Fate of Italian Polaris Missiles

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

The basic fact is that if Tito tried something, will be considered NOT
funny here.

Still today we have serious issues with the successor states, mainly
kroatia.

Which brings up a interesting point...would there have been any reason
to put the missiles at sea?
Ground-based Polaris or Alfa missiles deployed along Italy's Adriatic
coast should have been able to reach pretty much anywhere in Yugoslavia
without the need for surface ships or submarines to carry them, and at
considerably lower cost to deploy.
You could even develop a version where the missile rode around in a
launch tube on the back of a large truck, and could be driven around
between any one of hundreds of pre-surveyed sites in time of threat to
vastly complicate an enemy's task in trying to destroy them.

Pat

Pat Flannery ha scritto:


dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

The basic fact is that if Tito tried something, will be considered NOT
funny here.

Still today we have serious issues with the successor states, mainly
kroatia.

Which brings up a interesting point...would there have been any reason
to put the missiles at sea?
Ground-based Polaris or Alfa missiles deployed along Italy's Adriatic
coast should have been able to reach pretty much anywhere in Yugoslavia
without the need for surface ships or submarines to carry them, and at
considerably lower cost to deploy.
You could even develop a version where the missile rode around in a
launch tube on the back of a large truck, and could be driven around
between any one of hundreds of pre-surveyed sites in time of threat to
vastly complicate an enemy's task in trying to destroy them.

I can say "No Comment" ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Which brings up a interesting point...would there have been any reason
to put the missiles at sea?

Because it is fair to middlin' hard to find things at sea, even in the
Mediterranean lake.

You could even develop a version where the missile rode around in a
launch tube on the back of a large truck, and could be driven around
between any one of hundreds of pre-surveyed sites in time of threat to
vastly complicate an enemy's task in trying to destroy them.

Which doesn't work nearly as well IRL as does it does in the
imagination of armchair admirals.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Jun 29, 4:36*pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
Which brings up a interesting point...would there have been any reason
to put the missiles at sea?

Because it is fair to middlin' hard to find things at sea, even in the
Mediterranean lake.

You could even develop a version where the missile rode around in a
launch tube on the back of a large truck, and could be driven around
between any one of hundreds of pre-surveyed sites in time of threat to
vastly complicate an enemy's task in trying to destroy them.

Which doesn't work nearly as well IRL as does it does in the
imagination of armchair admirals.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Oooo, tell that to the Russians. The Soviet Missile Force comprises
538 ICBMs, including 306 SS-25 Topol (Sickle) missiles and 56 SS-27
Topol-M missiles.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pm.htm

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090211/120089670.html

Derek Lyons wrote:

Because it is fair to middlin' hard to find things at sea, even in the
Mediterranean lake.

Not if the things are in the Adriatic between Italy and Yugoslavia; take
a peek at a map.
Fire it from just about any other point and it will pass over either
Italy itself or a neutral nation on the way to Yugoslavia.
Whereas a sub could hide for the amount of time it would take to get the
gyros aligned for launch, a surface ship would feel mighty vulnrable.


You could even develop a version where the missile rode around in a
launch tube on the back of a large truck, and could be driven around
between any one of hundreds of pre-surveyed sites in time of threat to
vastly complicate an enemy's task in trying to destroy them.


Which doesn't work nearly as well IRL as does it does in the
imagination of armchair admirals.


Specifically, why not? You will need to find a way to support the base
of the tube once it's elevated into launch position to take up the
recoil of the cold-launch system on firing, but other than that, your
firing solution is a lot easier to figure out, as you know your position
down to a matter of a few feet.

Pat

On Jun 29, 9:25*am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote:
Pat Flannery ha scritto:







dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

The basic fact is that if Tito tried something, will be considered NOT
funny here.

Still today we have serious issues with the successor states, mainly
kroatia.

Which brings up a interesting point...would there have been any reason
to put the missiles at sea?
Ground-based Polaris or Alfa missiles deployed along Italy's Adriatic
coast should have been able to reach pretty much anywhere in Yugoslavia
without the need for surface ships or submarines to carry them, and at
considerably lower cost to deploy.
You could even develop a version where the missile rode around in a
launch tube on the back of a large truck, and could be driven around
between any one of hundreds of pre-surveyed sites in time of threat to
vastly complicate an enemy's task in trying to destroy them.

I can say "No Comment" ?

Good point, after all, if Scuds and other SRBM/IRBM class rockets
could do it, no problem for this rocket.

I wonder if anyone ever hung on to any of the drawings?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

On Jun 29, 9:25*am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote:
Pat Flannery ha scritto:







dott.Piergiorgio wrote:

The basic fact is that if Tito tried something, will be considered NOT
funny here.

Still today we have serious issues with the successor states, mainly
kroatia.

Which brings up a interesting point...would there have been any reason
to put the missiles at sea?
Ground-based Polaris or Alfa missiles deployed along Italy's Adriatic
coast should have been able to reach pretty much anywhere in Yugoslavia
without the need for surface ships or submarines to carry them, and at
considerably lower cost to deploy.
You could even develop a version where the missile rode around in a
launch tube on the back of a large truck, and could be driven around
between any one of hundreds of pre-surveyed sites in time of threat to
vastly complicate an enemy's task in trying to destroy them.

I can say "No Comment" ?

Oh - And what would be REALLY brilliant, would be to have a ship, with
lots of press pictures and video, going to sea with missiles, exercise
rockets, or even dummy ones, while the real ones were going about in
trucks made to look just like standard eighteen-wheelers from the air,
cruising the highways, parked at areas along the coast made to look
like rest stops for truckers, construction sites, shipping terminals
for goods, etc.

Maybe even put them up in the Appenine mountains, at Ski resorts or
something, paint "Ski supplies" in Italian on them or something. Just
dig certain small things into the mountains or use old bunkers for
rest and supply stations for the crews, and plenty of skiing just over
the hill. Give them "surveyor team" IDs to show when on leave.

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Pat Flannery wrote:

If Italy had decided to deploy Polaris (or been allowed to) would the
warheads have been under "dual-key" US/Italian control like with the
Thors in Britain, and the Jupiters in Turkey? Or was the intention to go
the French route, and develop a missile system that was entirely under
Italian control?

The UK's Polaris missiles carried independently-developed warheads
under (theoretically) independent control, even if there was bugger-all
chance of them being used without the White House saying so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_agreement

According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...United_Kingdom
"Currently, British Trident commanders are able to launch their missiles
without authorisation, whereas their American colleagues cannot."

David E. Powell wrote:
I can say "No Comment" ?


Good point, after all, if Scuds and other SRBM/IRBM class rockets
could do it, no problem for this rocket.


China is presently getting ready to deploy a dual MRBM/SLBM that uses
tube launch:
http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/missile/df21.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/strategic/missile/jl1.asp

Pat

David E. Powell wrote:

Oh - And what would be REALLY brilliant, would be to have a ship, with
lots of press pictures and video, going to sea with missiles, exercise
rockets, or even dummy ones, while the real ones were going about in
trucks made to look just like standard eighteen-wheelers from the air,
cruising the highways, parked at areas along the coast made to look
like rest stops for truckers, construction sites, shipping terminals
for goods, etc.

Trucks with "Stella Del Nord Vino" painted on the sides heading into the
vineyards, where there are strange small clearings...

Pat