In 1974 I was at Hill AFB as a Security Policeman (Law Enforcement) I was with this aircraft when the missile was loaded for the final test, and guarded the aircraft and history making cargo afterward. I'm glad I found this video because we were not allowed to take any photos of the operation. Now I have a nice video history of what I was part of. Very nice!
that's awesome. In landing gear repair shop 507 there is a huge painting of a C5 with the oldschool white paint. I wonder if it has anything to do with this
Love the colors of these C-5s!! I never knew we even tested air drop ICBM launches, we kick ass at engineering & ingenuity! 87,000lbs!!! Never seen so many parachutes for one load!! (10” circumference double braided nylon rope - Holy Crap!!) Great video 👍🏻 Thank you Uploader!!!
I. Kind of love the announcers at the end of this. You've got the cheery, sassy one then the more mature Rod Sterling approach. In all seriousness, it really was an amazing engineering feat. Watching the missile stabilize and then separate so smoothly from its carriage was extraordinary.
The cheery one was fake as could be. We're supposed to think it was from the test and not dubbed in afterward even though the fake play-by-play corresponds perfectly to a film that's in slow motion. 😄
What an interesting video!!! My father worked on the MX program while he was an engineer at TRW... I remember artist concept paintings of this setup... It is very cool to see it actually perform like it did here...
USAF General: “Johnson! We need to test our parachute delivery method for equipment, what have you got?” Johnson: “Sir, let’s test launching a minuteman nuclear missle by deploying from parachute”
Still have to have the counter on the screen, yeah, yeah I know, cuz someone could steal your footage. Whatever! You are the only one on UA-cam to do this.
Here's the issue: Tens of thousands of films similar to this one have been lost forever -- destroyed -- and many others are at risk. Our company preserves these precious bits of history one film at a time. How do we afford to do that? By selling them as stock footage to documentary filmmakers and broadcasters. If we did not have a counter, we could not afford to post films like these online, and no films would be preserved. It's that simple. So we ask you to bear with the watermark and timecodes. In the past we tried many different systems including placing our timer at the bottom corner of our videos. What happened? Unscrupulous UA-cam users downloaded our vids, blew them up so the timer was not visible, and re-posted them as their own content! We had to use content control to have the videos removed and shut down these channels. It's hard enough work preserving these films and posting them, without having to spend precious time dealing with policing thievery -- and not what we devoted ourselves to do. Love our channel and want to support what we do? You can help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
All of these Air Force films are naked propaganda. They're fascinating and valuable as historical artifacts, of course, but they're just 100% financed by the Cold War-era nuclear Air Force and 110% designed to extol their godly virtue as the nuke-wielding saviors of Western Civilization. You should never expect more than a smidgen of truth from them.
You should have seen the plans to launch missiles from either the back or slung underneath an SR-71 and B-58 bomber... You can find the studies online and I did a summary of them on Ye Olde Rocketry Forum and the Sagitta Cantina rocketry site in "Luke's Study" of the forum section of the website... OL J R :)
The bad thing about this was, it had the worst aspects of both a bomber and a missile-- highly vulnerable on the ground and in the air, and no recall once the missile is launched. Basically the same reasons that killed the Skybolt nuclear missiles to be carried by B-52's and the British Vulcan bombers... OL J R :)
Nice and if this were to have been operational it would have increased the range of the Minuteman ICBM by 10-15% if dropped like this one but if released when does C5 Galaxy was climbing to its Cruise level 20 to 25% range increase might occur to the intercontinental ballistic missile is launched this way
10:55 With a little practice, they would have managed to get it to land directly inside the silo, thus saving a few gallons of diesel fuel from transport trucks. It's a stupid idea, but who cares about that? It's the '70s.
The concept was to prove that we could have difficult to track mobile ICBM launchers like the Soviets did with their IRBM trucks. Also both we and the Soviets also tinkered around with having train launched ICBM's again being difficult to track in a grand shell game.
Hardly stupid when you think about how a random cargo plane flying anywhere in the world could suddenly drop one of these and hit a target before the defender had any time to figure out what went wrong. Best place to hide something is right under their nose.
@@grandadmiralthrawn8116 I'm saying in it's terminal phase, they usually drop the fuel tank and engine to make a smaller radar return, since it's in it's ballistic phase anyway.
Subsequent to the Russians celebrating American withdrawal from Vietnam... Air Force Cocktail lounge conversation: How much can a C-5 carry? How much does a Minuteman weigh? ...umm... You're nuts...
I still fail to understand the practical aspect of air-launching as opposed to simply letting an icbm do its job as intended launching on a ballistic trajectory.
The idea was likely to create a new leg in the nuclear triad -- one where missiles could be based at airports around the world, re-located at a moment's notice, and launched at a moment's notice.
At the time the US ICBM program was dependent on in ground silos at fixed locations. The Russians had developed mobile ICBM launchers. This was the US’s attempt to create a mobile launched ICBM, these aircraft would have launched them from within US airspace. The plan fizzled as ICBMs launched from submarines became practical.
@@sigadams5032 I agree but that would be a problem if the subs were to be detected then got dropped on by 90r Russian nuclear charge which is still in operation to this day
Mr. Smith, There was a book with that concept as a central plot point. But in reality tracing nukes back to their manufacturers is pretty straight forward.
Yikes. Speaking of stupid, here's another one who has no idea what an ICBM is or does. The reality was the opposite. The launching aircraft would have never come anywhere near AA. That was the idea. The missiles would have been launched well outside of Soviet airspace, likely over or near the US such as just off the coasts. The missiles would have then flown over the North Pole and their warheads would have reentered the atmosphere over their targets just like ground launched ICBMs. The idea was similar to SLBMs - to deny the Soviets fixed ICBM launching points that could be struck preemptively, thus complicating the preemptive strike problem tremendously, making it far less likely (suicidal) to be attempted. It's the basic for the M.A.D. concept.
In 1974 I was at Hill AFB as a Security Policeman (Law Enforcement) I was with this aircraft when the missile was loaded for the final test, and guarded the aircraft and history making cargo afterward. I'm glad I found this video because we were not allowed to take any photos of the operation. Now I have a nice video history of what I was part of. Very nice!
that's awesome. In landing gear repair shop 507 there is a huge painting of a C5 with the oldschool white paint. I wonder if it has anything to do with this
Did you shoot any birds that got too close? LOLOLOL!
Too bad you didn’t get to watch them get launched in anger
Love the colors of these C-5s!! I never knew we even tested air drop ICBM launches, we kick ass at engineering & ingenuity!
87,000lbs!!! Never seen so many parachutes for one load!! (10” circumference double braided nylon rope - Holy Crap!!)
Great video 👍🏻
Thank you Uploader!!!
LOL
I. Kind of love the announcers at the end of this. You've got the cheery, sassy one then the more mature Rod Sterling approach.
In all seriousness, it really was an amazing engineering feat. Watching the missile stabilize and then separate so smoothly from its carriage was extraordinary.
Sound like Harry Morgan.
The cheery one was fake as could be. We're supposed to think it was from the test and not dubbed in afterward even though the fake play-by-play corresponds perfectly to a film that's in slow motion. 😄
C-5A 69-0014, now preserved at AMC Museum
What an interesting video!!! My father worked on the MX program while he was an engineer at TRW... I remember artist concept paintings of this setup... It is very cool to see it actually perform like it did here...
USAF General: “Johnson! We need to test our parachute delivery method for equipment, what have you got?”
Johnson: “Sir, let’s test launching a minuteman nuclear missle by deploying from parachute”
Just gotta love the accompanying happy music...
I just found my next Kerbal Space Program project!
There was a good package extraction and the nuts fired explosively.
Shame about the lack of rigidity though.
Obligatory "That's what she said!"
As a wise man once said: If it's stupid but it works, then it isn't stupid.
Vin Scully on the play by play starting at 12:27.
Still have to have the counter on the screen, yeah, yeah I know, cuz someone could steal your footage. Whatever! You are the only one on UA-cam to do this.
Here's the issue: Tens of thousands of films similar to this one have been lost forever -- destroyed -- and many others are at risk. Our company preserves these precious bits of history one film at a time. How do we afford to do that? By selling them as stock footage to documentary filmmakers and broadcasters. If we did not have a counter, we could not afford to post films like these online, and no films would be preserved. It's that simple. So we ask you to bear with the watermark and timecodes.
In the past we tried many different systems including placing our timer at the bottom corner of our videos. What happened? Unscrupulous UA-cam users downloaded our vids, blew them up so the timer was not visible, and re-posted them as their own content! We had to use content control to have the videos removed and shut down these channels. It's hard enough work preserving these films and posting them, without having to spend precious time dealing with policing thievery -- and not what we devoted ourselves to do.
Love our channel and want to support what we do? You can help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
...that guy's voice at the end was added on!!
theymusthatetesla he was so enthusiastic about nuclear weapons , then the light and airy music to finish , Armageddon is so gay !
All of these Air Force films are naked propaganda. They're fascinating and valuable as historical artifacts, of course, but they're just 100% financed by the Cold War-era nuclear Air Force and 110% designed to extol their godly virtue as the nuke-wielding saviors of Western Civilization. You should never expect more than a smidgen of truth from them.
Another crazy idea...... that worked. If it works, it ain't crazy. :)
DieyoungDiefast That's the SpaceX motto. Pretty sure it's on their letter head.
It didn't work all that well.
Just think if they went with an SLBM like the Polaris or Trident. You could stuff two or more into one C5 and have one hell of a package.
Dumba**
You should have seen the plans to launch missiles from either the back or slung underneath an SR-71 and B-58 bomber... You can find the studies online and I did a summary of them on Ye Olde Rocketry Forum and the Sagitta Cantina rocketry site in "Luke's Study" of the forum section of the website... OL J R :)
The bad thing about this was, it had the worst aspects of both a bomber and a missile-- highly vulnerable on the ground and in the air, and no recall once the missile is launched. Basically the same reasons that killed the Skybolt nuclear missiles to be carried by B-52's and the British Vulcan bombers... OL J R :)
Nice and if this were to have been operational it would have increased the range of the Minuteman ICBM by 10-15% if dropped like this one but if released when does C5 Galaxy was climbing to its Cruise level 20 to 25% range increase might occur to the intercontinental ballistic missile is launched this way
That's an interesting mission.
what an effort.
C-5A 69-0014 dropped the live missile. Which C-5 dropped the dummy? I couldn't read the number but looks like it ends with a seven
90027
10:55 With a little practice, they would have managed to get it to land directly inside the silo, thus saving a few gallons of diesel fuel from transport trucks. It's a stupid idea, but who cares about that? It's the '70s.
The concept was to prove that we could have difficult to track mobile ICBM launchers like the Soviets did with their IRBM trucks. Also both we and the Soviets also tinkered around with having train launched ICBM's again being difficult to track in a grand shell game.
Hardly stupid when you think about how a random cargo plane flying anywhere in the world could suddenly drop one of these and hit a target before the defender had any time to figure out what went wrong. Best place to hide something is right under their nose.
@@j.mangum7652 Russians actually did the whole rail luanched thing
Fire in the sky
"If we only had full burn, hello kwaj!"
still have 20 of them in service
I wish there was an airborne tank Corp... dropping combat load Abraham M1A 1 tanks...that would be nice... never know when that would be needed...
They'd get blown out of the sky by mobile AA missile systems. Idiot
Pretty sure the Abrams is too heavy to airdrop.
@@NK-qn6pq Abrams is 70 tons. The ICBM in this video was only 43 tons. Probably take another 2 chutes and another 10" rope.
When the C-5A became a B-5A
Why would an ICBM need to be fired while in the air? Couldn't they just drop it like a normal bomb at that point?
It would have been dropped from either within the US or off the coast
@@grandadmiralthrawn8116 I'm saying in it's terminal phase, they usually drop the fuel tank and engine to make a smaller radar return, since it's in it's ballistic phase anyway.
the C-5 uses the DIX electronic load.
C-130 MOAB almost seems infantile... almost.
The first looks like 69-0027 but not sure
Evangelion moment
Subsequent to the Russians celebrating American withdrawal from Vietnam... Air Force Cocktail lounge conversation:
How much can a C-5 carry?
How much does a Minuteman weigh?
...umm... You're nuts...
ME KETETA SHUM LARG SHKOJN TONA SIJAHEHIT 17000 KILOMETRA SIN VJEN AUSTRIJA SWISS
I still fail to understand the practical aspect of air-launching as opposed to simply letting an icbm do its job as intended launching on a ballistic trajectory.
The idea was likely to create a new leg in the nuclear triad -- one where missiles could be based at airports around the world, re-located at a moment's notice, and launched at a moment's notice.
PeriscopeFilm Ahh, I see some logic in that. Thanks
At the time the US ICBM program was dependent on in ground silos at fixed locations. The Russians had developed mobile ICBM launchers.
This was the US’s attempt to create a mobile launched ICBM, these aircraft would have launched them from within US airspace.
The plan fizzled as ICBMs launched from submarines became practical.
@@sigadams5032 I agree but that would be a problem if the subs were to be detected then got dropped on by 90r Russian nuclear charge which is still in operation to this day
@@PeriscopeFilm got to wonder why they went with this idea though rather than maturing Skybolt...
Oh my god did North Korea just launched on China....!!!
Mr. Smith, There was a book with that concept as a central plot point. But in reality tracing nukes back to their manufacturers is pretty straight forward.
all those tax dollars bye bye
Stupid idea. Mobile AA guided missile fodder
Not at all. The idea is to fire the missile before reaching enemy air defenses.
Yikes. Speaking of stupid, here's another one who has no idea what an ICBM is or does. The reality was the opposite. The launching aircraft would have never come anywhere near AA. That was the idea. The missiles would have been launched well outside of Soviet airspace, likely over or near the US such as just off the coasts. The missiles would have then flown over the North Pole and their warheads would have reentered the atmosphere over their targets just like ground launched ICBMs. The idea was similar to SLBMs - to deny the Soviets fixed ICBM launching points that could be struck preemptively, thus complicating the preemptive strike problem tremendously, making it far less likely (suicidal) to be attempted. It's the basic for the M.A.D. concept.
this is truly an absurd video .