherwise unoccupied.  One of the two of you in the capsule can sleep, so the other one stays on the console, answers phones and responds to status.  There's always some studying to do (remember my post about the three monthly tests), some cleaning to do, and there's a TV/DVD in the console you can watch.  Every once in a while the chef upstairs sends down food, so you can eat your tater tots and watch the Tick in comfort.  There's also a microwave and fridge downstairs, so you can bring your own food & (non-alcoholic) drink if you are so inclined.  

When there's maintenance or security situations going on, it's busy.  You're constantly on the phone, running checklists, sending commands to the missiles, cross-checking with the other capsules in the squadron, and directing the actions of the maintenance or security forces.  Even worse, sometimes there's maintenance in the capsule itself, which means you're both up (that disrupts sleep shifts and sometimes they have to really tear apart the capsule to do their maintenance, so you wind up sitting on the filing cabinet while they're doing their thing).

The food tends to be really good, depending on the chef.  There's some healthy stuff, but the menu is heavy on the starches and fried/grilled foods.  We have dedicated chefs on site, and some of them get really creative (I just learned one of ours has a Chicken Bacon Ranch sandwich he designed.... mmmmm.......).  

The capsules are pretty loud.  There's a motor-generator under the floor that provides power to the racks, and an air conditioner to keep the racks cool, so it's basically like being in a passenger plane for 24 hours.  You get so used to the noise it becomes a part of your sleep habits.  One of the running jokes is "How can you tell if you've been on crew too long?  You need to keep a fan running to go to sleep."

I've seen broom closets larger than our bathrooms downstairs.  It's just barely large enough to do your business, and it's got a prison toilet in it (yes, the stainless steel ones with the sink above the toilet itself).  Do NOT drop your toothbrush.  Those toilets have been the, well, butt of many jokes about what missile life in the capsule is REALLY like.

So, that's a snapshot of life downstairs.  Right now, as you read this, there are 90 men and women of the US Air Force sitting on the world I just described, providing the nation's premier nuclear deterrent and prompt global strike capability to the nation.

I couldn't be prouder to be a part of them, or more humbled to be associated with the caliber of young men and women who are the nation's ICBM force. Coneheads, subterranean trolls, knuckledraggers--whatever you want to call them, they are the nation's missileers.  If you meet one, thank him or her, for doing a mostly unknown and definitely unappreciated job of sitting nuclear alert.

Do you get the intranets down there?

What happens after you launch? Are you supposed to stay in the capsule until you turn into Morlocks and have to go looking for Eloi flesh?

Quoted: Also... I always wondered... what are you guys supposed to do after you've launched all your missiles? Do you just stay down there to ride out the fallout assuming you don't get hit?

Almost missed this one.

We are survivable, and have the equipment and capability to remain up and running for quite some time, so yes, we're supposed to stay downstairs and continue to operate; we just won't have any missiles to launch (remember, we also have a lot of comm gear).  Unfortunately, we don't have the .38s in the capsule anymore, so when we come upstairs into the zombie-infested Mad Max world of post-nuclear holocaust, we're going to have to use the spoons out of our MREs until we can find better weapons.

We've even got an escape hatch built into the capsule itself.  It's a currogated steel tube that goes from one end of the capsule up to the surface, and we've got a folding shovel and a prybar to get all the old sand out.  When they shut down Whiteman AFB's missiles, they did a test and dug one out; it supposedly ended four feet below the parking lot.  

Even if it didn't, my issue is:  if it's close enough to destroy topside, weld your door shut and fill the elevator shaft with debris, it's also close enough to throw a 1/4 mile of dirt on top of the site, so what's the point?  Kill your deputy (that's more oxygen and MREs for you), then put War Games in the DVD and ride the storm out.

Unofficially, if we've gotten to the point where we've got 50 smoking holes in the squadron, I'm just going to go upstairs, put on the Raybans, and get a tan.  

Quoted: Do you get the intranets down there?

