Italian SLBM ALFA Missile

Georges said:
A Polaris A1 Lite would be a better description; developed 10-12 years after the Polaris 1.
Click to expand...

In the linked article it shows a cutaway diagram of the missile and under the payload fairing there appears to be a Mk-1 RV (Which carried the W47 warhead).
 
Archibald said:
Scratching my head... 1600 km from the Adriatic is, indeed, enough to nuke Moscow. But the platform... a cruiser ? standing like a huge target on the surface of the sea ? Try giving that Alfa... SLBM a submarine ! Or an underground silo... SLBM: Ship (not Sub !) Launched Ballistic Missile ? not sure it is a good idea...
Or maybe the goal was just to scare the living bejesus, not of Brezhnev, but of Tito...

Hmmm... well not Moscow: from Trieste, it is 2000 km to the Kremlin...

Then again, Alfa was the size and weight of a Polaris A1 or A2, and they could hit much farther than 1600 km... even the A1 had a 2200 km range. And A2 immediately did better.

Click to expand...
Look at the Informations about the Italian project of a nuclear submarine

svppbellum.blogspot.com

I piani nucleari di TITO, il CAMEN di Livorno, il missile IRBM italiano "ALFA-1", il progetto di deterrente nucleare nazionale, gli SSN classe MARCONI e la nave logistica nucleare Enrico Fermi....

svppbellum.blogspot.com svppbellum.blogspot.com
 
If this SLBM had gone into service what warhead would it have carried?
 
Yep - for the USA, any European nuclear deterrent was to be a) NATO and b) dual-key locked. MultiLateral Force: MLF.
 
Georges said:
An Italian one as Americans were against any independent European nuclear deterrent
Click to expand...

IIRC in the early 1960s Robert McNamara tried to sabotage the UK's nuclear weapons capability (That was probably a factor in his bullshit decision to axe the Skybolt).
 
Georges said:
IIRC? 1962 Treaty for prevention of atmospheric nuclear explosions?
Click to expand...

No, not that, I don't recall where I read it years ago and what his motives were but I do recall reading that he wanted to somehow get rid of the UK's nuclear-weapons capability.
 
svppbellum-blogspot-com.translate.goog

DAL MISSILE NUCLEARE ITALIANO “ALFA” (1957-1976) AL “VEGA” (1998-2021): una base iniziale per un missile strategico europeo?

svppbellum-blogspot-com.translate.goog svppbellum-blogspot-com.translate.goog

In 1962 JFK had a faction inside his government, called "the europeanists". with the two Deans: Dean Rusk and Dean Acheson. Their objective was crystal clear.
The French and British independant nuclear deterrents had to die, to be replaced by NATO, dual-key Polaris european force called the MLF.

The Europeanists hated any independant nuclear deterrents for two reasons.

First, it was seen as too expensive for Great Britain and France, ex superpowers now medium powers fighting decolonization bush wars while recovering from WWII miseries.

Secondly, these small nuclear forces were seens as dangerous,: destabilizing against USSR. If they fired first, against the Soviets, they could blow the planet... and the USA along it.

To sumarize: the USA through NATO wanted full control of any western nuclear forces to be fired in anger at the Soviets. The fact that France and Great Britain could fire nukes at the Soviets independantly was seen as a nightmare.

Of course the three nuclear deterrents - UK, US, France - could be synchronized but that was another nightmare. Even if it was done in the end (give or take, from 1970 to the end of Cold War.)
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
No, not that, I don't recall where I read it years ago and what his motives were but I do recall reading that he wanted to somehow get rid of the UK's nuclear-weapons capability.
Click to expand...
IIRC for what words?
 
Sorry I did not intended to humiliate you in any way. I'm not that kind of arrogant prick (also known as "grammar nazi").
 
There's separate thread for MLF, but PM to an old poster about dead/suspicious links thereon got no response. So...since this one is lively now, will try publicly here. Does someone possibly have picture(s)--other than Italian cruiser Garibaldi--of the surface warships planned to carry NATO nuclear ballistic missiles? Vaguely recall a painting in Life Magazine, but that must have been ~60 yrs. ago! (Yes, was interested even as a child.) Thanks in advance for any help.
 
scorp said:
There's separate thread for MLF, but PM to an old poster about dead/suspicious links thereon got no response. So...since this one is lively now, will try publicly here. Does someone possibly have picture(s)--other than Italian cruiser Garibaldi--of the surface warships planned to carry NATO nuclear ballistic missiles? Vaguely recall a painting in Life Magazine, but that must have been ~60 yrs. ago! (Yes, was interested even as a child.) Thanks in advance for any help.
Click to expand...
These warships were supposed to be Italian or other NATO states?
 
The MLF was to be pan-european, but you guess that nuclear boomers submarines (even bought off the shelf from the USA) would be way too expensive for the bulk of european navies. So MLF supporters suggested surface ships as a more reasonable option. Of course unlike boomers they would be fat targets for the Soviets... but hey, remember - this is McNamara Secdef Pentagon we are talking about. A bit divorced from logic if not sanity...
 
scorp said:
There's separate thread for MLF, but PM to an old poster about dead/suspicious links thereon got no response. So...since this one is lively now, will try publicly here. Does someone possibly have picture(s)--other than Italian cruiser Garibaldi--of the surface warships planned to carry NATO nuclear ballistic missiles? Vaguely recall a painting in Life Magazine, but that must have been ~60 yrs. ago! (Yes, was interested even as a child.) Thanks in advance for any help.
Click to expand...

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil apps.dtic.mil

Political and diplomatic history of the discussions about MLF; no real precisions on the NATO MLF fleet and its components;
 
If the MLF surface-ship project had been implemented weren't there a couple of USN battleships that were slated to be converted into a Polaris SLBM launchers?
 
NMaude said:
If the MLF surface-ship project had been implemented weren't there a couple of USN battleships that were slated to be converted into a Polaris SLBM launchers?
Click to expand...
Maybe? The Long Beach was designed with space for either Regulus or Polaris, never used that way.

I've seen fan drawings for the Iowas to have Polaris installed, but those tubes would basically have to be inside the gun barbettes to have enough vertical space.
 
There's a number of BBG proposals, either of the unfinished Kentucky (BB-66) or conversion of the four completed Iowa-class, that would've shipped Polaris or Regulus or Jupiter. The partial conversions (which still kept some 16"/50 guns) would've placed them on elevated superstructures it seems, the better to reduce the need for cutting into the decks.

Low res versions were posted by another poster in the Iowa & Alaska conversion thread.

 
Scott Kenny said:
I've seen fan drawings for the Iowas to have Polaris installed, but those tubes would basically have to be inside the gun barbettes to have enough vertical space.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 16" gun-turrets would've had to be removed.

CommanderRenHoek said:
There's a number of BBG proposals, either of the unfinished Kentucky (BB-66)
Click to expand...

The incomplete Kentucky would've been the best of the Iowas for conversion with I suppose perhaps one of the forward 16" turrets retained (Maybe both) and the aft 16" barbet removed and replaced with the Polaris launch-tubes (And associated support structure and systems)

CommanderRenHoek said:
conversion of the four completed Iowa-class, that would've shipped Polaris or Regulus or Jupiter.
Click to expand...

The likely conversion of the Iowas would've likely entailed removal of the aft 16" gun-turret and its' barbet along with the powder and shell magazines before being rebuilt to hold the Polaris launch-tubes. such a modification would've been very expensive in both time and money.
 
NMaude said:
In the linked article it shows a cutaway diagram of the missile and under the payload fairing there appears to be a Mk-1 RV (Which carried the W47 warhead).
Click to expand...
How heavy is that RV? If it's <<1 ton (incl. W47), and the 1600km range is for a one ton payload, the actual range of the missile could possibly be much longer.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom