Replacing this heavy ICBM with the light Minuteman ICBM was a big mistake. The Minuteman is not a match for the powerful soviet SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs. This missile should have been replaced with a heavy ICBM capable of carrying high yield warheads, and the light Minuteman ICBM should have been placed on mobile platforms, like SAC and Curtis LeMay recommended. By replacing the Titan II with the Minuteman, the US allowed the Russians to take the lead in strategic missiles.
@StiviGun1, one of the biggest difference between Minuteman and Titan, besides throw-weight, was safety. The Titan II used very dangerous hypergolic fuels that did cause problems when it was in operation. There was at least one fire and one explosion involving Titan IIs in the silo. The other big difference was that the Minuteman III could hit three targets with greater precision than Titan II could hit one. Minuteman missiles cannot be MIRVed now, of course, due to treaties.
@cag1970 I'm not saying that they should have kept the Titan II in its basic form. They could have made variants. This missile could theoretically carry more than 10 warheads and as technology evolved it could have been made much more accurate. It used hypergolic fuel but that fuel offered much more thrust. As for Minuteman, the first versions could only carry 1 warhead, not 3. Only Minuteman III can carry 3 warheads. Still, it's not a match for the SS-18 or the SS-19. Keeping the Titan missile
@cag1970 in service as a heavy hitter would've been the best choice. Like I said, more advanced versions could have been built which could deliver much more accurate strikes. Just like the Russians made several versions of the SS-18, some that could carry just 1, very high yield warhead and some 10 warheads so could the US make several Titan variants. Some that could carry 1 very large yield warhead and some that could carry multiple warheads. The size of the missiles would've allowed it to
@cag1970 carry more than 10 warheads. Much better than Minuteman III. As for the Titan's fuel, yes, it was dangerous, but if the missiles was maintained and handled properly, there was no problem. There was just one incident in which the missile exploded in its silo. The warhead was untouched though. But that was it. It had nothing to do with its replacement by Minuteman. Minuteman's adoption as the bulwark of the US' strategic deterrence missiles was more political. It had nothing to do with
@StiviGun1, it would've actually made more sense to keep the Peacekeeper in service. It could carry up to 12 1-megaton warheads and had a range almost equal to Titan II - over 10,000 miles. And it was solid fueled, which is much safer than the hypergolic fuels Titan II used. You're right, there was just one explosion, but there was also one deadly fire involving a Titan II in the silo. I remember the explosion, but the fire happened before I was born.
@cag1970 Well, Peacekeeper was a great missile. It was a missile that the Russians really feared. In my opinion, they should have also built the Midgetman missile. This way, they would've had a retaliation option in case the Peacekeeper silos were taken out by the SS-18s.
As for Titan II, I still believe that they should have made it the backbone of the US strategic missiles fleet. They should have made several variants, just like the Russians did with the SS-18. This way, the US' arsenal would
@cag1970 have been much more balanced compared with the Russian arsenal. Now, the Russians have missiles designed in the .70s, while the US has missiles designed in the .50s. The Russians have the upper hand in land based ICBMs.
@StiviGun1, the Russians probably have more fear of our boomers than any land-based missile system we've ever put in operation. It's one thing to know where our ICBMs are. That information is public knowledge. But finding our boomers is another matter. In fact, the greatest fear we've ever had of their missile fleet is the fact that most of the missiles have a large circular-error probable.
@cag1970 Why would the Russian fear your bombers? The have plenty of long range SAMs and interceptors to take care of any of US bombers. Maybe except B-2, but that aircraft can also be detected. Furthermore, they also have a fleet of strategic bombers, which in many aspects is more powerful than yours. They have a bigger bomber fleet than you do. No, there were very few things the Russians feared and those were the Titan II ICBM, the Peacekeeper ICBM and the Star Wars program.
@StiviGun1, not "bombers"..."Boomers" are what our missile-carrying submarines are nicknamed. American "Boomers" carry MIRVed missiles that have a range of over 6,000 miles and are capable of striking from anywhere anytime. And unless you happen to catch up to one, they're practically invisible - much more so than any land-based ballistic missile system, which means they'd be much more likely to survive.
@cag1970 Yes, the Trident II missile and the Ohio submarine are more powerful than the Russian ballistic missile subs and their SLBMs. But the Russians are now catching up with the Bulava missile and the Borei class submarine.
@StiviGun1, "Star Wars" was illegal. The ABM Treaty of 1972, and the ABM Protocol of 1974, put specific limits on development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems. And "Star Wars" violated two tenets of those documents - a space-based ballistic defense system designed to protect more territory than a national capital or a single field of offensive missiles. The Russian A-135 ABM system around Moscow is legal under the terms of the ABM Treaty.
@cag1970 The 1972 ABM treaty should have never been signed. It was only signed because of stupid and pussy US politicians. Reagan had balls. He knew that the US must develop something that will give it an edge over the Russians. Star Wars was a program that the Russians still fear. That's why is good that the program was continued since the Clinton administration. You say that Star Wars was illegal. Well, the Russians also violated a lot of treaties and they are doing this right now with the
@StiviGun1, I disagree wholeheartedly. The primary purpose for ABM was to ensure that neither country put themselves into position to ever think they could win a nuclear war. Even if the Russians did violate treaties, as I'm sure they did, it still was no excuse for the United States to do the same. And remember, the Russians are the only ones who still have an active ABM defense. Our defense, Safeguard, didn't last a week before it got shut down.
@cag1970 No, the 1972 ABM treaty was signed because of weak US politicians who were afraid by the Russians. Because they were far more afraid of a nuclear war than the Russians. That treaty should have never been signed, in specially that the US was ahead of Russia in antimissile technology.
And yes, Russia is the only country who has an active ABM system and that gives them an advantage. And yes, the US had all the reasons to violate the ABM treaty. That treaty was a bullshit.
@StiviGun1, for what Star Wars would've been, it would've been an illegal and expensive flop. There are too many ways to defeat a ballistic missile defense, even one as sophisticated as Star Wars. And knowing American technology like I do, it's quite likely that the components of the defense would defeat the system itself.
@cag1970 And just how well do you know the American technology. If the Star Wars would've bee easy to defeat the Russians wouldn't still be afraid of it and the US wouldn't still be working on it today.
@StiviGun1, the undoing of the Russians was, quite simply, money. They didn't have enough to compete. But Star Wars would have still been easily and soundly defeated. A system designed to stop 1,000 missiles cannot stop 2,000, no matter how hard you try. When you count ICBMs, theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and SLBMs, AND with Russian anti-satellite weapons online there was no way Star Wars was going to be effective.
@cag1970 Listen here, Star Wars is a program that was never canceled. Every administration worked on the program since the Reagan administration. They wouldn't still be wasting billions on it if it wasn't effective. And where did you get that number of 1000? How do you know that the system was designed to counter 1000 missiles? Which BTW, Russia never had. They never had this number of ICBMs and SLBMs, let alone 2000.
@cag1970 BTW, the Star Wars system was designed to defend against intercontinental missiles, not against theater ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. There are other systems that can take care of those.
@cag1970 An attack en masse with medium range ballistic missiles? Well, now there is Aegis system, the Patriot and the THAAD. But I believe the Star Wars was envisaged to use ground based and sea based ABM systems as well, not just space based ones. I believe THAAD and Aegis are part of that now. They can defend against medium range ballistic missiles very well.
@StiviGun1, one other thing. Even with a ballistic missile defense, Moscow would still be destroyed if the United States decided to attack it. Ten single-warhead ICBMs detected by over-the-horizon radar become thousands of pieces of debris, decoys and chaff masking the warheads themselves by the time it all comes into range of the interceptors. By the time the radar tells them exactly where the warheads are, they're detonating over the Kremlin.
@cag1970 And what American ICBM carries decoys? The Russian ICBMs, like the R-36M2 or Topol M carry decoys. But what American ICBM carries decoys? The fact is that in ICBMs, the Russians have the upper hand. And if they have an active ABM system, then they definitely have an advantage. The US should definitely focus on developing the Ground Based Midcourse Defense system alongside the space based systems it develops. Just 25 of GMD interceptors are not nearly enough.
@cag1970 construction of Bulava and RS-24 missiles. Those missiles are illegal and are violating the disarmament treaties. They also violated the START treaty when they built the Topol M ICBM.
For many years, Russian missiles carried high-yield warheads because they weren't very accurate. A missile bound for Charlotte, for example, might have wound up detonating over Concord or Gastonia - plenty strong enough to destroy Charlotte if detonated at optimum burst height. I don't even know if Russian missiles have inertial guidance, like American missiles. But if I'm right, they still have to use a turntable to aim Soyuz spacecraft.
@cag1970 The SS-18 has a 200-500 CEP depending on the version. The current version, the Mod 5 probably has a 200 m CEP as it's the newest model. But even with a CEP of 500 m that missile can destroy everything with a 25 MT warhead. The CEP of the SS-18 missile is not so big as you think and yes, the Russian ICBMs do have inertial guidance, the latest models with GLONASS, the Russian GPS equivalent. Their ICBMs r not as accurate as yours, but are not that inaccurate as you think. The Topol and
@cag1970 the Topol M have a 200 m CEP and a 550 KT warhead. That's accurate enough. The newer RS-24 and the Bulava are eve more accurate. BTW, the Russians build these missiles illegally and your politicians don't do anything about it.
@StiviGun1, Titan II was a heck of a booster in all respects. Not only could it hurl a 9-megaton warhead over 11,000 miles, but it also put the Gemini spacecraft in order. I have to agree with you, though - I wish the Titan family was still flying. But I think it was too expensive compared to the newer Atlas family of satellite boosters.
matter of opinion. It's moving way too fast to be what you claim it to be. Not to mention that it comes into view several seconds after all the debris is ejected from the booster AND from a much greater distance than the orbiting debris (looks to be in the earths gravitational atmosphere). I don't think you and I are looking at the same object.
Would have liked to have started this reply with "Uh, yes" but that would be too juvenile.
If you take a closer look at the footage, you can clearly see the particle falling on a trajectory away from the booster. I can see how it might appear to be a UFO, but it's not uncommon for some debris to shed from a rocket like that, even after staging.
'
come on america,,,
america can meke it many titan missiles
bestamerica 5 months ago
Wasn't this Titan 2 launch equipped with additional systems that would be sued on Titan 2's launching Gemini astronauts??
altfactor 7 months ago
Replacing this heavy ICBM with the light Minuteman ICBM was a big mistake. The Minuteman is not a match for the powerful soviet SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs. This missile should have been replaced with a heavy ICBM capable of carrying high yield warheads, and the light Minuteman ICBM should have been placed on mobile platforms, like SAC and Curtis LeMay recommended. By replacing the Titan II with the Minuteman, the US allowed the Russians to take the lead in strategic missiles.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1, one of the biggest difference between Minuteman and Titan, besides throw-weight, was safety. The Titan II used very dangerous hypergolic fuels that did cause problems when it was in operation. There was at least one fire and one explosion involving Titan IIs in the silo. The other big difference was that the Minuteman III could hit three targets with greater precision than Titan II could hit one. Minuteman missiles cannot be MIRVed now, of course, due to treaties.
cag1970 9 months ago
@cag1970 I'm not saying that they should have kept the Titan II in its basic form. They could have made variants. This missile could theoretically carry more than 10 warheads and as technology evolved it could have been made much more accurate. It used hypergolic fuel but that fuel offered much more thrust. As for Minuteman, the first versions could only carry 1 warhead, not 3. Only Minuteman III can carry 3 warheads. Still, it's not a match for the SS-18 or the SS-19. Keeping the Titan missile
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@cag1970 in service as a heavy hitter would've been the best choice. Like I said, more advanced versions could have been built which could deliver much more accurate strikes. Just like the Russians made several versions of the SS-18, some that could carry just 1, very high yield warhead and some 10 warheads so could the US make several Titan variants. Some that could carry 1 very large yield warhead and some that could carry multiple warheads. The size of the missiles would've allowed it to
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@cag1970 carry more than 10 warheads. Much better than Minuteman III. As for the Titan's fuel, yes, it was dangerous, but if the missiles was maintained and handled properly, there was no problem. There was just one incident in which the missile exploded in its silo. The warhead was untouched though. But that was it. It had nothing to do with its replacement by Minuteman. Minuteman's adoption as the bulwark of the US' strategic deterrence missiles was more political. It had nothing to do with
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@cag1970 missiles' capabilities.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1, it would've actually made more sense to keep the Peacekeeper in service. It could carry up to 12 1-megaton warheads and had a range almost equal to Titan II - over 10,000 miles. And it was solid fueled, which is much safer than the hypergolic fuels Titan II used. You're right, there was just one explosion, but there was also one deadly fire involving a Titan II in the silo. I remember the explosion, but the fire happened before I was born.
cag1970 9 months ago
@cag1970 Well, Peacekeeper was a great missile. It was a missile that the Russians really feared. In my opinion, they should have also built the Midgetman missile. This way, they would've had a retaliation option in case the Peacekeeper silos were taken out by the SS-18s.
As for Titan II, I still believe that they should have made it the backbone of the US strategic missiles fleet. They should have made several variants, just like the Russians did with the SS-18. This way, the US' arsenal would
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@cag1970 have been much more balanced compared with the Russian arsenal. Now, the Russians have missiles designed in the .70s, while the US has missiles designed in the .50s. The Russians have the upper hand in land based ICBMs.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1, the Russians probably have more fear of our boomers than any land-based missile system we've ever put in operation. It's one thing to know where our ICBMs are. That information is public knowledge. But finding our boomers is another matter. In fact, the greatest fear we've ever had of their missile fleet is the fact that most of the missiles have a large circular-error probable.
cag1970 9 months ago
@cag1970 Why would the Russian fear your bombers? The have plenty of long range SAMs and interceptors to take care of any of US bombers. Maybe except B-2, but that aircraft can also be detected. Furthermore, they also have a fleet of strategic bombers, which in many aspects is more powerful than yours. They have a bigger bomber fleet than you do. No, there were very few things the Russians feared and those were the Titan II ICBM, the Peacekeeper ICBM and the Star Wars program.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1, not "bombers"..."Boomers" are what our missile-carrying submarines are nicknamed. American "Boomers" carry MIRVed missiles that have a range of over 6,000 miles and are capable of striking from anywhere anytime. And unless you happen to catch up to one, they're practically invisible - much more so than any land-based ballistic missile system, which means they'd be much more likely to survive.
cag1970 9 months ago
@cag1970 Yes, the Trident II missile and the Ohio submarine are more powerful than the Russian ballistic missile subs and their SLBMs. But the Russians are now catching up with the Bulava missile and the Borei class submarine.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1, "Star Wars" was illegal. The ABM Treaty of 1972, and the ABM Protocol of 1974, put specific limits on development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems. And "Star Wars" violated two tenets of those documents - a space-based ballistic defense system designed to protect more territory than a national capital or a single field of offensive missiles. The Russian A-135 ABM system around Moscow is legal under the terms of the ABM Treaty.
cag1970 9 months ago
@cag1970 The 1972 ABM treaty should have never been signed. It was only signed because of stupid and pussy US politicians. Reagan had balls. He knew that the US must develop something that will give it an edge over the Russians. Star Wars was a program that the Russians still fear. That's why is good that the program was continued since the Clinton administration. You say that Star Wars was illegal. Well, the Russians also violated a lot of treaties and they are doing this right now with the
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1, I disagree wholeheartedly. The primary purpose for ABM was to ensure that neither country put themselves into position to ever think they could win a nuclear war. Even if the Russians did violate treaties, as I'm sure they did, it still was no excuse for the United States to do the same. And remember, the Russians are the only ones who still have an active ABM defense. Our defense, Safeguard, didn't last a week before it got shut down.
cag1970 8 months ago
@cag1970 No, the 1972 ABM treaty was signed because of weak US politicians who were afraid by the Russians. Because they were far more afraid of a nuclear war than the Russians. That treaty should have never been signed, in specially that the US was ahead of Russia in antimissile technology.
And yes, Russia is the only country who has an active ABM system and that gives them an advantage. And yes, the US had all the reasons to violate the ABM treaty. That treaty was a bullshit.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1, for what Star Wars would've been, it would've been an illegal and expensive flop. There are too many ways to defeat a ballistic missile defense, even one as sophisticated as Star Wars. And knowing American technology like I do, it's quite likely that the components of the defense would defeat the system itself.
cag1970 8 months ago
@cag1970 And just how well do you know the American technology. If the Star Wars would've bee easy to defeat the Russians wouldn't still be afraid of it and the US wouldn't still be working on it today.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1, the undoing of the Russians was, quite simply, money. They didn't have enough to compete. But Star Wars would have still been easily and soundly defeated. A system designed to stop 1,000 missiles cannot stop 2,000, no matter how hard you try. When you count ICBMs, theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and SLBMs, AND with Russian anti-satellite weapons online there was no way Star Wars was going to be effective.
