Talk:LGM-25C Titan II

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deployment Numbers 

message: 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.
* The text on this current Titan II page comes from the US Air Force Titan II Fact Sheet at this URL:
* The link displayed is no longer validDwarner30uk (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gov't Report 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Titan II range 

message: | Source--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do so. Ckruschke (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of fatal accident in Searcy Arkansas silo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of first stage engines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Repurposing 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's site 571-7. It was turned into the Titan Missile Museum (run by the Pima Air & Space Museum) and is mentioned in the article. Sturmflut (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch Sites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology used in section on Vandenberg N-7 Test 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Item with request for citation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit of Retirement section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Engine failed to start 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Did the Titan II do hot staging