C-5 Galaxy Minuteman ICBM Drop Test

[JhonnnyTapia]

Americans are the best.......now i will laugh when i'll see those poors russian with their poors ICBM wheeled trucks

[Nelsonwmj]

Damn. that's a neat way of launching ICBMs.

[immortalass]

Air Force: "Now hold my beer and watch this!"

[zlwebb1989]

Not a c-141. I'm a C-5 loadmaster and have flown on the C-141 and can confirm it's a c-5. A 141 is super small compared to the C-5 and couldn't even haul the missile.

[MarcusKiner]

Mind = blown



[ObssesedNuker]

... Why can't we just build MEL's?

[Sidewinder9877]

They really just launch a MM3 from an effin plane?!

[FylthyBeest]

I don't believe a C-5 can scramble. Usually, they ground abort or hold waiting for box lunches.

[DumbYankies]

@FylthyBeest scramble. Where scramble means take 5 mins to taxi to the end of the field, 1.5 mins in the take off run and 10 mins getting to 30000 ft.

not exactly a scramble...

[Nater245689]

The Trident II D5 SLBM is already GPS capable. The GPS guidance gives it a CEP of roughly 90 meters, which combined with it's 475kt warhead makes it a feasible weapon tor attacking hardened targets (C3 and missile silos). The problem with using SLBMs for this is their rather slow rate of fire. While the Russians probably had a hell of a time tracking the Ohio subs, once they start firing missiles they become very visible. This effectively limits the number that they can reasonably fire.

[notlaw99]

SLBMs are the weapons any way thy can strike any target on earth fro the sea and if you apply GPS JDAM technology to the rear of the RVs you can achieve 10 meter CEP accuracy so there is no reason to waste time on fractional Orbit Technology. ICBMs have a limited sector of flight due to political over flight restrictions. From a planners stand point Aircraft and SLBMs are the weapon systems of choice for nuclear weapon system delivery when you don't know potential targets in advance

[happyguy82]

@anisocoro , why can't they build a 'satellite' with more fuel on board that would allow it to alter its orbit and hit targets that aren't along it's original orbit?

[DumbYankies]

@happyguy82 You cant orbit weapons. Its against the 1962 outer space treaty. Everyone has pretty much stuck to that till now. The soviets may have been about to violate it with polybus in the late 80s, but had second thoughts then went broke...

[DumbYankies]

@DumbYankies I suspect buran was actually a pretty nifty cover for polybus.

[notlaw99]

To do Fractional Orbit Bombardment it does not take a special missile per say just the addition of a retro rocket spacer attached to the RV Bus to bring the package out of orbit. Orbit is achieved by modifying the launch parameters to those necessary for an orbital projection instead of the immediate master roll and pitch over done in ballistic launches.

[anisocoro]

@notlaw99 , well, the kynetic energy needed to launch a given payload into a parabolic pathway is less than the one required to orbitalize it. Putin said all ss-18 are able to launch a 1Mt warhead plus retrorocket onto a 150Km orbit (that would endure only for 10-20 revolutions before fall), bu the existence of early warning geostationary satellites has made such a system "folkloristic"

[notlaw99]

The project officer at HQ SAC confirmed it was a C-141, this video is a composite of clips.

I have also seen a high quality still photo showing the extraction it was definitely a C-141

[goddesslush]

I suppose this could make a first strike option more stealthy compared to being launched from a silo.

[happyguy82]

what a waste of time and effort. the russians simply kept their warheads in orbit with their FOBD systems.

[goddesslush]

Is that real? Any evidence of that?

[happyguy82]

Yes. Check Wiki. Why are you skeptical of FOBD systems? If they can place a satellite and space station in orbit, an FOBD is far less complicated.

[goddesslush]

Wikipedia is not exactly an accurate resource but having checked it came up with no mention of your said FOBD system. Its possible but whats not to say the Us has'nt done it either. Militarisation of space.. yawn

[happyguy82]

x'cuse me? There's a wiki page on 'Fractional Orbital Bombardment System' do a search on that.

[goddesslush]

No excuse me! Im taking the time to look into this you can at least tell me right the first time instead of "FOBD system" what i was supposed to be searching for.

[happyguy82]

it's called FOBD elsewhere, the full name's Fractional Orbital Bombardment Delivery System so it should be FOBDS. Sorry for the confusion.