Yes, but it's so heavily locked down the best I can do is CNN and weather.com.  The computer's plugged directly into the base LAN, so it helps in that I can check my email and do work while I'm on alert.

Quoted: Quoted: Our ssbn fleet is the most highly capable and highly trained nuclear deterrent the world has ever seen. Sub school weeds out the idiots and those how earn the sub pin are among the most intelligent and most capable our nation has to offer. I've been to Groton, CT. and had a little two week mini-training course when I was Sea Cadet.  We were lead by a former COB with 30 years active duty experience who got mad respect everywhere we went on base (tight community).  Russia or China are simply no match for us on or below the sea.  There anti-sub capability is way behind the curve.   Once our missile defense sheild is in place and with a few more Ohio Class subs underway and the new Virginia class attack subs Russia will be well contained. Russia doesn't have the money for their own missile defense sheild and they can't afford stealth.  Their dron technology is way behind ours. As we continue to advance far beyond our enemies we'll continue to see "tough talk," like this. Don't want to make this a urinary olympics, nor to discount what the sub guys have to do, but I disagree about "most highly capable and trained nuclear deterrent the world has ever seen."  They are, in fact, the best in the world (by many, many light-years) than our nearest competitor; but I think the ICBM operators have a much tougher job. My ICBM operators spend a year in training.  When done, they are not only  experts in weapon security, missile maintenance, ICBM code component handling and use (those are the codes used to launch & enable), weapon system safety, personnel safety, missile safety, Emergency War Order procedures (which, by the way, have to be known COLD, no reference, and the regulations total about 500 pages), communications system operations and maintenance, but they could also qualify as journeyman engineers on weapon system design, capabilities, interaction, communications, command and control, connectivity and software.  Their area of responsibility is everything and everyone in their flight area, to include security forces, missile maintenance, communications maintenance, civil engineering, wing safety, and helicopter operations.  For those selected to lead the squadron command post, they are responsible for everything in ALL the flight areas in the squadron, totalling about 5,000 square miles in our case.   Our ICBM operators are THE last check on the correct action for everyone else's job in the missile field.  If maintenance tells the operator to run a command, it's up to the missileer to ensure, based on his knowledge of the system and what it will do to both the missile and the command and control system itself, that the command is in fact the correct one to run.  It is the missileer who ensures the cops are correctly guarding a resource, who ensures the maintainers are doing the job right (no matter how weird the situation is), and who ensures the weapon system is correctly configured, guarded and maintained at ALL times. Every month, each missileer MUST take three 30 question tests--one on Emergency War Orders (cold, no regulations), one on weapon system design and operations, and one on ICBM code component handling. While, by regulation, 90% is passing, I have personally chewed butt for someone getting two questions wrong (93%) and sent them for remedial training.  In addition, they must each have a four-hour simulator ride covering all of the above topics.  Failure to do so drives the crewmember restricted, unable to perform alert duties, until they make up their training. We have helicopter and fighter pilots amazed at the amount and depth of material our missileers have to know, and the level to which they know it. Here's the difference--on a sub, there are many personnel doing their job, but their job is broken up into little chunks, requiring in-depth knowledge of that piece in front of you and only requires a broad knowledge of how it interacts with the whole system.  In ICBMs, it all comes together in the launch control center, where the lieutenants and captains in the capsule are the last, final meeting point for all those things, and it is their job to ensure it gets done right. In addition, the subs have some limitations the ICBMs don't have, which make them less, not more capable.  For example--subs can't retarget quickly.  The console in the capsule is called the REACT console, for Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting.  We can retarget, realign and launch a sortie--or multiple sorties, up to all 50 in the squadron--in much, much less time than the subs.  Our launch times are quicker, providing what is currently the ONLY prompt global strike capability to the President and combatant commanders. When my Lts and Capts go on alert, they are instantly responsible for the most powerful weapon system on the planet--up to 50 ICBMs, with up to three warheads apiece, ready to fly on a moments notice.  Every decision they make HAS to be the right one, because the American people have entrusted us with this awesome responsibility; the nature and depth of that trust REQUIRES us to be nothing less than perfect. I am humbled and truly in awe of the abilities of the captains and lieutenants I work for.  Every day, they go out and do two impossible things before breakfast, most with a smile on their face and all with a deep, abiding respect for what we provide for the country.   Maybe okay, I have a little institutional bias, but while the subs are a marvel of technology and engineering, have a difficult job and are very, very good at what they do, I think the missileers and ICBMs would qualify as the most powerful, capable and highly trained nuclear deterrent force in existence.   [/soap box]

That is one of the most impressive statements I've ever read.  period.

LX thanks for your service!

Quoted: In Before Limaxray Our SLBMs are the best in the world. We have stealth aircraft. Let Putin waste all the rubles he wants.

thats how we broke their back in the first go round.

Quoted: Quoted: You forgot SLBMs: Trident II (D5) UGM-133A The second variant of the Trident is more sophisticated and can carry a heavier payload. It is accurate enough to be a first strike weapon. All three stages of the Trident II are made of graphite epoxy, making the missile much lighter. The Trident II was the original missile on the British Vanguard and Ohio SSBNs since USS Tennessee (SSBN-734). The D5 missile is currently carried by twelve Ohio class SSBNs.[6] Lockheed has carried out 119 consecutive successful test launches of the D5 missile since 1989, according to a company press release.[7] Characteristics    * Purpose: strategic nuclear deterrence    * Contractor: Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Sunnyvale, California    * Unit Cost: $30.9 million    * Propulsion: three stage solid propellant    * Length: 44 ft (13.41 m)    * Weight: 130,000 lb (58,500 kg)    * Diameter: 83 in (2.11 m)    * Range: 7000 miles (11300 km)    * Maximum speed: 29,030 km/h (18,000 mph)    * Guidance system: inertial, with celestial reference or GPS guidance    * CEP: 300-400 ft (90-120 m) (using GPS guidance) or 380 meters using inertial guidance.    * Warhead (in USA usage only): nuclear MIRV. Up to eight W88 (475 kt) warheads (Mark 5) or eight W76 (100 kt) warheads (Mark 4). The Trident II can carry 12 MIRV warheads but START I reduces this to 8 and SORT reduces this yet further to 4 or 5.    * Date deployed: 1990 I had no idea the Trident 2's had that sort of range. Wow! It seems they travel just as far as the big ground silo launched missiles if I am reading the specs of the two types correctly. Impressive!

And that be the public release info....

tag for home.

Quoted: Here's the difference--on a sub, there are many personnel doing their job, but their job is broken up into little chunks, requiring in-depth knowledge of that piece in front of you and only requires a broad knowledge of how it interacts with the whole system.  In ICBMs, it all comes together in the launch control center, where the lieutenants and captains in the capsule are the last, final meeting point for all those things, and it is their job to ensure it gets done right.

Have you ever been on a boomer?

In addition, the subs have some limitations the ICBMs don't have, which make them less, not more capable.  For example--subs can't retarget quickly.  The console in the capsule is called the REACT console, for Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting.  We can retarget, realign and launch a sortie--or multiple sorties, up to all 50 in the squadron--in much, much less time than the subs.  Our launch times are quicker, providing what is currently the ONLY prompt global strike capability to the President and combatant commanders.

This is true. Of course, it is a restriction on the medium a sub operates in.

Maybe okay, I have a little institutional bias, but while the subs are a marvel of technology and engineering, have a difficult job and are very, very good at what they do, I think the missileers and ICBMs would qualify as the most powerful, capable and highly trained nuclear deterrent force in existence.   [/soap box]

Yep, there's some bias. But it's good bias. If someone didn't think they were a part of the best, they should find another job.

One point in favor of the SSBNs. They not only have to know how to use the nukes to kill cities. They have to use a nuke to boil water.