4 ms·

This probably veers well into classified territory, but how closely do test launches simulate actual nuclear exchange situations?

gedy 2y ago
I think that's fine, have seen this published publicly before. A major part of the test is the operational testing, so the crews who actually do the test fire treat it exactly like they would in the field, and are isolated from the more test side of things. This includes the maintenance crews from the field who work on that particular missile. Sometimes the Airborne Launch Control System aircraft is involved, but infrequently afaik. The test side in parallel treats it like a normal-ish space launch with countdown, tracking, telemetry, etc and the ability to destruct if it goes off course. None of that is possible with an unmodified weapon. I am not aware of tests ever being a part of broader war game type simulations as that is probably too hair-trigger for the Russians, etc.
- lwansbrough 2y ago
  > as that is probably too hair-trigger for the Russians See “Able Archer 83” for why realistic testing can be dangerous!
- floatrock 2y ago
  > the crews who actually do the test fire treat it exactly like they would in the field, and are isolated from the more test side of thing Is anyone kept blind about it being a test? Like, does the crew wake up in the morning knowing "we're gonna launch a fake nuke today", or are they drinking their morning coffee like any other day in the bunker and suddenly the glaxon starts glaxoning?
  - gedy 2y ago
    Not at all, as keep in mind they pack up a (random) operational ICBM and crew from Wyoming, South Dakota or wherever and transport it to Vandenberg SFB in California to test launch it from there.
TMWNN 2y ago
Similar to what gedy described, when the UK operated Thor missiles, periodically crews and missiles were flown to Vandenberg for test launches. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Emily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Emily>
- gedy 2y ago
  Funny note about that is there is still an old fish and chips place in town there that was opened to cater to the Brits (Alphie's)

gedy 2y ago

I think that's fine, have seen this published publicly before. A major part of the test is the operational testing, so the crews who actually do the test fire treat it exactly like they would in the field, and are isolated from the more test side of things. This includes the maintenance crews from the field who work on that particular missile. Sometimes the Airborne Launch Control System aircraft is involved, but infrequently afaik. The test side in parallel treats it like a normal-ish space launch with countdown, tracking, telemetry, etc and the ability to destruct if it goes off course. None of that is possible with an unmodified weapon. I am not aware of tests ever being a part of broader war game type simulations as that is probably too hair-trigger for the Russians, etc.

lwansbrough 2y ago
> as that is probably too hair-trigger for the Russians See “Able Archer 83” for why realistic testing can be dangerous!
floatrock 2y ago
> the crews who actually do the test fire treat it exactly like they would in the field, and are isolated from the more test side of thing Is anyone kept blind about it being a test? Like, does the crew wake up in the morning knowing "we're gonna launch a fake nuke today", or are they drinking their morning coffee like any other day in the bunker and suddenly the glaxon starts glaxoning?
- gedy 2y ago
  Not at all, as keep in mind they pack up a (random) operational ICBM and crew from Wyoming, South Dakota or wherever and transport it to Vandenberg SFB in California to test launch it from there.

TMWNN 2y ago

Similar to what gedy described, when the UK operated Thor missiles, periodically crews and missiles were flown to Vandenberg for test launches. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Emily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Emily>

gedy 2y ago
Funny note about that is there is still an old fish and chips place in town there that was opened to cater to the Brits (Alphie's)