[goddesslush]

No worries. :p

[happyguy82]

quote from Wiki.. The Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) was a Soviet ICBM program in the 1960s that after launch would go into a low Earth orbit and would then de-orbit for an attack. It had no range limit and the orbital flight path would not reveal the target location. This would allow a path to North America over the South Pole, hitting targets from the south, which is the opposite direction from which NORAD early warning systems are oriented.

[goddesslush]

The U.S. Defense Support Program early warning satellites, first launched in 1970, enabled the US to detect a FOBS launch.

The SALT II agreement (1979) prohibited the deployment of FOBS systems:

Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy:

(...)

(c) systems for placing into Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, including fractional orbital missiles;

The missile was phased out in January 1983 in compliance with this treaty.

[happyguy82]

maybe the russians still have some cold war FOBS warheads orbiting up there that they can command to de-orbit at any time? who knows? hehehe

[anisocoro]

@happyguy82 , well, both SS-25 and remaining ss-18 are able to launch into low earth orbit (not too low, about 500Km high!) a payload equivalent to a 1Mt warhead plus retrorocket, but by now there is no "satellite" whose orbit could be opportune for a concealed weapon. I.E, a weapon must fly perfectly over its intended target (it has only the ability to reduce speed, not to "turn" right or left),

[DumbYankies]

@happyguy82 unlikely. They would probably have decayed by now onto who knows whom....

[goddesslush]

As a result M.A.D can still apply. Everything can be countered.

[goddesslush]

Now a days they have made missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear payload which are more easier to load.

[fkaramesinis]

the 0.5 sec minuteman..

[MarinoOfTwo]

I would think the missle would be too large, and this could be a risky procedure, but from the video, they seem to have proved me wrong.

[TrafficTony]

I remember seeing this film in 1977, I work with the C-141A Flight Simulator at Norton.

[pozzolo1984]

Very nice concept!! In-fly launch economise fuel, avoid turbulence in lower atmosphere and enlarge payload/range.

Could be a more cheaper and safer alternative to conventional launchpads in Cape Canaveral

[zeinin]

How did they align the IMU platform?

[mrmacwings]

I worked on this project. The rope between the parachutes and the cradle is my design. The aircraft was a C-5. The C-141 was used to move the minuteman to the launch bases, but you can't airdrop it from a C-141, the rotation as it leaves the aircraft would hit the tail. Only a C-5 could do it. The missile was launched to show the Russians we could do it and resulted in the SALT talks. With the C-5 system no first strike by Russia could have happened. That was the objective of the test.

[eriathdien]

Oh man... what it feels to work in this kind of projects?!

[mrmacwings]

Very nice. This project was very high priority and we had almost everything we needed to get the job done. What was even greater was the objective of the test to force the Russians to the peace table. It worked. AT the time you work on these, you finish and go on to the next job. Only many years later do you fully understand what you accomplished.

[stuntmanmike37]

Does anybody else think that was FUCKING AMAZING?

[c141heaven]

the C141A was able to CARRY the MM missiles ..we did it all the time ... the missile/carrier were about 80,000#...about 10k over the limit for a C-141A. The video here is a C-5. A small number of C-141a's were beefed up to carry the extra floor load.

When the B models came into service I don't know if there were any restrictions as far as floor loading which permitted the entire fleet to carry the MM missiles..

But launching them from a C-141? It never happened..

[lgm30f]

This never went operational. It was a C-141. What it doesn't show are the few seconds after it lit stage one when the rocket started tumbling. This was not in the age of GPS, and the ability to accurately place this warhead was a gigantic challenge. Remember, in the early years of Minuteman, missiles were aligned to true north by an optical lens and locating the north star.

[pklute63]

This video is of an extraction from a C-5

[BQZip01]

the C-141B was specifically designed (and lengthened from the A model) to CARRY a MMII/MMIII, not launch it, though I suppose it may have been possible. However, I don't know how much the fuel weighed...

[lastopher7]

did this system ever go operational

[notlaw99]

The commentator is in error the beginnin shows a C5A but the extract of the Miniteman II was from a C-141

[pklute63]

No it was from a C-5....if you pause it at .32 sec, you can see it is a C-5...plus the interior is definitely C-5