It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Goodbye MX Peacekeeper

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

September 18, 2005

TOMORROW at 10 a.m., at Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo., the last MX missile will be "deactivated," and a turbulent chapter of history will come to an end.

The MX is hardly remembered now; its phase-out began without fanfare four years ago. But in the late 1970's and the '80s - at the height of the United States-Soviet nuclear arms race, amid tensions over the invasion of Afghanistan and the collapse of détente - the MX was the centerpiece of the American military buildup, the object of longer and fiercer debates than any other weapon in modern times.

"It was a defining symbol of an era," says John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. "For its supporters, it was 'peace through strength.' For its opponents, it was 'the mad momentum of the arms race.' Both sides cared about it so much. Now it's going out, and nobody even notices."


Entire article


Too bad they agreed to get rid of them instead of the old Minuteman IIIs.



[edit on 21-9-2005 by NWguy83]




posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Pretty cool system. They were cold launched out of thier silos then they ignited so the silo could be used again. However, I mean if we launched those babies was there going to be a US left to put more in???

Too bad the conventional ICBM plan was scrapped. You could put a huge warhead on the sucker and have it delivered anywhere in the world with a decent CEP in 30 minutes!



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Too bad the conventional ICBM plan was scrapped. You could put a huge warhead on the sucker and have it delivered anywhere in the world with a decent CEP in 30 minutes!


Actually that idea is still very much alive.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Military planners and strategists have known for years now that fixed bases for missiles are just plain stupid. The way to go is mobile launchers meaning launchers which can be moved and hidden.
I do know that at one time in Europe they were fielding mobile box launchers for tomahawk cruise missiles which can be also fitted with nucler warheads. I do not know if they are still in service but I suspect not. Much of this role has been substituted by attack submarines fitted with the tomahawks in the vertical launch cruise missiles. I suspect that the mobile land based launchers have been replaced by the submarine launched systems. All American attack submarines since the middle of the 688 class program have been fitted with these vertical launch tomahawk missile tubes. This trend continues with the Sea Wolf and Virginia class boats.
As to ICBM's they too are much more effecient and capable of being hidden in a large ocean. The ranges of the new generation missles are greatly extended over the first generations. Also the accuracy is greatly improved. Even with multiple independent re entry warheads the accuracy is very good. This means that huge warheads are not needed Accuracy makes up for the huge bang. Large warheads were used in ICBMs because of the inherent lack of accuracy in earlier models.
Also remember that the new generations of air launched cruise missles..can be launched from stealth aircraft from great distance away from their targets.
It is land based systems that have become obselete today because of thier obvious vulnurability.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Submarine based missiles are the way to go. Each nuclear missile sub has 24 Trident nuclear ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads. So they could have something like 280 nuclear warheads.

They can be on the move all the time and very well hidden. Good luck to anyone trying to track a US nuclear submarine.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Submarine based missiles are the way to go. Each nuclear missile sub has 24 Trident nuclear ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads. So they could have something like 280 nuclear warheads.


Aren't the Trident II D-5 missiles limited to just one warhead today ? Landbased ICBM's are capable of carrying their full load of MIRV's to their maxiumum range. Whereas SLBM's have a greatly dimished range for every warhead added.



They can be on the move all the time and very well hidden. Good luck to anyone trying to track a US nuclear submarine.


Hmm well according to other threads US SSBN's have been tracked before by the Russians.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Submarine launched ICBMs carry multiple independent targeted warheads. I am not sure of the exact number per missle but it is not one.
Each warhead can be independently targeted.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Submarine launched ICBMs carry multiple independent targeted warheads. I am not sure of the exact number per missle but it is not one.
Each warhead can be independently targeted.

Thanks,
Orangetom


i believe its 5 right now. but agreed with u that it aint one.

www.fas.org...



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Each Trident- carries between 6- 8 W76 warheads 100KT Its technically capable of carrying up to twelve warheads

The Hiroshima atomic bomb was about 14KT




[edit on 21-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Submarine based missiles are the way to go. Each nuclear missile sub has 24 Trident nuclear ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads. So they could have something like 280 nuclear warheads.


