Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/2/2014 2:16:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 2:16:59 PM EST by aeroworksxp]
I see china just tested a new icbm mobile launcher. Had me wondering if we have some in service, or were those scrapped?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:18:06 PM EST

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:18:34 PM EST
There were plans for road-mobile ICBMs as well as rail-based, but neither were ever implemented in the US.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:20:33 PM EST
FPNI
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:22:24 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DarkNite:
There were plans for road-mobile ICBMs as well as rail-based, but neither were ever implemented in the US.
View Quote

Not really sure what the need for such a thing would be. Granted, I'm no expert, but it would seem our subs could park missiles pretty much anywhere we needed them.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:22:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 2:23:01 PM EST by mjohn3006]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History



Pretty much.

With the ability to have a shit load of ICBMs hidden in the oceans which covers more than 50% of the earth. Why make a land launcher?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:23:38 PM EST
I think any of the mexican roach coaches out here that sell taquitos should qualify as miniature mobile ICBM launchers, but that's about it
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:28:06 PM EST
The initial deployment plan for MX was on mobile launchers on dedicated "race tracks", moving from one hardened shelter to another. After cost data was analyzed the idea was shelved and they went into fixed silo's for their short service life.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:52:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By runcible:

Not really sure what the need for such a thing would be. Granted, I'm no expert, but it would seem our subs could park missiles pretty much anywhere we needed them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By runcible:
Originally Posted By DarkNite:
There were plans for road-mobile ICBMs as well as rail-based, but neither were ever implemented in the US.

Not really sure what the need for such a thing would be. Granted, I'm no expert, but it would seem our subs could park missiles pretty much anywhere we needed them.


You get much of the advantage of an air breather, with comparitive cost of a large truck.

ICBMs have advantages of rapid response and throwweight.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:53:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WayneG:
The initial deployment plan for MX was on mobile launchers on dedicated "race tracks", moving from one hardened shelter to another. After cost data was analyzed the idea was shelved and they went into fixed silo's for their short service life.
View Quote


PK was traded away. It was a monster launch platform.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 2:54:32 PM EST
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
I see china just tested a new icbm mobile launcher. Had me wondering if we have some in service, or were those scrapped?
View Quote


Ours even work under water.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 3:04:38 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dillehayd:


Ours even work under water.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
I see china just tested a new icbm mobile launcher. Had me wondering if we have some in service, or were those scrapped?


Ours even work under water.


Ever heard of JL-2?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 3:05:31 PM EST
Security would be a PITA... easier in Siberia.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 3:17:10 PM EST
1st post and all that!!!
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 3:24:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 3:28:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


Best mobile launcher in the world.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 3:33:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 3:33:47 PM EST by paris-dakar]
The Peacekeeper was a real monster.

It was treaty limitations which caused it to go away, not any problem with the missile itself. If we were to actually work at it we probably could have had a new nuke bomb which would fit a 20 MIRV warhead on a Peacekeeper.

Sometimes I think we should just call Putin's bluff and agree that it's time to walk away from all those Cold War era treaties. The PRC is the only nation that benefits from them anymore.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 3:36:15 PM EST
We are getting rid of silos/nukes. Can't add more to the mix. I don't see mobile launchers as being any more reliable or more secure than our existing sites.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 3:44:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By damcv62:


Best mobile launcher in the world.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By damcv62:


Best mobile launcher in the world.

But, but, but.... the Russian ones are BIGGER!!!
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:37:53 PM EST
Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:40:44 PM EST
FPNI
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:47:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
The Peacekeeper was a real monster.

It was treaty limitations which caused it to go away, not any problem with the missile itself. If we were to actually work at it we probably could have had a new nuke bomb which would fit a 20 MIRV warhead on a Peacekeeper.

Sometimes I think we should just call Putin's bluff and agree that it's time to walk away from all those Cold War era treaties. The PRC is the only nation that benefits from them anymore.
View Quote


Time to dust off the neutron bomb schematics?
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:49:48 PM EST
I would think security for those things would be a living nightmare.

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:53:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History


That sucker lives at Wright Patterson AFB Museum on the apron to the east.

Still looks badass.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:54:06 PM EST
Obama wants us to go back to diesel subs...

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:56:40 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By c350z:
FPNI
View Quote

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 4:58:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:


Time to dust off the neutron bomb schematics?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
The Peacekeeper was a real monster.

It was treaty limitations which caused it to go away, not any problem with the missile itself. If we were to actually work at it we probably could have had a new nuke bomb which would fit a 20 MIRV warhead on a Peacekeeper.

Sometimes I think we should just call Putin's bluff and agree that it's time to walk away from all those Cold War era treaties. The PRC is the only nation that benefits from them anymore.


Time to dust off the neutron bomb schematics?


The Peacekeeper had 10 MIRV 300 kiloton warheads
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:03:19 PM EST
Why be so barbaric...


Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:28:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Why be so barbaric...


http://tonova.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c556453ef0168e6c0a6aa970c-pi
View Quote


Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:32:21 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:45:27 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:


Ever heard of JL-2?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
I see china just tested a new icbm mobile launcher. Had me wondering if we have some in service, or were those scrapped?


Ours even work under water.


Ever heard of JL-2?


Probably not. Everyone knows the PLAN is just a bunch of amateurs that never leave sight of the coast, which precludes submarines from submerging.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 5:51:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys:


If you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys:
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Why be so barbaric...


http://tonova.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c556453ef0168e6c0a6aa970c-pi


If you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes.
Not really. Nukes actually suck. They are not as powerful as people think they are, they are mechanically complex and are comprised of material that by it's very nature decays without use.


Plus... these could actually be used a lot easier.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:01:03 PM EST
I believe we used (employed as we fired none) the RR launcher.
My work made the forgings for the assembly.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:01:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2014 6:02:51 PM EST by Keekleberrys]
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:02:18 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys:


If you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys:
Originally Posted By Madcap72:
Why be so barbaric...


http://tonova.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c556453ef0168e6c0a6aa970c-pi


If you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes.


What if you use the nukes to do the lifting?


(click to embiggen)
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:03:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:


Ever heard of JL-2?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By swede1986:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By aeroworksxp:
I see china just tested a new icbm mobile launcher. Had me wondering if we have some in service, or were those scrapped?


Ours even work under water.


Ever heard of JL-2?

No.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:34:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:37:07 PM EST
The only country that has them active as of right now are the Russians. (RS-24 Topel, Topel M with MIRV warheads)
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:38:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:


Time to dust off the neutron bomb schematics?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
The Peacekeeper was a real monster.

It was treaty limitations which caused it to go away, not any problem with the missile itself. If we were to actually work at it we probably could have had a new nuke bomb which would fit a 20 MIRV warhead on a Peacekeeper.

Sometimes I think we should just call Putin's bluff and agree that it's time to walk away from all those Cold War era treaties. The PRC is the only nation that benefits from them anymore.


Time to dust off the neutron bomb schematics?


Putin has broken all of those treaties. He doesn't care.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:49:38 PM EST
We shouldn't either................we should deploy any and everything we can

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Thunder900:


Putin has broken all of those treaties. He doesn't care.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Thunder900:
Originally Posted By Choking_Hazard:
Originally Posted By paris-dakar:
The Peacekeeper was a real monster.

It was treaty limitations which caused it to go away, not any problem with the missile itself. If we were to actually work at it we probably could have had a new nuke bomb which would fit a 20 MIRV warhead on a Peacekeeper.

Sometimes I think we should just call Putin's bluff and agree that it's time to walk away from all those Cold War era treaties. The PRC is the only nation that benefits from them anymore.


Time to dust off the neutron bomb schematics?


Putin has broken all of those treaties. He doesn't care.

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:54:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LurchAddams:
Obama wants us to go back to diesel subs...http://whysoblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Close-quarters-www.whysoblu.com_.jpg

View Quote


Solar
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 6:59:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History

I'd hate to be the one who had to back that up for the picture.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 7:02:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:


PK was traded away. It was a monster launch platform.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By WayneG:
The initial deployment plan for MX was on mobile launchers on dedicated "race tracks", moving from one hardened shelter to another. After cost data was analyzed the idea was shelved and they went into fixed silo's for their short service life.


PK was traded away. It was a monster launch platform.


Yup, when we agreed to take the ten MIRVs off of them we might as well have scrapped the program at the same time. Utter stupidity IMO, but most all nuclear disarmament treaties are.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 7:29:24 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dbnd:
Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM.
View Quote


This.

GLCM is tits.

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 7:43:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Finslayer83:


This.

GLCM is tits.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Finslayer83:
Originally Posted By Dbnd:
Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM.


This.

GLCM is tits.

The BGM 109 airframe is still around and better than ever (Tomahawk). I wonder if any of the physics packages survived...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cruise_Missile

Link Posted: 10/2/2014 7:54:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dilbert_556:
The BGM 109 airframe is still around and better than ever (Tomahawk). I wonder if any of the physics packages survived...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cruise_Missile

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dilbert_556:
Originally Posted By Finslayer83:
Originally Posted By Dbnd:
Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM.


