Land-based M5 - French S3 missile replacement

[Forest Green]

It is mentioned here:

S3 (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The S3 were originally planned to be replaced around 2005 by a land-based version of the M5, the submarine missile planned at the time. As the M5 project was itself delayed and eventually cancelled in favour of the M51, in 1994, the replacement was rescheduled to be a land-based version of the M45.[citation needed] The 18 S3D missile silos were deactivated in September 1996, and within two years and after an expenditure of US$77.5 million, the silos and related facilities were fully dismantled.[2] They would not be replaced.

Any more information anywhere?

 

[dan_inbox]

After the collapse of USSR, every politician in the West wanted a "peace dividend". As part of this, François Mitterand and then Jacques Chirac deactivated all the French surface-to-surface nuclear deterrence force.
The Hadès mobile missiles and the plateau d'Albion fixed ones.
France must feel so much safer today because of that decision...

 

[Forest Green]

It wasn't until 1998 that the decision was made, I thought there might be some preliminary drawings or information, or was it just to literally be an M5/M51 launched from land? Heck, what did the M5 look like? All I know is that it was supposed to have more range than the M51.

 

[732]

It wasn't until 1998 that the decision was made, I thought there might be some preliminary drawings or information, or was it just to literally be an M5/M51 launched from land? Heck, what did the M5 look like? All I know is that it was supposed to have more range than the M51.

I do not believe any visuals of M5 (and land-based S5) have ever been released to the public. It was supposed to be physically larger than M51, however - could a Triomphant tube theoretically accomodate it?

 

[Yellow Palace]

I do not believe any visuals of M5 (and land-based S5) have ever been released to the public. It was supposed to be physically larger than M51, however - could a Triomphant tube theoretically accomodate it?

It would have been a very odd decision to design new submarines that couldn't fit the new missiles under development.

 

[BROF]

After the collapse of USSR, every politician in the West wanted a "peace dividend". As part of this, François Mitterand and then Jacques Chirac deactivated all the French surface-to-surface nuclear deterrence force.
The Hadès mobile missiles and the plateau d'Albion fixed ones.
France must feel so much safer today because of that decision...

Hadès would not be operationnal today anymore, at least with the original missiles, as rocket motors would have reached their life-limit. S3 HAD already reached the end of their shelf-life when they were de-activited. It is rather shabby to blame Western elected politicians for their decisions 30 years later, with the hindsight we have now. This forum is full of such statements (McNamara, Diefenbaker, Sandys and so on). In all cases they made their decisions for objective reasons and on the advice of their own military top-brass. Yes, RAF wanted missiles and no more fighters, yes GD's TFX proposal was more realistic than Boeing's, and no the RCAF did not want the CF-105 Arrow anymore. The AdlA did not want the Plateau d'Albion IRBM force anymore and the armée de terre wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons.

The correct spelling is Mitterrand.

 

[xena]

Come on, Minuteman has been in service for over 50 years and they still work. The solid fuel have been replaced over time. that's standard. If the French had wanted to keep the Hades in service for longer, they would have updated them regularly. Shelf life is no argument.

 

[732]

Come on, Minuteman has been in service for over 50 years and they still work. The solid fuel have been replaced over time. that's standard. If the French had wanted to keep the Hades in service for longer, they would have updated them regularly. Shelf life is no argument.

...have the engines of the Minutemen III's been replaced at any point? Hades being a cruise missile possibly meant that its engine was designed to be cheaper and more easily replaceable than an ICBM's engines.

 

[BROF]

Come on, Minuteman has been in service for over 50 years and they still work. The solid fuel have been replaced over time. that's standard. If the French had wanted to keep the Hades in service for longer, they would have updated them regularly. Shelf life is no argument.

The "French" (whoa all 69 millions of them! - the name of the country is "France") don't do that because other components age as well. S2 were replaced by S3 and Pluton SRBM were to be replaced by Hadès.

 

[BROF]

...have the engines of the Minutemen III's been replaced at any point? Hades being a cruise missile possibly meant that its engine was designed to be cheaper and more easily replaceable than an ICBM's engines.

Doesn't matter. What the US do is no applicable here. Hadès was a SRBM not a cruise missile.

 

[732]

Doesn't matter. What the US do is no applicable here. Hadès was a SRBM not a cruise missile.

Thank you for the correction regarding Hades' nature...

 

[TinWing]

Hadès would not be operationnal today anymore, at least with the original missiles, as rocket motors would have reached their life-limit. S3 HAD already reached the end of their shelf-life when they were de-activited. It is rather shabby to blame Western elected politicians for their decisions 30 years later, with the hindsight we have now. This forum is full of such statements (McNamara, Diefenbaker, Sandys and so on). In all cases they made their decisions for objective reasons and on the advice of their own military top-brass. Yes, RAF wanted missiles and no more fighters, yes GD's TFX proposal was more realistic than Boeing's, and no the RCAF did not want the CF-105 Arrow anymore. The AdlA did not want the Plateau d'Albion IRBM force anymore and the armée de terre wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons.

The correct spelling is Mitterrand.

Hades production was limited to 30 units, no enough to justify upgrades decades down the road. Much like the Lance missile, the concept made zero sense in the wake of German reunification and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, let alone subsequent NATO expansion. The S2 and S3 represented very marginal capabilities but did offer France the dubious prestige of silo based deterrent. France technically possessed the equivalent of the America "nuclear triad." The appearance of being a great power was very important to French leadership from CdeG onward. The fiscal realities of the post Cold War era finally caught up with the French.

 

[TinWing]

I do not believe any visuals of M5 (and land-based S5) have ever been released to the public. It was supposed to be physically larger than M51, however - could a Triomphant tube theoretically accomodate it?

The M5 was essentially dimentionally identical to the M51 except the latter had a reduced range requirement. The M5 was supposed to have a range of 12,000km and the M51 was to have a range or at least 6,000km but in reality in excess of 8000-10,000km. The silo based S5 was so improbable by the time of the M5's cancelation that I doubt it was taken very seriously.

 

[BROF]

Hades production was limited to 30 units, no enough to justify upgrades decades down the road. Much like the Lance missile, the concept made zero sense in the wake of German reunification and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, let alone subsequent NATO expansion. The S2 and S3 represented very marginal capabilities but did offer France the dubious prestige of silo based deterrent. France technically possessed the equivalent of the America "nuclear triad." The appearance of being a great power was very important to French leadership from CdeG onward. The fiscal realities of the post Cold War era finally caught up with the French.

S3 made perfect sense as part of an independant deterrent strategy.
Which is why the English tried as well with Blue Streak, but were not even able to do it.
As regards prestige and appearance of being a great power it is easy to see why France insistance on not obeying anglo-saxon orders on many issues including nuclear deterrence or Airbus has been unnerving to them for decades, but so it is and is going to stay, especially now. They have to swallow it, despite their francophobia. That's it.

 

[732]

The M5 was essentially dimentionally identical to the M51 except the latter had a reduced range requirement. The M5 was supposed to have a range of 12,000km and the M51 was to have a range or at least 6,000km but in reality in excess of 8000-10,000km. The silo based S5 was so improbable by the time of the M5's cancelation that I doubt it was taken very seriously.

Would you happen to know how much M51 deviated from its original design to end up in its current incarnation, being nearly as long-ranged as M5? It seems odd that what began as a cost-cutting measure yielded a missile of nearly comparable performance.

In addition, I am certain S5's improbability was more so to do with the silos than it was with S5 itself, though I will not rule out the missile's own unviability.