 |
|
Topic started on 30-1-2003 @ 11:57 AM by mad scientist
|
A US MX Peace Keeper missile dummy re-rentry vehicles
external image
external image
external image
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 12:09 PM by MT69
|
Nice pics, that was my old job.
By the way, we won't lob any ICBMs at Iraq because of flyover problems. A nuke via ALCM is the more likely choice if it comes to that and hopefully
that doesn't happen.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 01:32 PM by mad scientist
|
Your old job, do you mean taking pictures or working on ICBM test's ?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 01:39 PM by MT69
|
Yep, that was me running for my life while taking those pics.
I worked with Minuteman IIIs for 7 years, 4 years in the field and 3 years teaching others about the system. I almost went into the test unit that
launched the PKs in those pics, but I went to satellite operations instead.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 01:41 PM by mad scientist
|
Where were you stationed MT ?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 01:47 PM by MT69
|
Nope, Minot ND....but I was born in MT since my dad worked with ICBMs too.
There's only 3 ICBM bases left in ND, MT and WY. The PK squadron is going away because of START with the Russians.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 01:53 PM by mad scientist
|
[edit on 30-8-2004 by mad scientist]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 01:58 PM by $tranger
|
what the heck is this crap? projectors?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 02:04 PM by mad scientist
|
Ummmm, what's the problem ?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 02:07 PM by deepwaters
|
Stranger, please clarify what you mean by "crap" and "projectors".
If you have any revelent links to support your views, please include them as well.
Thanks,
Deep
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 02:11 PM by $tranger
|
Originally posted by deepwaters
Stranger, please clarify what you mean by "crap" and "projectors".
If you have any revelent links to support your views, please include them as well.
Thanks,
Deep 
that's bull# there's no such things as this fantasy icbm satellite with laser beams coming out of its ass or whatever you call it..
[Edited on 30-1-2003 by $tranger]
[Edited on 30-1-2003 by $tranger]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 02:15 PM by AF1
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 02:25 PM by mad scientist
|
ICBM - Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
These are real pictures taken of dummy warheads reentering the atmosphere in the target zone. They are travelling at 5-6km a second.
MX MISSILE
external image
These next images are from Minuteman III ICBM's
external image
external image
Those warheads have travelled from the continental US to Kwajelain Atoll in the South pacific and by the looks landed fairly accurately.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 02:38 PM by $tranger
|
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 02:56 PM by mad scientist
|
Whilst this article speaks of the triumphs of Russian technology, they would still have a hard time shooting down a MIRV especially as the US one's
are manouvrable as well. We have all seen how much trouble the US has had with their ABM effort and that is under controlled conditions.
As for the numbers of S-300 ABM systems deployed I'd have to disagree, I'll post a link when I have time to search for one.
ICBM are still the pre-eminent nuclear delivery method and the most unstoppable at the moment. SLBM's are even deadlier as they can launch from much
closer in, cutting down reaction time drastically. The US D-5 Trident II SLBM has an 8000km range and can land 10 warheads within 50m of 10 different
targets.
There is always the ICBM used for a high altitiude burst which would destroy electronocs over a huge area through EMP. I doubt the Russian missile
systems would be shielded too well against that.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 02:56 PM by ultra_phoenix
|
Nope. He was an "ICBM pilot". But like he was forgeting, allways, to use his ejection seat, he has been fired from the USAF.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 03:00 PM by ultra_phoenix
|
Did you see the date of this article ? You don't know it, but the Russians do NOT have the money for their new system S-400.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 03:01 PM by mad scientist
|
Just like the good 'ol German test pilots who had to fly the protoype V-1 rockets. 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 03:11 PM by $tranger
|
they don't need any money! thats why its good!
the s-400's were launched in the 99's
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-1-2003 @ 03:13 PM by mad scientist
|
I don't understand could you clarify what you mean $tranger.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |