Martin Marietta MGM-134A Midgetman Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (SICBM)

sferrin said:
1st503rdSGT said:
We don't even have the capacity to manufacture new weapons anymore as almost all the engineers/physicists who built/designed even our newest systems have long-since retired or died.
Click to expand...

Hell, half of them work were I do (and we don't do missiles).
Click to expand...

Really? Seems I read somewhere that there are only a half-dozen or so individuals left in the US who actually had a hand in designing the last generation of weapons (and are still working).
 
1st503rdSGT said:
Well, not quite. Russia and China have both taken strategic nukes more seriously than the US since the early 1990s, as they have continued to develop new delivery systems and possibly new weapons as well, putting more effort into land-mobile systems not unlike Midgetman. However that does not mean that they have engaged in any nuclear buildups though. It's hard to be sure, but rumor has it that Russia doesn't really have much in the way of working missiles (which my explain why missile defense pi$$es them off so much), and China apparently has yet to master a usable submarine deterrent (which may explain all those tunnels and land-mobile launchers).
Click to expand...

Russia is developing new delivery systems primarily because their current systems like the Topol (SS-25) are reaching the end of their service lives and will have to be replaced. There's no reason to assume their missiles aren't working, either. The only real problem they've had in recent years is with the Bulava SLBM test program.

China's SSBN force is increasing, they've got around 4 Type 094 SSBNs now, enough to keep at least one at sea if they desired. Their problem in this area was that the Type 092 was a colossal failure on a bunch of levels, leaving them with one SSBN and the need to make a new one for a good long time.
 
1st503rdSGT said:
sferrin said:
1st503rdSGT said:
We don't even have the capacity to manufacture new weapons anymore as almost all the engineers/physicists who built/designed even our newest systems have long-since retired or died.
Click to expand...

Hell, half of them work were I do (and we don't do missiles).
Click to expand...

Really? Seems I read somewhere that there are only a half-dozen or so individuals left in the US who actually had a hand in designing the last generation of weapons (and are still working).
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about warheads. ATK (makers of motors for the Minuteman, Peacekeeper, and Trident) has gutted it's solid rocket motor workforce. I work with a bunch of 'em.
 
Triton said:
Isn't India building a force of ICBMs and nuclear weapons in addition to its build-up of conventional forces?
Click to expand...

Working on it. As is Russia and China. Seems our unilateral disarmament hasn't made them gather together in a round of kumbya. What a surprise.
 
Russia Strategic Modernization Program

1) Avante Guarde ICBM (new Google it)
2) RS-24 Yars ICBM
3) Possible R-36M3 - heavy ICBM to replace SS-18 (R-36M2)
4) Bulava SLBM
5) New liquid fueled SLBM
6) New SSBN under construction
7) New bomber under development
8) Active nuclear warhead R&D
9) Active nuclear warhead production lines
US Strategic Modernization Program
1) No new warhead R&D (mandated by Congress research forbidden)
2) No new warhead production only refurbishment of 30 year old designs
3) New bomber early R&D nothing until 2030 (if even then)
4) New SSBN(X) under study nothing until 2029 at the earliest
5) No new ICBM until 2030 (if even then)
6) No new SLBM until 2037 (if even then)
 
bobbymike said:
Russia Strategic Modernization Program 1) Avante Guarde ICBM (new Google it)
2) RS-24 Yars ICBM
3) Possible R-36M3 - heavy ICBM to replace SS-18 (R-36M2)
4) Bulava SLBM
5) New liquid fueled SLBM
6) New SSBN under construction
7) New bomber under development
8) Active nuclear warhead R&D
9) Active nuclear warhead production lines
US Strategic Modernization Program
1) No new warhead R&D (mandated by Congress research forbidden)
2) No new warhead production only refurbishment of 30 year old designs
3) New bomber early R&D nothing until 2030 (if even then)
4) New SSBN(X) under study nothing until 2029 at the earliest
5) No new ICBM until 2030 (if even then)
6) No new SLBM until 2037 (if even then)
Click to expand...

But hey, we're trying to upgrade these 40 year old Minutemen so we don't need no stinkin' research. Besides, nukes are useless. Have we ever used 'em? See. Worthless. /libtard_speak.
 
sferrin said:
But hey, we're trying to upgrade these 40 year old Minutemen so we don't need no stinkin' research. Besides, nukes are useless. Have we ever used 'em? See. Worthless. /libtard_speak.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't paint all liberals or progressives with the same brush there, sferrin. Some of us support defense and a credible nuclear deterrent. I believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle are responsible for the state of neglect and disrepair of our nuclear deterrent. There seems to be a fixation that the Soviet Union was the only potential adversary of the United States in a nuclear exchange and that a nuclear deterrent is no longer necessary with the downfall of the Soviet Union. Some Conservatives say--"Why do we need nukes, we won the cold war!" The problem with defense procurement is that we seem to have to name our potential adversaries and forget the fact that defense projects determine the capabilities of the nation for a generation. During this period, the political landscape may change. Most politicians and opinion leaders seem content to just kick the can and concern themselves with the nuclear deterrent later.
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
But hey, we're trying to upgrade these 40 year old Minutemen so we don't need no stinkin' research. Besides, nukes are useless. Have we ever used 'em? See. Worthless. /libtard_speak.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't paint all liberals or progressives with the same brush there, sferrin. Some of us support defense and a credible nuclear deterrent. I believe that politicians on both sides of the aisle are responsible for the state of neglect and disrepair of our nuclear deterrent. There seems to be a fixation that the Soviet Union was the only potential adversary of the United States in a nuclear exchange and that a nuclear deterrent is no longer necessary with the downfall of the Soviet Union. Some Conservatives say--"Why do we need nukes, we won the cold war!" The problem with defense procurement is that we seem to have to name our potential adversaries and forget the fact that defense projects determine the capabilities of the nation for a generation. During this period, the political landscape may change. Most politicians and opinion leaders seem content to just kick the can and concern themselves with the nuclear deterrent later.
Click to expand...

It's all about getting the vote today. Nobody cares about tomorrow's problems, that's somebody else's problem.
 
1) Avante Guarde ICBM (new Google it) - Replacing SS-19, this is a land-based Bulava called Avangard
2) RS-24 Yars ICBM - Replacing Topol
3) Possible R-36M3 - heavy ICBM to replace SS-18 (R-36M2) - Replacing SS-18
4) Bulava SLBM - For the new submarine; traditionally new SSBN classes get new missile systems, even if they're derivatives
5) New liquid fueled SLBM - To re-arm the Delta IVs, this is a MIRV'ed SS-N-23 called Liner
6) New SSBN under construction - To replace Typhoon and Delta III
 7) New bomber under development - To replace Tu-95MS and possibly Tu-160

That's what I mean, they aren't increasing things by leaps and bounds, they're just going about business as usual. They've stopped Topol-M production in favor of the RS-24, so they aren't just building everything possible. In reality there's one brand new missile: the liquid-fueled heavy ICBM, and that's only if it doesn't represent an R-36M design modification.
 
SOC said:
1) Avante Guarde ICBM (new Google it) - Replacing SS-19, this is a land-based Bulava called Avangard
2) RS-24 Yars ICBM - Replacing Topol
3) Possible R-36M3 - heavy ICBM to replace SS-18 (R-36M2) - Replacing SS-18
4) Bulava SLBM - For the new submarine; traditionally new SSBN classes get new missile systems, even if they're derivatives
5) New liquid fueled SLBM - To re-arm the Delta IVs, this is a MIRV'ed SS-N-23 called Liner
6) New SSBN under construction - To replace Typhoon and Delta III
7) New bomber under development - To replace Tu-95MS and possibly Tu-160

That's what I mean, they aren't increasing things by leaps and bounds, they're just going about business as usual. They've stopped Topol-M production in favor of the RS-24, so they aren't just building everything possible. In reality there's one brand new missile: the liquid-fueled heavy ICBM, and that's only if it doesn't represent an R-36M design modification.
Click to expand...

Building new SLBM (Bulava), ICBM (Yars), SSBN (Borea). The US is building no new ICBMs, no new SLBMs, and no new SSBN.
 
The point is that there is no evidence to suggest that the Russians are actually expanding their strategic force. Yes, we're letting ours stagnate and failing to pursue the necessary steps to keep it fully viable, this isn't even debatable at this point, it's just fact. I can think of about 60 million people to blame for that one. But don't harp on the Russians for doing the exact same thing they've done with their SSBN force and the RVSN for decades. In Russia, it's just business as usual, and it's our own damn fault for not keeping up if we end up with a China-sized nuclear deterrent force.
 
Not to speak for sferin but like me I think our frustration and at times disgust with the state of the 'nuclear weapons enterprise' is more not necessarily what the Russians are doing but what we are not doing.

I believe, IMHO, that we are losing the ability to produce advanced weapon systems as it relates to nuclear warhead and triad delivery system modernization.
 
bobbymike said:
Not to speak for sferin but like me I think our frustration and at times disgust with the state of the 'nuclear weapons enterprise' is more not necessarily what the Russians are doing but what we are not doing.

I believe, IMHO, that we are losing the ability to produce advanced weapon systems as it relates to nuclear warhead and triad delivery system modernization.
Click to expand...

I believe at this point it's "have lost".
 
 

Attachments

  • 6_13_308_img1436A.jpg
    6_13_308_img1436A.jpg
    121.7 KB · Views: 302
  • 6_13_308_img1435A.jpg
    6_13_308_img1435A.jpg
    97.3 KB · Views: 178
  • 6_13_308_img1432A.jpg
    6_13_308_img1432A.jpg
    87.8 KB · Views: 146
  • 6_13_308_img1430A.jpg
    6_13_308_img1430A.jpg
    102.3 KB · Views: 145
  • 6_13_308_img1433A.jpg
    6_13_308_img1433A.jpg
    105 KB · Views: 145
  • 6_13_308_img1431A.jpg
    6_13_308_img1431A.jpg
    73.7 KB · Views: 101
from ePay
 

Attachments

  • 6_13_308_img1434A.jpg
    6_13_308_img1434A.jpg
    99.8 KB · Views: 346
  • $(KGrHqV,!jkFChzYTSonBQ35BngN0!~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqV,!jkFChzYTSonBQ35BngN0!~~60_57.JPG
    73.9 KB · Views: 372
  • BLY-122-BS_F.jpg
    BLY-122-BS_F.jpg
    80.9 KB · Views: 249
  • BJM-996-BS_F.jpg
    BJM-996-BS_F.jpg
    136.6 KB · Views: 387
  • $T2eC16ZHJF8E9nnC8GrUBQyjwk2rpQ~~60_57.JPG
    $T2eC16ZHJF8E9nnC8GrUBQyjwk2rpQ~~60_57.JPG
    88.8 KB · Views: 307
  • hml.PNG
    hml.PNG
    1.1 MB · Views: 308
Hi everybody
General Dynamics / Convair "Nuclear blast hardened mobile vehicle"
www.google.de/patents/US4573396
Maybe someone knows more about the HML from Bell / Textron ?
 

Attachments

  • US4573396.pdf
    832.9 KB · Views: 9
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be nice to add at least one picture of every item. They usually are
on eBay only for the time of the auction, but sometimes at least they could
be interesting for members not bidding.
 
I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested in these items when I originally posted, Jemiba. I will attach images to future posts and leave it to a moderator if the topic should be deleted.
 
Triton said:
I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested in these items ...
Click to expand...

I'm not either, but sometimes such photos may show early layouts, modifications, or something
else, which is perhaps only recognisable or interesting for some experts amongst us.
 
Midgetman (Small ICBM): In the late 1970s there was growing concern about the vulnerability of silo-based ICBMs. The Air Force explored various concepts for solving this problem. One of these, the Midgetman, was small enough for various types of mobile basing. In 1983, Aerojet won one of the small prelimary development programs for a very advanced rocket motor design with a carbon fiber composite case, carbon fiber nozzle, and polyethylene glycol nitroglycerin (PEGNG) propellant. Aerojet won only the back-up role for the second stage, but this development proceeded quite successfully through initial flight test. At this point President Bush unilaterally cancelled the program as part of the U.S. political posture of arms limitation.
Click to expand...
 
Looking at the "in-action" pictures, I think the drivers for those were told to drive it like they stole it! Would have been fun to be part of that test process...

Orionblamblam said:
Ah, groovy. Looks like just the thing. Got similar works for other road-mobile missile-launchers?

The SICBM HML will be the first model. if it sells well enough... series of 1/72 road-mobile missile launchers should follow. I would imagine, though I don't know for sure, that such models probably already exist for Soviet/Russian ICBM trucks, yes?
Click to expand...
There may be some in the wargamer's kits, though 20mm aka 1/72 is a bit big for most modern gaming.

I'm finding Pershing and SCUD type launchers in 1/72 as regular model kits.


1st503rdSGT said:
Well, not quite. Russia and China have both taken strategic nukes more seriously than the US since the early 1990s, as they have continued to develop new delivery systems and possibly new weapons as well, putting more effort into land-mobile systems not unlike Midgetman. However that does not mean that they have engaged in any nuclear buildups though. It's hard to be sure, but rumor has it that Russia doesn't really have much in the way of working missiles (which my explain why missile defense pi$$es them off so much), and China apparently has yet to master a usable submarine deterrent (which may explain all those tunnels and land-mobile launchers).
Click to expand...
China also has a trust issue with loading their SSBNs with live rounds as standard practice. As I understand it, their subs go out to sea loaded with ballast, then if tensions rise they can come into port to be loaded with live birds.
 
For comparison here's an artist's impression of the mobile launcher for the 1960 incarnation Midgetman / Shrimp, SSR 7790-19782. A fleet of more than 20,000 TELs conjectured!
 

Attachments

  • AvWeek_19600718_014.JPEG
    AvWeek_19600718_014.JPEG
    592.8 KB · Views: 97
sferrin said:
Shame they've never bothered to put it on display. It's been sitting in a field for years. Hell, probably decades at this point.
Click to expand...

It *was* on display. Circa 2001 or so I visited the museum and it was on public display; that's when I took the photos in the post you responded to. But shortly after they moved it a bit to be restored, and it's been there ever since. Looking at sat imagery on Google Maps, it has now been moved even further away, off in the back. Looks like there has been some substantial rebuilding there; looks like the whole restoration facility, which used to be right near the entrance, is now a parking lot.

Sheesh, you go away for half a decade and people... do stuff.
 
Orionblamblam said:
It *was* on display. Circa 2001 or so I visited the museum and it was on public display; that's when I took the photos in the post you responded to. But shortly after they moved it a bit to be restored, and it's been there ever since. Looking at sat imagery on Google Maps, it has now been moved even further away, off in the back. Looks like there has been some substantial rebuilding there; looks like the whole restoration facility, which used to be right near the entrance, is now a parking lot.

Sheesh, you go away for half a decade and people... do stuff.
Click to expand...
Based on the condition of the ground around it I think the picture I posted is newer than the one on Google Earth.

USA map satellite // North America

map of USA, satellite view. Real picture of USA regions, roads, cities, streets and buildings - with labels, ruler, search, locating, routing, places sharing, weather conditions etc.
satellites.pro satellites.pro
 
NMaude said:
Aside from the CIM-10 BOMARC I can see next to the Midgetman TEL what are those "Fragments" in the lower centre-section of the photograph (They look parts of an aircraft)?
Click to expand...

Looks like a pair of Sargent-Fletcher 370gal tanks for an F-4, to the right of that clutter.
 
Last edited:
Kiltonge said:
Looks like a pair of Sargent-Fletcher 370gal tanks for an F-4, to the right of that clutter.
Click to expand...
go to the lower left at that link I posted above and it looks like they have a MiG-21 and parts of a U-2 there as well.
 
Kiltonge said:
Looks like a pair of Sargent-Fletcher 370gal tanks for an F-4, to the right of that clutter.
Click to expand...

They're rather large looking, I was thinking of the drop-tanks from a B-52, perhaps not the jettison able 3,000 gallon tanks but maybe the 700 gallon fixed tanks?
 
In March, 1987, Malmstrom AFB held a media event for the Midgetman Hard Mobile Launcher (HML) Boeing and USAF Test

Fairfield Sun Times Digital Archives
 

Attachments

  • 5c68f11d16cc6.image.jpg
    5c68f11d16cc6.image.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 63

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom