This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LGM-25C Titan II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The deployment numbers cannot be correct. There were 54 silos at the 3 operational bases plus three training complexes with one missile each at Vandenberg temporarly on alert, so the maximum number of deployed missiles is 57 at any given time. Geomartin ( talk) 08:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Though there were sometimes as many as two missiles on alert at Vandenberg but not for long. The valid number for most of the history of the Titan II was 54. Though even that was often lower due to a missile being swapped out for maintenance or for onsite maintenance. After the destruction of silo 374-7 the number was permanently reduced. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 22:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The text on the www.fas.org about the Titan II missile is not copyrighted material. It comes from page 233 of the U.S. Government report:
"To Defend and Deter: Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program" - 1996
by John C. Lonnquest and David F. Winkler USACERL Special Report 97/01 A study sponsored by the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program Cold War Project 607 pages - illustrated
70.95-mb PDF format
The report is available at this URL.
http://www.cevp.com/docs/COLDWAR/1996-11-01952.pdf
Compare the Titan II section starting on page 233.
Rusty 03:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Titan II, as deployed, had a range of 5,500 nautical miles, not 9,000 miles. At one time the thought to deploy the Titan I Mark IV RV and warhead generated one flight that failed at staging and this is likely the source of the 9,000 mile range. The deployed Titan II had the W-53 and Mark VI RV, as correctly stated in the article.
Sources:
<"WS 107C, Titan II Weapon System Final Report, January 1965," held at the History Office, Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs,classified SECRET. The information cited is not classified.>/ <"Detailed Design Specifications for Model SM-68B Missile, Including Addendum for XSM-68B," held at History Office, Peterson AFB, unclassified.> 206.128.65.121 ( talk) 02:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
| Source-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 11:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The LR-87 used in the first stage is a single engine with two nozzles. Andrewa ( talk) 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
An interesting discussion. It never occurred to me to consider it a single engine. We always referred to them as "engines". To be precise (and having worked on them in the USAF, I know)...two thrust chambers and four turbo pumps (two per thrust chamber). That of course suggests that they are two engines, but they did share peripheral support systems. The hot gas generator (for pressurizing the propellant tanks) the lubrication system and the drive unit (a small reaction chamber where a negligible amount of propellant was reacted to drive the turbopumps for the thrust chambers) were critical parts of the engines. In that respect it is proper to say that since the thrust chambers could not operate independently, they must, therefore be considered a single unit. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.61.176.163 (
talk)
04:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to restart the discussion at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles, which is probably a better place for it. Andrewa ( talk) 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Why does everyone not go to reliable sources? The USAF technical manual T.O._21M-LGM25C-1 clearly states that the LR-87 is one engine which "consists of two independent subassemblies mounted on a single engine frame. Each subassembly contains a thrust chamber assembly, a turbopump assembly, a gas generator, and an engine start system." George Sutton in his encyclopedic work "History of Liquid Prpellant Rocket Engines," American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, ISBN1-56347-649-5 describes the LR87 as a "dual booster engine." with "two thrust cambers." Much of the commentary above is based upon less than reliable sources." Perhaps the most amusing entry states I think there should be a rule for engineers that their developments should be Wikipedia-conform." Most droll and it hits upon a point of contention that Wikipedia itself is not necessarily reality compliant. As for "sources" that is a problem particularly in this internet age. I refer to two sources both serious in nature, one the USAF "owners manual" for the entire Titan II weapons system and the other a highly respected history of Liquid propellant Rocket Engines by an imminently qualified expert published by a respectable organization. I notice in the article much information is derived from sources like techbastard. The information might be good but consider the source.
There is a discussion at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles and Talk:LR-87#Affected articles that affects this article. Please discuss it there. Andrewa ( talk) 23:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is listed at [[ Talk:LR-87#Affected articles as one of those affected by the proposal at Talk:LR-87#Consensus? to treat all variants of the LR-87 as a single engine with two nozzles. Please raise any objections to this there.
If no objections are received, the proposal will in due course take effect in this article. Andrewa ( talk) 08:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
From the article, existing missiles were destroyed; new Titans were built to launch satellites. Not entirely so. I worked at Lockheed Martin in Colorado, and refurbing Titans out of silos for launch vehicles was a big deal, we did quite a few of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly person ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Just take note since I have not seen it there is also a launch site that has not been destroyed. Simply decommisineed in Green Valley, Arizona. Also known as launch site 7 i believe although I might be mistaken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airforcealltheway66 ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The wording in the article states "warhead", and not "Reentry Vehicle". Was N-7 to be an end-to-end FULL systems test much as the previous year's Dominic-Frigate Bird, or was someone a bit overzealous in their wording? If N-7 actually contained a "warhead", it might be a good idea to add a citation. The use of SEALs or a UDT or UCT to recover the RV would have been appropriate, but the usage of the word "warhead" makes it sound like the missile was armed for a Frigate Bird like test, which given Navy's FULL systems test, might have been a plausible scenario, as the partial test ban wasn't even signed until August and wasn't effective until October. 174.207.5.46 ( talk) 21:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The article contains a description of an incident at silo 395C where a request for citation is needed. I have consulted every book and file I have on the Titan II as well as online sources. I have not been able to turn up any information reliable or otherwise concerning the incident described at the location stated at the time given. The Air Force Space & Missile Museum states that 395C was active until 27 June 1976. Stumpf lists three Titan launches from 395C during 1975, One in January, another in early August and the third in December. All carried classified cargo. Moreover the article states "The Titan suffered severe structural failure with both the hypergolic fuel tank and the oxidizer tank leaking and accumulating in the bottom of the silo." Whom ever wrote that does not understand hypergolic propellants. Aerozine 50 and Nitrogen Tetroxide would not "accumulate" as stated. Rather they would react violently and the resultant destruction of the missile and silo would have been noticeable. Witness the effects at Damascus (374-7) where "severe structural failure" failure caused the fuel and oxidizer to mix in the bottom of the launch duct. It is difficult to conceive of both fuel and oxidizer arriving at the bottom of the launch duct of 395C and the silo being able to host another launch in little over a months time. I recommend the deletion of the paragraph, unless the author provides a reliable citation.
Mark Lincoln ( talk) 19:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I did not attempt a cited correction of the relative megatonnage of the Minutemen and Titan IIs. It was obvious that the statement was wrong so I simply did some math. The MM had about 1500 megatons of warheads and the Titans around 475 so the Titan did not carry a majority or an overwhelmingly significant minority of megatonage of USAF ICBMs. At great expense they could flatten 50 some places but in most instances it was overkill by the mid-1980s. One MM III could level as large an area of urban Russia at significantly less expense. (Three W87s, remember the square law applies to area damaged.) So I merely adjusted the sentence to reflect reality. I also did not answer the request for a citation on the list of available missiles as I know of no such list though the information is probably recoverable through extensive research. There were always a number of spare missiles more than the number of silos available. If one went bad it was replaced and the defect repaired. Lets face facts. Would there have been any survivors to put in the rubble of nuked silos? Why? To put it bluntly without venturing into the dreaded ground of "original research," which I tread close to at times, I could not find a reliable source with a reliable number. To which I add "so what?" I left the data and the request as perhaps there is someone who does have more reliable data.
Mark Lincoln ( talk) 20:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
While I was at McConnell AFB we sent a Titan II to Vandenburg for a launch. But the engines failed to start because the pre-valves for both the oxidizer and fuel did not open. So when the start cartridge was fired the turbo over-speeded and exploded.
What happened: 1) a train came across the launch path so the commander aborted 2) there were two relays involved in the operation of the pre-valves, one was a motor driven relay that operated the pre-valves and the other was a standard relay that sent a signal saying the pre-valves were open. 3) the motor driven relay was slower than the standard relay and the commander pressed abort after the standard relay closed but before the motor driven relay closed. 4) as a result there was no fuel nor oxidizer in the turbins.
