Osama Killer Missile Fails; NO Conventional Tridents

Osama Killer Missile Fails; NO Conventional Tridents

Cruise missiles are highly accurate but they have to be fired from a distance and they take a fair amount of time to get where they are going. So they are great for fixed targets, but their limitations have left the Pentagon scratching its head for half a decade trying to find something that can be launched and hit its target anywhere in the world within an hour or so. One of the key drivers behind this effort has been to develop a weapon that could kill a terrorist like Osama bin Laden anywhere in the world without having to send in special operators or deploy a big ship. The concept, pushed hard by vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Hoss Cartwright, is called Prompt Global Strike and the budget contains $240 million for development programs.

But one of the more promising efforts, DARPA’s Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2), made it part way through a test and then vanished. A review board has been formed to find out just what went wrong. No word yet on when their findings might be available.

DARPA said the launch vehicle, known as the Minotaur Lite, got the HTV-2 up. “The launch vehicle executed first of its kind energy management maneuvers, clamshell payload fairing release and HTV-2 deployment. Approximately nine minutes into the mission, telemetry assets experienced a loss of signal from the HTV-2. An engineering team is reviewing available data to understand this event.”

But the test is not a complete failure, as the DARPA release makes clear. “Three test ranges, six sea-based and two airborne telemetry collection assets were employed and operational on the day of launch. Technical data collected during the flight will provide insight into the hypersonic flight characteristics of the HTV-2,” the release said. A congressional aide said HTV-2 is the only PGS alternative anywhere close to the glide path for combat use. What makes the HTV-2 particularly appealing is its hypersonic speed — up to Mach 20 — and its angle of descent, which makes it easily distinguishable from an ICBM.

That angle of ascent of and descent was a key factor in why Congress killed the first PGS effort, the conventionally armed Trident missile. Defense Secretary Robert Gates caused a minor stir last Sunday when he appeared to say that the U.S. might possess Trident missiles with conventional warheads. It would certainly have riled a watchful Congress which expressly forbade the department from developing such a strike tool.

Speaking on Sunday’s Meet The Press, Gates said: “We have, in addition to the nuclear deterrent today, a couple of things we didn’t have in the Soviet days… And we have prompt global strike affording us some conventional alternatives on long-range missiles that we didn’t have before.”

So I checked with the Navy. “The Navy currently has no program of record to develop a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead for the Trident missile System,” a Navy official said. And just to make sure the message was received clearly, the official added that, “There has been no development of a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead for the Trident missile System.”

As for Gates, it looks as if he misspoke. True, he didn’t say ICBM, but his language was a bit wobbly.

Join the Conversation

There is a lot to say about this one, I will restrict myself to saying that nine minutes of flight test for an amazing vehicle like this is spectacular! I am not sure how long the flight could have lasted, but just to get up there and start the hypersonic part of the test will have the team inebriated for days, in celebration. We forget how hard this sort of stuff is. And this is from someone not connected to this test at all — still able to appreciate it from afar.

Still, certainly — to sell this test — someone was hauling out the old Rod From God argument, the hypersonic vehicle to downtown Mogadishu, etc. We want a weapon that can be recalled, or steered. Something that you unleash, and it arrives almost before you have the target positively identified — is gonna cause embarrassment. We are gonna level some more Chinese embassies. We are gonna shoot a bunch of our folks at hypersonic speed into the next Blackhawk Down book.


If it were easy everybody would already have them. Please, let’s not rush to the door with our tails between our legs, just this once.

To be honest I don’t really buy that it “disappeared.” I’m more likely to believe that this is some disinfo to get people off the backs of the scientists and to say to our enemies that, “hey it’s a whole lot harder than you think.”

This is what testing; trial and error was for.

And do a search and recovery for HTV-2 , like we normally do in the past with our reuseable rocket boster when we send our shittle out in space.

Track it thru its projectory path and at 3000 radius from Hawaii. And use google earth andsearch ad recovery navy utility ship.

Check this location, latitude and longditude for HTV-2 something pops upon the map: 20° 6’18.20“N latitude, 155° 8’50.94“W londitude.

And check this location also 20°31’50.46“N latitude and 155°46’17.11“W

And check also this location: 20° 4’42.70“N latitude and 155° 9’56.80“W longitude for HTV-2.

This looks like a triangular shape at Hawaii pacific coat sea that could be the HTV-2 , check also this location: 20°20’16.15“N latitude; 155°30’41.38“W longitude for HTV-2

Good Morning Folks,

I seem to be in agreement here with everybody. It’s called testing for a reason, to work out the bugs. So far the program is only pocket change, I like that. The hypersonic missile on an SSGM with a warhead like” Battle Ax” that could be delivered to the house faster then UPS could give some folks second thoughts.

It appears that the US is moving into a new kind of warfare that doesn’t yet have a name, but it would appear to be an “open/siege” battle environment where we can micro select a target, engage it and cause minimal to no collateral damage with out leaving any US boot prints or committing any US troops. If the United States is going to engage in Orwellingtion type of long wars, and it appears that the political concrescence of both parties want this the an way has to be found to do it as cheaply as possible, this is an early step.

The bad guys like in ancient times seek to hide with in a fortification, while their pursuers surround the fortifications and either breach and attack or starve everybody out. Very costly and time consuming.

The CIA is now doing selective strikes with a great deal of effectiveness in Pakistan. The CIA is selectivity engaging targets of high value which is reducing al Qaeda’s combat power with out the risk of using ground forces. In fact I was reading yesterday that the CIA is replacing the Hellfire II with a smaller “unnamed” weapon on it Predators, which from description sound a lot like the Army’s “Viper Missile.”

Of course the key to all of this is intelligence and it proper gathering and timely interpretation of data and rapid feed back to the user.

Byron Skinner

This looks like a pointed glider on the Pacific sea floor of Hawaii: 20°28’26.37“N Latitude, 155°36’44.75“W Longitude.

This is a technology we need. Keep testing and perfect it but don’t forget to apply appropriate duel use improvements to our nuclear arsenal. We should also leverage this technology into advances in missiles, solid rocket propellants, guidance and reentry vehicles. At the same time let’s start to fund mini and micro nukes, RNEP and advanced nuclear weapons concepts.

I wonder a bit at the omission of Trident. I also wonder at the tradeoff of small payload delivered with maximum speed from the continental US vs. a slower flight time over a shorter distance with a bigger payload. Might it not be easier to put an aerodynamic, steerable weapon carrier on a Trident, with a ramjet front end, and deliver it at relatively familiar supersonic speeds from a shorter distance, rather then fire it from the continental US?

With that approach couldn’t there be a significant probability of Russia or another nuke player thinking that we were launching an ICBM? Yes, we make ICBM test launches but we can notify that a test will be occurring and it is then appropriately monitored — decreases the probability of a disastrous misinterpretation of our action. But launching a Trident on extremely short notice with a flight profile typical of an ICBM could easily be interpreted as a nuke attack on Russia, China, etc.

I’m not an expert on this, but it is my assumption that this is why they don’t want to use a Trident or anything else with a flight profile similar to that of an ICBM.

I thought that was the Wasp?

The best thing is NOT to give up or drop this resr vehicle, as we always seem to do?

Steve, Retired

A big problem is that China or Russia may think they are being attacked when they see a Falcon coming toward northern Pakistan or Afghanistan — especially if it is crossing their territory. To put it is perspective here’s a thought experiment, what would we think (and do) if Russia launched one of these over our territory to take out a precision target in Central America? I’ll bet we’d be at DEFCON ONE before the vehicle crossed our border. If either the Russians or the Chinese have a doctrine based on “launch on warning” then our “precision” strike may generalize very fast.

I think the technology is great, but I want to know who gets to pull the trigger and under what ROE he (or she) can do so. I would not like to have had Donald Rumsfeld in that chain.

Hoss Cartwright? dumdiddy dum diddydum dum diddy dum Bonanza.….
We’ve been played boys!

I Think this is a waste of Money, whats the price tag on the R&D for this weapon? How much does a fully developed one cost? They Titled this as a Osama Killer Missle as if to say its just to kill one Man. I think that is Wastefull. They did not say the cost of this weapon just … “Hoss Cartwright, is called Prompt Global Strike and the budget contains $240 million for development programs”.

They really don’t want to kill Osama, cause then there is no point in being deployed out there once he is eleminated. Really getting tired of this Military Industrial Complex…

Ryan, while it is called an Osama killer, its desired application is much broader. The idea is to have nearly global reach in a very brief period of time and without concern about obtaining overflight clearances and other permissions which are typically required in order to access many remote targets. Part of the theory is that if you can very rapidly apply discrete fires on target you may be able to prevent a much wider war.