Aren't the Trident II D-5 missiles limited to just one warhead today ? Landbased ICBM's are capable of carrying their full load of MIRV's to their maxiumum range. Whereas SLBM's have a greatly dimished range for every warhead added.



They can be on the move all the time and very well hidden. Good luck to anyone trying to track a US nuclear submarine.


Hmm well according to other threads US SSBN's have been tracked before by the Russians.


No, it's Minuteman IIIs that now carry just 1 warhead. Trident C4 and D5 now carry just 3 warheads.

And that claim Russians have tracked U.S SSBNs is more of a rumor than a believable fact.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83


No, it's Minuteman IIIs that now carry just 1 warhead. Trident C4 and D5 now carry just 3 warheads.



Are you sure your not thinking of UK Tridents?

UK Trident II'S Carry 3 warheads

US Trident II Mk 4's are still listed at 8

www.johnstonsarchive.net...



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

No, it's Minuteman IIIs that now carry just 1 warhead. Trident C4 and D5 now carry just 3 warheads.


As of May 2, 2005.

  • Trident II D-5 Mk4 carries 8x100kt Mk4 W-76 warheads
  • Trident II D-5 Mk5 carries 6x455kt Mk5 W-88 warheads

The British are the ones which have limited their SSBN's to 48 warheads per boat therefore 3 warheads per Trident II missile they have deployed.


And that claim Russians have tracked U.S SSBNs is more of a rumor than a believable fact.


Well you could also argue that, " they haven't been tracked " is a rumour put out by the US Navy to make themsleves look more superior for pride. One things for sure, it wouldn't be in the Russian's best interests to advertise the fact that they can track OHIO SSBN's,

[edit on 21-9-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Well you could also argue that, " they haven't been tracked " is a rumour put out by the US Navy to make themsleves look more superior for pride. One things for sure, it wouldn't be in the Russian's best interests to advertise the fact that they can track OHIO SSBN's,


Well before you posted it, I have never in my several years of roaming military forums and watching The History Channel and The Military Channel heard that the Russians could track Ohios. I even remember Tom Clancy saying that Ohios have never been tracked.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Well before you posted it, I have never in my several years of roaming military forums and watching The History Channel and The Military Channel heard that the Russians could track Ohios. I even remember Tom Clancy saying that Ohios have never been tracked.


I have heard the same things, but how could they know for a certainty. Especially with the quirkiness of sonar and the different convergence zones.
I have often heard Ohio's called black holes in the ocean, because they are quieter than the background noise. The 1st Ohio's are over 20 years old. Sonar technology has progressed much since then even in Russia. So I think it is more than possible.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIXGood luck to anyone trying to track a US nuclear submarine.


The Russians used to say the same thing until they found out about SOSUS.

For all we know the Russians may have had a means of tracking boomers for decades now.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Each Trident- carries between 6- 8 W76 warheads 100KT Its technically capable of carrying up to twelve warheads

The Hiroshima atomic bomb was about 14KT



[edit on 21-9-2005 by ShadowXIX]


C4 - W76 (100kt)
D5 - W76 & W88 (475kt)



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Why everyone so down? This is great news. We need less nuclear capability in this world.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The key difference and why SLBM's make more sence is that they can stay hidden for months. However, one other important tidbit:

In the past the SLBM's lacked the CEP needed for a counterforce strike that is the ability to hit another countries ICBM's in thier silos. The D-5 can do this now and makes the SSBM's that much more of a potent force.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
The brit system has an advanced form of Chevaline (peneration aids and decoys) which IIRC the us navy has also procurred and is developing (and the rumour is with the french as well) for the replacement of the D-5. Also the brit system is `dial a yirld) where they can select either the first , sirst + second or all 3 stages to be fired in the warhead, which gives something like 1kt , 10kt or 100kt.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Yes..I first read about the dial a yeild feature in a book titled "The Secret that Exploded" about how hydrogen bombs are made and the manufacturers who make the parts. This is one of the few books ever to be contested in court and go to the supreme court to stop its publishing. The court said publish it.
This was a very informative book on how the hydrogen enhancement is done and also how the dial a yeild feature works.
Yes the bang can be made adjustable. Up or down.
Combine this with mobility that submarines offer...it is quite a combination.

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join