This.

GLCM is tits.

The BGM 109 airframe is still around and better than ever (Tomahawk). I wonder if any of the physics packages survived...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cruise_Missile



Wiki seems to think the airframes were destroyed, but not the W84 warheads.

The W84 warheads are in Enduring Stockpile storage; the GLCM missiles which previously carried them have been destroyed to comply with the INF treaty, but the warheads are being maintained in case a future application is required


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W84
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 7:54:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AR45fan:

But, but, but.... the Russian ones are BIGGER!!!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AR45fan:
Originally Posted By damcv62:


Best mobile launcher in the world.

But, but, but.... the Russian ones are BIGGER!!!


But, but, but the Russians have a shit ton and are still operational while our Community Organizer hates nukes.

That's how you win Thermonuclear War.

Think if the Russians launched first, Prez-o-dent Zero would respond?

I seem to remember him having to be dragged into making a decision on getting Bin Laden.

From all I've seen, he could weather having a major US city getting dusted, because gosh, if we responded, why that'd be nuclear war! Can't campaign on nuclear war!
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:05:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:


Wiki seems to think the airframes were destroyed, but not the W84 warheads.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W84
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RictusGrin:
Originally Posted By Dilbert_556:
Originally Posted By Finslayer83:
Originally Posted By Dbnd:
Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM.


This.

GLCM is tits.

The BGM 109 airframe is still around and better than ever (Tomahawk). I wonder if any of the physics packages survived...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cruise_Missile



Wiki seems to think the airframes were destroyed, but not the W84 warheads.

The W84 warheads are in Enduring Stockpile storage; the GLCM missiles which previously carried them have been destroyed to comply with the INF treaty, but the warheads are being maintained in case a future application is required


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W84
The Gryphon airframes may have been destroyed, but they were just a specialized version of the Tomahawk still in use today. If the W84 warheads still exist in a usable form, we probably could reconstitute the missile without a lot of trouble. The Transporter Erector Launchers (TEL) and Launch Control Centers (LCC) would have to be rebuilt as well, but that probably wouldn't be difficult to do either.

It's a pity none of it will ever happen.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:33:59 PM EST
Barack Obama - Keeping the world safe for major conventional endless land wars.

Moat of us older guys would not be alive now if it weren't for the bomb.
Link Posted: 10/2/2014 8:46:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DarkNite:
There were plans for road-mobile ICBMs as well as rail-based, but neither were ever implemented in the US.
View Quote


Funny story my uncle told me about this subject just recently.

He was a project manager on the MX missile for MacDoug back in the day. Anyway, they were having some type of meeting and a tour with some top generals and congress critters when the topic of putting launchers on rail came up. Then one of the congressman had a Guam capsizing moment and asked the general wouldn't launching a missile from rail destroy the tracks. My uncle said the general stared at the guy for a moment and then straight faced said "Who gives a SHIT! <pause>....we're in the middle of nuclear war, damaged rail is the least of our problem". The congressman didn't open his mouth the rest of the tour.

Just thought it was funny, would have loved to been a fly on the wall.
Link Posted: 10/3/2014 9:41:23 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tommyrich:


Funny story my uncle told me about this subject just recently.

He was a project manager on the MX missile for MacDoug back in the day. Anyway, they were having some type of meeting and a tour with some top generals and congress critters when the topic of putting launchers on rail came up. Then one of the congressman had a Guam capsizing moment and asked the general wouldn't launching a missile from rail destroy the tracks. My uncle said the general stared at the guy for a moment and then straight faced said "Who gives a SHIT! <pause>....we're in the middle of nuclear war, damaged rail is the least of our problem". The congressman didn't open his mouth the rest of the tour.

Just thought it was funny, would have loved to been a fly on the wall.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tommyrich:
Originally Posted By DarkNite:
There were plans for road-mobile ICBMs as well as rail-based, but neither were ever implemented in the US.


Funny story my uncle told me about this subject just recently.

He was a project manager on the MX missile for MacDoug back in the day. Anyway, they were having some type of meeting and a tour with some top generals and congress critters when the topic of putting launchers on rail came up. Then one of the congressman had a Guam capsizing moment and asked the general wouldn't launching a missile from rail destroy the tracks. My uncle said the general stared at the guy for a moment and then straight faced said "Who gives a SHIT! <pause>....we're in the middle of nuclear war, damaged rail is the least of our problem". The congressman didn't open his mouth the rest of the tour.

Just thought it was funny, would have loved to been a fly on the wall.


Thats a good story. Will remember that one.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top