Osama is a nice but imperfect example. Remember many years ago when Clinton lobbed some cruise missiles into Afghanistan trying to kill OBL? As I understand it, we had good intel that OBL was present in the camp and was vulnerable to attack. But by the time the ordnance arrived on target OBL was no longer present and we looked more impotent than effective. It is conceivable (but by no means certain) that if Clinton had been able to deliver fires on that target much faster that OBL would have died, the 9/11 attacks would not have occurred, the Islamofascists would not have developed its prominence and effectiveness or its funding sources.

In this light an investment of quite a number of billions of dollars might be justified. Note I’m not saying they are justified but that they may be.

I don’t know at what level it is being developed, but there has been a concept of using suborbital vehicles to deliver something like a platoon of troops to a developing trouble spot within minutes rather than the current hours, days, weeks, or months. This one is much more difficult in some ways because even if you can deliver the troops it doesn’t mean you can retrieve or support them — but since any such forces which would be delivered would likely be extremely well-trained and might be capable of unsupported action for a limited time and egress over/through difficult and hostile terrain. It may yet prove to be a viable option in some cases. I’ve actually wondered a bit if the X-37B? which was recently launched might either be a prototype of such a vehicle (perhaps scaled down).

I believe parts of this test are meant to be dis-informative. The most complex part would be the energy management maneuvers, deployment of the Faring and Clamshell, all of which went well. The ascent/descent phase at mach 20+ (the simplest phase but the most dangerous)is where the vehicle vanished, probably because they told it to. Tom Clancy should take notes here.

You will recall that the reason given for invasion of Afghanistan in the first place was to remove Osama.
So why is the war still going on there? Well, its rather simple to see that Osama was a complete excuse.
The Russians failed in Afghanistan, but it is not the intention of the forces there now to conquor, no — rather to form base of deployment/power and to support the oil/gas pipeline that runs through — it is largely a business maneuver. Big money, a bit like global warming.

in my opinion, you are a waste of space and an oxygen thief. you obviously have no insight into why headlines are worded a certain way, nor do you seem to have any grasp on the situation in the middle east and why any country performs any amount of R&D on anything.

i think you are an idiot and im willing to bet im not the only one.

Q. Whitehead
Proud Army Wife

(I must caveat my comments as I retired from a career in defense and intelligence research.) First of all Obama has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that would protect our country from terrorists! He is totally anti-military and has done NOTHING to stop terrorists! Second, we have been working on various conventional systems for many years that have this type of capability. Of course, scientists such as myself have had to play political games to hide the truth as to any actual application! The sad reality is that the public and the complicit media allows corrupt, cowardly politicians to make technical decisions, and those decisions are always stupid at best!!! (I could easily have a system Phase IV ready within a year or so.)

We need to admit that we are now in a world where WMD’s of various types WILL be used by terrorists/terrorist governments!!! It is time to get our heads out of the sand and start using intellect to drive our decisions, NOT the corrupt input from the likes of military-hating politicians, like Obama and his scum-bag czars! Since ALL of the terrorist groups will soon possess WMD’s and WILL use them, we MUST be able to respond “in kind”! The most humane approach with minimal collateral damage is an HE loaded system (ICBM or medium range) or a tactical nuke. (It depends upon the amount of energy required.) I agree that the use of an ICBM is a bit of over-kill for most targets. Most targets can be destroyed using smaller rockets armed with conventional HE, High-Impulse HE (HNS/PETN), or a tactical Nuke. While I realize that there are tremendous political issues associated with the use of tactical nukes, their use is a reality given the present WMD climate! We must remember that Saddam did NOT use WMD’s during the Golf War for only ONE reason… Bush told him the if Saddam hit us with ANY type of WMD that we would respond with nukes!!! (Truth) We MUST be willing to USE the nuclear deterrent! For extremely high value targets, it makes perfect sense to use an old MMIII or Trident with a “primary-only” warhead, as they are VERY “clean”, can hit multiple targets simultaneously, and will result in minimal collateral damage. It is extremely easy to convert the RV’s to conventional HE, too. (Match the spin dynamics and use the same AF&F system!) We also have numerous other types of delivery systems available for shorter to ICBM distances. (W69, various rocket systems developed for the “star wars” program, Systems for JTA testing, Older W62/W68 systems, etc.)

