Thread by @krakek1

A thread on missile silo design.

I hope you find it of interest.

1/15

By the time this launcher type matured in mid 1960s there was a significant degree of convergence in design - large silo tops, sliding silo doors, hot launch, in silo maintenance.

2/15

But even at this point there was already a partial divergence, with Soviets introducing canisters, in depot maintenance, hybrid launch and so on with the 2nd gen of missile complexes.

3/15

Because Soviets were later to mass deploy ICBMs (esp in individual silos) and embraced iterative approach with launcher replacement this meant that Soviets continued to evolve the launcher design while US, largely, was limited by path dependence, its existing MM launchers.

4/15

This lead to the Soviets diverging from the mid 1960s classic form.

Cold launch out of canister for example allowed the removal of hot gas exhaust ducts, reducing the silo opening and thus the silo door.
This made designing silo doors against higher pressures easier.

5/15

Canisters also made shock suspension easier, by allowing the canister to act as a secure platform, with key systems and electronics moved onto canister.

This move in turn allowed reduction of the shaft top building, leading to a more uniform pressure vessel-like design.

6/15

With such design allowing for easier hardening against both over pressure and ground shock, particularly if a silo was constructed with a composite liner, including energy absorbent layer, not just the normal reinforced concrete.

Same can be done with refits.

7/15

All those design choices are not unknown to the US engineers either, when looking into the MX basing modes super hard silos were considered, with many of the same features - small silo door, pressure vessel-like silo without larger silo top building, etc.

8/15

Ofcourse there are also trade offs - such as the need to develop and maintain robust at depot repair and maintenance system, as maintenance in silo is difficult to do, due to the problems with human crew access (lack of space, canister being in the way, etc).

9/15

And it seems that those CONOPS trade offs are the primary reason why the US maintains it's path dependence on the Sentinel.

Those US MX basing mode studies could however in part explain why US over estimated the Soviet hardening efforts.

10/15

Chinese seem to be following in the Soviet/Russian footsteps, with their small swing out silo doors (two distinct types, one "R-36M-like", the other "UR-100N-like") designed to clear debris, likely cold canister launched ICBMs.

11/15

But the launcher itself is not the only mission critical element of a combat launch position (or LF in US terms).

12/15

There is also the NC3, with cable network (nowadays fiber optics for Russia and, soon, US), back up line of sight radio links (to satcom/airborne/ballistic relays), wide band MW/LW local back ups.

13/15

And, of-course, auxiliary equipment such as back up power generation, cooling for the in silo and co-located equipment, etc.

14/15

Security measures are also important, both against intruders/saboteurs (ie perimeter fencing, alarms, manned and remotely controlled turrets, etc) and against enemy weapons (obscurant launchers to disrupt terminal seekers, APSs to intercept munitions etc)

15/15

p.s. many of those features would also apply to other launchers, ie TELs in garrizons.

Below is an exercise of moving a missile army into full combat readiness and deploying CMS in response to a massed PGM/air attack.

(source for the layout of the silo position - warbolts t.me/warbolts/872)

They also have a KMZ:

(t.me/warbolts/873)

(Source: for the Avangard position, including manned guard post, remote security gun turret, CMS launchers etc)t.me/warbolts/866