F-15 Eagle
New Member
Why doesn't the U.S. use mobile ICBMs? Russia does it I think the U.S. could make good use of it to.
How many nuclear missile silos did US have during cold war?
- Thread starter dioditto
- Start date
When Russia started on the Topol, the US developed a sort of counterpart, the MGM-134 "Midgetman" (seriously). Both as a response to the road-mobile Topol and the rail-mobile SS-24.
Was cancelled due to end of Cold War in 1992 after 6 years development and one successful test flight. Would have only carried a single 475 kt warhead, no MIRVs.
Similarly, there was development for a railroad-based Peacekeeper variant as a more survivable basing version compared to the silo variant. Was supposed to be operational by 1992, but cancelled in late 80s/early 90s due to lack of funding and end of Cold War.
Was cancelled due to end of Cold War in 1992 after 6 years development and one successful test flight. Would have only carried a single 475 kt warhead, no MIRVs.
Similarly, there was development for a railroad-based Peacekeeper variant as a more survivable basing version compared to the silo variant. Was supposed to be operational by 1992, but cancelled in late 80s/early 90s due to lack of funding and end of Cold War.
flyer19999
New Member
missile silos
This is just speculation on my part but the reason the USA probably does not use road-mobile ICBM's is because the country is a lot smaller than Russia and more metropolitan. Not enough places to hide from lots of people.
Russia is a vast country almost twice the size of the USA with less large cities so therefore road-mobile missiles makes more sense that is if you have fairly good roads. And eventually the technology may catchup with fixed silos which could make them easy target.
This is just speculation on my part but the reason the USA probably does not use road-mobile ICBM's is because the country is a lot smaller than Russia and more metropolitan. Not enough places to hide from lots of people.
Russia is a vast country almost twice the size of the USA with less large cities so therefore road-mobile missiles makes more sense that is if you have fairly good roads. And eventually the technology may catchup with fixed silos which could make them easy target.
True, most of us would have been fried although airburst bombs may have been the preferred Soviet blast of choice, does the job without less fallout.That supposes that the soviets actually thought they could win a nuclear war and occupy a burnt and contaminated western eurpoe as a prize.
A chain of hardened silos though need accurate groundburst warheads, the studies into silo-ing Blue Streak in the 1950's concluded that the most suitable rock strata was in southern england, a political non starter,particularly once Blue Steel, Skybolt and then Polaris lessened the need. I recall the controversy of the GLCM's at Greenham Common, I believe Pershing was equally controversial in Gemany? Understandibly if your homeland was the conventional and the nuclear battlefield. Thankfully it never happened.
Plus the 4 minute flight time from western russia to the UK must make things less flexible, they could be hit before they had the chance to fly, and that puts immense pressure on any risk of false alarm, I doubt any politician could consider the matter and make a rational decision in 4 minutes so the process would probably have to be automated or at least have devolved responsibility to a senior military commander with his/her finger permanently next to the button?
As I understand it later Minuteman models took less than 30 minutes to reprogram and retarget eg, there is no point firing at an empty silo if the soviets launched a first strike,retarget and hit an industrial/population target. If your silos are in midwest USA, you get 30 minutes warning. Of course the soviets tried cold launch techniques to make their silos more "attractive" because they could in theory be reloaded. With silos in the vastness of empty siberia, perhaps Russia could have actually played the numbers game and won?
In the recent UK "should we replace Trident?" debate, ground launch and silos was a non starter. Protestors cant get near a submerged submarine, there is always a risk that they manage to chain themselves to a silo, and we arent allowed to shoot protestors.....
A chain of hardened silos though need accurate groundburst warheads, the studies into silo-ing Blue Streak in the 1950's concluded that the most suitable rock strata was in southern england, a political non starter,particularly once Blue Steel, Skybolt and then Polaris lessened the need. I recall the controversy of the GLCM's at Greenham Common, I believe Pershing was equally controversial in Gemany? Understandibly if your homeland was the conventional and the nuclear battlefield. Thankfully it never happened.
Plus the 4 minute flight time from western russia to the UK must make things less flexible, they could be hit before they had the chance to fly, and that puts immense pressure on any risk of false alarm, I doubt any politician could consider the matter and make a rational decision in 4 minutes so the process would probably have to be automated or at least have devolved responsibility to a senior military commander with his/her finger permanently next to the button?
As I understand it later Minuteman models took less than 30 minutes to reprogram and retarget eg, there is no point firing at an empty silo if the soviets launched a first strike,retarget and hit an industrial/population target. If your silos are in midwest USA, you get 30 minutes warning. Of course the soviets tried cold launch techniques to make their silos more "attractive" because they could in theory be reloaded. With silos in the vastness of empty siberia, perhaps Russia could have actually played the numbers game and won?
In the recent UK "should we replace Trident?" debate, ground launch and silos was a non starter. Protestors cant get near a submerged submarine, there is always a risk that they manage to chain themselves to a silo, and we arent allowed to shoot protestors.....