All of the technical discussions are purely academic until we have a president that is serious about fighting terrorism…which is NOT Obama! I worked with many presidents and very few had the guts to actually do what was necessary! (Sadly, most of the brave actions are still classified!) We are in a new world where biological and chemical WMD’s are relatively easy to obtain! Iran is thumbing it’s nose at the world and will soon have a gun-rail fission system. How do we respond? (Remember how we took care of a similar situation in the mid-80’s with Iraq? Sadly, we do NOT have a “real” leader in the White House as we did then!) We could destroy Iran’s entire nuclear complex with one MMIII (MIRV) “primary-only” (W78) ICBM! (Or one Trident SLBM — W76)

Presently we are extremely vulnerable to a WMD attack. Obama is destroying our intelligence capabilities and alienating our allies. Terrorist nations and organizations are developing WMD’s and launch capabilities at will. Unless we dramatically change our leadership, a terrorist attack is inevitable. At one time, we had the capability to develop advanced weapon systems. As various liberal presidents destroyed that capability; replacing it with greedy companies running our national labs, we now have limited capability at best because the best scientists left in disgust! (I am one of them!)

Our greatest challenge is the tremendously biased media, which no longer possesses ANY morals, intellect, and/or ethics. I wasted a tremendous amount of time trying to find an honest reporter who could not be over-ridden by his biased editor! Most of them were arrogant fools that had written the story before we even met! I was constantly frustrated by the lies and distortions that were the norm in the nightly news. Without truth in the media, we are doomed!

So I guess we should let scientists make all of our moral and philosophical decisions for us as well? You know, when we get a president who’s serious about fighting terrorism he’ll bring all our troops home and begin treating the problem as a global law enforcement issue like we should have been all along.

Jeff Huber

Their is no intention to remove Osama since he is instrumental before the public eye to give reason for funding of projects that otherwise would not be allowed. This was also the cause for such as President Saddam.
The technology already exists for flattening buildings using electromagnetic waves emitted from satellite. Whilst I do not know if this could directly kill a human, it could if they were in a building that collapsed as a result. The time differential fro, deployment to activation is a matter of seconds rather than this above mentioned system which has a huge deployment time latency. One must appreciate that power is really in politics and its propaganda — it is seen by such agencies that bad news and fear is a great motivator and gives power by its design.

Rocket Scientist:

Thank you for what you have done and for your thoughts. I thoroughly enjoy the fact that we have very knowledgeable people who comment here.

I think you are a little overly willing to use nukes and may not have thought through all the implications of their use but your basic message is correct. Unless there is a willingness (at some level) to use the nukes they are really of no benefit.

Really enjoyed your post.

You mean the way we were treating it right up to 9/11, how did that work out. Your post is absolute proof of the old saying “those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.”

Dear Rocket Scientist:
First off let me say thanks for what you have done. How ever I am even more thankful that you dont have the button in YOUR hand (nukes) Anyone who would use a nuke, even a tactical one, would essentialy be condemning this country to isolationism. No country would ever deal with us again!!! We would be ostracized by the whole world our allies would abandon us in an instant. What would the US do if Israel dropped a (tactical) nuke on another middle eastern country(besides Iran) get the picture? Nuclear weapons are a big stick that should be waved, but never used.(except in a defensive posture only). Again no disrespect intended.

What concerns me is where are they going with this, If they are pushing for global targeting from a conventional weapon leads me to think this might lead to them trying to reason further cuts in military projection abroad. Tomahawks can be launched from varios craft and are very accurate, plus they are extreamly hard to track due to thier low altitude, I would think building a larger — lighter — longer range variant would be in order and software target packages developed similar to the ones used on Trident missles meaning data packages can be continuously uploaded for a given target area, plus THAWK launches are not that time consuming anyhow. In reality they could be developed to drop a JDAM upon acquiring terminal trajectory. If they can come up with something better Im all for it but you are not going to get a global capeable weapon without a ICBM type flight pattern unless you have a one shot drone stealth rocket bomber which would be absurdly costly and no guarantee of the accuracy.