cag1970 8 months ago
@cag1970 Listen here, Star Wars is a program that was never canceled. Every administration worked on the program since the Reagan administration. They wouldn't still be wasting billions on it if it wasn't effective. And where did you get that number of 1000? How do you know that the system was designed to counter 1000 missiles? Which BTW, Russia never had. They never had this number of ICBMs and SLBMs, let alone 2000.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@cag1970 BTW, the Star Wars system was designed to defend against intercontinental missiles, not against theater ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. There are other systems that can take care of those.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1, what systems - especially if it is an attack en masse?
cag1970 8 months ago
@cag1970 An attack en masse with medium range ballistic missiles? Well, now there is Aegis system, the Patriot and the THAAD. But I believe the Star Wars was envisaged to use ground based and sea based ABM systems as well, not just space based ones. I believe THAAD and Aegis are part of that now. They can defend against medium range ballistic missiles very well.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@StiviGun1, one other thing. Even with a ballistic missile defense, Moscow would still be destroyed if the United States decided to attack it. Ten single-warhead ICBMs detected by over-the-horizon radar become thousands of pieces of debris, decoys and chaff masking the warheads themselves by the time it all comes into range of the interceptors. By the time the radar tells them exactly where the warheads are, they're detonating over the Kremlin.
cag1970 8 months ago
@cag1970 And what American ICBM carries decoys? The Russian ICBMs, like the R-36M2 or Topol M carry decoys. But what American ICBM carries decoys? The fact is that in ICBMs, the Russians have the upper hand. And if they have an active ABM system, then they definitely have an advantage. The US should definitely focus on developing the Ground Based Midcourse Defense system alongside the space based systems it develops. Just 25 of GMD interceptors are not nearly enough.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
@cag1970 construction of Bulava and RS-24 missiles. Those missiles are illegal and are violating the disarmament treaties. They also violated the START treaty when they built the Topol M ICBM.
StiviGun1 8 months ago
For many years, Russian missiles carried high-yield warheads because they weren't very accurate. A missile bound for Charlotte, for example, might have wound up detonating over Concord or Gastonia - plenty strong enough to destroy Charlotte if detonated at optimum burst height. I don't even know if Russian missiles have inertial guidance, like American missiles. But if I'm right, they still have to use a turntable to aim Soyuz spacecraft.
cag1970 9 months ago
@cag1970 The SS-18 has a 200-500 CEP depending on the version. The current version, the Mod 5 probably has a 200 m CEP as it's the newest model. But even with a CEP of 500 m that missile can destroy everything with a 25 MT warhead. The CEP of the SS-18 missile is not so big as you think and yes, the Russian ICBMs do have inertial guidance, the latest models with GLONASS, the Russian GPS equivalent. Their ICBMs r not as accurate as yours, but are not that inaccurate as you think. The Topol and
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@cag1970 the Topol M have a 200 m CEP and a 550 KT warhead. That's accurate enough. The newer RS-24 and the Bulava are eve more accurate. BTW, the Russians build these missiles illegally and your politicians don't do anything about it.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
@StiviGun1, Titan II was a heck of a booster in all respects. Not only could it hurl a 9-megaton warhead over 11,000 miles, but it also put the Gemini spacecraft in order. I have to agree with you, though - I wish the Titan family was still flying. But I think it was too expensive compared to the newer Atlas family of satellite boosters.
cag1970 9 months ago
@cag1970 Well, the Titan II was more expensive than the Atlas, but it was more advanced. It incorporated more advanced features so it was worth it.
StiviGun1 9 months ago
UFO clearly visible moving through the atmosphere at 1:09 in the bottom right corner.
greatdeception 3 years ago
Uh, no...That was some insulation falling off the booster...Very much an IFO.
cag1970 3 years ago
matter of opinion. It's moving way too fast to be what you claim it to be. Not to mention that it comes into view several seconds after all the debris is ejected from the booster AND from a much greater distance than the orbiting debris (looks to be in the earths gravitational atmosphere). I don't think you and I are looking at the same object.
Would have liked to have started this reply with "Uh, yes" but that would be too juvenile.
greatdeception 3 years ago
If you take a closer look at the footage, you can clearly see the particle falling on a trajectory away from the booster. I can see how it might appear to be a UFO, but it's not uncommon for some debris to shed from a rocket like that, even after staging.
cag1970 3 years ago
Absolutely right, artwleb...Gemini crews did not see the staging, at least not during the flight. Ed Herlihy got that wrong, for sure.
cag1970 3 years ago
A nice video. The only error is the comment that astronauts
would see the same staging as the camera. No staging is
visible to the crew.
artwleb 3 years ago