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Hey Kato,
Some reflections on my prev post.
The Minuteman III doesn't use GPS or stellar nav. Why? Well, if the accuracy is good enough, there is no reason to induce unknowns and complexity into a product which already has the desired properties.
My earlier comment stems from approaching it from an accuracy of airborne sensors perspective.
Extremely so, with millions out on the street to protest in the early 80s.
Didn't stop the Luftwaffe from buying 72 Pershing IA systems, and the US from stationing another 108 there. US missiles deleted by 1988 through INF, German missiles deactivated in 1991.
Germany usually had 18 missiles deployed on standby in hardened sites for immediate launch at all times.
Of course, to put this into perspective, in the 60s Germany bought about 1000 Starfighters with the prospects of what would have been essentially a one-way manned cruise missile mission with a B61.
And the Heer had two dozen mobile launchers for its 175 Lance tactical missiles with nukes until 1992.
Yes, they are a lucky bunch, no wonder most never venture outside then US, I suppose there is little need.
And yet they (the Reagan advisors) came up with stupid ideas such as densepacking MX missiles or moving ICBM's around on the rail network (9/11 would have caused review I think!).
It was a lot more interesting being a child of the cold war. However I think that by the time I draw my pension there will be european based ( EU operated)nuclear weapons facing those of the new powers in Asia.
Thanks Kato, you answered my question. I was going to ask if NATO countries had control of nuclear weapons or were they US controlled. Clearly yes, they did.
And yet they (the Reagan advisors) came up with stupid ideas such as densepacking MX missiles or moving ICBM's around on the rail network (9/11 would have caused review I think!).
It was a lot more interesting being a child of the cold war. However I think that by the time I draw my pension there will be european based ( EU operated)nuclear weapons facing those of the new powers in Asia.
Thanks Kato, you answered my question. I was going to ask if NATO countries had control of nuclear weapons or were they US controlled. Clearly yes, they did.
It was actually more of a collaboration.
The nukes in the German case were provided by the USA, and were handled by US depots on German soil; each unit with nuclear assets had attached both US and German "special weapons" supply units. It was similar for the other European countries that were part of NATO nuclear sharing.
Arming codes had to be set off by the USA, so there wasn't really any European control per se. Launching of the European-held assets would require consent from both sides.
For the "standby" units, these were actually set up with nukes; before launch, the attached US unit would supply the arming code through their command line, and the German (or other NATO) unit would then launch the missile.
For example in the Bundeswehr Army, each German Corps around 1980 had an Artillery Command with:
Later on in the 80s these were severely cut down btw, with field artillery redistributed to divisional artillery regiments, the NBC battalions reassigned to Corps Engineers, and light infantry reorganized into a straight security battalion.
The US Army Detachment was actually usually permanently stationed with the German units.
The divisional artillery regiments - with a battery of M110 and up till early 80s a Honest John battery - all similarly had a platoon-strength US detachment each assigned to them.
The nukes in the German case were provided by the USA, and were handled by US depots on German soil; each unit with nuclear assets had attached both US and German "special weapons" supply units. It was similar for the other European countries that were part of NATO nuclear sharing.
Arming codes had to be set off by the USA, so there wasn't really any European control per se. Launching of the European-held assets would require consent from both sides.
For the "standby" units, these were actually set up with nukes; before launch, the attached US unit would supply the arming code through their command line, and the German (or other NATO) unit would then launch the missile.
For example in the Bundeswehr Army, each German Corps around 1980 had an Artillery Command with:
- a Missile Battalion with three firing batteries and a 300-strong security "battery"
- a field artillery battalion with an active battery and two inactive batteries (all equipped with nuclear-capable 203mm M110A2)
- two inactive field artillery battalions (M110A2)
- a NBC battalion
- a Special Weapons supply battalion (guards depot and does transports, including escort duty)
- an attached US Army Missile Detachment (typically 80 men) supplying the arming codes and operating the depot
Later on in the 80s these were severely cut down btw, with field artillery redistributed to divisional artillery regiments, the NBC battalions reassigned to Corps Engineers, and light infantry reorganized into a straight security battalion.
The US Army Detachment was actually usually permanently stationed with the German units.
The divisional artillery regiments - with a battery of M110 and up till early 80s a Honest John battery - all similarly had a platoon-strength US detachment each assigned to them.
A very interesting discussion. Does anyone have some information on future US deployments and a possible replacement of the MM-III? I heard something about a replacement planned for 2038. As for Russian nuclear forces, here is an excellent listing from russianforces.org (a quite reliable source on Russian nuclear weapons news).
localhost127
Member
Thanks for the info. I'm having trouble locating more information online regarding stellar navigation in detail ... could anyone be of assistance and point me in the right direction?IIRC US ICBM use GPS (but is not a primary means of nav) and also stellar navigation (very, very accurate).
The geometry of the original three Beidiou GEO sats perform poorly for navigation on the Earths surface, but is excellent if you use them for mid-course corrections when tossing an ICBM from China to CONUS. Odd isn't it?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
There this tidbit:
Try Googling combinations of stellar/celestial + guidance/reference/navigation and something is bound to pop up.
t68
Well-Known Member
Holy crap,i did not realize it was such a short flight time.
you must have had some real cool cookie's under pressure if something went wrong or not what it seemed.
Could the UK realistically send the a response in under 4 minutes if it was under a surprise attack?
What is the flight time to CONUS?
Indeed, the main advantage of a Sub based missile fleet is that its nigh on impossible to know where it is! Whilst our Trident (and any other SLBM fleet) is hideously expensive to maintain, I would say its the most effective form of nuclear detterent.
I believe when the WE177 free fall nuclear bombs were due to be restationed in the UK after no longer being deemed necassary in RAF Germany, they were quickly retired as the prospect of having nukes on our mainland were not politically a good move. Although there is also the thought that if there was any kind of East-West conflict brewing, then chances are the USA would have hoards of them on our shores?
I have always found the how many thousands of nukes does the USA or Russia/USSR own or owned all rather academic. Even our relatively small inventory of 200 odd 100kt Trident missiles would be enough to render Russia totally dysfunctional, even if it wouldnt have the 'total destruction' effect that they would have on us.
I believe when the WE177 free fall nuclear bombs were due to be restationed in the UK after no longer being deemed necassary in RAF Germany, they were quickly retired as the prospect of having nukes on our mainland were not politically a good move. Although there is also the thought that if there was any kind of East-West conflict brewing, then chances are the USA would have hoards of them on our shores?
I have always found the how many thousands of nukes does the USA or Russia/USSR own or owned all rather academic. Even our relatively small inventory of 200 odd 100kt Trident missiles would be enough to render Russia totally dysfunctional, even if it wouldnt have the 'total destruction' effect that they would have on us.
localhost127
Member
Has the US (or any other country with ICBM/nuclear capabilities), ever tested an ICBM with a live warhead? ...or have all ICBM missile tests been with dummy warheads?
If so, does anyone have any idea on the range/trajectory that has been attempted/tested?
I see quite a bit of risk in testing a live ICBM (either testing the warhead, or the missile/platform itself) over one's own soil. Has this been done before?
If so, does anyone have any idea on the range/trajectory that has been attempted/tested?
I see quite a bit of risk in testing a live ICBM (either testing the warhead, or the missile/platform itself) over one's own soil. Has this been done before?
Live missile-warhead tests in the US:
"Frigate Bird", 1962: Polaris A1 SLBM, 600 kt W67 warhead, 1900 km distance
"Bluegill"/"Starfish"/"Kingfish"/"Checkmate"/"Tightrope", 1962: Thor IRBMs and Nike Hercules, high-altitude tests with 1.45 Mt W49 warheads, tons of failures with contamination
"Operation Argus", 1958 : Three high-altitude tests with rockets and 1.7 kt W17 warheads
"Operation Hardtack", 1958 : Two Redstone rockets with 3.75 MT warheads, high-altitude tests
All ICBM tests used inert or missing warheads.
"Frigate Bird", 1962: Polaris A1 SLBM, 600 kt W67 warhead, 1900 km distance
"Bluegill"/"Starfish"/"Kingfish"/"Checkmate"/"Tightrope", 1962: Thor IRBMs and Nike Hercules, high-altitude tests with 1.45 Mt W49 warheads, tons of failures with contamination
"Operation Argus", 1958 : Three high-altitude tests with rockets and 1.7 kt W17 warheads
"Operation Hardtack", 1958 : Two Redstone rockets with 3.75 MT warheads, high-altitude tests
All ICBM tests used inert or missing warheads.
Actually in the beginning if the cold war the us had much more nuclear missiles then the Sovietunion. It wasnt until the mid 1970s that the reds passed the NATO forces in numbers of warheads and missiles. The SS-19 and SS-18 with its 6-10 warheads did make Nato forces shit in thier pants. Those missiles was the biggest reasen if the construction of the MX-missile.
Then in the 1980s the mobile topol missile (SS-25) made russias second strike capability much bigger.
In 1990 just before the collapse of the Sovietunion they could launch a total of 308 SS-18 with 10 warheads each, 300 SS-19 with 6 warheads, about 200 SS-25 with a single warhead and 92 SS-24 missiles with another 10 warheads each. Then add all the hundreds of SLBM that would be fired from the hidden SSBNs and you can gess how much the NATO forces would had sufferd if the reds would had stirked first.
Then in the 1980s the mobile topol missile (SS-25) made russias second strike capability much bigger.
In 1990 just before the collapse of the Sovietunion they could launch a total of 308 SS-18 with 10 warheads each, 300 SS-19 with 6 warheads, about 200 SS-25 with a single warhead and 92 SS-24 missiles with another 10 warheads each. Then add all the hundreds of SLBM that would be fired from the hidden SSBNs and you can gess how much the NATO forces would had sufferd if the reds would had stirked first.
That is impressive. How many MX did US have in their inventory until the end of cold war?