This is great stuff! I have always felt it critical to maintain our defenses, and what some might not like, “our offensive”, is also a neccesity that we must continue to develope. The ability to strike remotely is so bennificial on many levels. My only concern is, is that if I’m privey to this information then so are others, if you know what I mean. Keep on testing and developing! We must always strive to keep an edge on protecting and ensuring the way of life we have established and continue to improve on that we will leave to our children.

We don’t need a hypersonic missile to get rid of Obama. A simple Bill of Impeachment would suffice.

Oh. Never mind.

So, let’s summarize. (1) A ballistically lanuched hypersonic missile could be mistaken for a nuke attack. (2) Like all ballistic missiles, once triggered, it probably can’t be recalled. (3) We are willing to spend $$$ ($240 million to start; more to come later) to kill one man or one future target (read: foreign leaders we don’t like). (4) We have plenty of stuff to do the job already. (5) It keeps rocket scientists (whose work we really do appreciate) and more than a few politicans and generals fully employed. (6) It’s the Pentagon’s version of pork barrel waste at a time when the federal budget needs serious cutting.

I’d say that if one or more of the above observations is accurate (and more than one are), then this is the point at which we recognize that we don’t need these kinds of weapons. We already have a very expensive toolbox and we still can’t find and kill one man employing the totality of the most powerful armed forces in history! And the only answer the Pentagon can come up with is for faster toys? A few more people need to get fired!

Some time in the future someone will accidently or purposely hit the button marked “KILLS ALL” and the
bull will end.

If the weapon is flying that fast… the impact alone will remove the top of a small mountain, and the enemy will never hear it coming until its too late

When you consider that Bin Laden was responsible for about 3,000 U.S. deaths in one day alone, and could be planning something like this again, I don’t think it’s a waste of money to develop various “smart” weapons to take out him and any associates nearby. Also, the number of people wanting to do us harm has probably multiplied by several factors since 9–11, so weapons development in general is hardly wasteful. The bit about the “Military Industrial Complex” has some validity, but if you think the government doesn’t really want to kill OBL, you are deluded. We very much do.

1. The missile they are developing for this does not have the flight profile of a ballistic missile.

2. You can’t recall a ballistic missile, but it may be possible to trigger a self-destruct which might suit the purpose of aborting an attack.

3. There is not a single man or other target for this weapon. There are quite a number of potential targets.

4. We have NOTHING which will do what this weapon will do. Others have suggested cruise missiles and the like but for some of the envisioned missions they just aren’t going to do the trick.

5. It may keep scientists employed but I don’t think that is the intent of the project.

6. Pork barrel spending? I dunno if that is accurate, but I’d like to point out that if we’d had this available years ago Clinton might have succeeded in killing OBL and that MIGHT have saved many thousands of lives and as much as a trillion dollars.

It’s really not as simple as you seem to think.

And if you’re wondering if I’m sort of shill for the program, I have NO connection to the military or to any industry that services the industry. Well, OK, I’ve got a friend who does some training for ground forces part-time but certainly nothing to do with this program.

Persoanlly, I don’t like this sort of high tech warfare. However, the drones have proved more effective than ground troops, who have to go into it with the deck stacked so much against them, that a few YaHoos in pick up trucks with light weapons can bring them to a halt and concievably win by attrition. This approach, however, gives us retaliation on our terms, and therefore a deterrant as well as a global police weapon. It does imply conviction without trial but, like the Arizona Illegal Immigrant Law, the consequences of doing nothing are worse, given, nothing is perfect. As a chemist, I agree with rocket scientist: bio-chem WMD are too easy to make-you can Google up the recipes and most associate level chemists could it-high school, in some cases. Muslims need to realize that they’ve brought this on themselves, and reform their religion into something compatible with the 21st Century before this escalates further, or they will wind up the losers, twice over. Governance by consent of the governed is not compatible with totalitarian theocracy.

I think you’ve lost sight of the target here. The cost of this weapon is irrelevant. If it killed this one man, then it would be “worth it!” How could you put a price tag on a man who was responsible for killing so many americans on 9–11, and thousands of us since then in roadside IED’s…suicide bombers.….ect…?

I think the message is more like, “Hey, we did this. It’s that easy for us. But the true details are our secret.” Just enough to tell those that are watching that we tested something noone else has. But without revealing enough to give away pertinent information.

I agree.! Defense is one thing but when weapons are developed for offensive use such weapon when misdirected by accident or on purpose can start another usless and unprofitable war costing many lives and bad feelings( attitudes ) for a very long time. How long has the Israeli p Arab war been in existence and it is still going. That is why no remarkable progress has been made over there in thousands of years. The only difference from the feuds of our south is that everybody gets killed not just the two feuding families. Hate breeds more hate until both worlds are destroyed. The only thing that can save our world is reason and attempts at understanding. Those who refuse to accept this solution are part of the problem and such obstacles need to be removed. The welfare of the masses must be considered over the objections of those with a selfish personal agenda.

Has anyone considered the increased number of hurricanes, tornadoes,earthquakes,and volcanic eruption activity might be a warning to stop trying to blow each other up??? That past explosions might have contributed to our present seismic activity ??? The ’ H ’ bomb was developed to just kill people and spare the buildings. What does that tell you ??? Wars are started mainly to get rid of people who are different or disagree with the agenda of those in power. The motive in the past has always been for [ PROFIT & GREED ] AND SOMETIMES [ SEX ] HAVE YOU EVER READ THE BOOK OF [ XXXXXXXXXX ] Where he went to this city with his( concubine ) who was used by the men of the city without his permission , so he cut her into 12 pieces and sent one piece to each of the 12 tribes of Isreal to get their support in a [ WAR [ against that city for revenge for using his concubine. His losses were 3 times as many as the defenders, Iin the [ THOUSANDS ]. What was the point of the story ???— When you start a war, [ EVERYBODY LOSES ] ; EVEN THE WINNERS ! ! !

If you have a history of waving your weapons at threats, but never follow through, you do not have a deterrent. The threat & follow through does not have to be nuclear, but if you threaten, you must have a viable plan of action.

I am about to graduate with a B.A. in philosophy, and I can tell you at least one thing: Reason and attempts at understanding will NOT save our world. If we just sit around trying to reason about how to understand the murderous psychopaths malignantly spreading throughout the world…nothing will be accomplished. Because reason without action makes no mark in time.

True, but only if the right people take action and societal rot is reversed. If their home country turns into some sort of moral-less wasteland, nothing is gained by our soldiers defeating these radicals.

One mans failare is another’s great success story. Persistence is the critical mission factor. Old style hyperdynamic platforms should consider aeroelastic aspects and density of the fluid you are in at that speed. Heat must go somewhere … not enough cooling on that bird.

We are the right people. And we’re smart enough to remove an insurgency without rendering a country amoral. The problem is that there seems to be too much division to make any real progress. “Is it a short war or is it a long war?” Well it seems America is losing a sense of, well, “balls” to stay in for the long run and do it right.

Rocket Scientist — Only we in the Technical Fields can understand your anguish well. I have wondered about a catchy phrase that could express the loss politicians and manglures have cost the human race. Something like: Without their medling we could be at Star Trek 5 by now.

one day someones going to come up with an idea that is so simple but no one else seemed to think of it first. i’m hoping i’m the one to get it done .

“Micro-Nukes”? Oh boy, I bet the Muslim terrorists would pay BIG bucks for one of those! And they sure wouldn’t have any problems finding ‘suicide bombers’. Just what we need.

2 years ago the Russians had the same thing — a hypersonic vehicle, but unlike this ‘failure’ they clearly stated in the press that theirs was able to achieve an ‘attitude adjustment’ or in other words turn. 2 years behind the Russians sounds familiar, and with hypersonic vehicles that’s light years.

Perhaps our HTV-2 did not disappear, vibrations may have caused it to go to another dimension in time.

Seen Skunkworks stated:
Perhaps our HTV-2 did not disappear, vibrations may have caused it to go to another dimension in time.

While that is remotely possible, it is much more likely that the test vehicle broke (or burned) up during descent phase. We have a great many technologies that allow high-speed flight, but hypersonic flight is especially tricky, since part of the airflow over the wing is supersonic, while other parts (as I recall) are slower. This would cause a great deal of stress.

I still say that this is a waste of Tax’s Payers Money and we will not hear anything further on this projects developement. And to Q. whitehead, take a step back and go Fukc yourself. An Army Wife, what a joke. Army wives don’t do anything productive, just cheat on their Husband while they are deployed.

I don’t think they will place something like that in a “Trident II” Ohio class SSBN. It would more likely be placed in an Ohio class SSGN, or the new variant of the Virginia class SSN with similar large diameter common launcher vertical tubes.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.