Eddy@Quicksall.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:27A0:7780:300B:73F2:9998:7077 ( talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. The consensus from the discussion below appears to be that there is a particular naming convention for U.S. weapons that maintains consistency. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
LGM-25C Titan II →
Titan II –
WP:CONCISE and
WP:COMMONNAME.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Did the Titan II do hot staging ? The photos and other diagrams seem to show a vented interstage as if the 2nd stage ignites before separation. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LGM-25C Titan II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The deployment numbers cannot be correct. There were 54 silos at the 3 operational bases plus three training complexes with one missile each at Vandenberg temporarly on alert, so the maximum number of deployed missiles is 57 at any given time. Geomartin ( talk) 08:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Though there were sometimes as many as two missiles on alert at Vandenberg but not for long. The valid number for most of the history of the Titan II was 54. Though even that was often lower due to a missile being swapped out for maintenance or for onsite maintenance. After the destruction of silo 374-7 the number was permanently reduced. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 22:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The text on the www.fas.org about the Titan II missile is not copyrighted material. It comes from page 233 of the U.S. Government report:
"To Defend and Deter: Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program" - 1996
by John C. Lonnquest and David F. Winkler USACERL Special Report 97/01 A study sponsored by the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program Cold War Project 607 pages - illustrated
70.95-mb PDF format
The report is available at this URL.
http://www.cevp.com/docs/COLDWAR/1996-11-01952.pdf
Compare the Titan II section starting on page 233.
Rusty 03:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Titan II, as deployed, had a range of 5,500 nautical miles, not 9,000 miles. At one time the thought to deploy the Titan I Mark IV RV and warhead generated one flight that failed at staging and this is likely the source of the 9,000 mile range. The deployed Titan II had the W-53 and Mark VI RV, as correctly stated in the article.
Sources:
<"WS 107C, Titan II Weapon System Final Report, January 1965," held at the History Office, Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs,classified SECRET. The information cited is not classified.>/ <"Detailed Design Specifications for Model SM-68B Missile, Including Addendum for XSM-68B," held at History Office, Peterson AFB, unclassified.> 206.128.65.121 ( talk) 02:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
| Source-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 11:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The LR-87 used in the first stage is a single engine with two nozzles. Andrewa ( talk) 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
An interesting discussion. It never occurred to me to consider it a single engine. We always referred to them as "engines". To be precise (and having worked on them in the USAF, I know)...two thrust chambers and four turbo pumps (two per thrust chamber). That of course suggests that they are two engines, but they did share peripheral support systems. The hot gas generator (for pressurizing the propellant tanks) the lubrication system and the drive unit (a small reaction chamber where a negligible amount of propellant was reacted to drive the turbopumps for the thrust chambers) were critical parts of the engines. In that respect it is proper to say that since the thrust chambers could not operate independently, they must, therefore be considered a single unit. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.61.176.163 (
talk)
04:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to restart the discussion at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles, which is probably a better place for it. Andrewa ( talk) 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Why does everyone not go to reliable sources? The USAF technical manual T.O._21M-LGM25C-1 clearly states that the LR-87 is one engine which "consists of two independent subassemblies mounted on a single engine frame. Each subassembly contains a thrust chamber assembly, a turbopump assembly, a gas generator, and an engine start system." George Sutton in his encyclopedic work "History of Liquid Prpellant Rocket Engines," American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, ISBN1-56347-649-5 describes the LR87 as a "dual booster engine." with "two thrust cambers." Much of the commentary above is based upon less than reliable sources." Perhaps the most amusing entry states I think there should be a rule for engineers that their developments should be Wikipedia-conform." Most droll and it hits upon a point of contention that Wikipedia itself is not necessarily reality compliant. As for "sources" that is a problem particularly in this internet age. I refer to two sources both serious in nature, one the USAF "owners manual" for the entire Titan II weapons system and the other a highly respected history of Liquid propellant Rocket Engines by an imminently qualified expert published by a respectable organization. I notice in the article much information is derived from sources like techbastard. The information might be good but consider the source.
There is a discussion at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles and Talk:LR-87#Affected articles that affects this article. Please discuss it there. Andrewa ( talk) 23:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is listed at [[ Talk:LR-87#Affected articles as one of those affected by the proposal at Talk:LR-87#Consensus? to treat all variants of the LR-87 as a single engine with two nozzles. Please raise any objections to this there.
If no objections are received, the proposal will in due course take effect in this article. Andrewa ( talk) 08:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
From the article, existing missiles were destroyed; new Titans were built to launch satellites. Not entirely so. I worked at Lockheed Martin in Colorado, and refurbing Titans out of silos for launch vehicles was a big deal, we did quite a few of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly person ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Just take note since I have not seen it there is also a launch site that has not been destroyed. Simply decommisineed in Green Valley, Arizona. Also known as launch site 7 i believe although I might be mistaken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airforcealltheway66 ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The wording in the article states "warhead", and not "Reentry Vehicle". Was N-7 to be an end-to-end FULL systems test much as the previous year's Dominic-Frigate Bird, or was someone a bit overzealous in their wording? If N-7 actually contained a "warhead", it might be a good idea to add a citation. The use of SEALs or a UDT or UCT to recover the RV would have been appropriate, but the usage of the word "warhead" makes it sound like the missile was armed for a Frigate Bird like test, which given Navy's FULL systems test, might have been a plausible scenario, as the partial test ban wasn't even signed until August and wasn't effective until October. 174.207.5.46 ( talk) 21:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The article contains a description of an incident at silo 395C where a request for citation is needed. I have consulted every book and file I have on the Titan II as well as online sources. I have not been able to turn up any information reliable or otherwise concerning the incident described at the location stated at the time given. The Air Force Space & Missile Museum states that 395C was active until 27 June 1976. Stumpf lists three Titan launches from 395C during 1975, One in January, another in early August and the third in December. All carried classified cargo. Moreover the article states "The Titan suffered severe structural failure with both the hypergolic fuel tank and the oxidizer tank leaking and accumulating in the bottom of the silo." Whom ever wrote that does not understand hypergolic propellants. Aerozine 50 and Nitrogen Tetroxide would not "accumulate" as stated. Rather they would react violently and the resultant destruction of the missile and silo would have been noticeable. Witness the effects at Damascus (374-7) where "severe structural failure" failure caused the fuel and oxidizer to mix in the bottom of the launch duct. It is difficult to conceive of both fuel and oxidizer arriving at the bottom of the launch duct of 395C and the silo being able to host another launch in little over a months time. I recommend the deletion of the paragraph, unless the author provides a reliable citation.
Mark Lincoln ( talk) 19:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I did not attempt a cited correction of the relative megatonnage of the Minutemen and Titan IIs. It was obvious that the statement was wrong so I simply did some math. The MM had about 1500 megatons of warheads and the Titans around 475 so the Titan did not carry a majority or an overwhelmingly significant minority of megatonage of USAF ICBMs. At great expense they could flatten 50 some places but in most instances it was overkill by the mid-1980s. One MM III could level as large an area of urban Russia at significantly less expense. (Three W87s, remember the square law applies to area damaged.) So I merely adjusted the sentence to reflect reality. I also did not answer the request for a citation on the list of available missiles as I know of no such list though the information is probably recoverable through extensive research. There were always a number of spare missiles more than the number of silos available. If one went bad it was replaced and the defect repaired. Lets face facts. Would there have been any survivors to put in the rubble of nuked silos? Why? To put it bluntly without venturing into the dreaded ground of "original research," which I tread close to at times, I could not find a reliable source with a reliable number. To which I add "so what?" I left the data and the request as perhaps there is someone who does have more reliable data.
Mark Lincoln ( talk) 20:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
While I was at McConnell AFB we sent a Titan II to Vandenburg for a launch. But the engines failed to start because the pre-valves for both the oxidizer and fuel did not open. So when the start cartridge was fired the turbo over-speeded and exploded.
What happened: 1) a train came across the launch path so the commander aborted 2) there were two relays involved in the operation of the pre-valves, one was a motor driven relay that operated the pre-valves and the other was a standard relay that sent a signal saying the pre-valves were open. 3) the motor driven relay was slower than the standard relay and the commander pressed abort after the standard relay closed but before the motor driven relay closed. 4) as a result there was no fuel nor oxidizer in the turbins.
Eddy@Quicksall.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:27A0:7780:300B:73F2:9998:7077 ( talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. The consensus from the discussion below appears to be that there is a particular naming convention for U.S. weapons that maintains consistency. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
LGM-25C Titan II →
Titan II –
WP:CONCISE and
WP:COMMONNAME.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Did the Titan II do hot staging ? The photos and other diagrams seem to show a vented interstage as if the 2nd stage ignites before separation. - Rod57 ( talk) 11:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)