General Questions about Titan I

For general discussion with your fellow Titan I crewdogs, maintainers and cops. Formerly based at Beale AFB, CA, Ellsworth AFB, SD, Larson AFB, WA, Lowry AFB, CO, and Mt Home AFB, ID. On alert from 28 Feb 1962 to 1 Apr 1965. Share your stories and meet up with an old friend.

General Questions about Titan I

Postby Capt. Bill on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:00 pm

Just some general questions about Titan I now that I see how much different the layout was from Titan II.

How many people on site?
How much of the site did the crew have to go to while on alert?
How long were alerts?
Were the 3 sites in each wing interconnected?
MM I, DMCCC 741st, 742nd SMS Oct 69 - Oct 71 3 HQs and a Select Crew rating
MM III DMCCC, 742nd SMS Oct 71 - Feb 72
MM III MCCC, 742nd SMS Feb 72 - Aug 72
GT 07,08,09GM - Nov 1971 (key turned all three)
User avatar
Capt. Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:19 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: General Questions about Titan I

Postby David E. Fahnestock on Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:37 pm

Untitled-1.jpg
It took six crew members to launch the Titan 1 ICBM.
Our crew was responsible for the evaluation of the combat readiness of all the other crews at Lowrey AFB.
We had our missiles up and ready during the Cuban crisis.
Site one at the bombing range was were the silo doors dropped and crushed some construction workers.
David
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
David E. Fahnestock
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: General Questions about Titan I

Postby shadow2100 on Wed May 30, 2012 12:26 am

i have couple to add to this post

1.why did the Titan I site have 3 silos as a Titan II had 1.
2.why didn they just retrofit the Titan I sites to fit Titan II missiles.
"The minuteman keeps the Bear and the Dragon away"
shadow2100
2 RVs
2 RVs
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:37 am

Re: General Questions about Titan I

Postby Capt. Bill on Wed May 30, 2012 3:13 am

Obvious guess on question two is that was cheaper.
MM I, DMCCC 741st, 742nd SMS Oct 69 - Oct 71 3 HQs and a Select Crew rating
MM III DMCCC, 742nd SMS Oct 71 - Feb 72
MM III MCCC, 742nd SMS Feb 72 - Aug 72
GT 07,08,09GM - Nov 1971 (key turned all three)
User avatar
Capt. Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:19 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: General Questions about Titan I

Postby SAC Killer on Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 pm

I would also speculate that the TII didn't go into TI holes for survivability reasons. Even if the TI sites were hard enough, a good hit could take out three TII rather than just one. At the time the Minuteman was also in development and dispersing birds over a wide area for survivability was the norm.

Also from an engineering standpoint, concur with the notion that it might have cost a lot to mod a TI site for TII. TI was designed for hard storage and soft launch, so the flame bucket and closure were probably not compatible with the TII hard launch design.
490 SMS
321 SMW Maintenance
AFRPL
User avatar
SAC Killer
5 RVs
5 RVs
 
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: General Questions about Titan I

Postby shadow2100 on Thu May 31, 2012 12:10 am

That does make sense for the retro fitting price and the design of the TII, an the TI site complex is like a mini city compare to the TII
"The minuteman keeps the Bear and the Dragon away"
shadow2100
2 RVs
2 RVs
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:37 am

Re: General Questions about Titan I

Postby njh621 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:12 am

SAC Killer wrote:I would also speculate that the TII didn't go into TI holes for survivability reasons. Even if the TI sites were hard enough, a good hit could take out three TII rather than just one. At the time the Minuteman was also in development and dispersing birds over a wide area for survivability was the norm.

Also from an engineering standpoint, concur with the notion that it might have cost a lot to mod a TI site for TII. TI was designed for hard storage and soft launch, so the flame bucket and closure were probably not compatible with the TII hard launch design.


There was a purposed plan to retrofit Titan I sites to support Titan II. There would have been a LOT of engineering changes involved. They would pretty much have to gut each silo and build launch ducts, build a brand new PTS system, bring in commercial power and renovate the power house, and that doesn't even involve all the OGE changes. A lot of the structures in a Titan I site wouldn't be needed for T-II (ex the LOX storage facilities, existing antenna silos would be needed, etc).

Source: http://www.chromehooves.net/document_library.htm (Scroll down until you see the Titan II in Titan I silos section)

SAC Killer speculation is correct. I don't have the appropriate document in front of me, but I know T-II sites were hardened to 300 PSI overpressure, and T-I sites were a heck of a lot less.
-Nick Halliday
Titan II Historian/
Electrical Engineer ("In training")
AAFM Member SA086
User avatar
njh621
4 RVs
4 RVs
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Columbus, OH


Return to Titan I

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron