User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:18:06 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:18:34 PM EDT
[#2]
There were plans for road-mobile ICBMs as well as rail-based, but neither were ever implemented in the US.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:20:33 PM EDT
[#3]
FPNI
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:22:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:22:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryPretty 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:23:38 PM EDT
[#6]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:28:06 PM EDT
[#7]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:52:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:53:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 3:54:32 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 4:04:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ours even work under water. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 4:05:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Security would be a PITA... easier in Siberia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 4:17:10 PM EDT
[#13]
1st post and all that!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 4:24:40 PM EDT
[#14]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 4:28:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryBest mobile launcher in the world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 4:33:14 PM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 4:36:15 PM EDT
[#17]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 4:44:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Best mobile launcher in the world. Quote HistoryQuoted: Best mobile launcher in the world. But, but, but.... the Russian ones are BIGGER!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:37:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:40:44 PM EDT
[#20]
FPNI
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:47:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:49:48 PM EDT
[#22]
I would think security for those things would be a living nightmare.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:53:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryThat sucker lives at Wright Patterson AFB Museum on the apron to the east. Still looks badass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:54:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Obama wants us to go back to diesel subs...
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:56:40 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FPNI |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 5:58:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Time to dust off the neutron bomb schematics? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:03:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Why be so barbaric...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:28:20 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote History
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:32:21 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryIf you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:45:27 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever heard of JL-2? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 6:51:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes. Quote HistoryQuoted: If you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes. Plus... these could actually be used a lot easier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:01:03 PM EDT
[#32]
I believe we used (employed as we fired none) the RR launcher.
My work made the forgings for the assembly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:01:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes. Plus... these could actually be used a lot easier. Put a reserve tank of the consumables (tritium, etc) up there with it to account for decay and you'd be covered for a bit. It's really expensive to lift something like that up there especially with how heavy those tungsten rods are, and the kinetic effects aren't gonna be as awesome as a nuke. In all the proposals I have seen they don't even equate to 1kt. Rods from god or other kinetic bombardment ideas dont really pass cost benefit analysis due to how prohibitively expensive it is having to lift them out of the gravity well, and the effects of a tungsten cylinder reaching terminal velocity would be underwhelming. The real advantage in such a system would be lack of warning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:02:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're gonna spend the tremendous resources to lift something that high might as well be nukes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:03:33 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ever heard of JL-2? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:34:36 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:37:07 PM EDT
[#37]
The only country that has them active as of right now are the Russians. (RS-24 Topel, Topel M with MIRV warheads)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:38:16 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Time to dust off the neutron bomb schematics? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:49:38 PM EDT
[#39]
We shouldn't either................we should deploy any and everything we can
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Putin has broken all of those treaties. He doesn't care. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:54:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obama wants us to go back to diesel subs...http://whysoblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Close-quarters-www.whysoblu.com_.jpg Solar |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 7:59:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryI'd hate to be the one who had to back that up for the picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 8:02:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
PK was traded away. It was a monster launch platform. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 8:29:24 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM. This. GLCM is tits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 8:43:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. GLCM is tits. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM. This. GLCM is tits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cruise_Missile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 8:54:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM. This. GLCM is tits. 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 8:54:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, but, but.... the Russian ones are BIGGER!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 9:05:22 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wiki seems to think the airframes were destroyed, but not the W84 warheads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W84 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Since the Russians are saying to hell with the IRBM treaty, we need to bring back the GLCM. This. GLCM is tits. 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 It's a pity none of it will ever happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 9:33:59 PM EDT
[#48]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2014 9:46:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2014 10:41:23 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
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.
